[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 12, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1917-S1992]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                            2009--Continued

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the leaders for the action they 
have taken for a short-term extension of the farm bill so that we can 
conclude action on it. It has been a negotiation that has gone on well 
over a year. That is not unusual for a farm bill which is extremely 
contentious.
  I wanted to comment briefly on the Republican leader's statements 
this morning about our budget. As I was driving in this morning, I 
heard another Republican on the air saying that we have a trillion-
dollar tax increase in this budget. I don't know what budget they are 
talking about because it certainly is not the budget we have presented 
here. There is no trillion-dollar tax increase here. There is no tax 
increase assumed here. Honestly, if I would go down to the Senate 
dining room and come to this floor and introduce the dining room menu 
as the budget for the United States, our Republican colleagues would 
say it was a trillion-dollar tax increase.
  This is what they said last year, and we hear the same mantra again 
this year: It is a trillion-dollar tax increase. When they said it last 
year, we didn't have a record of a Democratic Congress to refute their 
claim. Now we do. We can look back and see precisely what happened with 
Democrats in control. How much did taxes increase after the Republicans 
asserted repeatedly we were going to increase taxes a trillion dollars? 
What happened? What happened on the record, not a projection, not a 
forecast, not rhetorical, what is the fact? It is very interesting. 
Democrats controlling the House, controlling the Senate, cut taxes $194 
billion--not a tax increase, a tax cut that overwhelmingly has gone to 
the middle class. That is the Democratic record.
  Let me say about this budget, we don't have the vast spending 
increases they are talking about. For this year, if you look at total 
spending, we have 1 percent more than the President's budget. Where is 
that money going? We put it into energy, to reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil. We put it into education, and we put it into 
infrastructure because we don't want any more bridges, like the one in 
Minnesota last year, collapsing into the river with people driving home 
from work. That is a fact.
  In terms of revenue, the truth is that over the 5 years, we have 2.6 
percent more revenue than in the President's budget. We believe that 
can be obtained not with a tax increase--don't need a tax increase to 
get it--you can go after the tax gap, the difference between what 
companies and people owe versus what they are actually paying. You can 
go after these offshore tax havens which the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations has told us are costing this country $100 billion a 
year. You can go after these abusive tax shelters where we have the 
spectacle of companies in the United States, banks buying foreign sewer 
systems and depreciating them on their books in the United States to 
reduce their tax bill here, and then they lease the sewer systems back 
to the European cities that built them. My goodness. We are better than 
that as a nation, better than letting people abuse the vast majority of 
us who are honest. That is not right. That is not fair.
  I have shown on this floor many times a picture of a five-story 
office building in the Cayman Islands called Ugland House. That 5-story 
building is home to 12,800 companies. I would say that is the most 
efficient building in the world.
  Mr. President, 12,800 companies claim they are doing business out of 
this little five-story building in the Cayman Islands. They are not 
doing business there. The only business they are doing is monkey 
business. What they are doing is evading their taxes.
  Now we have seen, according to the Boston Globe, another building 
down in the Cayman Islands--this time a four- or five-story building 
too--and we know KBR, who is the biggest contractor for security forces 
in Iraq and additional workers in Iraq for the U.S. military effort 
there, is running an operation out of that building to evade the Social 
Security taxes and the Medicare taxes of thousands and thousands of 
workers they have employed for Iraq--another tax scam.
  It is exactly the kind of thing we on this side think should be 
closed down. Over and over, when we have tried, this President said: 
No, you can't do that. That would be a tax increase. Really? Is that a 
tax increase? I do not think so. Making people pay their fair share, 
like the vast majority of Americans already do--I do not think that is 
a tax increase. I think that is making those folks pay like all the 
rest of us do. That is fair.
  Mr. President, we have Senators on the floor ready to offer an 
amendment. I want to go to that at this moment.
  I ask Senator Bingaman, how much time----
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will withhold. Senator Gregg is seeking 
recognition.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.


                     Senator Conrad's 60th Birthday

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise this morning to say this is a big, 
big, big day for the chairman of the committee, and I know he would not 
want this day to go unacknowledged after having made such an eloquent 
statement. But it is the chairman's 60th birthday today. So I 
congratulate him and say, on his 60th birthday, we appreciate all he 
has done for the last 60 years, and we hope he will be here for another 
60 years.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member for his 
continuing courtesy and graciousness. This is my 60th. As I left the 
house this morning, I told my wife and our son, who is there visiting, 
I have to question: What have I done wrong in my life to have my 60th 
birthday spent here managing the budget? But I will get over it.
  I appreciate the many courtesies of the ranking member. This is a 
special day for me, and I am looking forward to a good debate.
  With that, we want to go to the next amendment, unless the Senator--
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator 
Bingaman has spoken on his amendment, and to the extent Senator 
Alexander wishes to speak, that we then, after that, go to our side for 
the next amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Fair enough.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, if you can give us a 
heads up at some point what your next amendment will be, that would be 
helpful as well.
  Now we will turn to Senator Bingaman and Senator Alexander, who I 
think have a very constructive amendment. We welcome their description 
of it.
  I ask unanimous consent that the time come off the resolution.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the managers of the bill and all 
colleagues. Let me mention, I believe Senator Kennedy wishes to speak 
in favor of the amendment after Senator Alexander speaks. So I believe 
he will be coming to the floor. I hope there is an opportunity for him 
to do that before we proceed too far this morning.


                           Amendment No. 4173

  Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4173 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, 
     Mr. Alexander, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Domenici, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
     Ensign, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
     Schumer, Mr. Biden, and

[[Page S1918]]

     Mr. Kerry, proposes an amendment numbered 4173.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To provide additional funding resources in FY2009 for 
    investments in innovation and education in order to improve the 
                 competitiveness of the United States)

       On page 11, line 13, increase the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 11, line 14, increase the amount by $306,000,000.
       On page 11, line 18, increase the amount by $210,000,000.
       On page 11, line 22, increase the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 12, line 1, increase the amount by $12,000,000.
       On page 12, line 5, increase the amount by $12,000,000.
       On page 27, line 16, decrease the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 27, line 17, decrease the amount by $306,000,000.
       On page 27, line 21, decrease the amount by $210,000,000.
       On page 27, line 25, decrease the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 28, line 4, decrease the amount by $12,000,000.
       On page 28, line 8, decrease the amount by $12,000,000.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment I am offering on 
behalf of myself, Senator Alexander, Senator Kennedy, Senator Domenici, 
Senator Mikulski, Senator Ensign, and others to offer an amendment to 
the budget resolution to do two things: to fund the Office of Science 
within the Department of Energy and also to fund the National Science 
Foundation at the fiscal year 2009 funding levels that have been 
proposed in the President's budget.
  Last year, on a bipartisan basis, Congress passed the COMPETES Act. I 
compliment my colleague, who is here on the floor with me today, 
Senator Alexander, for his leadership in that legislation. This was 
bipartisan legislation. It was strongly endorsed by Members of the 
Senate. It authorized a number of programs based upon the 
recommendations that came from the National Academies report entitled 
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.''
  Specifically, the COMPETES Act authorized a doubling of the budgets 
for the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy's 
Office of Science over a period of 7 years. The Office of Science and 
the National Science Foundation are the two principal agencies charged 
with maintaining the nondefense basic science enterprise of our Nation, 
which serves as the wellspring for future innovation and for our global 
competitiveness.
  For the Office of Science, the America COMPETES Act authorized a 12-
percent increase relative to fiscal year 2007. The President's Advanced 
Competitiveness Initiative would have increased the Office of Science 
by 7.2 percent. For the National Science Foundation, the COMPETES Act 
authorized a 12-percent increase as compared to the President's 
Advanced Competitiveness Initiative proposed increase of 9.3 percent.
  The COMPETES Act was passed into law last August. At that time, the 
appropriations bills in both Chambers kept the funding levels for both 
offices I am speaking about here at or above the President's request. 
But by the time the Congress made the deep cuts that were required by 
the administration in order to get an omnibus spending bill passed in 
December, all of the gains that had earlier been in appropriations 
bills for the Office of Science and for the National Science Foundation 
were lost, and both of those offices were flat funded when you account 
for inflation.
  Let me talk a few minutes about why these two programs are so 
important to our ability to compete globally. As noticed in the 
President's budget, the National Science Foundation is the principal 
source of Federal support for strengthening science and math education. 
Education and human resource programs at the National Science 
Foundation support technological innovation to enhance economic 
competitiveness and new job growth. They address the workforce needs of 
the country. They help to ensure a pool of talented experts. Many of 
these programs are critical to developing and advancing the knowledge 
of our country's K through 12 math and science teachers as well.
  When we passed the America COMPETES Act, we recognized that this 
country is facing a critical shortage in well-prepared math and science 
teachers. Accordingly, we significantly expanded the Robert Noyce 
Scholarship program, which prepares science, technology, engineering, 
and mathematics undergraduate students and professionals to become math 
and science teachers. Among a number of changes, we required increased 
collaboration between science and education faculty to establish STEM 
teacher education programs--STEM, of course, refers to science, 
technology, engineering, and math teachers--and increased scholarships 
and stipends to at least $10,000 per year, for up to 3 years of 
scholarship support, beginning with the junior year.
  We also increased funding significantly in order to meet these 
objectives. Congress anticipated that the Noyce program would grow to 
become a major source of effective training for our science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics teachers. Research shows that 
students' performance on annual math and science assessments improved 
in almost every age group when their schools were involved in a program 
that linked K through 12 teachers with their colleagues in higher 
education.
  The Math and Science Partnership I am referring to helps forge these 
connections between K through 12 and higher education to strengthen 
math and science teaching skills, improve curriculum, and provide 
college preparatory programs for students.
  The Office of Science at the Department of Energy also makes 
significant contributions to math and science education. Among the 
things the America COMPETES Act authorizes for the Department of 
Science are: to help establish statewide specialty schools in math and 
science; to get middle and high school students around the State 
involved in national laboratories through internship programs; and to 
require the national laboratories to partner with local school 
districts and to adopt at least one high-need high school and transform 
these schools into centers of excellence in mathematics and science.
  This is only a small part of what the Office of Science does. Simply 
put, it provides the support for much of the basic scientific research 
that will drive the industries of the future. It funds facilities that 
help us understand the basics of materials, funds research into such 
critical areas as biogenetic sequencing, and provides support for much 
of the physical sciences enterprise in this country.
  Once again, for fiscal year 2009, the President has come forward 
proposing increases for both the National Science Foundation and the 
Office of Science. Relative to fiscal year 2008, the President's 
proposed budget increase for these two agencies amounts to $1.4 
billion. This amount would not bring the levels for these two agencies 
to the full level we authorized in the America COMPETES Act for fiscal 
year 2009, but they are a substantial step in the right direction, and 
I strongly support these increases.
  So the amendment my cosponsors and I are offering today adds another 
$600 million to the budget resolution, as reported by the Committee on 
the Budget, to at least meet the level the President has indicated he 
is willing to support. I believe this addition to the budget resolution 
can and should command broad bipartisan support in the Senate, just as 
the America COMPETES Act was broadly supported on a bipartisan basis 
here in the Senate.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I know my colleague 
from Tennessee is here to speak in favor of it as well. I again 
compliment him for his leadership on the issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee is 
recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. 
Bingaman, has been tireless in helping to create the America COMPETES 
Act, which passed unanimously here. But even more important than that, 
he did not walk away from it once it became law. He has attended to the 
details of trying to make sure we implement it. One of those details is 
what we are doing today.

[[Page S1919]]

  I wish to, in support of what he has said so eloquently--and I also 
commend Senator Domenici from New Mexico, who has had such a key role 
in this effort--I wish to tell a story that helps put in perspective 
what we are talking about.
  Two years ago, a group of Senators traveled to China, led by Senator 
Stevens and Senator Inouye. We were received very well because Senator 
Stevens had flown with the Flying Tigers. He flew the first plane to 
land in Beijing after World War II, and the top Chinese leaders had not 
forgotten. And, of course, Senator Inouye is a Congressional Medal of 
Honor winner for his heroic service to our country in World War II.
  So we saw President Hu, and the No. 2 man in China, Mr. Wu. What 
struck me about those two meetings--which were about an hour long, and 
during which we could have talked about Taiwan or Iraq or Iran or 
China's military buildup or America's intelligence system--the subject 
about which they wanted to talk the most and which animated them the 
most in their conversation was the subject Senator Bingaman just 
discussed: how China can use its brainpower to create a higher standard 
of living for the people of China.
  We are in an economic slowdown in America today, and we are debating 
and talking here about how we restore our level of progress 
economically. We are talking not only about the Federal budget, we are 
talking about the family budget. We are talking about family incomes. 
We are talking about jobs. That was the same subject the No. 1 and No. 
2 men in China wanted to talk about as well. What were they focusing 
on? The fact of trying to give to China the same kind of brainpower 
advantage in creating a high standard of living we have had in America, 
since World War II especially. This year, despite the economic 
slowdown, the United States of America will create about 30 percent of 
all the world's wealth for 5 percent of the world's people, who are 
those of us who live in the United States. That is an astonishing fact. 
There are many reasons for it, including our free market system, our 
geography, our character, the immigration that has brought talented 
people from all over the world who are entrepreneurial in their 
spirit. But most people agree that the major fact in the high standard 
of living for this country since World War II has been our brainpower 
advantage. We have not only some of the best universities in the world, 
we have almost all of them. We have a set of national laboratories that 
is unequaled in the world. Until recently, at least, our system of 
kindergarten through the 12th grade education has been the envy of the 
world. As a result of all that brainpower, we have created a lot of 
jobs and a high standard of living. Increasingly, that is where the new 
jobs come from. That is why we like to have foreign students come here, 
because they become educated in our universities and we are, in effect, 
insourcing brainpower, so they create Google in the United States of 
America rather than in India or in China, and the jobs are here in the 
United States of America.

  So the America COMPETES Act, to which Senator Bingaman referred, had 
broad support here. It is the only legislation we have had in the last 
4 years that I remember was supported by Senator Frist and Senator 
Reid. Then, when the Senate changed hands and the Democrats were in the 
majority, it was sponsored by Senator Reid and Senator McConnell. At 
one point, it had 70 Members of the Senate backing it, 35 Senators who 
are Democrats and 35 Republicans. It all came from a request that 
Senator Bingaman and I and others--including House Member Bart Gordon 
of Tennessee, the chairman of the Science Committee now--made of the 
National Academy of Sciences: Please tell us, in priority order, what 
are the 10 things we in Congress ought to do to help keep our 
brainpower advantage so our jobs will not go overseas. Norm Augustine, 
the former chairman of Lockheed Martin, a member of the National 
Academy of Engineering, assembled a group of Nobel laureates, 
university presidents, and others, and they came back with 20 specific 
recommendations in the Augustine report. There was also other important 
work being done by the Council on Competitiveness. We put all that 
together over 2 years. The President weighed in, in a big way, in two 
straight State of the Union Addresses and budgets. The Speaker of the 
House also weighed in, in an important way. So in this endeavor, on 
this important issue, we are all on the same team. But what we are 
doing today with this amendment is making sure we get where we have 
agreed we want to go.
  Now, for President Hu in China, all he had to do was walk over to 
their National Academy of Sciences in China, he convened them all in 
the Great Hall--and said: This is what we will do over the next 10 
years. We are going to increase support for our universities and 
research through a percent of our domestic product. We are going to 
recruit from American universities talented Chinese professors who have 
distinguished themselves in the United States and they are going to 
come back and help improve Chinese universities. So, in China, the top 
man gave the order and they are on their way. Here, a lot more of us 
have to be involved, but we are all involved. The President has said we 
need an 18-percent increase for Fiscal Year 2009 to stay on a track to 
double funding for the physical sciences over the next 10 years; 18 
percent for the Office of Science, which is our principal funder of our 
national laboratories and science programs, and 13 percent in the 
National Science Foundation. That is bigger than it normally would be 
because of the way the appropriations process worked last year. We 
didn't do what we all agreed we wanted to be able to do.
  So the Budget Committee did a pretty good job in reporting to the 
floor a budget resolution with sufficient provisions to fund this 
year's version of the America COMPETES Act. There are a wide range of 
those programs. There are opportunities for low-income children to take 
advanced placement courses which they now can't afford and to train the 
teachers who need to be trained to teach those courses. There are 
opportunities for summer academies at our laboratories and at 
universities to interest our students in math and sciences. The 
Augustine Commission reviewed programs all over America and recommended 
only a handful that ought to be emulated, and they included programs 
such as the UTeach program in Texas at the University of Texas which 
attracts outstanding students in chemistry and physics, for example, 
and gives them scholarships if they will agree to become teachers of 
chemistry and physics.
  Former Gov. Jim Hunt of North Carolina told me the University of 
North Carolina only graduated one physics teacher in one recent year. 
We are not going to learn much physics in America, to keep up with the 
Chinese and Indians and Irish and all the others who are trying to 
increase their brainpower to increase their jobs if we don't graduate 
physics teachers. So the Budget Committee did a good and important job.
  What we are trying to do is to get back on track to double funding 
for the physical sciences over 10 years, which is what we all agreed we 
should try to do. That was our goal. A huge majority in the House, the 
Senate, and the President himself, we are asking that the Senate make 
room in the budget for the President's number for the America COMPETES 
Act. That is what this amendment does.
  So I feel confident we will have substantial support, because so many 
of us worked so hard for so long on this idea.
  We Republicans are talking these days in unflattering ways about the 
Democratic budget. Senator Reid, the majority leader, said he hadn't 
heard about tort reform yet. Well, he will, before we are through. One 
way to help the family budget is to make it easier for pregnant women 
in rural areas to get medical care without driving 60 miles, and one 
way to do that is to put some limits on medical malpractice suits. That 
is tort reform. That will help the family budget. Lower taxes help the 
family budget. Lower energy costs help the family budget. But on this 
side of the aisle, we also believe that better schools and investments 
in science and technology, so we can keep our brainpower advantage and 
keep our jobs from going overseas, is an important part of a pro-growth 
plan.

  When I was Governor of Tennessee, Tennessee's taxes were the lowest 
in the country. I say this with great respect to the Senator from New 
Hampshire, who is also here. I double

[[Page S1920]]

checked this fact when I came in. But we were the third poorest State. 
So we kept our taxes low, but we also had to enact some other pro-
growth policies, which included getting rid of a usury limit, 
preserving the right to work law, reducing the number of employees in 
government, but it also included building highways. Eventually, I came 
to the conclusion that the single most important thing we could do to 
improve family incomes in our State was to focus on improving the 
quality of schools, colleges, universities, and research, so we began 
to pay teachers more for teaching well. We created chairs of excellence 
at the universities and centers of excellence at the universities. I 
believe that partly because of all those things together, our State 
began to increase its family incomes at a rate that was faster than any 
other part of our--any other State in the country during the 1980s. It 
was no coincidence we were also increasing funding for our education 
during that time at a rate faster than any other State.
  So an important part of a pro-growth plan--a Republican pro-growth 
plan, but obviously many Democrats agree with this as well--is fully 
funding the America COMPETES Act, making sure we keep our brainpower 
advantage so we can keep our jobs.
  I congratulate the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, for his 
leadership on this, and the senior Senator from New Mexico, Mr. 
Domenici, for his leadership on this. I thank the majority leader and 
the Republican leader for their co-sponsorship of this act.
  I say to Senators Conrad and Gregg, I am glad you made room in the 
budget for much of the America COMPETES Act. I hope we can complete the 
job with the Bingaman amendment so we can keep those jobs from going 
overseas. That is one good way to help advance a pro-growth plan that 
will help balance the family budget.
  I thank the President, and I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts is 
recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome the fact that at the real start 
of this debate on the Budget Act, we have an amendment that reflects 
the best judgment of Republicans and Democrats alike in the Senate, 
which is so key to the future of our country, and to listen to our 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle at a time when, on so many 
issues, there is divisiveness, but on this issue, there is a real 
coming together in the Senate on this item for the support of the 
America COMPETES Act.
  I wish to commend those who have been a part of this process over 
recent years. It has been truly a bipartisan effort. We have listened 
to Senator Bingaman, Senator Alexander, and others who have been a part 
of this whole process, and it was an enormous achievement this last 
year when the bill passed the Senate. Now, we are impressed by the fact 
that those who were involved in making sure this was going to be 
achieved are committed to making sure we are going to have muscle and 
bones on this project in the form of providing the resources which are 
necessary to make it effective. This is, I think, one of the most 
important undertakings we will have in this debate and discussion on 
the budget, and I am very hopeful we will get a strong vote in support 
of this amendment.
  Very briefly, I think all of us understand the average family in this 
country is exceedingly hard-pressed at this time. They are wondering 
whether they are going to be able to pay their mortgages, and we are 
finding out that many are unable to pay their mortgages and they are 
losing their homes, or they have the threat of losing their homes. It 
is difficult to imagine, I think, for many of us, when parents go to 
bed at night and wonder whether they are going to be able to afford 
their mortgages and maintain their home for themselves, their families, 
and for their children, but it is happening in too many parts of this 
country. At the same time, those same parents are wondering if they are 
going to be able to heat their homes, at least in my part of the 
country. With the fact of the extraordinary explosion of the cost of 
home heating oil, we find so many families are hard-pressed to be able 
to provide heating for their homes.
  These are families who have worked hard, who have played by the rules 
all their lives, and they are wondering now about what the future will 
hold for themselves and for their parents and for their children. Are 
they going to be able to make sure their parents are going to be able 
to live their golden years in peace and dignity? They are hard-pressed 
to provide the extra help and assistance to them so they can afford 
their prescription drugs. They have seen the cost of tuition go up and 
continue to go up, and they wonder if they will be able to educate 
their children; while fuel and gas go up, whether they will be able to 
fill the gas tank to get to their jobs where they are working. There is 
enormous anxiety. There is also the concern about rising health care 
costs. There is enormous rising anxiety out in the country. People are 
wondering: Why should my job be at risk? I have worked hard. I have 
played by the rules. I have done everything I possibly can, and still I 
wonder whether in a few years, the opportunities for my children are 
going to be as great as opportunities were for me. I know my parents 
sacrificed so I would be able to make progress, and now I wonder 
whether my children are going to be better off than I was. That is 
going on in home after home across this country.
  It is as a result of the failure of economic policy. It is a failure 
of fiscal and monetary policy over the period of recent years. It is 
not the fault of these particular families; it is the fault of economic 
policy and giving the kinds of investments in our country and 
investments in individuals that are necessary in order to have a strong 
economy. We know how to do it. We have seen it done. I am not going to 
take the time of the Senate to go back over the history where it has 
been done and it should be done.
  So we are faced with where we are today, and this calls for immediate 
assistance for these families. We have seen the efforts that have been 
made in terms of housing and in terms of the unemployment, the help and 
assistance of fuel assistance and food stamps and others to try to 
address the immediate kinds of problems families are facing.
  We also have to look at where we are going to be as a country in 
terms of the future, where we are going to be in 3 to 5 years as we are 
seeing this whole global economy challenge the United States. One 
overarching fact is that the future is going to be the knowledge 
economy, the economy that puts the premise on knowledge and information 
and education. That is where the future is going to lie. That will be 
the great competition between the countries of Asia and the United 
States. We are thinking about how we are going to address that, and the 
COMPETES Act is one of the important solutions to this challenge.
  Mr. President, if we look at this chart here, it is interesting in 
terms of U.S. students. To be globally competitive, we need to tackle 
the achievement gaps. U.S. students from high-income families 
outperform students in other countries in math, while U.S. students 
from low-income families lag behind. When you are talking about 
international competitiveness, we find that U.S. students who come from 
higher income families are able to go to schools that are able to 
afford the good teachers, are able to out-compete the students in other 
parts of the world. It is no mystery about how that should be done. But 
students who come from lower income families are not able to keep pace. 
This legislation is designed to, among other things, reduce this gap 
that exists now in our country.
  Look at this chart. We have more math classes in high-poverty schools 
that are taught by teachers without a major in that subject. You have 
low-poverty secondary schools where the percentage of secondary school 
math classes taught by teachers without that major is 26 percent. In 
the high-poverty schools, it is 56 percent. Much of it comes down to 
teachers and the importance of investing in them, to make sure they are 
going to have the skills to serve in communities and in school 
districts all over the country, and so they are going to have the 
competency. If you are not going to have the high-quality teachers in 
underserved areas, then you are going to have those kinds of results we 
saw with the other chart where American children are going to fall 
further and further behind. It is in this very area that the COMPETES 
Act is directed.

[[Page S1921]]

  That is one of the important reasons why this legislation is so 
important and why the resources and the investment are so much in the 
interest of this country and its future in terms of the ability to be 
able to compete.
  Mr. President, this is a sound amendment that makes a great deal of 
sense for the reasons I have mentioned here and other reasons as well. 
I am hopeful that the Senate will accept it with an overwhelming vote.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4189

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the present 
amendment be set aside, and on behalf of Senator Specter, I send an 
amendment to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. 
     Specter, for himself and Mr. Craig, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4189.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To repeal section 13203 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
  Act of 1993 by restoring the Alternative Minimum Tax rates that had 
                     been in effect prior thereto)

       On page 3, line 10, decrease the amount by $4,700,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, decrease the amount by $25,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, decrease the amount by $51,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, decrease the amount by $47,300,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $26,l00,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $30,500,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, decrease the amount by $4,700,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, decrease the amount by $25,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, decrease the amount by $51,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 22, decrease the amount by $47,300,000,000.
       On page 3, line 23, decrease the amount by $26,100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 24, decrease the amount by $30,500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $36,190,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $441,680,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $2,133,860,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $4,798,780,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $6,988,760,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $8,794,210,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $36,190,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $441,680,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $2,133,860,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $4,798,780,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $6,988,760,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $8,794,210,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $4,736,190,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $26,041,680,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $53,133,860,000.
       On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by $52,098,780,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $33,088,760,000.
       On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $39,294,210,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $4,736,190,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $30,777,870,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $83,911,730,000.
       On page 5, line l0, increase the amount by 
     $136,010,510,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by 
     $169,099,270,000.
       On page 5, line 12, increase the amount by 
     $208,393,480,000.
       On page 5, line 15, increase the amount by $4,736,190,000.
       On page 5, line 16, increase the amount by $30,777,870,000.
       On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $83,911,730.000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by 
     $136,010,510,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by 
     $169,099,270,000.
       On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by 
     $208,393,480,000.
       On page 26, line 12, increase the amount by $36,190,000.
       On page 26, line 13, increase the amount by $36,190,000.
       On page 26, line 16, increase the amount by $441,680,000.
       On page 26, line 17, increase the amount by $441,680,000.
       On page 26, line 20 increase the amount by $2,133,860,000.
       On page 26, line 21, increase the amount by $2,133,860,000.
       On page 26, line 24, increase the amount by $4,798,780,000.
       On page 26, line 25, increase the amount by $4,798,780,000.
       On page 27, line 3, increase the amount by $6,988,760,000.
       On page 27, line 4, increase the amount by $6,988,760,000.
       On page 27, line 7, increase the amount by $8,794,210,000.
       On page 27, line 8, increase the amount by $8,794,210,000.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, Senator Specter will talk about this 
amendment. Essentially, this amendment would repeal the AMT 
permanently, as it relates to middle-income Americans. It is currently 
wrong that we have this tax. It was never intended to be a tax that 
would cover 20 million Americans. It was supposed to hit high-income 
individuals who were avoiding taxes, using legal tax vehicles but 
basically avoiding paying any income tax. It has turned into a monster 
where literally 20 million Americans would be subject to the tax unless 
it is adjusted.
  This budget presumes that it will be abated for this year. There is 
no reason to keep these revenues in the baseline because we know we 
will do this again next year and the year after that. It is time to 
correct this permanently and stop having these illusory revenues, which 
we turn around and spend, and it creates inappropriate expectations and 
leads to less fiscal discipline here.
  This is an attempt to address the issue by essentially repealing the 
AMT and addressing the fact that if we don't do this, 20 million 
Americans will be hit with this tax, and that was never the intention 
of the Federal Government, to get revenues from them. It is wrong to 
have it on the books.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania will come over to speak to this around 
11:30 or so. The Democratic side may have another amendment relative to 
this issue.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I think the amendment the ranking member 
has set up for Senator Specter doesn't actually have full repeal. 
Instead, what it does is change the individual alternative minimum tax 
from its current two-rate structure of 26 percent and 28 percent to the 
single 24-percent rate that was in effect prior to 1993. I believe that 
is what the Specter amendment does.
  The first priority, of course, for dealing with the AMT is to protect 
families who have not been subject to it previously. So our resolution 
acknowledges this priority and provides a 1-year patch to prevent the 
alternative minimum tax from affecting another 20 million American 
households. That is at a cost of $62 billion.
  I would prefer that cost be offset, but last year that was not the 
will of the body. It was not the will of the body in the very clear and 
compelling vote. So we don't have it offset in our resolution this 
year.
  Our resolution acknowledges the political reality that the will of 
this body is to extend alternative minimum tax relief without paying 
for it. Restructuring the AMT, as Senator Specter proposes, is even 
more expensive. The Specter amendment would lose $185 billion in 
revenue, and it is not paid for in any way--by spending reductions or 
other revenue--and therefore it simply gets added to the deficit and 
debt. If it were adopted as is, the resolution would be in deficit in 
every year of the budget window.
  Mr. President, I don't think that is fiscally responsible, so I am 
offering an amendment that accomplishes the same policy purpose but 
requires that it be offset, paid for, so that it is not

[[Page S1922]]

added to the deficit and is not added to the debt.
  I inquire of the Senator, did he send up the Specter amendment?
  Mr. GREGG. I did.


                           Amendment No. 4190

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I send the Conrad amendment to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to setting aside 
the pending amendment so the Senator from North Dakota may submit his 
amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4190.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To add a deficit-neutral reserve fund for repealing the 1993 
     rate increase for the alternative minimum tax for individuals)

       At the end of Title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REFORMING THE 
                   ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX FOR INDIVIDUALS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other levels in this resolution for one or 
     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or 
     conference reports that would reinstate the pre-1993 rates 
     for the alternative minimum tax for individuals, by the 
     amounts provided in such legislation for such purpose, 
     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2018.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I think it might be useful here that we 
enter into a unanimous consent agreement that when we go to a fuller 
debate, the debate on the Specter and Conrad amendments be limited to 1 
hour. Is that acceptable?
  Mr. GREGG. I don't see why we cannot put the Kyl amendment in there 
also.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a 
half hour each on the Specter and Conrad amendments, a total of 1 hour.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Then we will go to the Kyl amendment, and there would 
also be a side-by-side for that amendment. That would be, at this 
point, an amendment in my name or by my designee.
  I also ask unanimous consent that there be a half hour on each for 
those amendments.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, just to clarify this, other Members may 
come in and talk during this time. The concept is that this hour is 
fluid. If other Senators show up and talk, it will not be off of these 
amendments.
  Mr. CONRAD. Our understanding is the same. Look, we are going to have 
to be flexible. We have other committees that are meeting, and other 
Members who are involved in these amendments are at other meetings. 
They won't be here until later. It is our intention to have that amount 
of time on these specific amendments, but it may not occur all at once.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the understanding is that these are the 
amendments that are actually in line: Specter and Conrad, and Kyl and 
Conrad. Those are the amendments actually in the queue.
  Mr. CONRAD. Correct. Our amendments are side-by-sides. Our amendments 
would normally be second-degree amendments. They are not being offered 
as second-degree amendments here because we don't do that on the budget 
resolution. But those amendments that are the side-by-sides would be in 
the regular order. That means they would be voted on first.
  We also have the Bunning amendment. Do we want to put that into the 
queue?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the regular order would not be that they 
would be--we understood that you could offer them as second degrees if 
you put them in that position.
  Mr. CONRAD. Maybe we should have a discussion and make sure we are on 
the same page with respect to that. Do we want to have the Bunning 
amendment next?
  Mr. GREGG. I believe so. We don't know when he will be available. I 
would like the Bunning amendment to be after these. So the next 
amendment would be the Bunning amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. All right. That is an amendment that involves Social 
Security, correct?
  Mr. GREGG. Correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. There would be a side-by-side on our side. Would we want 
to limit debate on those to a half hour each?
  Mr. GREGG. I have not spoken to Senator Bunning yet, so we will 
reserve on that.
  Mr. CONRAD. All right. That will be the order. The colleagues who 
want to offer amendments and want to have floor time, it is a very good 
time to contact us to get time allocated because time is going to go 
very quickly. Please don't come tomorrow and say: Gee, where is our 
floor time? This is the time, this is the moment. If you want floor 
time, we urge you to come now.


                           Amendment No. 4191

  Mr. KYL. I have an amendment I would like to send to the desk and ask 
that it be read.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to setting aside 
the pending amendment so that the Senator may offer his amendment?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4191.

  Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To protect small businesses, family ranches and farms from 
   the Death Tax by providing a $5 million exemption, a low rate for 
         smaller estates and a maximum rate no higher than 35%)

       On page 3, line 12, decrease the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, decrease the amount by $19,500,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $18,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $19,900,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, decrease the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 3, line 22, decrease the amount by $19,500,000,000.
       On page 3, line 23, decrease the amount by $18,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 24, decrease the amount by $19,900,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $11,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $499,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $1,453,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $2,468,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $11,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $499,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $1,453,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $2,468,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $511,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by $19,999,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $20,053,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $22,368,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $511,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $20,509,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $40,563,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, increase the amount by $62,930,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $511,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $20,509,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $40,563,000,000.
       On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by $62,930,000,000.
       On page 26, line 20, increase the amount by $11,000,000.
       On page 26, line 21, increase the amount by $11,000,000.
       On page 26, line 24, increase the amount by $499,000,000.
       On page 26, line 25, increase the amount by $499,000,000.
       On page 27, line 3, increase the amount by $1,453,000,000.
       On page 27, line 4, increase the amount by $1,453,000,000.

[[Page S1923]]

       On page 27, line 7, increase the amount by $2,468,000,000.
       On page 27, line 8, increase the amount by $2,468,000,000.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this amendment is a reprise of what we did 
last year in offering to reform the estate tax, sometimes referred to 
as the death tax.
  Now, in the budget itself, and in an amendment that has been offered 
by the other side, there is a provision to allow the death tax to be 
changed from the current law to a top rate of 45 percent and an 
exempted amount of $3.5 million, and there are some other features. My 
amendment, as with the proposal that had significant support last year, 
would reduce that top rate to no higher than 35 percent so that if you 
had more than one rate, at least the top rate could not exceed 35 
percent, and both of the two spouses would have a $5 million exempted 
amount before the estate tax would kick in.
  In addition, this provides for a step-up in the basis of the 
property. It would enable the estate tax to be paid over the current 
period of time, and the amounts of money in the exempted amount, or 
unified credit of the estate gift tax, would be indexed for inflation.
  Now, the reason for my amendment is, I think most agree even in this 
body, either allowing the estate tax to continue under current law--
getting up to a high rate of 55 percent and an exempted amount of 
either $2 million or $1 million, probably $1 million--or the proposal 
of the Democratic chairman of the committee would result in a continued 
unfair burden on primarily America's small businesses and farms, but, 
in any event, anyone subject to the potential liability of estate tax 
for which there is a tremendous amount of money spent in attempting to 
get around the obligations of the tax or to plan against its eventual 
required payments.
  As a result, we look for ways to further reform the estate tax so 
that burden would be limited to only a few estates--the very highest 
estates--and that most people without a huge estate would not have the 
burden of trying to plan around it--to buy expensive insurance and hire 
lawyers and accountants and estate planners and the like.
  The object, in other words, is not simply to limit the estate tax 
liability but provide some certainty in the Tax Code so that most 
people realize, as their homes have gotten more valuable simply because 
of the increased value with inflation, and as their businesses have 
accumulated some capital wealth even though it may not be disposable in 
the sense of liquid income, they are not going to have to worry that 
their estate is going to be subject to a tax and so they are not going 
to have to worry about spending this money to deal with the tax.
  That is why we need to increase the total for a couple that would be 
exempted from the tax to $10 million and provide that the upper rate, 
if that rate kicks in, could be no higher than 35 percent. Above that, 
you are going to find people feeling that they have to try to prepare 
for or to get around the payment of the tax. And the irony is, Mr. 
President, those we are most concerned about really don't have the 
assets to try to spend a lot of money, whereas those who have enormous 
wealth can hire all the accountants, estate planners, and lawyers they 
want and buy insurance so that the ultimate impact of the tax does not 
hit them.
  Last year, when we proposed this same proposal of the 35-percent 
highest rate or an amount of $5 million exempted for both spouses in a 
motion to instruct conferees, 56 Senators, obviously both Democrats and 
Republicans, voted for that motion to instruct. Now, it was never 
carried out, but I think it demonstrates the will of this body that we 
want to have some reform that is more realistic and that exempts more 
estates from the payment of the tax and the consideration of the tax.
  According to the Joint Tax Committee, in the tax year 2011, 131,000 
estates alone will be subject to the estate tax--131,000. Mr. 
President, that is too much of a burden on too many people in this 
country who are not extremely wealthy. By 2015, that number goes up to 
177,000 estates. The advantage of my amendment is that it would protect 
approximately 119,200 family businesses and family farms from the 
estate tax each year. It would dramatically reduce the number of 
estates that have to worry about paying the tax.
  If we fail to act, in other words, about 131,000 families and family 
businesses and farms will be subjected to the tax in the year 2011 and 
thereafter. Under our proposal, we would, according to the Joint 
Committee on Taxation, reduce the impact of the tax so that only 11,800 
estates would be required to file estate tax returns each year, if the 
exemption is set at $5 million each. So, that is a huge change. It is 
necessary to protect the folks I think everybody in this body would 
like to protect from having to worry about the estate tax.
  Now, it is interesting that when public opinion surveys ask people 
what they think about the tax, almost uniformly the results come back 
that the majority of Americans believe the estate tax is unfair and it 
ought to be eliminated. I remember a Gallup poll, now 3 or 4 years old, 
that said 60 percent of Americans believed it should be repealed. 
That is my preference, to repeal it. We haven't been able to get enough 
votes in this body to repeal it, but that is where the American people 
think it should be.

  Interestingly, there was a survey conducted after the last 
Presidential election, and people who supported both Senator Kerry and 
President Bush were asked what they thought about the estate tax. The 
interesting thing is that while 70-some percent of the people who voted 
said they thought the tax should be repealed, roughly 80-some percent 
of the people who voted for President Bush thought it should be 
repealed and 60-some percent of the people who voted for Senator Kerry 
thought it should be repealed.
  So this is not a partisan matter among the American people. They 
believe, whether they supported Senator Kerry or President Bush in the 
last Presidential election, that the estate tax should be repealed. I 
daresay surveys even now, to this time, demonstrate the American public 
opinion remains the same. The interesting thing is even those who 
understand they will never be subject to the tax because their incomes 
are simply not such that they will accumulate the wealth necessary to 
have to worry about the tax believe the tax to be unfair and believe it 
should be repealed.
  But even if you leave aside the issue of the morality of the tax and 
people's understanding that it is not a fair tax, it hits people at the 
absolute worst time--when a loved one in their family has passed away 
and they are having to consider whether pieces of the business or farm 
may have to be sold off to pay the tax--they recognize that, at a 
minimum, it should be reformed and that is all we are trying to do.
  For years, we have been trying to get a reform that basically 
accomplishes two objectives: It would increase the amount of the estate 
that is exempt from the tax so you don't have to worry about filing 
forms or having to try to plan around it; and for those who would still 
be subject to the tax above that amount, it would at least put a lid on 
it at a maximum of 35 percent.
  Now, again, the numbers in the current law, if we don't do anything, 
go up to 55 percent. And under the proposal of the chairman of the 
committee on the other side of the aisle, that would be reduced to 45 
percent. That is still way too high, and the exempted amount would be 
$1 million, which is way too low. Because of inflation today, there are 
a lot of homes that have a value of over $1 million, especially in 
places such as California, New York, and some other places. So, 
clearly, an amendment along the lines that I will be introducing to 
make room in the budget for this kind of reform is necessary.
  I would like to make just about three other quick points.
  Last year, even though the budget could accommodate estate tax 
reform, the majority did not bring a bill to the Senate. And despite my 
best efforts, it wasn't possible to get anybody to allow consideration 
of a bill to reform the estate tax. As a result, in the Finance 
Committee at the end of last year, I asked that the chairman hold 
hearings and seek to have a markup this spring so we could actually 
pass a bill and not simply deal with it in the budget that we pass each 
year.
  The American people need to understand what is really going on. Each 
year we pass a budget that, theoretically, allows for a reform of the 
estate

[[Page S1924]]

tax, but then we don't do anything about it. And the budget itself 
isn't law. The budget is merely a goal, a blueprint of where we want to 
go for the year. If you don't follow it up with a bill, you haven't 
done anything. But Members here pat themselves on the back and go back 
home and tell their constituents that they voted to cut the estate tax. 
Oh, that is wonderful, people say. But it is never followed up with an 
actual bill.
  So the chairman of the Finance Committee said: Well, he would have 
the goal of marking up a bill this spring. He has since advised me he 
has no plans whatsoever for a real bill on estate tax, and said: It 
won't happen.
  It is going to be in the budget. His amendment will provide for an 
estate tax reform in the budget, but he has advised that he has no 
plans to allow that to happen, to make it, in reality, a bill that 
would pass and become law. So all of this is an exercise in show, with 
apparently no real intent to follow through and provide relief for 
America's families and small businesses and farms and the like.
  What I would like to do, Mr. President, with my amendment, is not 
only demonstrate in the budget that this is the level that we want to 
set it, at a $5 million exempted amount per spouse and no higher than a 
35-percent rate, but also ensure that the rules of the budget enable us 
to consider the bill during the year and not have it subject to some 
point of order that would enable people on the other side to say: Gee, 
we wish we could do it, but we just can't do it under the budget rules.
  My amendment will make it possible to consider such an amendment, and 
I serve notice on my colleagues that I intend to try to bring it up. We 
are not going to sweep this under the rug year after year. If we are 
honest with the American people about putting it in the budget, we 
ought to be honest about bringing it to the floor for a vote so that we 
can actually pass a bill, send it to the President, and get this job 
done.
  It is interesting that compared to other countries the United States 
is one of the worst in terms of the amount of money it takes from 
estates. The rate in the Democratic version would be 45 percent. The 
average around the world is 13 percent. There are a lot of countries 
that don't have an estate tax, and they understand why.
  The irony is, I had to leave a hearing of the Finance Committee just 
now, Mr. President, where an individual was testifying about countries 
such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and places such as that, where 
people have decided it is not a good idea to have an estate tax, and it 
has been repealed in many of these countries. The United States should 
take a leaf out the book of some of these countries that have found it 
is inimical to their development and their ability to compete with 
other countries.
  We know it is not good in terms of savings. The irony is that a lot 
of my colleagues are concerned about reducing the fact that our savings 
rate in this country is too low and are concerned about the fact that 
as a result we have to end up borrowing from countries such as China, 
for example. Yet having a big estate tax is exactly what is allowing 
that to happen because it discourages savings. If you save the money, 
you are just going to get taxed on it when you die, so why not just 
spend it?
  Incidentally, the Treasury Department estimates the estate tax 
reduces the amount of money that we contribute to charity. Treasury 
estimates that the estate tax reduces bequests by about 14 percent. 
Individuals are either choosing to save less or rely heavily on estate 
planning which, of course, is a deadweight loss to the economy unless 
you are in the insurance business, in which case you think it is a real 
nifty idea because people have to buy insurance against the estate tax 
obligation that they otherwise would have.
  Finally, it is an irony that the amount of money the Treasury 
collects--something over 1 percent of our revenue comes from the estate 
tax--is actually an equivalent amount of money to what is spent by 
people to try to avoid paying the estate tax. So, in effect, the money 
is paid twice. People buy insurance, they hire accountants and lawyers, 
and they try to find ways to get around the payment of the estate tax, 
and the amount of money that costs each year is almost exactly the same 
as what we pay in the estate tax to the Federal Government. This was 
according to a study by Henry Aaron and Alicia Munnell who are 
economists who have made this point over and over.
  The other interesting aspect of the cost of the estate tax is the 
amount of money it costs to try to plan around it. If you are a closely 
held business, the estate planning is estimated to range anywhere from 
$5,000 to $1 million. Again, if you are a lawyer or estate planner or 
you are selling insurance, that is probably a great thing. But it is 
not great for the people who have to pay the money, and it is not the 
best use of the money for the economy. The IRS estimates it takes 38 
hours to complete the form, which is form 706. You may have an 
obligation, you may not, but you still have to fill out the form. The 
tax preparation fees can range from $5,000 to $50,000, and 52 percent 
of the estates that filed a return were required to incur a sizable 
legal and accounting expense and other expenses even though they owed 
no tax. Bear in mind, over half of the people who have to file the 
forms end up with no obligation.
  What we should do is have a tax that is predictable and clear with a 
large enough amount exempted so you know whether you are going to have 
to file the form. Hopefully, you would realize you don't have to file 
it because we have adopted the reforms I am talking about. We would go 
from something over 130,000 filers down to something over 11,000 
filers. You would be catching the people with the big estates, those 
people who can really afford to pay the estate tax, but you would not 
be requiring everybody else to have to engage in this expensive 
planning and have the potential of having to pay part of the tax.
  Again, the summary numbers to remember are, under the amendment that 
will be filed--or has been filed, I gather--it would freeze the rates 
where they will be at the end of 2011, at 45 percent. That is only 10 
percent less than the top rate of 55 percent under the previous law. 
And it will provide an exempted amount of $3.5 million. Far more 
estates will be caught in the estate tax trap with the amount at that 
level than they will be if both spouses subject to the tax have $5 
million exempted as part of the unified gift and estate tax credit.
  I hope as with last year when 56 of our colleagues, both Democrats 
and Republicans, supported instructing conferees to include in the 
budget the precise proposal on estate tax reform that I have 
identified, we will get that kind of support out of this budget as 
well.
  The last thing I want to say is, I think it would be better for the 
debate and discussion if we had followed past practices and actually 
offered amendments and had debate on those amendments and then voted on 
those amendments. Instead, what is happening this year is the majority 
is not allowing any votes on any amendments until tomorrow, when we get 
into what we affectionately refer to around here as the vote-athon, 
when every 10 or 12 minutes we have a vote after 1 minute of discussion 
of the amendment, 1 or 2 minutes. I think it is 30 seconds per side, 1 
minute equally divided. Great debate. Great debate.
  We have time to talk about these things now, but what you can't do is 
offer an amendment, have a vote on it, and know whether you have won or 
lost so you can determine what you want to do next. If you win, then 
you don't have to do two or three other amendments. If you lose, you 
may have to do those amendments. But we are not going to do that 
because the majority decided it would like to put pressure on the 
Members of this body to offer fewer amendments because they will have 
to all be voted on on Thursday and, of course, everybody knows the 
Easter recess begins as soon as we finish our business. So there is 
great pressure to offer fewer amendments, to hurry up and get out of 
town, rather than, in my view, spending the time necessary to do the 
people's business.
  One of the first things we ought to be willing to do is do what is 
necessary to both debate and vote on an estate tax reform that would be 
meaningful for literally hundreds of thousands of American citizens.

[[Page S1925]]

  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. KYL. I will. I will conclude saying, I hope my colleagues will in 
a bipartisan way, as they did last year, support the proposal I have 
just laid down. And while we will be doing it on Thursday, I gather, 
they will be able to listen to a little of the debate if they are 
listening now.
  I am happy to yield.
  Mr. CONRAD. If I can address one of the concerns of the Senator, when 
we vote--this is a very awkward question, I say to my colleague. Let me 
be very direct about what it is. We are missing two of our votes. We 
have a third Member who is ill. So what we have said is we would defer 
votes on these major matters until at least some of our Members are 
back. The body is very closely divided. We are completely ready to have 
votes on other matters throughout this day. The problem is, with the 
major votes on these consequential issues where we are missing two of 
our Presidential candidates until tomorrow--they will be here Thursday 
and Friday--and we are missing Senator Byrd who, as you know, is ill, 
that is the reason we have asked to defer votes on these major 
amendments until tomorrow. It is a difficult situation. It has been 
throughout.
  I do thank the Republican caucus for the extraordinary courtesy they 
extended to the Budget Committee by allowing Senator Byrd to vote--to 
allow proxy voting in our committee. Our committee does not allow proxy 
voting, and for a very good reason. We are the only committee that can 
report a fast-track vehicle to the Senate floor directly. But I do 
thank the Republican side for doing that. It was very gracious. I think 
it was in the best tradition of the Senate.
  Here on the Senate floor, of course, there is no ability to allow 
that accommodation to a colleague who is ill. That is the circumstance. 
I regret it. I just say to my colleague, we are happy to have as many 
votes as you want to have. The reason we have deferred these major 
votes until tomorrow is for the reason I have given.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate that. In suggesting another 
reason for this, I do not think I am wrong in that, but I do 
acknowledge that certainly what the chairman of the Budget Committee 
has said is true. I appreciate his acknowledgment of our courtesy with 
respect to Senator Byrd. I know the Democratic side would do the same 
thing. That was done on a previous occasion last year as well. It is 
one of the better traditions of the Senate.
  It is also true probably this is not the first time this year 
because, for the first time in the history of the United States, I am 
informed, two Senators will be running against each other for the 
Presidency so that there may be other occasions where, when there are 
very close votes, our schedule may to some extent need to accommodate 
their schedules. Of course, as Members of this body they need to be 
here to do business as well, but we understand that is not always 
possible. If we could adhere to a slightly more set schedule that might 
be possible, but since we don't and it is almost impossible to have 
that kind of schedule, that issue is one that has to be accommodated, 
and I appreciate what the chairman said.
  I do hope the trend we have seen from 2 years ago to last year to 
this year of not having votes early on during the week that we consider 
the budget, but bunching them all at the end, a process which I don't 
think anybody in this body really likes, would not continue; that 
certainly the reason the chairman indicated will not pertain next year 
and that we can revert to the practice next year that we have 
traditionally followed, which is to try to have debate on amendments, 
votes, and then debate and then votes, and so on, hopefully, thereby 
minimizing the number of votes that we consider in this so-called vote-
athon that, as I said, nobody in this body likes very much.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would just say to my colleague, last 
year we did much better.
  Mr. KYL. Than this year.
  Mr. CONRAD. You remember last year we did more votes earlier. Just in 
line with what the Senator is thinking because that is the best way. I 
think all of us would agree that is the best way to do our business, to 
do the votes earlier. You will recall on the vote-arama on that Friday 
we actually finished at 2 o'clock in the afternoon because we did have 
more votes earlier. I am entirely, 100 percent in agreement with the 
Senator. I would far prefer to do it that way. I think it is easier to 
follow the debate and to have the votes then coincident with the 
debate.
  (Mr. DURBIN assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, if I might, just on the underlying 
amendment offered by the Senator, this amendment as we understand it--
we have just seen it--would virtually eliminate the estate tax. Let me 
say why. Let me first say there is no death tax in the country. Of 
course, if you poll people and you ask them: Do you want to eliminate 
the death tax? they will say sure. I had a baggage handler stop a 
colleague of mine, and he said: My No. 1 priority is to eliminate that 
death tax. My colleague, who is the current occupant of the chair, told 
him there is no death tax here. You are not going to pay any tax when 
you die unless you have $2 million.
  The guy was very surprised about that because he heard all this talk 
about a death tax. There is no death tax in America. There is a tax on 
estates. At today's level you would have to have $2 million to be 
taxed. That affects only one-half of 1 percent of estates. When the 
exemption increases, as it does under current law, and reaches $3.5 
million per individual, $7 million a couple in 2009, which is next 
year, only two-tenths of estates will be taxed.
  If you are out there and you are hearing about this death tax, don't 
worry. It does not apply, next year, to 99.8 percent of people who pass 
away. It only applies to two-tenths of 1 percent of estates.
  We already have a tax structure that has overwhelmingly benefited the 
wealthiest among us. The amendment by the Senator would cost an 
additional $478 billion over 10 years, and none of it is paid for. That 
means it goes on the debt. That means we have to borrow that amount of 
money, and where are we going to borrow it? We are now borrowing over 
half the money at our bond auctions from abroad--most of it from the 
Chinese and the Japanese. So we would have, if the amendment of the 
Senator is agreed to as is, the unusual situation of borrowing this 
money primarily from China and Japan to give a tax advantage to two-
tenths of 1 percent of the people, but the borrowing would be in the 
name of all of the American people. So 99.8 percent of the American 
people would be borrowing this money, primarily from China and Japan, 
to give it to the Warren Buffets, the Paris Hiltons, and others of 
enormous wealth in this country.
  I do not think that is a good policy. In the underlying budget, we 
have improved the estate tax situation, reformed it in what is, I 
think, a reasonable way. This is the bizarre circumstance that is in 
current law. The exemption now, in 2008, is $4 million--$2 million a 
person. OK? So if you are a husband or wife and you pass away at the 
same time, you have $4 million of exemption that applies today. You 
don't pay anything if you have estates of less than $4 million.
  In 2009 that will go up to $7 million. Then in 2010, under current 
law, there is no estate tax, it is repealed. Then, in 2011--it is 
utterly bizarre--it goes down to $2 million per couple, $1 million a 
person.
  In the underlying budget we are saying, no, that makes no sense at 
all to go back down to $2 million a couple, $1 million a person. It 
should be at $7 million a couple, as it is in 2009. If, in fact, we 
adopt those levels, virtually no one will pay the estate tax. That is a 
fact.
  Here is what has happened under current law: The number of estates 
that are taxed is falling very dramatically. In 2000, there were 50,000 
taxable estates. In 2006, that has been reduced to 13,000. In 2009, we 
are now expecting there will only be 7,000 estates that will pay 
anything. As I indicated, that is two-tenths of 1 percent; 99.8 percent 
of estates are completely exempt. That is a fact.
  Now I am going to lay down an amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Would the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. GREGG. Is it my understanding you are telling us how many people 
are

[[Page S1926]]

going to die in 2009 in this part of the Democratic budget; that you 
are projecting deaths in 2009 to be 7,000?
  Mr. CONRAD. No, this is this Tax Policy Center, I say to my 
colleague, and they estimate the number of estates in any year, and 
then they do a further analysis of how many would actually pay an 
estate tax, and what they have concluded is two-tenths of 1 percent.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator would yield further, I wanted to clarify 
where the number came from. I did not know if the Senator, as chairman 
of the Budget Committee, was calling on this number of people to die 
during 2009 for the chart?
  Mr. CONRAD. I know the Senator is pulling my chain. Even as slow 
witted as I am, I can recognize when a Senator is pulling my chain, and 
here on my birthday, my friend and my colleague is doing that.
  What we have tried to do is come up with an alternative. I will send 
this amendment to the desk to provide an alternative approach to that 
which the Senator from Arizona is offering, to go over and above what 
is in the Baucus amendment.
  I say to my colleague, it provides another $45 billion, so that in 
addition to extending the estate tax exemptions of 2009, $7 million a 
couple, $3.5 million an individual, instead of dropping down to $2 
million a couple or $1 million, we stay at the $7 million; index it for 
inflation.
  But in this amendment I am sending to the desk, I say to my 
colleague, it also provides another $45 billion in a reserve fund, 
which means it would have to be offset either by a spending reduction 
or other revenue to further close the gap between what Senator Baucus 
provided in his amendment the other day, and the amendment Senator Kyl 
has laid down here.
  That would be $45 billion in additional room in order to further 
reform the estate tax. I want to make clear that would be in a reserve 
fund, so it would have to be offset, it would have to be paid for.
  Mr. KYL. I ask the chairman to yield for a question. The additional 
$45 billion, would you have an estimate as to--well, first, what policy 
in the estate tax would be attached to that? And if it is to add to the 
exempted amount, what would that take the exempted amount up to?
  Mr. CONRAD. I do not know. This is not my amendment. This is an 
amendment Senator Baucus and others have crafted. So I apologize to the 
Senator, I do not know how much more of an exemption that would permit. 
But others who have crafted this amendment hopefully will have an 
answer that can be provided when they are available.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I might further, I had understood an 
amendment such as this might be offered. My understanding was it would 
accommodate both an increase in the exempted amount to $5 million per 
spouse, and I also believe to reduce the rate further from 45 down to 
35, which would make it identical to my amendment. I might be wrong on 
that. If you can ask the author of the amendment here if that is true, 
it would conform it to the levels set in the amendment I have laid down 
as well.
  I wonder, as long as I have interrupted the chairman, if I might make 
one or two other points.
  Mr. CONRAD. Maybe I can conclude this part and go back to the Senator 
from Illinois who is also inquiring and answer his question.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator would yield. I wish to ask the Senator a 
question. I do not know if you want to offer your amendment first.


                           Amendment No. 4196

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I send this amendment to the desk. I have 
styled it Conrad No. 2. In fact, it is not my amendment. It is the 
amendment of the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who is at 
this very moment chairing a hearing on this subject, so he could not be 
here. That is why I am sending it to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Is there objection to setting 
aside the pending amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for Mr. Baucus, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4196.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4196) is as follows:

  (Purpose: To reform the estate tax to avoid subjecting thousands of 
families, family businesses, and family farms and ranches to the estate 
                                  tax)

       At the end of Title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. ESTATE TAX REFORM INITIATIVE.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the aggregates, allocations and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for a bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion, or conference report that provides up to 
     $45,000,000,000 in tax relief over the period of the total of 
     the fiscal years 2008 through 2013 for additional estate tax 
     reforms that address the current flaws in the estate tax law, 
     by the amounts provided in such legislation for such purpose, 
     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2018.

  Mr. CONRAD. I ask that Senator Baucus be permitted, when he is able, 
to further discuss his amendment. I know we have got time reserved for 
that purpose.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from North Dakota would further yield, I 
was listening carefully to his debate as I presided. It is my 
understanding that he says under current law, two-tenths of 1 percent 
of the people who die in the United States each year might be subject 
to liability to pay the estate tax or, as the Republicans called it, 
the so-called death tax.
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes, that is true, under the exemption rates for next 
year. Under the exemption rates for next year, it will be two-tenths of 
1 percent. I believe this year it is five-tenths of 1 percent; there 
are 99.5 percent this year that are exempt. Next year it will be 99.8 
percent exempt, as the rate goes up.
  Mr. DURBIN. I tried to do a quick calculation on the .2 percent. I 
think I have come to the conclusion that each year in America, 3.5 
million Americans die. Of that number, you are projecting that 7,000 
out of 3.5 million might have some estate tax liability next year?
  Mr. CONRAD. That is the correct math.
  Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding the proposal by the Senator from 
Arizona is to further enlarge the exemption of those who pay this tax, 
so that even fewer than 7,000 will actually pay. Is that correct?
  Mr. CONRAD. My understanding is--and the Senator might correct me--
that under the Kyl proposal the cost would be approaching $200 billion 
over--$458 billion over 10 years.
  Mr. DURBIN. So the Senator from North Dakota, as chairman of the 
Budget Committee, has come to the floor repeatedly with a chart which 
he can get his hands on in a moment that talks about the accumulation 
of debt in America under the Bush administration compared to the 
accumulation of debt in America under all previous Presidents. Does the 
Senator recall the numbers that were involved in that chart?
  Mr. CONRAD. Well, first, in terms of the gross debt of the United 
States, under this President's watch, the gross debt has nearly 
doubled. The foreign holding of U.S. debt has more than doubled.
  This is it. It took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up $1 trillion of 
external debt. Perhaps this is the chart the Senator is referring to. 
It took 42 Presidents, all of these Presidents pictured, 224 years to 
run up $1 trillion of debt, U.S. debt held abroad. This President, as 
you can see, has far more than doubled that amount in 7 years.
  Mr. DURBIN. Let me, through the Chair, ask the Senator from North 
Dakota a question. The pending amendment by the Senator from Arizona is 
not paid for, which means he has not suggested increasing some other 
tax to set it off or cutting spending to offset it; it is simply added 
to the debt of America. And if that debt the Senator from Arizona wants 
to add to our national debt over the next 10 years is funded from 
foreign sources, how much more is going to be added to this figure by 
the amendment of the Senator from Arizona?
  Mr. CONRAD. Well, if his amendment costs another $458 billion, it is 
not offset. And in a typical bond auction now conducted by the United 
States, over

[[Page S1927]]

half of the money, well over half now, is money from abroad. So you can 
take well over half of the $458 billion, and it would be added to this 
external debt.
  Mr. DURBIN. I wish to ask the Senator, who is going to pay this debt?
  Mr. CONRAD. Well, that is the unfortunate part of, as I see it, the 
amendment of the Senator from Arizona. What he is doing is saying--he 
is asking all of us, all Americans, to put our name on the bill. But 
the money is only going to two-tenths of 1 percent of us. I think that 
is unfortunate.
  Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will yield when I am done.
  Mr. KYL. I think it would be fair to let me answer.

  Mr. DURBIN. I think the Senator from North Dakota has the floor. I am 
sure he will yield to the Senator from Arizona.
  So that I understand this--I want to make it clear--in order to 
spare, at a maximum, 7,000 of the wealthiest people in America who may 
die in the outgoing years, in order to spare them estate tax liability, 
even though America has been very kind to them and they have lived very 
comfortable lives because of this great Nation, to spare them the 
possibility of paying back to this country for having lived and enjoyed 
this great Nation, we are going to add some $400 billion plus in debt 
to Americans. And over half of that will end up being debt we owe to 
foreign countries, as I understand the Senator from North Dakota. Is 
that correct?
  Mr. CONRAD. I think that is clearly correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. So for those who are so-called fiscal conservatives, we 
are going to cut taxes for the wealthiest people in America, and add 
debt for everyone else in America, an added debt we are going to borrow 
from overseas and ask our children to pay for it. It sounds like a 
great idea if you happen to be in the lucky 7,000 club. This lucky 
7,000 club that will be benefitted by Senator Kyl's amendment will have 
a great outcome. It appears that everyone loses--I take that back. 
Everyone but China and Japan and other countries will be losers in this 
proposal by the Senator from Arizona. Is that correct?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes, I think that is undeniably the case. The problem 
this country confronts now is we have massive deficits and, under this 
President, a dramatic increase in the debt. So all of these provisions 
are based on borrowed money. So why would we go borrow this amount of 
money, which is increasingly from foreign countries, in order to give a 
benefit to two-tenths of 1 percent of the American people, when 99.8 
percent of the estates in this country are already exempted from the 
taxation? That is lost on me.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I can ask one more question--I know the Senator from 
Arizona wishes to speak--aside from the lucky 7,000 club the Senator 
from Arizona is taking care of, the wealthiest people in America--
nothing but good luck, they have lived comfortable lives in a great 
democratic, free nation with the protection of our laws, and now, as 
they leave and go to perhaps a better place, they want to make sure 
they do not pay back to this Nation, aside from the lucky 7,000 club.
  I wish to ask the Senator from North Dakota, I have heard this 
concept, talking about pay as you go, that the Democrats, when they 
came to control the Congress, would pay for any tax cuts or any 
spending increases so it would not add to the national debt. So I wish 
to ask the Senator from North Dakota, I know he believes in it very 
passionately: Is this a pay-as-you-go proposal from the Republican side 
so that there is no net loss to future generations? Is this being taken 
care of by the Senator from Arizona offsetting it, for example, with an 
increase in taxes on maybe working people of this country or some other 
group or cutting spending in some other area?
  Mr. CONRAD. No, this is all put on the tab. This is all borrowed 
money.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I still have the floor. The Senator from Arizona was 
seeking to ask me a question.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would be happy to have the ranking member 
of the committee make a comment. But I wish to correct some of the 
facts. I can do that either on the Senator's time or on our time.
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield to the Senator from New Hampshire if 
the Senator wishes to engage in this debate or any other debate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I wish to note the Senator from Illinois described these 
people as the lucky 7,000. They are dead. I guess only if you are from 
Chicago do you consider it lucky to be dead. They can still vote.
  I understand the Senator from Arizona feels these numbers are 
inaccurate. I know they are inaccurate. I wish to comment further on 
the Senator's amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that the chairman of 
the Budget Committee and the majority whip have done some extrapolation 
from the number of people who die and two-tenths of a percent of this 
and that and, therefore, they have come up with a number. Why don't I 
quote the actual numbers according to the Joint Tax Committee. These 
are the officials numbers we deal with every year when calculating the 
effect of our legislation. According to the Joint Committee on 
Taxation, if my amendment were to be adopted, 11,800 estates each year 
would be required to file at the exempted levels that are set forth in 
my amendment. If we fail to act, 131,000 families, not 7,000--family 
businesses, farms and so on--will be subjected to the death tax each 
year, starting in the year 2011.
  The point is, these are not individuals. These are families or 
businesses with a lot more people affected by the tax than the number 
of filers. The filer represents all the members of the family or the 
employer of a company. That may be 50 or 60 or 200 people who may be 
out of a job. But that is how many will be subjected to filing this, 
131,000.
  You might make fun of this and say it is a small percentage of the 
number of people in the United States. If you are unfortunate enough to 
die and your heirs have to deal with this problem, it is a very real 
problem to every single one of them. Over a 10-year period, obviously, 
you are talking about way more than a million people. You may say that 
is not a significant enough number to worry about, but it is enough. We 
worry about a few people who suffer from all kinds of things that we 
try to deal with. If you have a million Americans over a 10-year period 
subjected to an unfair tax, it is a problem we ought to address and not 
just make fun of the fact that it is only a million instead of 50 or 
60,000. So let's get the numbers right. You can argue, if it is only 
131,000 people, should we be worried about it. I say yes, somebody on 
the other side might say no, but at least let's get the numbers right.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KYL. Yes.
  Mr. GREGG. As I understand your proposal, which, if I recall 
correctly, got 56 votes in this body last year
  Mr. KYL. That is correct, on the motion to instruct conferees, 56 
Democrats and Republicans voted for this identical proposal.
  Mr. GREGG. I wish to ask the Senator further, through the Chair: As I 
understand the proposal, estates over $10 million would continue to be 
subject to full estate tax obligation; is that correct?
  Mr. KYL. That is correct. The rate would be reduced from 55 percent, 
if we don't do anything, to 35. I believe the majority proposal is 45. 
This would make the top rate no higher than 35 percent.
  Mr. GREGG. So we aren't talking about the wealthiest Americans. We 
are talking about people with significant wealth, up to $10 million. 
But a family farm can easily be valued at $10 million. A small 
business, a restaurant could easily be valued at $10 million. A small 
software company could easily be valued at $10 million. So we are 
talking about continuing, without major tax consequences, small 
businesses and farms that otherwise would be subjected to a very 
onerous tax which might put them out of business; is that not correct?
  Mr. KYL. The answer is yes. If I could expand on that with a true 
story, some friends of my wife and mine in Phoenix had a printing 
business. The head of the household came out from New York in the late 
1940s and from

[[Page S1928]]

scratch built this business which, at the time he died, employed about 
200 people. They didn't take a great deal of money home because in this 
business, you have to plow all your profits back into buying the very 
latest laser printers and all the other equipment to keep it 
competitive. But they did all right as a family, well enough to be a 
major giver in the community. That is how we became friends with them 
because they were contributing to charities significant amounts, 
probably more than they could afford, boys and girls clubs and a 
variety of other charities. They were great contributors to the 
community, both in terms of their business, the people they employed, 
what they did, and how they supported the community. He died. When he 
died, his family found that despite the fact that they had spent 
millions on insurance and other ways to try to plan for his eventual 
death and the estate planning, in order to pay the tax, they had to 
sell the business. They did, and they got enough money to pay the tax. 
The company that bought it, to my knowledge, never contributed a dime 
to any charity in Arizona. It eventually closed the operation. So all 
the people who worked there no longer had a job, no contribution to the 
community. The family literally had to sell the business to pay the 
tax. While they were well off in terms of the average American, they 
were exactly the kind of people you want in your community to provide 
employment. That is the real story.
  We can make fun by saying: Well, it is only 131,000 each year in that 
category. But these are real families who are contributors to the 
economy and to our communities, and we ought to give them a break. Most 
people, even though they know they are not subjected to the tax, still, 
when you ask them the questions in public opinion surveys, say they 
know it is not fair. They like families such as the one I mentioned and 
would like to see this tax either reformed or repealed.
  Mr. GREGG. If I may ask a further question, I think the Senator's 
anecdotal story is one everybody has seen innumerable times in their 
home States: Small businesses put out of business or put under distress 
as a result of the death of a principal in the small business due to 
the estate tax, the death tax. After finishing law school, I went back 
for 3 years and got a master's degree in taxation, which was one of the 
most foolish things I ever did. It only proved to me the tax law is 
totally inane. But I don't believe in the tax law there is any other 
place where there is such a penalty of tax assessment for an act which 
has occurred without any economic event. In other words, the only thing 
that generates this tax is not that you sold a business or built a 
business or that you were involved in some transaction. It is that you 
got hit by a truck crossing the street, which is not an economic act. 
Isn't that why this tax makes no sense on the face of it, especially 
for smaller estates that involve small businesses? It is a noneconomic 
event. It is a ``comes out of the blue'' type of an event. You die, 
unfortunately. If you get hit by a truck, you get sick, any number of 
events can cause that event to occur, but it is not something you have 
control over and, therefore, you can't create economic activity around 
it which is going to give you the wherewithal to pay the tax. Is that 
not true?

  Mr. KYL. If I may respond, as an expert in the Tax Code, the Senator 
from New Hampshire knows the technical name of the doctrine which 
applies in this case, except we have made an exception in the case of 
death. If you are robbed or if your house burns down and you collect 
insurance to pay for that unanticipated loss--not an economic activity; 
you didn't decide to invest and get a return on the investment when 
your house burned down--that is something you did not anticipate. It is 
noneconomic. The Tax Code treats that in a very good way for people, as 
one would expect. You get the insurance on it. You are not taxed on all 
that as income.
  Mr. GREGG. It is called casualty loss.
  Mr. KYL. This is the third. Of the three areas that apply here of 
noneconomic activity with a tax consequence, this is the only place 
where we don't give people a break for these unanticipated activities, 
these noneconomic activities such as death. No, you do get taxed. And, 
yes, the Senator from North Dakota is absolutely correct. The dead 
person is not the person----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Arizona on this 
amendment has expired.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I may conclude, I am answering a question 
of the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is being charged on the amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator be allowed to 
continue and the time come off the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. My train of thought with regard to the answer to the 
question was interrupted.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator was pointing out that there are three elements 
of casualty loss. Two of them you are not taxed on and this one you 
are. And it is the ultimate casualty, dying.
  Mr. KYL. As a matter of tax policy, I will answer my colleague, we 
can differ about the kind of taxes that should apply to economic 
activity, but we do agree that is the kind of activity that should be 
taxed, if it is on a sale, if it is on income, if it is on a return 
such as capital gains or dividends. But where the American people draw 
the line is with regard to death. I recall now the final point I wished 
to make. It is true the dead person doesn't pay the tax, but the people 
who are left to deal with his affairs at the worst time in their life 
do have to deal with this. What we are suggesting is, we ought to make 
it a little bit easier on these folks and not impose the kind of 
penalties that the current Tax Code, if it reverts to this because we 
don't act, goes to the 55 percent tax rate. I am talking about 131,000. 
According to the Joint Tax Committee, the number by the year 2015 will 
be 177,000. So this keeps increasing with respect to the number of 
estates each year that will have to be concerned about the tax.
  Mr. GREGG. As a final question--I think it needs to be emphasized--is 
it not true that this doesn't exempt all estates? This exempts estates 
up to $10 million, which are probably going to be small businesses or 
small farms?
  Mr. KYL. It is actually not quite that. It is $5 million. The way 
this is written, if one spouse, let's say, the person who is not 
running the business, dies first, you can plan so you can get most of 
the effect of $10 million in the unified credit between the estate and 
the gift tax, but it is actually a $5 million exempted amount. So, for 
example, if a single person owns a business, it is only $5 million. It 
is not the amount that would relate to a couple of $10 million.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KYL. Of course.
  Mr. CONRAD. I would like to try to harmonize the numbers because I 
don't want to leave people with the misimpression that we have some 
difference on the numbers because I don't think we do. The Senator is 
talking about 131,000 estates possibly being affected. But that would 
be at the million-dollar-a-person exemption level; is that not the 
case?
  Mr. KYL. I believe that is exactly the case. By the year 2015, it 
would be 177,000 estates.
  Mr. CONRAD. But that is assuming we have a million-dollar-per-person 
exemption. Under what is in the budget, we would have $3.5 million per 
person--$7 million a couple--which, according to our figures, would 
give only 7,000 estates out of 3.5 million any tax. I think the 
difference between your 11,000 and my 7,000 was, you are talking about 
estates that have a filing responsibility. I am talking about estates 
that would actually have a tax liability. As the Senator well knows, 
there are some additional people who have a filing obligation even 
though they don't have a liability.
  The numbers the Senator and I are using are actually quite close. We 
are using somewhat different assumptions. He is talking about if we 
went down, which current law does, to a million dollar exemption in 
2011, 131,000 estates would be affected. What we are seeking to do is 
to make certain that does not occur, that the exemption amount be $3.5 
million a person, $7 million a couple, which would exempt 99.8 percent 
of estates.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would say to the chairman he is correct. I 
cannot verify the number 7,000 the chairman is

[[Page S1929]]

talking about, but I can verify the number I am talking about. The 
Joint Committee on Taxation projects that 11,800 estates would be 
required to file estate tax returns each year. So that is a correct 
statement.
  Of course, the additional point I made earlier was that not everybody 
knows exactly what their liability is and, therefore, you have about 10 
times as many people who have to end up filling out the forms, going to 
the expense of anywhere between $5,000 and $1 million to complete the 
forms, the 38 hours it takes to do it, only to find some of them do 
have a tax liability at the end of the day. Some of them do not. The 
fact that you may not be subject to the tax does not diminish the fact 
that you will be obligated to spend the money to file a return and do 
all the work to try to figure out that, in fact, you don't owe the tax.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is absolutely fair. I didn't want to leave some 
impression that you and I had some great difference on the numbers. I 
think our numbers are actually very close.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I might respond with one final point, when 
you got to calculating how many--the lucky 7,000, and all that--I think 
there was some extrapolation going on, and I think the chairman is 
right, we should stick to the numbers from Joint Tax. That way at least 
we know exactly what we are talking about.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, may I be recognized 
for a moment? I have a housekeeping item we need to address.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4196, which 
I sent to the desk, be restyled as being offered on behalf of Senator 
Salazar. I sent it to the desk in the name of Senator Baucus.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. That should be in the name of Senator Salazar. He is the 
mover of that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire has the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Well, Mr. President, Senator Conrad, I think, was going to 
straighten this out. But I think the plan now is to go to Senator 
DeMint. He needs approximately 20 minutes. Then there would be whatever 
time the Senator from North Dakota plans to respond. Then we will go to 
Senator Bunning.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, why don't we do this out of courtesy to 
Senator Bunning, who is already here: If we could go to Senator 
DeMint--how much time would Senator DeMint require?
  Mr. DeMINT. About 20 minutes or so.
  Mr. CONRAD. Could we reach an agreement on up to 25 minutes?
  Mr. DeMINT. Exactly.
  Mr. CONRAD. Because Senator Bunning was put on notice earlier he 
could come at roughly this time. I would be happy to withhold on 
Senator DeMint's amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. I see Senator Specter who also has an amendment. Maybe he 
wants to speak.
  Mr. CONRAD. Maybe we could get him in the train as well so he would 
know when he was up.
  Mr. SPECTER. Fine.
  Mr. CONRAD. How much time would the Senator from Kentucky require?
  Mr. BUNNING. No more than 15 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Well, shall we enter into an agreement: up to 25 minutes 
for Senator DeMint, followed by Senator Bunning for up to 15 minutes. 
And then, I say to Senator Specter, how much time would you like?
  Mr. SPECTER. Fifteen minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Up to 15 minutes there. That would take us another hour 
down the road. We will do it off the resolution. Is that fair?
  Mr. GREGG. Senator Bunning is going to be offering an amendment, so 
we can do his off his amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. OK.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Thank you, Mr. President. I wish to make sure my time is 
counted against the resolution and not the amendment that was just 
brought up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be counted against the resolution.
  Mr. DeMINT. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I rise this morning to speak on an amendment I will offer to the 2009 
budget resolution on behalf of myself and a bipartisan group of 
reformers in the Senate.
  This amendment creates a 1-year moratorium on all earmarks. It does 
so by establishing a 67-vote point of order against bills, joint 
resolutions, conference reports, and messages between Houses that 
contain congressional earmarks for the fiscal year 2009.
  This is very important to the budget debate. As we look at this 
budget, with planned spending over the next 10 years, we have clearly--
both parties--helped to wreck the budget at the Federal level, while 
every month we expect families across this country to balance their 
budget.
  I would like to start with a little background. Before I came to 
Congress, one of my jobs was training quality development people in 
organizations. We worked on quality improvement--quality process 
improvement--for a number of years. One of the great consultants in 
that field, Tom Peters, wrote a book ``In Search of Excellence.''
  One of the examples he gave in the book, related to improving 
quality, was a person who got on an airplane and pulled down their tray 
and saw a coffee stain there. People could say a coffee stain on a tray 
in an airplane is not a big deal. But many times we get our cues about 
quality, or about whom we can trust and why, from things that are 
different than the real substance.
  But his point was, if you see a coffee stain, you not only are 
concerned about how the cleaning service does in that airplane, you 
wonder: If they are not able to clean up a coffee stain, are they 
maintaining the engines? Is this a safe plane to fly in?

  For us in Congress, our coffee stain is earmarks. Earmarks tell 
Americans we cannot be trusted to spend their money in a way that is 
efficient and for the good of our country. Americans know if we 
continue to throw their tax dollars at bridges to nowhere or hippie 
museums--or a number of things I will talk about today--that if we 
cannot be trusted to do those things, certainly how can we be trusted 
to do the big things in this country.
  We have lost our moral authority. We have undermined the trust of the 
American people. A lot of that goes right back to our coffee stain, 
which is earmarks.
  In 2006, many in this body, particularly my friends on the other 
side, promised to clean up earmarks in Washington. But after 1 year, 
things have gone back to business as usual. The number of earmarks had 
fallen to 2,600 in 2007 because we were able to stop this huge omnibus 
spending bill that was going through. But now earmarks are back up to 
all-time highs. This year, there are 11,612 earmarks, costing $17.2 
billion, according to Citizens Against Government Waste. It is the 
highest level of earmarks in history.
  It came through in this Omnibus appropriations bill, which we were 
given less than 48 hours to review. No one read it. It was full of 
earmarks, full of wasteful earmarks and wasteful Government spending.
  We still expect the American family to balance their budget while we 
continue to wreck the budget at the Federal level.
  Last year, we worked together to pass earmark reforms, but, 
unfortunately, many of these reforms have been gutted or ignored. As 
many of my colleagues know, the earmark rule we passed 98 to 0 was 
watered down behind closed doors and then passed despite our 
objections. Those in this body who oppose change insisted on continuing 
business as usual.
  I would like to review a little bit the history of the debate so 
everyone knows how we got to this place. For Americans who may be 
looking in and still wondering what earmarks are--and I, frankly, 
confess when I came to Congress I did not know what an earmark was--it 
is when every Member of Congress and the Senate feel like it is their 
responsibility to take a piece of taxpayer money and designate it to a 
particular favorite project or cause or organization back in their 
congressional district or State. Instead of doing what is good for the 
country, we do what is good for our next election,

[[Page S1930]]

and we use taxpayer dollars to enhance our image back home.
  Mr. President, 2007 started off with a pretty hopeful note. I 
actually offered Speaker Pelosi's earmark transparency measure as an 
amendment to the Senate ethics bill. But, unfortunately, the leadership 
on the other side tried to kill the Pelosi transparency language which 
would have required disclosure of all earmarks instead of 5 percent, as 
we had on the Senate side. But the effort to kill my amendment failed, 
and we won the day.
  Republicans voted with me and a few brave Democrats--Claire McCaskill 
and some others--joined us in saying: Enough is enough; America needs 
to know what we are spending. We were able to pass that transparency 
bill. But the original Pelosi-DeMint transparency rule that was part of 
Senate bill No. 1 last year, and agreed to unanimously, said 
authorization earmarks could not be added or airdropped into conference 
reports with the House. But that provision has been gutted and ignored.
  The original Pelosi-DeMint transparency rule gave Senators the right 
to force a vote on individual earmarks that were added into conference 
reports in the dark of night. But that provision was secretly gutted.
  The original Pelosi-DeMint transparency rule said bills containing 
earmarks could not be brought to the floor until we had at least 48 
hours to read the bill online in an easily searchable format. That was 
not easily searchable with this bill you are looking at on the table. 
But that provision, too, has been gutted and ignored.
  In fact, in less than 24 hours we brought this bill to the Senate 
floor--the largest appropriations bill in our history--that contained 
over 11,000 earmarks, and it passed in less than 48 hours. No one read 
that bill.
  We are wrecking the Federal budget, and we still expect Americans to 
balance their family budget.
  The original Pelosi-DeMint transparency rule said neither the Senator 
nor his or her family could financially benefit from an earmark, but 
that provision has been changed to the point where it is almost 
meaningless.
  The original Pelosi-DeMint transparency rule said the 
Parliamentarian, who is nonpartisan and whose job is to make impartial 
rulings, would be responsible for determining if bills brought to the 
floor complied with earmark transparency rules. That was a good rule, 
but that has been gutted. The provision has been changed so that now 
the majority leader and the chairman of Appropriations verify if it has 
met the rules.
  The list goes on and on.
  The Senate also passed legislation last year to ban the practice of 
what we call phone-marking or letter-marking, which occurs when 
Senators secretly request earmarks by pressuring agencies with phone 
calls or letters without complying with the earmark disclosure rules. 
That provision has been gutted.
  Last year, the majority promised to cut the number of earmarks in 
half. But they did not. Instead, we passed the second highest level of 
earmarks in history. You can see from this chart, Republicans did a 
lousy job containing the number of earmarks, but we were able--by 
stopping an Omnibus appropriations bill before we left the majority--to 
reduce the number to 2,600. But last year it went back up to the second 
highest level in history--a lot of broken promises.
  I also wish to review some things about the earmark system and why it 
is broken. In the last 20 years, porkbarrel earmarks have exploded. In 
1987, Ronald Reagan vetoed a bill that had only 121 earmarks. Here is 
what he said:

       I haven't seen this much lard since I handed out blue 
     ribbons at the Iowa State Fair.

  Mr. President, 121 earmarks. We are dealing with tens of thousands of 
earmarks now every year. By 2005, earmarks had skyrocketed to about 
14,000 wasteful earmarks into our spending bills. In fact, since 2000, 
Congress has spent more than $188 billion of Americans' taxpayer 
dollars on over 77,000 porkbarrel projects.
  Americans are outraged about a system that hands out their tax 
dollars based on political influence and congressional seniority 
instead of on the merit of the projects. Here are a few examples of the 
results of the earmark favor factory over the last several years. Keep 
in mind as I read these earmarks, this is hard-working American tax 
dollars coming to us. We are expecting the family to use their money 
responsibly to balance their checkbook. Here is what we are doing with 
their tax dollars:
  The International Fund for Ireland, funding the World Toilet Summit, 
$13.5 million; Richard Steele Boxing Club, $100,000--this is at a time 
we are creating debt and waste every year--animal waste research and 
management, $4.75 million; a study to determine if poultry litter can 
generate electricity, $225,000; the Tiger Woods Foundation--he is 
hurting for money--$100,000; golf charity, $3 million taken out of the 
Department of Defense budget for a golf charity; Museum of Glass, 
$550,000; a fake prison museum, $100,000; the Rock and Roll Hall of 
Fame--a clear national priority--$200,000; The Historic Coal Library, 
$800,000; wine research, $11 million; Baseball Hall of Fame, $750,000; 
the National Wild Turkey Federation, $500,000; grasshopper research, 
$775,000; bike paths, $6.8 million; Montana Sheep Institute, $400,000; 
National Peanut Festival, $200,000; ornamental fish research, $600,000; 
Grammy Institute, $800,000; the American Film Institute, $90,000; DNA 
study of bears, $1 million; study to analyze bear fur, $300,000; wood 
research, $9.5 million; Cowgirl Hall of Fame, $90,000; Indoor Rain 
Forest, $50 million; water-free men's urinals, $2 million; Charlie 
Rangel Monument, $2 million; Teapot Museum, $500,000; an 85-foot 
speedboat the Navy didn't want and refused to use, $4.5 million; 
Woodstock Hippie Museum, $1 million; Coconut Road highway project that 
was unwanted by the city it was sent to, $10 million; shirts for the 
U.S. Marine Corps that were found to melt in battle and caused severe 
disfiguring burns, $2 million; National Drug Intelligence Center that 
duplicates work already done by 19 other Federal agencies and which the 
OMB asked to be shut down--we still gave them $400 million; and, of 
course, the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska, $320 million.

  Folks, there are people who come to this floor during this debate and 
cite earmarks that they say are good, and certainly we can find some. 
But for every one earmark that could be justified, we could find 
hundreds that sound just like the ones I read today. At a time when our 
country is in severe deficit, when we are at war and the American 
family is straining every month in their budget, we are throwing their 
money away--coffee stain after coffee stain, demonstrating to the 
American people that we don't have the commitment to do what is best 
for this country.
  This is just scratching the surface. Did I read a couple of dozen? 
There are almost 12,000 right here that Americans will never know how 
their money is spent.
  Besides the waste, earmarks have also led to corruption. Let me say 
that I have spent enough time working with my colleagues to know that 
most are not corrupt. They love their country, and they want to make it 
a better place. But the system of earmarking has taken our energy and 
diverted it away from solving national problems and wasted it on the 
task of steering tax dollars back home. This perversion of purpose has 
undoubtedly led to real corruption scandals that have caused the 
American people to lose trust in Congress.
  In 2006, former Congressman Duke Cunningham was sentenced to 8 years 
in prison for trading earmarks for over $2.4 million in personal 
bribes. As reported by ABC News at the time, Cunningham actually kept a 
bribe menu where he listed what payments he demanded in return for 
earmarks from Government. This card here shows an escalating scale for 
bribes, starting at $140,000 and a luxury yacht for a $16 million 
Defense Department contract. Each additional $1 million in contract 
value required $50,000 in bribes. The rate dropped to $25,000 per 
additional million once the contract went over $20 million.
  Also in 2006, former lobbyist Jack Abramoff was sentenced to nearly 6 
years in prison for corruption and fraud. Abramoff pleaded guilty to 
defrauding numerous Indian tribes for which he helped secure earmarks. 
It was Jack Abramoff who called the congressional appropriations 
process the

[[Page S1931]]

``earmark favor factory'' for his ability to secure millions in 
taxpayer funds for his clients.
  There are thousands of lobbyists who are sent here by towns and 
universities, small colleges, organizations that are up here trying to 
get a piece of these Federal handouts that we call earmarks. It is 
corrupting the whole process.
  Why is it so easy for this earmarking system to lead to corruption? 
It is because there is so little oversight. Rather than being funded 
based on merit, they are chosen based on political influence and 
congressional seniority. Is a sewer or a highway project in West 
Virginia more worthy than one in Wyoming simply because the State's 
Senator holds a high-ranking appropriations seat? I don't think so.
  Americans are frustrated with Congress. Congressional approval is at 
alltime historic lows. Voters threw out the Republicans in 2006 hoping 
for a change, but not much has changed. Wasteful Washington spending 
hasn't stopped. We continue to wreck the Federal budget as Americans 
are struggling to balance theirs. The congressional favor factory 
hasn't been closed; it is just under new management.
  When Members of Congress are sworn into office, we take an oath to 
support and defend the Constitution of the United States. This 
Constitution prescribes a limited role for the Federal Government, 
whose purpose is to ``form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, 
ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote 
the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty.''
  This purpose statement should give Congress a clear focus on national 
priorities and the good of the Nation as a whole. Unfortunately, many 
in Congress have forgotten that oath and lost sight of our 
congressional purpose. I did not raise my hand and swear allegiance to 
the State of South Carolina and promise to get them as much Federal 
money as I could. Those who say it is a constitutional responsibility 
to earmark are not using quotes from this document, the Constitution. 
In fact, everything in here suggests a national priority. It suggests a 
uniform way in collecting taxes. It says: No preference should be given 
to a State when money is appropriated, and it says this, which is key: 
that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of 
appropriation made by law.
  Over 95 percent of the earmarks we produce here in this Congress are 
not law, they are not constitutional, and there is no excuse for them 
at all. We can't hide behind this Constitution. It does not give us the 
authority, explicitly or implicitly, to take on a local and State role, 
decide where water and sewer plants go, where bike paths go, which 
local museum should be funded. That is not our job, but that is a 
reason we are not dealing with a broken Tax Code, a broken Social 
Security system, a broken Medicare system, how we deal with keeping 
jobs in this country, because we are spending most of our time trying 
to figure out what needs to be done back in our local communities.
  The primary culprit of most of the problems we are dealing with here 
is the addictive power of congressional earmarks that we are trying to 
stop today. My objection to earmarks is not to specific Members. The 
requirement that earmarks now have names on them makes them more 
personal, but it is really the earmarking system that is the problem.
  When Members of Congress invest their time in securing Federal funds 
for sewer plants and bike paths, as I have mentioned, they are doing 
more than assuming a Federal role for a local responsibility; they are 
locking themselves into voting for whatever bill contains their 
projects. That is how leadership here in Congress gets us to vote for 
bills that are billions over budget and contain lots of bad policy--
they cram in their projects that make it very difficult for us to vote 
against. For this reason, Congress has repeatedly, regardless of which 
party is in charge, demonstrated an inability to curb out-of-control 
spending. Members who may otherwise vote against a massive, wasteful 
spending bill end up voting aye because it contains a project for a 
special interest back home.

  In January, the first baby boomer received her first Social Security 
check. In just 3 years, she will qualify for Medicare. With 77 million 
Americans in line right now behind her, now is the time for Congress to 
address the long-term fiscal crisis that lies ahead. Social Security 
and Medicare are trillions of dollars underfunded. Yet we are focused 
on using earmarks to deal with local issues such as determining the 
location of local parks and community centers, and we are failing to 
address these serious national problems. We are wrecking the Federal 
budget while Americans are struggling to meet their family budget.
  I didn't come to Washington to fight against earmarks. I didn't even 
know what they were when I got here. I came here to work on tax reform 
and fixing Social Security and Medicare. But the culture of earmarks is 
distracting the attention of Congress from much needed national 
reforms. So I have made eliminating earmarks an urgent and immediate 
goal.
  One of the things I found out in trying to improve the quality 
culture in organizations is you have to understand the root causes of 
problems and not spend your time treating symptoms. The root cause of 
many of the problems, particularly the wasteful spending in this 
Congress, is earmarks.
  Already in this new Congress, which promised to be more transparent 
and to cut earmarks in half, we have seen many shameless requests for 
pork projects, including taxpayer-funded monuments to individual 
Members of Congress. Worse, Members of Congress insist on hiding these 
wasteful pork projects behind some of our Nation's most important 
priorities. We have held hostage health care for poor children, 
veterans benefits, and funding for our troops in order to sneak through 
porkbarrel projects.
  We have basically made human shields of our most vulnerable 
Americans, giving Members of Congress two bad choices: Either we vote 
for bloated bills that are billions over budget and full of wasteful 
earmarks or we vote against national priorities and needy constituents. 
This is no way to run the most important Government in the world.
  So we ended another year with a lot more debt and a lot more broken 
promises. We have not helped Americans buy health insurance; in fact, 
we have made it harder. We haven't cut spending; we have raised it. Our 
antiquated Tax Code continues to chase jobs overseas, and we have not 
addressed the huge entitlement crisis. Meanwhile, we increased the 
number of special interests and wasteful earmarks from last year, and 
both parties are bragging that we did better than expected. Instead of 
keeping promises, we have let the earmarking system pervert our purpose 
as Members of Congress.
  The purpose of the amendment that I have with the budget is to take a 
timeout. When you have a problem, when you have an addiction, you have 
to agree you have a problem and you have to get into rehab. Congress 
needs to get into rehab. We need to stop earmarking this year, take a 
timeout, and figure out how to reform the system. Those who continue to 
give excuses, who say: No, we don't need a timeout, we will fix it, I 
have been listening to for 8 years. They keep saying there is a problem 
we need to fix, but they never do. It is time to take this issue 
seriously, to get earmarks off the table so that we can look at it 
objectively.
  I would encourage all of my colleagues to join me, the Republican 
nominee for President, John McCain; the two Democratic possibilities 
for President, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton; and Claire McCaskill 
and vote for this amendment and show America we can be trusted.
  I thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous 
consent request?
  Mr. BUNNING. I will yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Pennsylvania, both of whom I 
think are to be recognized, I be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask that the unanimous consent request be 
modified as recognized for the purpose of speaking but not for the 
purpose of offering an amendment.

[[Page S1932]]

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask that the request be so modified. I 
do want to talk to the two Senators about being able to offer the 
amendment about which I will speak, but I will do that at another time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4192

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that my amendment No. 4192 at the desk be 
called up for consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4192.

  Mr. BUNNING. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To repeal the tax increase on Social Security benefits 
       imposed by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993)

       On page 3, line 11, decrease the amount by $14,300,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, decrease the amount by $15,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, decrease the amount by $17,500,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $19,800,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $21,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, decrease the amount by $14,300,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, decrease the amount by $15,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 22, decrease the amount by $17,500,000,000.
       On page 3, line 23, decrease the amount by $19,800,000,000.
       On page 3, line 24, decrease the amount by $21,600,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, decrease the amount by $14,300,000,000
       On page 4, line 6, decrease the amount by $15,600,000,000
       On page 4, line 7, decrease the amount by $17,500,000,000
       On page 4, line 8, decrease the amount by $19,800,000,000
       On page 4, line 9, decrease the amount by $21,600,000,000
       On page 4, line 14, decrease the amount by $14,300,000,000
       On page 4, line 15, decrease the amount by $15,600,000,000
       On page 4, line 16, decrease the amount by $17,500,000,000
       On page 4, line 17, decrease the amount by $19,800,000,000
       On page 4, line 18, decrease the amount by $21,600,000,000
       On page 27, line 16, decrease the amount by 
     $14,300,000,000.
       On page 27, line 17, decrease the amount by 
     $14,300,000,000.
       On page 27, line 20, decrease the amount by 
     $15,600,000,000.
       On page 27, line 21, decrease the amount by 
     $15,600,000,000.
       On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by 
     $17,500,000,000.
       On page 27, line 25, decrease the amount by 
     $17,500,000,000.
       On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $19,800,000,000.
       On page 28, line 4, decrease the amount by $19,800,000,000.
       On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $21,600,000,000.
       On page 28, line 8, decrease the amount by $21,600,000,000.

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I spoke about this yesterday, and I have 
brought it to this Chamber before on numerous occasions. In fact, the 
Senate adopted a very similar amendment by unanimous consent last year, 
and it passed on a recorded vote 2 years earlier.
  My amendment would repeal an unfair tax that Congress enacted in 
1993. The Congressional Budget Office has said that over 15 million 
senior citizens are affected by the taxation of Social Security 
benefits. When Congress created the Social Security Program to provide 
income security for seniors, part of the structure of that program, and 
one of the reasons for its popularity, was that benefits were not 
taxed. I will say that again.
  Social Security benefits were not taxed when the program was created. 
In 1983, the Greenspan Commission and Congress decided that half of the 
benefits of some seniors should be subject to taxation and, in 1993, 
raised that amount to 85 percent of the Social Security benefits that a 
senior citizen receives.
  This tax affected supposedly ``wealthy'' seniors, with incomes above 
$34,000 for single seniors, and $44,000 for a couple. Those are 
supposedly wealthy senior citizens. The goal of this seemed to be to 
impose a type of means testing on Social Security beneficiaries--in 
other words, tilting the benefit structure in favor of low-income 
seniors, making it more like a welfare program.
  This is the kind of change Senator Patrick Moynihan often warned 
Congress about. But the Ways and Means Committee and the President 
ignored his warnings. If that was the goal, the legislation was 
fundamentally flawed. The $34,000 and $44,000 amounts were not indexed 
for inflation. I can assure you that seniors earning these amounts do 
not consider themselves wealthy at all--particularly with the increased 
cost of prescription drugs, rent, or mortgage payments, gasoline, 
particularly with unleaded regular being $3.20 a gallon now, heating 
oil, and even food prices that seniors are experiencing today.
  My amendment is fairly simple. It drops the tax back to the pre-1993 
level, starting in 2008, this year, in this budget. This means the 85 
percent tax would be eliminated, and the maximum amount of Social 
Security benefits that could be taxed would be 50 percent. The revenue 
from the 1993 tax was applied to the Medicare trust fund.
  My amendment would make the trust fund whole by offsetting the cost 
of the tax rollback by $89 billion over 5 years, with an adjustment to 
function 920 of the budget.
  The inspector general's and the CBO's budget operation report 
identified over $300 billion in potential savings on Government 
programs over the next 5 years. I believe the committee of jurisdiction 
can review wasteful Government spending in order to offset this 
extremely important tax cut for America's seniors. This was an unfair 
tax on our seniors when it was enacted, and it is time we repeal it.
  Think of this now. A senior citizen, single, with an income of 
$34,000 receiving maybe $36,000 from Social Security and other income, 
and they have to pay 85 percent tax on that Social Security benefit--85 
percent. That is the largest, highest taxation of any benefit we 
receive from the Federal Government--85 percent of anything. Say I 
receive $36,000 from the Federal Government in Social Security benefits 
and other income. On the $34,000 I receive from Social Security, 85 
percent of that is taxed at the normal rate that I would pay in 
whatever tax bracket I fall under. The same goes with a married couple. 
Married couples, both seniors, both have unusual expenses as far as 
prescription drugs, and some have prescription drugs amounting to maybe 
$1,000 each per month--maybe $1,000 each per month, home heating oil, 
gas and electric to heat their homes or cool their homes, groceries--
all these things add up for our seniors today. This tax is completely 
and totally unfair to the senior citizens we have today.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, as many have in the 
past. This is something that should have been done a long time ago. I 
have tried, since its inception in 1993, to get this repealed back to 
the 50-percent level. I have not been successful. The majority, last 
year, accepted this amendment by unanimous consent. It went to the 
conference committee and was kicked out. They accepted it, said they 
would try to do it, and then because of the cost it was kicked out.
  What does that tell our senior citizens in the United States--that 
they are second-class citizens; they have to pay more on their Social 
Security benefits than anybody else. I don't think that is fair. I 
think it is time that we did something about it.
  So, please, I ask my colleagues on the Senate floor, help us this 
year finally repeal this unfair tax that we added to our seniors in 
1993.
  Mr. President, I will ask for the yeas and nays when the amendment 
comes up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesy and 
for his work on the Budget Committee. Senator Martinez would like time 
on a separate matter, not a budget-related matter. This might be a very 
good time to do that. We hate to have dead time on the floor. How much 
time would the Senator need?
  Mr. MARTINEZ. About 10 or 15 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we will give him up to 15 minutes off the 
resolution.

[[Page S1933]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.


                    Honoring Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Budget 
Committee. I appreciate this opportunity. It is something that I am 
doing in conjunction with Senator Menendez. Senator Menendez is at a 
Banking Committee hearing and will be here shortly to participate.
  Today, I rise to speak about a man who is best described as a 
defender of freedom and human rights, a consistent voice for change, 
and a shining point of defiance within a country rife with oppression.
  This man is Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet--a Cuban who has made his life's 
work being an advocate for democracy and a defender of human rights. 
This individual risked jail time for publicly denouncing the countless 
human rights violations performed by the Cuban regime.
  As a result, Dr. Biscet is today locked in a jail cell as one of 
Cuba's hundreds of political prisoners--people held for crimes not 
against society but for speaking out against the systematic repression 
of the regime. What was Dr. Biscet's crime? He called for freedom.
  I bring attention to Dr. Biscet because I believe, even in his 
relatively young life, he has exhibited actions that rise to the level 
of the extraordinary and worthy of our recognition.
  This is why today I, along with my colleagues, Senators Bob Menendez, 
Bill Nelson, John Ensign, and Norm Coleman, will introduce a measure to 
award the Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet. This is 
in recognition of his courageous and unwavering commitment to 
democracy, human rights, and peaceful change in Cuba.
  Over time, Congress has recognized many individuals who have made 
contributions to advancing freedom around the world.
  Among these individuals are proponents of peace and liberty, 
including Nelson Mandela, Pope John Paul II, the Dalai Lama, and Dr. 
Martin Luther King, Jr. All have been awarded the highest award 
bestowed to civilians by Congress. Dr. Biscet is equally worthy of this 
distinction. In fact, he has modeled his efforts after those of Dr. 
King, the Dalai Lama, Thoreau, and Gandhi.
  We should recognize him for speaking out, even though he knew he 
risked the regime's harassment, censure, and incarceration, and for 
drawing the world's attention to the regime's horrific record of human 
rights and disregard for human dignity and for always conducting his 
work through peaceful means.
  He is a hero among his people and deserves Congress's recognition for 
his courageous commitment to the principles we hold dear: democracy, 
human rights, and freedom for all.
  Throughout his life, Dr. Biscet has served others and has helped to 
bring the regime's injustices to light.
  As a physician, he provided care to those living in his hometown of 
Havana, doing his best to practice in the poor conditions that are 
common in Cuba's hospitals and state-run health care facilities.
  In 1997, Dr. Biscet founded the Lawton Foundation for Human Rights--a 
group named for the neighborhood in Havana in which he lived, and an 
organization whose main objective is to establish in Cuba a state based 
on the rule of law.
  In the talks he gave before being imprisoned and in his letters 
smuggled out of prison these last few years remains a common theme 
involving the intrinsic value of liberty and human rights.
  In establishing the Lawton Foundation, Dr. Biscet wrote that the 
purpose of it is ``to defend the inalienable rights of the human race 
we understand the need to put limits on government to prevent the 
undermining of those rights. It is because of this that we have become 
activists in this organization--to establish in our country the rule of 
law, so that each man and woman may be fulfilled as complete human 
beings.''
  And for defending these universal principles of freedom, the 
foundation's members are often harassed, censured, and incarcerated.
  The foundation's mission and objective may be simple; yet it is so 
important. ``It promotes the defense of all Cubans through nonviolent 
civil disobedience''--a practice set forth by Henry David Thoreau, who 
wrote that ``the individual is [a higher and independent power] from 
which the state obtains its power.''
  This is Dr. Biscet's belief; it is his guide; it is a truth he 
continues to promote today--even from the confines of a Cuban prison.
  In 1998, after publicly criticizing the quality of the Cuban national 
health care system, the doctor was summarily thrown in jail and 
forbidden from practicing medicine anywhere in the country.
  Even though he has been publicly disparaged and ostracized by the 
regime, he has always remained committed to advancing a message of 
peaceful political change and nonviolent disobedience.
  In 1999, he was arrested for displaying the Cuban flag upside down at 
a political rally and, as punishment, he was again thrown into a prison 
and savagely beaten, kicked, and burned.
  For his work, he was arbitrarily detained 26 times in 18 months. This 
is without the benefit of a grand jury, an indictment, or counsel, and 
without the benefit of the types of protections that are commonly 
afforded to prisoners in most anyplace in the world, or certainly the 
kind of opportunity that those detained in Guantanamo had to have: the 
Red Cross visit and view and examine their conditions. None of these 
things are permitted in Cuba's gulag of prisons. After his most recent 
arrest in 2003, following a peaceful protest in Havana, Dr. Biscet is 
now serving the fifth year of what is called a 25-year sentence. There 
was no fair trial, there was no counsel. This was a sentence issued by 
nothing more than one of those courts that the Castro regime has 
utilized now for almost half a century.

  The Castro brothers have described Dr. Biscet as a ringleader of 
counterrevolutionary activities. The reality is Dr. Biscet wants his 
people to be free. Amnesty International has declared Dr. Biscet a 
prisoner of conscience--someone who has been imprisoned solely for the 
peaceful expression of their beliefs.
  The Cuban regime has put Dr. Biscet and his family through the kind 
of anguish few in this country could ever imagine. He has committed no 
crimes, and yet he sits in prison fighting for a freedom he and most of 
the island's 11 million Cubans have never known.
  As a human rights activist, Dr. Biscet finds inspiration in the words 
of many men who share his desire to achieve peaceful change. He speaks 
of the Dalai Lama's message of peace, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s mission 
of tolerance, and Mahatma Gandhi's lifetime of unwavering faith.
  This is a picture of Dr. Biscet. It is a picture before the last 5 
years have transpired, because now we cannot obtain a picture of him. 
He is given very few visits, and those visits are closely monitored. It 
would be unthinkable to have the opportunity to take a picture of him. 
I will speak a little more about his confinement in a moment.
  We both share a passion to one day see a free and peaceful Cuba, one 
where the people can hold free and fair elections so they might choose 
their own leaders, so they will not live in fear under an oppressive 
and illegitimate dictatorship.
  The Cuban regime, sensing the hope brought about by Dr. Biscet's 
efforts, sought to make him a tool of the regime. The regime offered 
him a choice: He could stay in prison or he could leave Cuba and never 
return. He could leave the country or he could remain behind. Instead 
of leaving his jail cell, Dr. Biscet has courageously pleaded to stay 
and sacrifice his own well-being so he might continue providing hope 
and encouragement to the Cuban people.
  This is a replica of the cell Dr. Biscet is in today. It is a mock-up 
because we could not take pictures of that cell, but it is faithfully 
drawn from the types of cells the regime commonly holds prisoners in. 
As you can see, it is completely closed. There is no light when that 
door is closed inside, the 3-foot-by-4-foot space that is provided for 
a prisoner.
  As a result of his refusal to abandon the cause he so dearly believes 
in, Dr. Biscet remains in deplorable conditions, in a rat-infested 
cellblock, and in fact is needing medical care and getting none. This 
replica of the cell was described by Dr. Biscet in a letter to

[[Page S1934]]

his wife. He once described the conditions he lives in today. This is 
what he wrote:

       I'm arbitrarily confined in a cell with characteristics 
     that violate the law; there are no windows, only walls; a 
     gloomy space lacking sunlight and the sky's visibility. This 
     is humiliating and illegal. Of the 8 months I have been in 
     prison in Pinar del Rio, I have seen my family only once, 
     during 2 hours, in the month of August. I am not allowed to 
     have any type of communication with my son and daughter who 
     live abroad.

  These are conditions no one should ever have to endure.
  In his most recent letter, dated March 1, 2008, a few weeks ago--and, 
by the way, he writes on whatever he can find, toilet paper or any 
other means, because he is not provided paper and pencil to write--he 
again called on the regime to change. He called for:

       Freedom of all political prisoners and prisoners of 
     conscience without deportation; participation with the same 
     rights for all Cubans; allowing the legalization of all 
     political parties, to revoke the absolute rule of the 
     Communist party over society and a commitment to carry out 
     free and democratic elections.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have Dr. Biscet's full 
letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Message sent by Dr. Biscet on March 1, 2008 to his wife from 
         the ``Combinado del Este'' jail in Havana, Cuba where he 
         is currently imprisoned:
       Fidel Castro has left power. He should have done it 20 
     years ago when Mikhail Gorbachev traveled to the island. He 
     wisely recommended it to him, that way it would have reduced 
     the years of misery, lack of freedom and cruel suffering of 
     the Cuban people under a prolonged, unnecessary and poorly 
     run government.
       His brother, Raul, inherited his job and his Communist 
     party maintains a totalitarian, one party system, with the 
     only change being that of imposing more laws on the 
     population during his short time in office.
       The Cuban people and their opposition leaders should fast 
     and pray to God and demand that the authorities of the 
     country sign and carry out the International Covenants of 
     Human, Civil, Political, Cultural and Social Rights.
       Thanks to the support from the Cuban exile community and of 
     the governments of free and democratic countries, after a 
     year and five months of demands, the regime in Havana 
     promised to carry out these objectives, although they have 
     yet to materialize. When the previously issued complaints are 
     addressed and the following rights are granted:
       1. Freedom of all the political prisoners and prisoners of 
     conscience without deportation.
       2. Participation with the same rights for all Cubans, 
     including the exiles, without exception, in the political and 
     economic life of the country.
       3. To allow the legalization of various political parties 
     in accordance with the interests of the Cuban people.
       4. To revoke the constitution and the absolute rule of the 
     communist party over society.
       5. Commitment to carrying out free and democratic 
     elections.

     then we will be able to say that the period of democratic 
     transition has begun in Cuba.
       Gorbachev in the former Soviet Union, Pinochet in Chile, 
     and DeClercq in South Africa, had the courage and the 
     pragmatism to make democratic reforms. The goals of the Cuban 
     people are to live in peace, well-being, happiness, and to 
     achieve the goals, freedom is needed.
       The current government should make openings to reach these 
     objectives and the citizens should continue to search for 
     them by means of civil disobedience.
       ``Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue 
     oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and 
     withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making 
     widows their prey and robbing the fatherless. What will you 
     do on the day of reckoning, when disaster comes from afar? To 
     whom will you run for help? Where will you leave your riches? 
     Nothing will remain but to cringe among the captives or fall 
     among the slain. Yet for all this, his anger is not turned 
     away, his hand is still upraised.''--Isaiah Chapter 10, v. 1-
     4.

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, in a recent column discussing the 
disaster that the Castro regime has visited upon Cuba, columnist George 
Will wrote about another Cuban, Armando Valladares, who withstood the 
regime's brutal prison system for 22 years. Of the prison's conditions, 
Will wrote:

       Some doors are welded shut and prisoners are fed watery 
     soup sometimes laced with glass, or dead rats, or half a 
     cow's intestine, rectum included, containing feces.

  This is the ugly reality of what speaking openly against the Castro 
regime gets you in Cuba. Today there are hundreds of political 
prisoners in the many prisons that have cropped up since the Castro 
regime took power. Dr. Biscet is one of those prisoners, a noble and 
decent man choosing to fight for a cause greater than his own, risking 
everything in the process.
  Throughout U.S. history, Congress, as an institution, has recognized 
those who stand up for democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. We 
owe Dr. Biscet and those he inspires the honor of knowing that we 
support his worthy efforts and that Americans share his desire for 
seeing freedom take root in a country plagued by oppression for far too 
long.
  Awarding this honor to a man with such courage and conviction will 
strengthen his cause and the cause of all Cubans and send a message to 
the Cuban regime that they are on the wrong side of history, and they 
are on the wrong side of what is good and is right.
  I urge my colleagues to support this man who seeks democratic change 
and the recognition of human rights by bestowing this honor of a 
Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of time on this busy day 
on the floor. I know Senator Menendez wishes to speak on this issue, 
but at this time I yield the floor, and I thank the chairman for the 
time allowed.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague and friend, 
Senator Martinez, in strong support of our resolution to recommend 
Cuban dissident and political prisoner Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet for the 
Congressional Gold Medal. This medal is the Nation's highest and most 
distinguished civilian award, and I can think of few who are more 
deserving than this man. For his courageous commitment to democracy, 
for his unwavering defense of human rights, for his lifetime of working 
for peaceful change on an island where freedom dares not speak its 
name, Dr. Biscet has earned the admiration of his community, and he has 
earned the recognition of this Congress.
  Just over 4 months ago, both Senator Martinez and I, along with 
Senators Nelson and Salazar, stood on this floor and declared our 
solidarity with about 70 Cuban youths who had just been thrown in jail. 
Their crime was nothing more than wearing this simple white bracelet 
that says one word, ``cambio,'' change.
  This one simple gesture was strong enough to have them held as 
prisoners. This one simple gesture was strong enough to have them 
detained and harassed. But as I said on the floor 4 months ago, I also 
hoped this one gesture would be strong enough to inspire us and to 
inspire those who love freedom and democracy and have respect for human 
rights around the globe.
  Today we stand here once again, in solidarity, to recognize someone 
who has shown courage over and over again--courage in defense of human 
rights and democracy courage to speak out about the future he wants to 
see on the island of Cuba.
  When I last came to the floor to speak of Dr. Biscet, it was 1 week 
before he received the Presidential Medal Freedom, the highest civilian 
award bestowed by the President. Unfortunately, he received the award 
in absentia. He received it this way because has been languishing in 
the jails of the Castro regime, serving a 25-year prison sentence.
  And he continues to languish there today. His crime? Seeking peaceful 
change in his country. His crime? Hanging a flag sideways. His crime? 
Fighting against a repressive regime.
  By awarding the Congressional Gold Medal to Dr. Biscet, we would 
create a physical representation of so many years of political bravery.
  In that medal, we will see a shining image of his courage and 
accomplishments.
  In that medal, we will see the patient suffering of Dr. Biscet's 
wife, the fellow democracy advocate, Elsa Morjeon Hernandez, and the 
patient suffering of his two children who have had to grow up with 
their father in jail.
  In that medal, we will see the 3 years Dr. Biscet spent in prison, 3 
years, after hanging the national flag sideways at a press conference.
  In that medal, we will see that once he was released, Dr. Biscet 
organized engaged organizing seminars on the Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights and continued to fight every day to bring democracy and 
justice to Cuba.
  And in that medal, we will see a solid beacon of hope for the people 
of that island, recognition that people inspired

[[Page S1935]]

by Dr. Biscet will eventually bring democracy and justice to Cuba.
  What Dr. Biscet and those young people arrested 4 months ago show us 
is inspiring: Cuba can change and will change. And this change will 
come from within Cuba, from the Cuban people themselves.
  Raul Castro has said, ``Fidel is irreplaceable, unless we all replace 
him together.'' Now is the time to show that this can happen, that 
Fidel can, in fact, be replaced not by one man but by a government of, 
by, and for the people of Cuba. Dr. Biscet himself in a letter 10 days 
ago said, ``Fidel Castro has left power. He should have done it 20 
years ago when Mikhail Gorbachev traveled to the island. He wisely 
recommended it to him, that way it would have reduced the years of 
misery, lack of freedom and cruel suffering of the Cuban people under a 
prolonged, unnecessary and poorly run government . . . ''
  The Cuban people can bring change. But they need our help. We must 
continue to fight here to do what we can to empower them and to support 
them when they empower themselves as the United States did with 
dissidents from Lech Walesa to Vaclav Havel to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, 
so should it do with Oscar Elias Biscet. Here in the United States, 
this is a time to further nurture the human rights activists, political 
dissidents, and independent-minded journalists inside of Cuba who have 
the capability to stoke the movement toward freedom.
  The Cuban people are speaking. In America, this is not the time for 
silence. This is the time to speak out. Awarding the Congressional Gold 
Medal to Dr. Biscet will allow the American people to speak out, not 
only to condemn the dark injustices of the Cuban regime but, more 
importantly, to praise the efforts of one hero who has spent his life 
standing for the values that unite the free peoples of the world, 
values that we know are more precious than gold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
North Dakota for permitting me to intervene for 10 minutes. I had been 
on the list, but previous speakers ended, I believe earlier than 
anticipated, so we have worked out the scheduling on that basis.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield, let me ask unanimous consent 
that I be recognized following his completion of 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I thank both Senators for their 
courtesy and their graciousness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to offer two 
amendments, one amendment which will add $2.1 billion for the National 
Institutes of Health, and the same amendment which will increase the 
funding on LIHEAP. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senators 
Harkin, Snowe, Collins, Casey, Kennedy, Dole, Mikulski, Clinton, Levin, 
Sununu, Dodd, Inouye, Brown, Menendez, Stabenow, Coleman, Kerry, 
Durbin, Stevens, Smith, Bingaman, Cochran, Cardin, and Rockefeller.
  The funding for the National Institutes of Health is grossly 
insufficient. For a period of time, in the range of 1999 through 2003, 
funding for the National Institutes of Health has been increased very 
materially, with the increase on an annual basis rising as high in the 
year 2003 to $3.77 billion. That increase in funding has produced 
remarkable results in scientific advances in many lines. The cancer 
rate has declined 2 percent for the last 2 years. The increase in 
treatment for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, autism, and heart disease, has 
shown remarkable achievements. And with a budget of $3.1 trillion, I 
suggest it is totally insufficient to have a budget for the National 
Institutes of Health which would be projected at $29.2 billion.

  In 1970, President Nixon declared war on cancer, and had that war 
been prosecuted with the same intensity as other wars, I wouldn't have 
gotten Hodgkin's. My good friend, Judge Edward R. Becker, Chief Judge 
of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, would not have died 
prematurely of prostate cancer. My Chief of Staff, Carey Lackman, a 
beautiful young woman of 48, would not have died from breast cancer.
  On a daily basis, I have people come to see me from all over the 
United States who are urging increased funding on these very important 
lines: autism, prostate cancer, breast cancer, Parkinson's, 
Alzheimer's, scleroderma, and heart disease. And with the capacity in 
the United States to have cures for these ailments with sufficient 
funding, I believe this should be a much higher priority than it is at 
the present time. These ailments are curable.
  As a footnote, one day we will recognize the availability of Federal 
funding for embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research 
has enormous potential--enormous potential--to conquer these maladies. 
If these embryonic stem cells were to be used to create life, there is 
no doubt that would have a higher call. But there is also no doubt that 
with some 400,000 of these embryonic stem cells in storage, if they are 
not going to be used for that purpose, it is a matter of either using 
them or losing them.
  This amendment also adds one billion to the funding for low-income 
energy assistance for the people who are facing enormous increases in 
costs. The escalating price of oil has produced a very heavy drain, 
especially on our senior citizens, with so many faced with the prospect 
of either heating or eating. So this amendment will add materially to 
that very important fund.
  A second amendment which I am offering would repeal the 1993 increase 
of the alternative minimum tax. The alternative minimum tax was 
expanded in 1993 when the tax rate was increased from 24 percent to 26 
percent for taxable income under $175,000 and from 24 percent to 28 
percent for taxable income that exceeds $175,000, without those limits 
being indexed for inflation. The AMT now has the potential for 
capturing some 23 million people, 20 million more than anticipated when 
it was increased in 1993. There may be an amendment offered to 
eliminate the AMT permanently, and I would be prepared to support that, 
but in the absence of such an amendment, I believe it would be useful 
to propose this cure.
  This differs from another amendment which may be offered on the AMT 
which would seek to have an offset. I believe that an offset is not 
appropriate, because this AMT was never intended to catch this number 
of people. So when you have a tax which was not intended to reach some 
23 million people, it ought to be eliminated; it ought to be not 
effectuated without having an offset.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my prepared statements 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         The Lack of Funding Will Result in Lost Opportunities

       The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke 
     will be unable to implement fully the planned network of 10 
     centers in the Special Program of Translational Research in 
     Acute Stroke--Funding is only available for 7 centers.
       The National Institute of Child Health and Human 
     Development will be unable to launch a study to treat 
     children with critical asthma.
       The National Eye Institute will be unable to fund several 
     clinical studies in minority populations, including Asian 
     Americans and Native Americans.
       The National Institute of Deafness and Communication 
     Disorders will be unable to fund an initiative in Noise-
     Induced Hearing Loss.
       The National Institute of Mental Health will be able to 
     support only one clinical trial in the Bipolar Trials 
     Network.
       The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism will 
     be unable to conduct a Phase III clinical trial in 
     medications development. In addition, clinical trials in 
     alcoholic liver and pancreatic diseases will go undone.
       The National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney 
     Disease will eliminate a training program for pediatric 
     diabetes researchers.
       The National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
     Bioengineering will be unable to pursue opportunities in 
     advanced imaging, which are crucial to early diagnosis and 
     treatment.
       The flat funding of NIH will affect an entire generation of 
     young researchers. Many of this Nation's best and brightest 
     scientists are seeking opportunities outside of the lab or in 
     other countries because of lack of grant support.
        NIH funded biomedical research has raised life expectancy, 
     improved the quality of life, and strengthened our economy. 
     If the United

[[Page S1936]]

     States is to continue its leadership role in providing the 
     medical breakthroughs to treat disease, the Congress must 
     commit to adequately supporting the funding of the National 
     Institutes of Health.
                                  ____


                  Floor Speech--Senator Arlen Specter

        NIH/LIHEAP/Mentoring Amendment to the Budget Resolution


                     NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

       The budget resolution currently recommends $30 billion for 
     the NIH in FY09, which is $950 million over the FY08 
     appropriation. This $2.1 billion amendment, along with the 
     $950 million already contained in the resolution would 
     provide NIH with an increase of $3 billion or 10.3 percent 
     over the FY08 appropriation.
       When I came to the Senate in 1981, NIH spending totaled 
     $3.6 billion. The FY 2003 omnibus appropriations bill 
     contained $27.2 billion for the NIH which completed the 
     doubling begun in FY 1998. However, since the doubling took 
     place, NIH has failed to keep pace with biomedical inflation 
     and as a result has lost 15 percent of its purchasing power. 
     The successes realized by this investment in NIH have spawned 
     revolutionary advances in our knowledge and treatment for 
     diseases such as cancer, HIV-AIDS, Alzheimer's disease, 
     Parkinson's disease, mental illnesses, diabetes, 
     osteoporosis, heart disease, ALS and many others. It is clear 
     that Congress' commitment to the NIH is paying off. Now it is 
     crucial that increased funding be continued in order to 
     translate these advances into additional treatments and 
     cures. Our investment has resulted in new generations of AIDS 
     drugs which are reducing the presence of the AIDS virus in 
     HIV infected persons to nearly undetectable levels. Death 
     rates from cancer have begun a steady decline. Stem cell 
     research could result in replacing diseased or damaged cells. 
     I anxiously await the results of all of these avenues of 
     remarkable research. This is the time to seize the scientific 
     opportunities that lie before us.
       On May 21, 1997, the Senate passed a Sense of the Senate 
     resolution stating that funding for the NIH should be doubled 
     over 5 years. Regrettably, even though the resolution was 
     passed by an overwhelming vote of 98 to nothing, the Budget 
     Resolution contained a $100 million reduction for health 
     programs. That prompted Senator Harkin and myself to offer an 
     amendment to the budget resolution to add $1.1 billion to 
     carry out the expressed sense of the Senate to increase NIH 
     funding. Unfortunately, our amendment was tabled by a vote of 
     63-37. We were extremely disappointed that, while the Senate 
     had expressed its druthers on a resolution, it was simply 
     unwilling to put up the actual dollars to accomplish this 
     vital goal.
       The following year, Senator Harkin and I again introduced 
     an amendment to the Budget Resolution which called for a $2 
     billion increase for the NIH. While we gained more support on 
     this vote than in the previous year, our amendment was again 
     tabled by a vote of 57-41. Not to be deterred, Senator Harkin 
     and I again went to work with our Subcommittee and we were 
     able to add an additional $2 billion to the NIH account for 
     fiscal year 1999.
       For fiscal year 2000, Senator Harkin and I offered another 
     amendment to the Budget Resolution to add $1.4 billion to the 
     health accounts, over and above the $600 million increase 
     which had already been provided by the Budget Committee. 
     Despite this amendment's defeat by a vote of 47-52, we were 
     able to provide a $2.3 billion increase for NIH in the fiscal 
     year 2000 appropriation's bill.
       For fiscal year 2001, Senator Harkin and I again offered an 
     amendment to the Budget Resolution to increase funding for 
     health programs by $1.6 billion. This amendment passed by a 
     vote of 55-45. This victory brought the NIH increase to $2.7 
     billion for fiscal year 2001. However, after late night 
     conference negotiations with the House, the funding for NIH 
     was cut by $200 million below that amount.
       For fiscal year 2002, the budget resolution once again fell 
     short of the amount necessary to achieve the NIH doubling. 
     Senator Harkin and I, along with nine other Senators offered 
     an amendment to add an additional $700 million to the 
     resolution to achieve our goal. The vote was 96-4. The Senate 
     Labor-HHS Subcommittee reported a bill recommending $23.7 
     billion, an increase of $3.4 billion over the previous year's 
     funding. But during conference negotiations with the 
     House, we once again fell short by $410 million.
       In order to stay on a path to double NIH, an increase of 
     $3.7 billion was needed in fiscal year 2003. The fiscal year 
     2003 omnibus appropriations bill contained the additional 
     $3.7 billion, which achieved the doubling effort.
       For FY04, I and Senator Harkin offered an amendment to add 
     an additional $2.8 billion to the budget resolution to ensure 
     that the momentum achieved by the doubling could be 
     maintained and translated into cures. The vote was 96-1. 
     Unfortunately, the amendment was dropped in conference. We 
     worked hard to find enough funding for a $1 billion increase 
     in FY04. We fought long and hard to make the doubling of 
     funding a reality, but until treatments and cures are found 
     for the many maladies that continue to plague our society, we 
     must continue our fight.
       For FY05, Senator Harkin, Collins and I offered an 
     amendment to add $2 billion to discretionary health spending, 
     including NIH. The amendment passed 72-24. However, the 
     Subcommittee's allocation did not reflect this increase. The 
     final conference agreement contained an increase of $800 
     million over the FY04 funding level.
       For FY06, the Senate voted 63-37 to accept the Specter/
     Harkin budget resolution amendment to add $1.5 billion for 
     NIH and $500 million for education, but again, the funding 
     was dropped in conference with the House. With overall 
     funding for the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee cut $1.9 
     billion below the FY05 enacted level, NIH did not receive an 
     increase over the previous fiscal year.
       For FY07, Senator Harkin and I along with 28 others, 
     offered an amendment to the budget resolution to add $7 
     billion to discretionary spending for Labor, Health and 
     Education programs offset by an increase in advance 
     appropriations. The amendment passed 73-27. Unfortunately, 
     the continuing resolution for FY07 did not realize the goal 
     set by the budget amendment. The continuing resolution 
     contained $28.9 billion, an increase of $636.7 million.
       For FY08, once again Senator Harkin and I offered an 
     amendment, which the Senate adopted by unanimous consent, 
     which added $2.2 billion to NIH, CDC and Health Professions 
     programs. However, the FY08 appropriations bill only provided 
     increases of $328.6 million for NIH, $112.4 million for CDC 
     and only $15.5 million for health professions training over 
     the FY07 level.
       I, like millions of Americans, have benefited tremendously 
     from the investment we have made in the National Institutes 
     of Health and the amendment that we offer today will continue 
     to carry forward the important research work of the world's 
     premier medical research facility.


                   LOW INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE

       Paying heating and cooling bills for low-income households 
     throughout this Nation has always been a struggle, but never 
     more so than today with the soaring energy costs. The 
     inability to pay for heating and cooling homes, or having to 
     make decisions to forgo other needs such as food and medicine 
     pose health and safety hazards--especially to the elderly, 
     the disabled and children. This winter, Americans will spend 
     $977 to heat their homes which is 10 percent higher than last 
     winter. Nationwide average oil heating bills are expected to 
     be 22 percent higher than in the previous year. The $1 
     billion amendment that I am offering today would help defray 
     some of the costs energy costs for next year.


                               MENTORING

       In this Nation it is estimated that more than 772,500 
     juveniles are members of gangs, dropouts rates in some school 
     districts exceed 60 percent and the direct and indirect cost 
     of youth violence exceeds $158 billion a year. Mentoring 
     programs have proven to steer children away from gangs 
     violence and crime. Mentored youth are 46 percent less likely 
     to start using drugs and alcohol, 33 percent less likely to 
     act violently, and significantly more likely to graduate from 
     high school and go on to college, making mentoring highly 
     cost-effective. There are approximately 17.6 million children 
     nationwide who need or want a mentor. Yet only three million 
     children have been paired with a mentor--resulting in a 
     mentoring ``gap'' of approximately 14.6 million children. I 
     am pleased to see that the resolution contains an increase of 
     $5.5 billion above the FY08 appropriation for education and 
     training programs, and restores funds for the mentoring 
     program and the 47 other education programs slated for 
     elimination in the FY09 budget.
       The increase provided for education and training programs 
     will help address juvenile crime, violence, delinquency, and 
     high dropout rates.


                                 OFFSET

       The $3.1 billion amendment would be offset by an across-
     the-board reduction of less than 0.3 percent in Function 
     920--Allowances. The across-the-board reduction would not 
     result in any program reductions, but would reduce travel and 
     administrative expenses throughout the Federal government, 
     including domestic agencies, homeland security, and defense.


                               CONCLUSION

       In summary, this amendment would provide funding to 
     continue the advances in medical research and help states 
     assist low-income households in meeting the cost of home 
     heating and cooling. The amendment is fully offset and does 
     not break the cap on discretionary spending.
       Mr. President, I urge adoption of this amendment.
                                  ____


                   Statement of Senator Arlen Specter


                                  AMT

       Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to 
     discuss an amendment that I intend to offer to S. Con. Res. 
     70, the Fiscal Year 2009 Concurrent Budget Resolution. My 
     amendment seeks to repeal section 13203 of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1993 by restoring the Alternative 
     Minimum Tax (AMT) rates that had previously been in effect.
       The AMT is a flawed income tax system and should be 
     repealed. It is important to keep in mind that the first 
     version of the AMT was created in 1969 in response to a small 
     number of high-income individuals who had paid little or no 
     federal income taxes. Because of a series of changes made to 
     the AMT over the years, the AMT now affects over three 
     million taxpayers annually. Each year we are forced to take 
     legislative

[[Page S1937]]

     action to prevent massive expansion where over 20 million 
     individuals pay this burdensome tax. Today, between a lack of 
     indexing for inflation and higher AMT tax rates relative to 
     the regular income tax system, we have a tax system which has 
     grown far beyond its intended result. Both problems are 
     worthy of analysis and legislative action.
       The AMT is not indexed for inflation and taxpayers are 
     ``pushed'' into the AMT through so-called ``bracket creep.'' 
     Last year, Congress was late to enact a temporary increase in 
     the AMT exemption amount and millions of tax refunds will be 
     delayed this year as a result. I am pleased to see that this 
     Budget on the floor assumes a one-year ``patch'' without 
     offsets to prevent inflation from harming taxpayers. It is my 
     hope that Congress will not again wait until December to 
     address this problem.
       Even with enactment of the ``patch,'' 3.5 million taxpayers 
     are still impacted, far more than what was originally 
     intended. The AMT tax rate relative to the regular income tax 
     impacts taxpayers who were never intended to pay the AMT. In 
     1993, President Clinton and a Democrat-controlled Congress 
     imposed a significant tax hike on Americans. The AMT tax rate 
     was increased from 24 percent to 26 percent for taxable 
     income under $175,000 and from 24 percent to 28 percent for 
     taxable income that exceeds $175,000.
       My amendment cures this 2nd problem by repealing the 1993 
     AMT tax increase and brings the AMT tax rate back to 24 
     percent. During the course of this Budget debate, it is my 
     understanding that we will also vote on whether to repeal the 
     AMT altogether, without offsets. Clearly, the best option is 
     for the AMT to be repealed. However, if my colleagues cannot 
     support that approach, then I would urge them to vote for 
     this more modest approach which rolls back one of the many 
     changes that has brought millions of taxpayers under the 
     grasp of the AMT. This amendment, combined with the AMT 
     ``patch'' brings the AMT closer to its intended purpose.
       This amendment would reduce revenues by $185.3 billion over 
     the five-year budget window. No offsets are included because 
     it is highly questionable to justify raising taxes elsewhere 
     to account for lost revenue that was never intended to be 
     collected. The Senate agreed with this philosophy last year 
     when it ``patched'' the AMT without offsets.
       I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I again thank my distinguished colleague 
from North Dakota, the chairman of the Budget Committee, and I yield 
the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Next, we have the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will want to visit with Senator Conrad 
and Senator Gregg, the chair and ranking member, to try to determine 
when I will be able to offer my amendment. I wish to speak about the 
amendment. My understanding is I am not yet able to offer it because of 
an objection, but my hope is we will be able to work this amendment 
into the list of amendments very soon.
  I have often described this budget process. One hundred years from 
now, we will all be dead--not a pleasant thought--but historians will 
look back at what we did and who we were and could evaluate a little 
something about us and our value systems by looking at how we spent our 
money. What did we think was important? What did we invest in? What did 
we spend our money on? That is true for families and individuals, and 
it is especially true for governments--what the Federal Government 
thinks is important. What is its value system in this budget document? 
It will tell historians a lot about who we were, the kind of people we 
were.
  I want to talk about an amendment I am offering to provide funding 
for the Indian health care system. I am going to tell you why I am 
doing that. American Indians were here first. We all came later. They 
were the first Americans. Because we took their land, in most 
instances, and put them on reservations, we signed treaties with them. 
Our Government said to them: Here is what we are going to do. Yes, we 
are taking your land, but we are going to have a trust responsibility 
for certain things we are going to do for you, and we will even put it 
in treaties and sign the treaties. We are going to provide for your 
health care. So we have a responsibility here in the Federal Government 
to provide for Indian health care. If someone wondered why that is the 
case--we promised. We signed treaties, we signed up, we said we will do 
it.
  So we have a couple of million American Indians in this country who 
rely on the Indian health care system. Guess what. We do a pretty 
miserable job. We spend half as much money providing health care to 
American Indians, per person, as we do to those who serve in Federal 
prisons. When we incarcerate someone in a Federal prison, we are 
responsible for their health care. We spend twice as much more on 
Federal prisoners' health care per person than we do for American 
Indians. We are not nearly meeting our responsibility. We are not even 
close to keeping our promise, and nobody seems to care very much. There 
are people dying as a result of it, and still nobody seems to care very 
much.
  We passed the Indian Health Care Improvement Act on the floor of the 
Senate recently. I am proud of that because it has been many years 
since this Congress has addressed the issue of Indian health care. If 
the funding available for Indian health care had kept pace with 
inflation, here on this chart is where we would be. Instead, we are 
down here, dramatically underfunding the health care system for 
American Indians, and as a result, we have full-scale health care 
rationing. It ought to be a scandal. It ought to be on the front page 
of the Washington Post, but it is not. It is a scandal, as far as I am 
concerned. Health care rationing? That is unbelievable to me.
  Let me describe this health care rationing, if I might. My colleagues 
have heard me speak about this before when I talked about the Indian 
Health Care Improvement Act, but repetition is fine, as far as I am 
concerned, when you are talking about something this important.
  Ardel Hale Baker was having a heart attack. She was a member of the 
three affiliated tribes, the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Tribes. She 
is a member. She was having a heart attack. They put her in an 
ambulance and sent her to a hospital 85 miles away. When she got to the 
hospital, they pulled her off of the ambulance gurney to put her in a 
gurney for the emergency room, and they found a piece of paper taped to 
her thigh. The piece of paper taped to her thigh said this, it said to 
the hospital: This is Ardel Hale Baker. If you admit this patient to 
the hospital, who is having a heart attack, by the way, understand you 
probably will not be paid for it because there is no contract health 
funding left for this individual Indian.
  So Ardel Hale Baker is having a heart attack, and she is wheeled into 
an emergency room with a piece of paper taped to her thigh that says: 
Oh, by the way, hospital, admit this woman, and you may not be paid.
  I described the need for Indian health care in the names of two 
children, one 5, one age 14, both dead. Let me tell my colleagues about 
them, as I have before. If, after we understand these issues that are 
going on all around the country in Indian Country, we still say there 
is no need here and it doesn't matter, then there is something 
coldhearted about this institution.
  Let me describe Ta'shon Rain Littlelight. This beautiful young girl 
loved to dance, as you can see from the costume. She used to go to the 
powwows and dance. She was 5 years old and very sick. She was taken to 
the Indian health clinic again and again and again and again. They 
diagnosed her illness; depression, they said. So this 5-year-old girl 
was treated for depression. Then one day she could not bear the pain 
any longer. They took her to Billings, MT.
  By the way, she was on the Crow Reservation in Montana. The way I 
know about this young girl is her grandmother came to a hearing I held 
with Senator Tester on the Crow Indian Reservation in Montana, and she 
held up a poster this big with a picture of her grandchild, and she 
described her death.
  After being treated for depression, after going to the clinic time 
and time again and being treated for depression, one day she couldn't 
bear the pain, and they rushed her to Billings, MT, to a hospital 
there, and then they rushed her to Denver, CO, to a hospital there, and 
they said she had 4 months to live because she had terminal cancer--
this, after having been treated for depression for so many months.

  Ta'shon Rain Littlelight said to her mom when they were in Denver 
that the one thing she wanted to do was to go see Cinderella's Castle 
at Disney World. The Make A Wish Foundation

[[Page S1938]]

took this little girl and her mother to Disney World in Orlando, FL, to 
see Cinderella's Castle. The night before, in the hotel, as they 
arrived in Orlando, the night before visiting Cinderella's Castle, 
Ta'shon Rain Littlelight said to her mother: Mommy, I am sorry I am 
sick. Mother, I am going to try to get better. She cuddled up in her 
mom's arms and never again woke up. She died in her mother's arms the 
night before she was to see Cinderella's Castle.
  Her family told me this little girl spent the last 3 months of her 
life in unmedicated pain with a terminal illness, diagnosed as having 
depression. Her grandmother and her parents wonder, with decent health 
care, would this young girl have died? Would Ta'shon Rain Littlelight 
perhaps have lived? Maybe so.
  Does it matter that a 5-year-old girl dies because she doesn't get 
the health care most all of us would expect? It does to me.
  There was a 14-year-old girl named Avis Littlewind. She was on the 
Spirit Lake Nation Reservation. I talked to her family. I talked to her 
classmates in school. I talked to the Indian tribal council. I did that 
because Avis Littlewind was a 14-year-old girl who spent the last 3 
months of her life curled up in her bed in a fetal position, 
desperately ill, desperately emotionally ill, with no treatment 
whatsoever. At the end of that 90 days, she took her own life in her 
bedroom.
  Her sister had taken her own life 2 years prior. Her father had taken 
his life. She came from a very dysfunctional situation. But somehow a 
14-year-old girl is not missed for 90 days? Not in school? On that 
reservation, they didn't have any mental health treatment capability. 
They told me they would have had to borrow--had someone known that Avis 
Littlewind, this child, was lying in bed for 90 days feeling hopeless 
and helpless, before she took her life--had they been able to find some 
mental health treatment somewhere, they would have had to borrow a car 
because there is no vehicle to take someone to treatment. It is a 
completely dysfunctional system.
  These are two children who should not have died among us, but they 
did, and others will--perhaps today--because we have a health care 
system in the Indian Health Service that is not working. It is 
dramatically underfunded.
  My colleagues who oppose the bill on the floor of the Senate 
recently, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act--a couple of my 
colleagues who voted against the act said we need reform but we are 
going to vote for additional funding. We are at least $2 billion short 
of just providing the kind of thing we would expect for us and our 
family.
  Let me ask you this: If your aunt or your grandmother went to a 
doctor with bone-on-bone in a knee, so she couldn't even walk, it was 
so painful, a knee condition that was so unbelievably painful she could 
hardly move, what would we expect? Our families would expect she would 
get a knee operation and perhaps a new knee joint, have a replacement 
with a new knee.
  I will tell you what happened to a woman who contacted me from the 
Indian Health Service. She went to the doctor with this unbelievable 
pain and the inability to move. She was told to wrap that knee in 
cabbage leaves for 4 days and it would be fine. That is not medicine, 
that is malpractice. What we would expect for our family would be to 
have a knee replacement. That is the kind of medicine we would expect. 
It is not the kind of medicine that is now being delivered.
  Yes, there are some good people in the Indian Health Service. There 
are some who should not be there as well. There are people who work 
hard and long hours and do a great job, and my hat is off to them. 
There are some who, long ago, should have been fired, and no one seems 
willing or able to do it.
  In this case, I say people are dying because we are rationing health 
care. That is a scandal.
  I have offered an amendment that would restore $1 billion to this 
account. The money would be paid for by--I believe it is function 920 
that will provide the payment for this. The question is, Will we decide 
this is a requirement, this is a responsibility? I don't know the 
answer to that. I have tried before. I guess some are willing to just 
blithely go along and act as if this doesn't exist, people are not 
dying, people are not suffering, or if they believe it exists, to say: 
You know what, it is a tough life out there, it happens. We don't have 
the funding.
  It would have been nice, perhaps, to have told those first Americans, 
the American Indians, when they sat down at the table and signed the 
treaty and expected the Federal Government, the United States of 
America, to keep its promise--it would have been nice, perhaps, when 
the American Government signed it if they had just said: Look, we are 
going to try really hard, but we are not sure we can do what we are 
promising you we will do. We will do our best, but we are not sure we 
can do that.
  We don't have the money, apparently, to help Ta'shon Rain Littlelight 
or Avis Littlewind, and we don't have the resources or the will, I 
guess. That is what we are told. I happen to know how much money we 
have to build health clinics in Iraq. I happen to know we are building 
950 water projects in Iraq right now. I know how many electricity 
projects we are building in the country of Iraq. I know how much we are 
spending on road projects in the country of Iraq right now.
  I went to a hearing yesterday and heard that $18 billion, most of it 
American money, is unaccounted for in Iraq and wasted. I went to a 
hearing yesterday to hear that $4 billion, most of it American money in 
Iraq to provide for additional equipment for Iraq's armed forces, is 
unaccounted for, and the head of their military who could not account 
for $4 million is now living in London, a big property holder. So don't 
tell me there is not money. How about taking some of that money and 
investing it here at home? How about taking some of that money and 
deciding to take care of our obligations and our commitments and our 
promises in this country?
  We are going to have a long, tortured trail over this budget. I 
understand it. Everybody has their own sense of what is important and 
what is not. But if the health care for children and elders on our 
Indian reservations, for whom we have a trust responsibility for health 
care, with whom we have treaties--if that is not an urgency, if that is 
not something we are willing to commit to do, then, in my judgment, 
there is something wrong with the value system here.
  I know there are so many other priorities. I look at this S. Con. 
Res. 70. It doesn't contain much but numbers. It is 69 pages of 
numbers. There are no jobs in here. There is no blood here. There is no 
health care here. It is just numbers. But all of these numbers mean 
something in a profound way. These numbers tell the American people 
what our priorities are and whether we are willing to keep our 
promises. I hope the answer from the Senate at last, at long, long 
last, is we will begin--at least begin to keep our promises.
  If you few decide you want health care to continue as it is with 
respect to Indian Health Services, then you must stand up for saying: I 
believe in health care rationing; we are going to make a decision to 
withhold health care from people who need it.
  The Indian Health Service--let me give an example, on the Fort 
Berthold Reservation, you go to a clinic that is open from 9 to 5 
o'clock 5 days a week. You get sick on Saturday at 6 o'clock, or at 
night on a weekday, you are in trouble. You are 85 miles from the 
hospital.
  So you go to the hospital in an ambulance that is paid for with 
contract health care, because they do not have that kind of capability 
on the reservation. So contract health care. What do they say on Indian 
reservations? Do not get sick after June, because there is no contract 
health money. If you are going to get sick, it has got to be before 
June. If you get sick, otherwise you end up on a gurney with a heart 
attack with a piece of paper attached to your leg. And the paper says: 
By the way, hospital, admit this woman and you may not get paid.
  That is an unbelievable way for us to meet our obligations. The fact 
is, we are not keeping our promises. I hope somewhere in the long trail 
of paper, somewhere in the deep abyss of all of these numbers, perhaps 
there is a value system, somewhere there is a value system deep in the 
recesses that will get people here in the Senate to say:

[[Page S1939]]

You know what, one of the first obligations of this country is to keep 
its promises. One of the first obligations of the Senate is to stand 
up. It is too late for Ta'shon Rain Littlelight, it is too late for 
Avis Littlewind, but other children will survive and other children 
will live if we decide to do the right thing.
  Now, I wish to say to my colleagues that I would like to offer this 
amendment. I am told that at some point I will be able to. If I can 
have a dialog with them, I wish to find out----
  Mr. CONRAD. We can do that perhaps momentarily. We have worked out 
what we would like to be the order.


                           Amendment No. 4204

  I send an amendment that is the side by side to the Bunning amendment 
to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4204.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez.) Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4204) is as follows:

(Purpose: To add a deficit-neutral reserve fund for repealing the 1993 
        increase in the income tax on Social Security benefits)

       At the end of Title III, insert the following:

     SEC.   . DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REPEALING THE 1993 
                   INCREASE IN THE INCOME TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY 
                   BENEFITS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other levels in this resolution for one or 
     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or 
     conference reports that would repeal the 1993 increase in the 
     income tax on Social Security benefits, by the amounts 
     provided in such legislation for such purpose, provided that 
     such legislation would not increase the deficit over either 
     the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or 
     the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.

  Mr. CONRAD. Next, Senator Gregg will have an opportunity to send up 
Senator Specter's amendment.


                           Amendment No. 4203

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment for Senator 
Specter be called up. It is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. 
     Specter, for himself, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
     Casey, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Dole, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Clinton, 
     Mr. Levin, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Brown, Mr. 
     Menendez, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Durbin, 
     Mr. Stevens, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Cochran, Mr. 
     Cardin, and Mr. Rockefeller, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4203.

  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4203) is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase funding for the National Institutes of Health and 
             the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program)

       On page 19, line 16, increase the amount by $2,100,000,000.
       On page 19, line 17, increase the amount by $2,100,000,000.
       On page 21, line 16, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 21, line 17, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 21, line 21, increase the amount by $280,000,000.
       On page 21, line 25, increase the amount by $20,000,000.
       On page 27, line 16, decrease the amount by $3,100,000,000.
       On page 27, line 17, decrease the amount by $2,800,000,000.
       On page 27, line 21, decrease the amount by $280,000,000.
       On page 27, line 25, decrease the amount by $20,000,000.

  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Dorgan sends 
his amendment to the desk, that then Senator Alexander will be 
recognized to offer an amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. With one alteration, if I could, that we would--if you 
recall, we talked about this--I would then discuss the side by side to 
Bunning, then the Alexander group would be recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Then the next amendment would be Senator Alexander.
  Mr. CONRAD. After I give brief remarks on the side by side I have 
sent up. Senator Dorgan can offer his amendment.


                           Amendment No. 4198

  Mr. DORGAN. I have an amendment I have filed. It is amendment No. 
4198. It is at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Johnson, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4198.

  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4198) is as follows:

  (Purpose: To increase the Indian Health Service by $1 billion in FY 
                                 2009)

       On page 19, line 16, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 19, line 17, increase the amount by $915,000,000.
       On page 19, line 21, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 19, line 25, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 20, line 4, increase the amount by $5,000,000.
       On page 27, line 16, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 27, line 17, decrease the amount by $915,000,000.
       On page 27, line 21, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 27, line 25, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 28, line 4, decrease the amount by $5,000,000.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have described my amendment at some 
length. I shall not do so again. But I do appreciate the courtesy of my 
colleagues, Senator Conrad and Senator Gregg.
  I ask that as you consider what you would intend to vote on as we 
move along this process, that you will give me the opportunity to have 
a recorded vote as early as is possible.
  Mr. CONRAD. By the sequence we have gone through, we have gotten you 
in the queue. And so that will be--as we work down the amendments that 
have already been in order, yours is now in order. And that will be the 
order that is followed. So the Senator can expect when we turn to 
amendments, yours will be in line. We very much appreciate the 
extraordinary courtesy of the Senator from North Dakota, who, as I 
know, has had to wait a couple of times here because of various snafus. 
We apologize to him and thank him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would ask the Senator from North 
Dakota or New Hampshire to restate what his unanimous consent request 
is of the order to be pursued.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, as I understand it, the sequence would be, 
of the amendments just offered, that the side by side for Senator 
Bunning of Senator Conrad, followed by Senator Specter, followed by 
Senator Dorgan, followed by Senator Alexander, who has not yet sent his 
to the desk.
  In the intervening period, I understand the chairman wishes to take 
some time. That is my understanding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is precisely correct. I thank my colleague. I will 
take a few minutes to describe the side by side to the Bunning 
amendment earlier offered.
  The Bunning amendment would repeal the 1993 increases on Social 
Security benefits--tax increases on Social Security benefits. The 
amendment would offset the $89 billion 5-year cost with reductions to 
function 920. What does that mean? Mandatory 920 offsets would lead to 
an across-the-board cut in all mandatory programs, programs such as 
Social Security and Medicare. I do not think that is the intention of 
the Senator.
  If discretionary 920s were offset, it would reduce programs affecting 
education, veterans health, homeland security, and law enforcement. In 
addition, the amendment would remove a dedicated source of revenue 
through

[[Page S1940]]

the Medicare trust funds, adding to the financial problems of that key 
program.
  Our alternative, the alternative I have sent to the desk, would 
provide for a reserve fund that would allow for the repeal of the 1993 
increase on Social Security benefits in a way that would protect Social 
Security and Medicare, and not increase the deficit over the period of 
the resolution.
  The budget resolution already includes a reserve fund with the 
primary purpose of providing a mechanism for enacting tax relief, 
provided it is paid for. This alternative would establish a new 
deficit-neutral reserve fund that specifically highlights repeal of the 
1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits.
  Over the 5-year period covered by this resolution, the cost of 
repealing the 1993 tax increase is about $89 billion as I earlier 
referenced. We have already acknowledged in the course of the debate on 
the resolution we have to limit ourselves when it comes to additional 
spending or additional tax cuts, because we need to balance the budget.
  There are places we can go to cut spending or to raise revenue. I 
have addressed those repeatedly in terms of the tax gap, the offshore 
tax havens, and abusive tax shelters.
  I ask my colleagues to support the alternative that I have sent to 
the desk that would not lead to a cut in Medicare or Social Security or 
other elements I identified.
  With that, we would be prepared to go to Senator Alexander for the 
presentation of his amendment. I see Senator Alexander is in the 
Chamber. Would the Senator like a moment, or would the Senator prefer 
to proceed?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I would be happy to proceed. Senator Domenici is going 
to join me in making our presentation.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator and indicate that the intention would 
be, after Senator Alexander and Senator Domenici--Senator Alexander, do 
you have anyone else whom you wish to speak on your amendment?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, there is no other Senator whom I know 
wishes to speak at this moment. Senator Domenici will be to the floor 
shortly.
  Mr. CONRAD. I wish to indicate that after you have presented, the 
intention was to go to Senator Kennedy for the purposes of offering an 
amendment. Senator Salazar is here.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I was going to 
speak in connection with the estate tax amendment the Senator offered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Very well. I offered it in the Senator's name. It is very 
appropriate that he is here to speak on it.
  Senator Alexander, could you tell us how much time you and Senator 
Domenici may consume?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I will consume not more than 20 minutes. I would 
assume Senator Domenici would consume not more than 20 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Could we then have an agreement that those two Senators 
have up to 40 minutes combined, 20 minutes to Senator Alexander, 20 
minutes to Senator Domenici; at the end of that time, which would be at 
1:40, that Senator Salazar be recognized.
  How much time does the Senator want?
  Mr. SALAZAR. Fifteen minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes, so that the Senator from Colorado be recognized for 
15 minutes at that time. That would take us to roughly 1:55, and 
Senator Kennedy be recognized for 15 minutes at that point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Let me add to that, after Senator Kennedy, then Senator 
Biden be recognized for 10 minutes, not to offer an amendment but to 
talk about an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4207

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota 
for his courtesy. Senator Domenici is here and Senator Salazar is here.
  I send to the desk an amendment and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Alexander] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4207.

  The amendment (No. 4207) is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to improve energy 
                       efficiency and production)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO IMPROVE ENERGY 
                   EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Chairman of 
     the Senate Committee on the Budget may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this resolution 
     by the amounts provided by a bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion, or conference report that would 
     encourage--
       (1) consumers to replace old conventional wood stoves with 
     new clean wood, pellet, or corn stoves certified by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency;
       (2) consumers to install smart electricity meters in homes 
     and businesses;
       (3) the capture and storage of carbon dioxide emissions 
     from coal projects;
       (4) the development of oil and natural gas resources 
     beneath the outer Continental Shelf; and
       (5) the development of oil shale resources on public land 
     pursuant to section 369(d) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
     (42 U.S.C. 15927(d)), without regard to section 433 of the 
     Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-161).
       (b) Deficit Neutrality.--Subsection (a) applies only if the 
     legislation described in subsection (a) would not increase 
     the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2018.

  Mr. CONRAD. Might I ask the Senator to withhold for 1 moment for a 
unanimous consent request?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I will be happy to.


                    Amendment No. 4196, as Modified

  Mr. CONRAD. I appreciate the Senator's courtesy.
  Senator Salazar's amendment was earlier sent to the desk. He wishes 
to modify his amendment. It has no effect on the policy, on the 
numbers, or the effect of the amendment. It is just language. I wonder 
if we would allow that to go forward?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is this amendment No. 4196?
  Mr. CONRAD. That is correct. He is asking unanimous consent to modify 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of Title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. ESTATE TAX REFORM INITIATIVE.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the aggregates, allocations and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for a bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion, or conference report that provides up to 
     $45,000,000,000 in tax relief over the period of the total of 
     the fiscal years 2008 through 2013 for additional estate tax 
     reforms that address the current flaws in the estate tax law 
     in order to protect families, family businesses, and family 
     farms and ranches from the estate tax, by the amounts 
     provided in such legislation for such purpose, provided that 
     such legislation would not increase the deficit over either 
     the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or 
     the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.

  Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleagues. I again thank Senator Alexander 
for his courtesy.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, we are talking this week about the 
Federal budget. Senator Gregg, Senator Grassley, and others have 
pointed out, with appropriate response from the Senator from North 
Dakota, that in our belief we will wreck the Federal budget by raising 
taxes and increasing debt.
  At the same time we have an obligation on our side to say what our 
plan is, and we have a progrowth Republican plan which we have been 
detailing this week which focuses on lower taxes, less government, 
lower energy costs, making health insurance affordable for every 
American, without the Government choosing your doctor, support for 
better schools, the support for the kind of investments it takes to 
increase science and technology. That has been

[[Page S1941]]

our plan. That has been our progrowth economic plan to help balance the 
family budget.
  So while they would wreck the Federal budget, we would help balance 
the family budget, and no part of that would be more important than 
dealing with energy costs. Energy costs to most American families 
worried about the family budget come down to $3.50 gasoline or electric 
bills that might be constantly rising. We have the goal of making sure 
that in this Nation, which consumes 25 percent of all the energy in the 
world, that we have a realistic policy for making sure we have a low-
cost supply of clean electricity, dealing with the clean air issues--
nitrogen, sulfur, and mercury--and with the climate change issue, 
carbon, that we have a low-cost supply of clean electricity and that we 
gradually begin to reduce our dependence on foreign oil so we can clean 
up our environment, No. 1, and so we can stop shipping billions of 
dollars to people who are not friends of the United States, and so we 
can lower the price of gasoline over time to help balance the family 
budget.
  We will have other opportunities during this year to offer proposals 
for keeping energy costs low, realistic proposals, not proposals that 
fit some desert island which uses electricity occasionally but for the 
United States which uses 25 percent of all the energy in the world and 
whose demand for energy is growing, not declining.
  For example, in my part of the country, in Tennessee, we have the 
Tennessee Valley Authority, which is the largest utility in the 
country. It covers several States. They operate at about 27,000 
megawatts all the time. Sometimes they go as high as 33,000 megawatts. 
That is 33 big, new nuclear powerplants and twice that many gas or coal 
plants. All that electricity for our local region is supplied by the 
Tennessee Valley Authority.
  So we have selected five different proposals which would create a 
deficit-neutral reserve fund to lower energy costs for families by 
encouraging energy efficiency on the one hand and increasing oil and 
natural gas supply on the other. There are only two ways we can reduce 
the price of gasoline or electricity. One is to increase the supply and 
the other is to reduce the demand. There are other ideas, but 
particularly in a big economy, that is what we need to do.
  No. 1, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, has suggested one way to 
increase the supply of clean electricity would be to allow the Finance 
Committee or the Energy Committee to encourage the use of biomass by 
enacting legislation that would encourage the replacement of old, pre-
1920s wood stoves with new EPA-certified wood pellet or corn stoves, 
Environmental Protection Agency certified. These new EPA-certified 
stoves will help families save money on heating bills because the new 
stoves are up to 50 percent more fuel efficient than the old stoves. 
Given the rise of oil and natural gas prices, this idea would produce 
savings that would be much appreciated by families in Maine, all of New 
England, and in much of America.
  Secondly, the amendment allows the Finance Committee or the Energy 
Committee to encourage energy efficiency by enacting legislation that 
rewards the installation of smart electricity meters in homes and 
businesses. Let me give an example of what I mean by that. With this 
chart, we see how electricity is generated in America today. This is 
the reality. Half of it comes from coal, 19 percent from nuclear power, 
7 from hydroelectric, 1.4 from biomass--that is what Senator Collins is 
talking about--and 20 percent from gas. We don't want the gas to go up 
because when it does, the price of natural gas goes up, and our 
chemical companies move to other parts of the world. Farmers pay four 
times as much for fertilizer. So we need to look for another way to 
create clean electricity. The first way to do that is through 
conservation.
  Let me take the hometown example of Tennessee. The TVA is a big 
utility, maybe the biggest in the country, $10 billion of revenue a 
year. I saw an article in the newspaper that said if we have plug-in 
hybrid cars, we will create a lot more pollution because we will have 
to build new plants such as coal plants. That is dead wrong because the 
Tennessee Valley Authority, even though it operates at 27,000 megawatts 
on the average every day, that is between 3 and 7 o'clock when we are 
all turning on lights, coming home from work, using our electricity. 
The TVA has lots of spare electricity to use at night, 7 or 8,000 
megawatts. That is 7 or 8 nuclear plants for the Tennessee Valley 
Authority. We could plug in our hybrid cars in the middle of the night 
without building another new nuclear plant, another new coal plant, 
another new any kind of plant because we have excess capacity in our 
region and so does virtually every other part of the country. We 
encourage consumers to use smart meters so they know that electricity 
is going to cost more between 4 and 7 o'clock and less at night.
  Then if the car companies wanted to develop a plug-in hybrid car with 
advanced battery technology, we can operate on that electricity and 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil without building any new plants 
for that purpose. So that is the second proposal we have. The same 
applies to water heaters. People have their water heaters on at all 
times. Any utility should be able to make an agreement with the Senator 
from New Jersey or the Senator from Tennessee or from Colorado to say: 
Turn your water heater over to me and some of your other appliances, 
and I will turn them off and on at peak hours so your electric bill 
will stay flat or go down. We could save enormous amounts of 
electricity and avoid building new plants. That is what this amendment 
would do.
  This would permit us to clean up existing coal plants. Here is how we 
would propose to do that. Forty-nine percent of our electricity is 
produced by coal. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. Other countries in 
the world are building coal plants because it is the technology they 
know how to build. Some people are putting up large wind turbines. We 
are spending $11 billion of taxpayer money on wind turbines, but it is 
hard to find wind turbines on this list for the United States because 
it doesn't produce much energy. But coal does. What we need to do is 
clean up the coal production. This amendment would allow the relevant 
committees of Congress to give tax credits to recapture the carbon that 
comes from coal. A great many people are concerned about climate change 
and the use of carbon. This would help meet that demand in a realistic 
way in the near term.
  A fourth idea: I said earlier there are two ways to lower the price 
of $3.50 gasoline. One is more supply, and one is less demand. The 
advanced battery technology car, the plug-in hybrid car that runs more 
on electricity than it does on oil, will help reduce demand. We have a 
proposal for that direction. Another proposal--and I am sure the 
Senator from New Mexico will want to say something about this--is the 
idea of, in appropriate places, using our existing oil and gas that 
exists offshore. Two years ago, the Senator from New Mexico, then 
chairman of the Energy Committee, pushed through legislation that 
permitted us to expand drilling in lease 181 in the Gulf of Mexico for 
oil and gas. We took some of those revenues and helped mitigate some of 
the problems that exist on the coast; in other words, used it for 
conservation purposes. For the first time, we put some of those 
revenues into the land and water conservation fund on a permanent 
basis, which has been a 40-year goal of the conservation community.
  The Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, was key to that effort. I am 
proud of that bipartisan effort. We could do more of that. This 
amendment doesn't specify exactly what we would do. That would be up to 
the authorizing committees. But an example of the next step might be to 
allow the State of Virginia, as it has asked Congress to permit it to 
do, to go 50 miles out and look for gas and then take half the revenue 
and put it in a trust fund for the State of Virginia to improve beach 
nourishment or to keep taxes down or to have a trust fund so the 
already excellent higher education system can be among the best in the 
world. If I were Governor of Virginia, I would want to do that. I was 
Governor of Tennessee, and we don't have an ocean. But many States do. 
If they asked for that and if they can produce more oil and gas, which 
will lower the price of $3.50 gasoline, then they ought to be allowed 
to do so.
  Finally, oil shale development--the Senator from New Mexico will 
direct

[[Page S1942]]

more of his attention to the oil shale development issue--the amendment 
would allow the Energy Committee to enact legislation that would 
increase domestic oil supplies by allowing the development of oil shale 
deposits in green basins in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.
  So what we have suggested is an amendment that is sponsored by 
Republicans, but we hope it is compelling enough to attract a great 
many Democrats to support it. It is an amendment that will help balance 
the family budget by lowering the cost of energy. It would be the 
Collins amendment to help use biomass--wood pellets, corn--in more 
efficient stoves in New England and other parts of America. It would be 
to create incentives for electricity meters, smart meters which could 
make more effective use of hybrid cars or water heaters and avoid 
building dozens of new powerplants. It would create room for the 
creation of incentives to allow existing coal plants to deal with 
carbon. If we want to deal with climate change in this generation, we 
have to deal realistically with the coal plants we have today which are 
producing one-half of the electricity we use in this country or 12.5 
percent of all the electricity that is used in the world. To lower the 
cost of gasoline and natural gas or to stabilize it, we want to create 
new supply in two ways: By, in appropriate instances, allowing offshore 
drilling. We would suggest, not in this legislation but as the 
committee works on it, that it be offshore 30 or 50 miles and that the 
royalties go to conservation purposes or to the States. The final idea 
was to use our oil in shale.
  In conclusion, there is one glaring omission in this set of five 
recommendations that we have made, and we need to work on it. The 
Senator from New Mexico is the leading Senator on this subject, but we 
don't have anything in our amendment about nuclear energy. I believe it 
is important to repeat, every time we talk about electricity, if we 
want to talk about realism, the United States, in the next 10 years, 
having control of mercury, having control of sulfur and nitrogen so it 
doesn't create health problems, and dealing with climate change in this 
generation, that after conservation, nuclear power is the only real 
technology we have today for that purpose.
  We do want to recapture carbon from coal, but we cannot do that in a 
wholesale way yet. We will never be able to put up enough wind turbines 
to make much of a difference. Someday maybe solar thermal powerplants 
may make a difference. But if we are talking about the next 10 or 12 
years, nuclear power will make the difference.
  Here is why I am saying that. As shown on this chart, this is the 
clean electricity generated in the United States of America last year. 
Sixty-six percent of the clean electricity--meaning electricity with no 
sulfur, no nitrogen, no mercury, and no carbon--came from nuclear 
power, a technology we invented in the United States in the 1950s, that 
our Navy has used without one single incident in submarines since the 
1950s; nuclear power that has now been adopted by France: 80 percent of 
their electricity is nuclear power; nuclear power that has been adopted 
by Japan: They build a new nuclear plant every year or so.
  We appropriated $5 billion to lend to Westinghouse in this body to 
help China build nuclear powerplants. When are we going to get serious 
about cleaning up the air?
  So we have ideas about that--not in this proposal. One would be to 
reprocess the waste, reduce it by 95 percent, so we can store it more 
safely. That is one idea. Another idea would be giving increased 
credits for the production of nuclear power. If we were to subsidize 
nuclear power by the kilowatt hour in way proportional to how we 
subsidize wind, we would be subsidizing nuclear power with about $340 
billion a year.
  So the Republican proposal to help balance the family budget on lower 
energy costs has five general areas as part of a reserve fund the 
appropriate committees can make a difference with. They have to do with 
conservation, and they have to do with increasing this supply. But what 
it means is, these are realistic ways to deal with the $3.50-a-gallon 
gas price and realistic ways to make sure we have large amounts of 
clean electricity, so we can deal with clean air as well as climate 
change in the near term instead of some later time.
  This is a real proposal and not a fairytale. This is for the country 
that produces 25 percent of all the energy in the world and not for 
some desert island. This will help balance the family budget. We hope 
it earns strong Democratic support as well as Republican support.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. The next speaker is the Senator 
from New Mexico, the long-time chairman of the Energy Committee as well 
as the Budget Committee and the leading spokesman for nuclear power in 
the Senate.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  I wish to correct the record, if the Senator from Tennessee has no 
objection. The lease we modified, which had a moratorium on it in the 
offshore, was lease 181. I believe the Senator said: 187. I would not 
correct it, but it is commonly known as 181, so I thought we should fix 
it.
  I am not going to speak very long because the truth of the matter is, 
the distinguished Senator, Mr. Alexander, has done a marvelous job 
explaining this package. Everybody should know we Republicans tried, on 
a budget resolution, to come up with some ideas. Some of them are 
simple, but all of them are good. All of them will do some significant 
good for the energy problems that confront everyday people and that 
confront the budgets of everyday people.
  It is good we sit down and say: Well, even though this is a budget 
resolution, can we come up with some things that will be helpful? I 
think we have. This amendment he has put in will attempt to bring down 
the price of gasoline, which would have the biggest effect on family 
budgets. As he says, we are looking at ways to help the family budget, 
while the Democratic budget we are on is going to wreck the Federal 
budget.
  What I am going to do is talk about, quickly, things I see in this 
amendment that are important. First of all, as the price of gasoline at 
the pump continues to rise, and our level of dependence on unstable 
foreign regions continues to rise, we must take action every 
opportunity we get. But instead, when the majority has chosen to take 
action on their own--and they had a chance a couple months ago--they 
have taken action that moves things in the wrong direction.
  Consider the Omnibus appropriations bill from last year. Hidden 
within those hundreds of pages, without transparency, were provisions 
that could have a profound negative effect on the Nation's energy 
security.
  First, it contained a 1-year moratorium on final regulations on oil 
shale. This little amendment my good friend Senator Alexander has 
offered says that regulation change--which was made in the back room, 
not open to daylight, not part of debate--be removed.
  I suggest we have already, in the Omnibus Energy bill, provided 
whatever the citizens of this country need as protection--environmental 
protection and the like--for this shale development. We have a company, 
Shell Oil, that is spending a huge amount of money onsite to see if 
they can find a way to convert this shale oil so it can be used as part 
of America's ever-growing need for oil and related products. We should 
not have put a moratorium on final regulations in an appropriations 
bill. So it takes that away.
  Secondly, in that same appropriations bill--in the dark of night, 
without being open to public discussion--a $4,000 fee was added to 
permits for drilling for oil. The Senate did not know anything about 
it. We have not debated it. It is the wrong direction. When you are 
producing something, you do not add more cost to the production and 
hope to get more. When you add a secret $4,000 fee, you cause less 
production, not more. This amendment does the right thing and says, 
openly and publicly: We want to address it. We take that $4,000 fee off 
because it never should have been there. It is moving in the wrong 
direction.

  According to the Department of Interior, the oil shale in the United 
States is the equivalent of 1.23 trillion barrels of oil. As we import 
millions of barrels of oil and send $400 billion this year to

[[Page S1943]]

unstable regions of the world, the majority chooses to make it more 
difficult to produce American resources.
  With the second provision, the majority chooses to increase the costs 
on small producers in my home State and others by putting this $4,000 
permit fee on the drilling using ordinary rigs to drill for oil. That 
should not have been done, and we fix that.
  The Alexander amendment takes a better approach than the majority 
did. It removes the impediments to producing more of the subject matter 
that will help us out of our dependence and makes things better for the 
average American in due course.
  One last thing I would mention as my last observation: In this bill, 
we considered that on the Atlantic and Pacific side of the offshore 
waters, we are leaving over 15 billion barrels of oil and over 50 
trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the ground. As we debate about 
the price impact of 60,000 barrels per day being put in the strategic 
petroleum reserve--our Nation's energy security asset--we leave over 1 
million barrels per day locked up underground in Arctic Alaska, and we 
have allowed about 15 billion barrels of oil to remain locked up under 
our ocean.
  The Alexander amendment does only what it can do, but it seeks to 
revisit the debate on domestic production in light of these new facts 
and new costs facing Americans.
  The amendment also seeks to improve the efficiency and cleanliness of 
the way we produce and use electricity. The Senator has explained that 
as much as it needs to be, and better than I can, so I will say no 
more.
  This amendment overall does not do all that we need to do to 
strengthen our Nation's energy security, but it is a vast progrowth 
improvement over the approach laid out by the majority in two 
provisions which I have talked about, and then we have added an 
additional three that are good and will help the American people.
  I wish to close by saying, I am firmly convinced the American people 
are being hurt every day. We are being made poorer--day by day, week by 
week, month by month, year by year--because the cost of oil has gone up 
so high. Yet we have not been able to minimize our dependence, although 
we passed some very formidable laws to address it in time, in due 
course. But for now we continue to use more than we did last year and 
more than we did the year before. At $100-plus a barrel, there is no 
question we are not adjusting to that very well.
  We must do everything we can to avoid that continued use. This 
amendment will do a little bit. If the committees that are charged with 
and given jurisdiction were to pass it, it would help. In the meantime, 
there is no question we should seek every opportunity to minimize our 
dependence upon foreign oil so as to permit our economy to grow again 
and become powerful again. This Senator is fearful we are going in the 
wrong direction, principally because oil is too expensive, and we must 
import too much of it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank the Senator for permitting 
me to join him in his amendment today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                    Amendment No. 4196, as Modified

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on 
amendment No. 4196, as modified, which Senator Conrad offered for me 
earlier today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, my amendment is a very simple amendment. 
It deals with the estate tax. What it does is set aside a deficit 
reserve fund that will protect family businesses and family farms and 
ranches from the estate tax. It is a straightforward amendment that 
will address the complexity of the changing estate tax law that we 
currently face.
  Let me say at the outset that when one looks at what we are facing 
with respect to the estate tax in the years ahead, I think it is clear 
we must act to provide certainty to people with respect to their 
estates and to deal with issues that have been raised by Senators on 
the Democratic side of the aisle as well as Senators on the Republican 
side of the aisle.
  It is clear, when you look at what is happening now with respect to 
current law--in 2007 and 2008, you have an effective exemption of $2 
million and a top tax rate of 45 percent. When you look at the year 
2009, under current law, we are looking at an effective exemption of 
$3.5 million and a 45-percent top tax rate. Then, in 2010, for that 
year, it is completely repealed, so there is no estate tax. Then, in 
2011 and thereafter, you are looking at a framework of law that will 
effectively provide a $1 million exemption, and then we will have what 
is a 55-percent taxable rate, plus a potential 5-percent surtax, with 
respect to estates.
  The reality of it is, no one knows when they are going to die. We do 
not know whether it is a 2008 event--2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 or 2013. So 
this is an area of the law which we must fix.

  I am proud of the fact that our chairman of the Finance Committee, 
Senator Baucus, has started to hold hearings on the estate tax. We had 
one this morning in which we heard different concepts of how estates 
are taxed in places such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and 
different approaches to dealing with this issue. So I am hopeful as we 
move forward in the year ahead, we can find a bipartisan solution to 
deal with the estate tax issue that faces us.
  For me, as one Senator, there are three principles that I will keep 
in mind, and I hope we all will keep in mind. First is fiscal 
responsibility. We have, in fact, as the chairman of the Budget 
Committee has so often stated over the last 7 years, created this huge 
mountain of debt. I think it is important for us to abide by the pay-go 
principles which we have adopted in this Chamber so that as we are 
creating new programs or as we are creating new tax cuts and we are 
finding ways of paying for those deficits or for those programs that we 
are creating, this will all become part of, hopefully, what will be a 
new wind that will blow upon Washington--that has started to blow upon 
Washington--as we need to be responsible with the fiscal resources of 
the Government.
  The second imperative for me as we move forward with the estate tax 
is that we deal with those estates that don't have liquidity, as 
happens in the case of farmers and ranchers who sometimes have to split 
up their estates because of the fact that they can't find the money to 
be able to pay off their estate tax. That does, in fact, happen. It 
happens from time to time in my own State of Colorado. So I am hopeful 
we will be able to create a law that will allow farmers and ranchers to 
stay on their land.
  Thirdly, as I said at the beginning, there is no way anybody can 
predict when they are going to die. It is important for those looking 
ahead at their own estates that there be some certainty with respect to 
the law that will apply to their assets and to their estate. Our 
amendment addresses all of those issues.
  The estate tax is a complicated and intimidating law. It does need, 
in my view, serious reform. The Finance Committee will hold a number of 
hearings on this issue. The first amendment which Senator Baucus 
offered on a variety of middle-class tax cuts for Americans provides 
some relief and some certainty to American families and small 
businesses by ensuring that there will be no increase in the estate tax 
through a permanent extension of the 2009 estate tax law. I am a proud 
cosponsor of that amendment. I believe the manner in which we address 
the estate tax in that amendment is a minimal level of reform that the 
Congress can accomplish.
  That is why I have introduced the amendment before us, which has 
created a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the purposes of providing 
additional estate tax relief. The reserve fund will provide sufficient 
funds to accommodate a proposal to raise the estate tax exemption to $5 
million, indexed for inflation, and to lower the tax rate to 35 
percent. But my amendment will not lock in the structure of the estate 
tax reform. It may be that we will need to provide additional relief 
and tailor the legislation in the Finance Committee in a manner that 
effectively addresses the needs of family farmers and ranchers and 
family businesses.
  We also learned this morning in a hearing of the Senate Finance 
Committee there are many options for us to consider as we move forward 
with fixing the estate tax law. There are many

[[Page S1944]]

options to estate tax reform, and we should continue to work our way 
through the process to identify the most appropriate way to move 
forward on a bipartisan basis. This morning's hearing was the second 
estate tax hearing we have held in the Finance Committee, and we will 
hold a third hearing on this matter in early April. We are working 
through the process. We are examining the challenges posed by the 
current estate tax system, and we are considering a wide range of 
proposals to provide comprehensive, permanent, and fiscally responsible 
reform.
  I remain committed to working with Chairman Baucus, Senator Conrad, 
and other colleagues on the Finance Committee and in the Senate for 
achieving meaningful reform in the near term. My amendment and the 
amendment by Senator Baucus will help pave the way for that reform, and 
I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I also wish to spend a few minutes speaking to the Baucus amendment, 
of which I am an original cosponsor. That amendment by Senator Baucus 
will take surplus funds in the budget resolution to make sure that we 
are taking care of the middle class of America as we move forward. What 
that amendment does again is, it makes the permanent extension of the 
10-percent income tax bracket permanent. It addresses the extension of 
the increased refundable child tax credit with additional eligibility 
for lower income Americans and makes that permanent. It addresses the 
marriage penalty tax relief provisions and makes that tax relief 
provision permanent. It addresses the extension of the tax credit for 
childcare expenses, and it makes that credit a permanent credit. It 
addresses the increased adoption tax credit and makes that permanent, 
and it also addresses the estate tax issues, as I mentioned earlier.
  I am hopeful that my colleagues will support both the Baucus 
amendment as well as the Salazar amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, is Senator Kyl seeking recognition?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thought I would like to respond to Senator 
Salazar while he is here, and I ask unanimous consent to have my time 
taken off the Republican side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me speak for just a few minutes in 
response to my colleague from Colorado because earlier today I offered 
an amendment which, as I gather, it would accomplish essentially the 
same thing as the amendment of the Senator from Colorado.
  My amendment explicitly would provide in the budget an accommodation 
for an exempted amount of $5 million per spouse, for a total of $10 
million, as part of the unified gift and estate tax exemption, and a 
top rate not to exceed 35 percent. As I understand it, the amendment of 
the Senator from Colorado would accommodate that same relief. I noted 
that with my amendment we also ensured that the $5 million per person 
exempted amount was indexed for inflation. We provide a step up in 
basis, the existing period of time to pay the tax. I presume, or I 
would gather, that those same items are included in the Senator's 
amendment, but he can respond to that.
  I guess my point is that we have a difference between the amendment I 
have offered and the amendment of the Senator from Colorado. There is 
one difference between them, and that is this: Last year, we passed a 
similar amendment to the budget. No legislation was ever brought 
forward. Last year, the 10-percent tax bracket renewal or extension was 
passed unanimously, I believe, as part of the budget. The chairman of 
the Finance Committee never brought forth legislation to deal with 
that. He has advised me this year there will be no action on the death 
tax. We are going to have hearings, but there is not going to be any 
action on the Senate floor. I suspect that one of the reasons is 
because of the way he has approached it, the way the Senator from 
Colorado has approached it, which is to put the Government before the 
taxpayers; to say that before we can do any of this, we have to make 
sure the Government is made whole, which means we have to find a way to 
``pay for'' the tax. That is the language that has been used. We have 
to ``pay for'' the tax.
  I ask, why should the American taxpayers have to pay for a reduction 
in their own taxes, if you start with the premise that the American 
worker earns money, and we want the American family to keep as much 
money as possible in their own pockets so they can provide for the 
needs of their families? Also, in this time of economic downturn, we 
even decided we would try to put more money in their pockets, urging 
them to spend it as a way to try to stimulate the economy. I would 
think we would start from the premise that the money belongs to the 
taxpayers, and we want to allow taxpayers to keep as much of that money 
as possible.
  If we are going to do taxes on one side, then we ought to hold them 
harmless; that is to say, if we believe their tax liability is too much 
or that a particular tax is wrong, as we believe that the estate tax 
is, that it is in desperate need of, if not repeal, at least 
significant reform, that the point is to reduce that estate tax burden 
and not to reduce it with one hand and then require a tax increase to 
``pay for'' it on the other hand. How have you helped the American 
taxpayer if you say: We will reduce your taxes over here, but in order 
to keep the Government whole, we need to somehow make up the revenue 
for the Government because it matters more than you do, and therefore 
we are going to have to raise taxes on you someplace else in order to 
``pay for'' this tax relief. We don't do that when we pass a farm bill 
around here.
  The baseline for the farm bill, what we spent this year, is something 
just under $600 billion. If we spent the same amount of money on the 
farm bill next year, we would not have to ``pay for'' any of that. We 
would only have to ``pay for'' an increase. Yet if we are going to 
extend an existing tax rate, say, the 10-percent bracket of the 
amendment of the Senator from Colorado, the idea is somehow we have to 
pay for that, even though it is exactly the same bracket it is today. 
If we are going to extend the capital gains rate or the dividends rate 
or any other marginal rates, keep them exactly the same as they are 
today, why should we have to raise taxes permanently someplace else in 
order to ``pay for'' that? You only get to that conclusion if you think 
the Federal Government is more important than taxpayers.
  Well, the way our country was founded is based on, ``We, the 
people.'' We created the Government. The Government is supposed to 
serve us, not the other way around. So you don't start from the premise 
that somehow, the Government has an amount of money today and no matter 
what happens, no matter how much we want to provide tax relief for 
people, the Government still has to have the same amount of money. So 
if we are going to provide tax relief for people, somehow we have to 
make up the money that we give back to the people.

  If you want to provide tax relief for people, the whole idea is that 
they don't have to pay for it in some other way. They get to keep the 
money. We trust them to spend it. That is the fundamental difference I 
have with the amendment of the Senator from Colorado.
  If the terms with respect to the amount exempted and the rate is the 
same--and I presume it would be--the question is, are we ever going to 
act on it?
  My amendment will be acted on this year one way or another. We are 
not just going to pass it in the budget as we have in the past. This 
isn't just going to be a show exercise where we all vote on the budget 
to cut taxes, but the cuts never really materialize. Why don't they 
ever materialize? Because the majority doesn't bring a bill to the 
Senate floor and try to get the bill passed. If the bill doesn't pass, 
the President doesn't sign it, and there is no tax relief.
  The budget is merely like the family budget. It is a goal. It is a 
blueprint. It is something you want to try to follow if at all 
possible. Yet when we pass tax relief in the budget, we are not really 
passing tax relief. We are just saying: This is something we would like 
to do. We would like to accommodate this in the budget. But if you 
never follow through with any action, what have you done except to fool 
the American people, make them think you are going to reduce taxes but 
you never, ever get around to actually doing it.

[[Page S1945]]

  My amendment will be brought to the Senate floor. It doesn't have to 
put the Government first. We don't have to pay for it by increasing the 
taxes on you over here so we can cut your taxes here.
  Now, my colleagues can either vote for it or against it, but we are 
going to get a vote on the floor of the Senate on reform for the death 
tax, and it will be very much along the lines of the amendment I 
introduced and the Senator from Colorado introduced. It will have a $5 
million exemption per person, a step-up in basis for the property. It 
will be indexed to inflation, and it will either have one rate or two, 
but the top rate will not exceed 35 percent.
  The difference will be we will either give tax relief to people or we 
won't. If we give tax relief to people, we are not going to then have 
to ``pay for'' it in order to keep the Federal Government whole. 
Government gets about a little over 1 percent of its revenues from the 
estate tax. This reform would still allow a huge amount of revenue to 
come in because there are still a lot of estates that will pay that 35 
percent rate on amounts above $5 million or $10 million.
  What it will do is take about 130,000 people who otherwise would have 
to file an estate tax return off of the rolls. They would not have to 
worry about it. They are the smaller businesses, the smaller farms--not 
the big estates but the smaller ones--that have to pay anywhere from 
$5,000 to $1 million to just plan around the eventuality of death, 
which, unfortunately, comes to all of us. So they buy insurance. They 
hire lawyers and accountants, and they pay a lot of money. In fact, in 
the aggregate, Americans pay as much money to avoid paying the tax as 
they pay to the Federal Government in the tax itself.
  What we want to do is to get most of those people off of the rolls so 
they don't have to worry about it.
  I certainly agree with my colleague from Colorado when he said the 
first principle should be certainty. We should know--especially with 
the death tax there should be some certainty. Well, you don't have any 
certainty if you don't know whether you are going to have to pay the 
tax. Unfortunately, the way it is right now, the way it is under the 
budget that has been brought before us is, you have at least 130,000 
people who are going to have to file a return.
  You don't know how many are going to have to actually pay the tax. 
What our amendment does is reduce that number to a little over 11,000, 
so that people don't have to spend a lot of money hiring lawyers and 
accountants and buying insurance on the off chance they are going to 
have to pay for it; nor do they have to expend large amounts of money 
in tax preparation--38 hours, on average, per tax form filed.
  We don't want people to have to pay that amount of money. That is why 
we hope to get the number of filers down to something like 11,000. Then 
if they have to pay the tax, so be it. But the majority of Americans 
would be spared the tax.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KYL. Yes.
  Mr. SALAZAR. The Senator from Arizona is correct that this is a 
problem we have to deal with, and there are very significant 
similarities between our two amendments. In fact, the $45 billion fund 
we have created will allow for indexing and for a stepped-up basis. The 
key difference between the Senator's amendment and mine is that his is 
not paid for. The reality is we in this Congress and in the Senate and 
in the White House need to understand we need to be fiscally 
responsible. That is a debate we have had here with respect to pay-go. 
It is my view, given the fact we already have a $10 trillion national 
debt that continues to grow, we have a war that now is projected to 
cost over $2 trillion that we have not funded, but we have allowed that 
credit card debt to basically be passed on to our children, we need to 
be fiscally responsible.
  So while we both recognize--the Senator from Arizona and I--that we 
need to have certainty with respect to estate tax reform--and I think 
we both recognize the Senator from Montana, the chairman of the Finance 
Committee, is doing his best to get ideas from around the country and 
the world on how to deal with this issue and move forward in a good-
faith effort--the distinction here is whether you pay for this change.
  My question to my good friend from Arizona, with whom I enjoy working 
on the Finance Committee, is: How would he propose that we pay for this 
$10 trillion mountain of debt, built up largely over the last 7 years?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am happy to respond to my colleague. The 
debate now is not how to pay for a $10 trillion debt. We have a deficit 
of around $400 billion. We need to focus on not increasing the debt by 
increasing the amount of the deficit more than we have to. I share the 
Senator's goal for that.
  There are three fundamental ways you can reduce the deficit. You can 
reduce spending--and I am going to pick two out of the three. First, 
you can reduce spending. I will vote for that. I have a good record 
around here on trying to reduce spending. Yet there isn't anything in 
this budget that reduces spending.
  If we have a cost, the automatic action under the budget is to 
increase taxes, which is the second way you can do it. I reject that 
for the reasons I have pointed out. You don't help people by cutting 
their taxes here and raising their taxes over there. At best, you have 
created a neutral situation.
  The third way, of course, is to ensure that our economic policies are 
progrowth policies. We don't have too much in the way of regulation, 
too much in the way of taxation, that the Government basically tries to 
get out of the way of our economy so it can grow, produce jobs, create 
more wealth and, with that wealth, by the way, pay more taxes, which is 
a good thing. One of the reasons why we are collecting today in Federal 
revenues above the 40-year average in tax collections, with our Federal 
tax policy--we are collecting roughly 18.8 percent of GDP, more than 
the 40-year average. The reason is we have a growing economy, although 
it is slowing right now, to be sure. But because that economy has been 
robust, even at slightly lower tax rates, we are paying more in taxes, 
tax revenue, because the economy has grown. So the textbook answer to 
my friend is you can reduce the deficit, and ultimately the debt, in 
one of three ways: reduce spending, increasing taxes--though it has 
diminishing returns; if you do it too much, you don't get revenue, you 
can promote economic growth and you can bring the debt down.
  The last point. My colleague pointed out we were having hearings in 
the Finance Committee this morning and one of the witnesses there, as 
mentioned by my colleague, talked about what countries such as Canada, 
New Zealand, and Australia are doing. Do you know what they are doing? 
They are repealing their estate taxes. Why would they be repealing 
their estate taxes? This gets to the third way you make money. You 
grow. What happened in Australia is they found toward the end of life 
people with any means were moving to New Zealand, because they didn't 
have an estate tax. They wanted to keep them in Australia, so they 
decided, for competitive reasons, that they would eliminate the estate 
tax. So they stayed in Australia rather than moving to New Zealand. 
Canada and others are doing the same thing.
  Our rate, now at 43 percent, which would be locked in by the budget, 
is far above the worldwide average, which is an 18-percent rate. A lot 
of countries don't have an estate tax. My answer is that our better 
response is, if we are not going to repeal the estate tax, reform it in 
a way that doesn't inhibit economic growth and enables us to compete, 
enables our economy to produce revenue, even at a slightly lower tax 
rate because, at the end of the day, that will do us all more good than 
trying to do what my colleague would do--raise taxes as the way to pay 
for a tax reduction. To me, that doesn't make the kind of sense I would 
want to be associated with in promoting legislation.
  Let me simply yield the floor so my colleague can respond and not 
have to pose a question in order to make the point.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I respect the Senator from Arizona and 
his raising the issue of the estate tax and its need to be reformed, as 
well as the fiscal crisis we face. Obviously, it will be a debate that 
will consume a tremendous amount of time on the part of

[[Page S1946]]

the Senate and the Congress and, hopefully, an administration that 
helps us get back on a line of fiscal integrity and honesty for the 
people of America.
  Mr. President, I note that my friend from Massachusetts is on the 
floor. He has a very tight schedule. I will yield the floor. I ask 
unanimous consent that the Senator from Massachusetts be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4151

  Mr. Kennedy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 4151.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4151.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To add a deficit-neutral reserve fund for increasing federal 
  student loan limits to protect students against disruptions in the 
                        private credit markets)

       On page 55, line 18, after the word ``program'' insert ``or 
     increasing Federal student loan limits''.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering is intended 
to give additional protections for students and families struggling to 
pay for college.
  Americans are anxious about the slumping economy and how it affects 
their families. They are losing their homes. They are seeing 
skyrocketing health costs. They wonder if they can afford today's gas 
prices to drive to work every day. The cost of heating their homes has 
jumped at least 50 percent in the last 2 years. And now they are 
hearing that the loans they rely on to afford the high cost of college 
may be at risk. Financial aid officers in some colleges are telling 
them that loans may not be available when the school year starts this 
fall.
  What we are seeing is that the credit crunch that is affecting the 
mortgage industry and many banks and corporations may affect the 
ability of families to secure student loans at fair rates so their 
children can go to the college of their choice.
  We are here today to say that we cannot allow the credit crunch to 
prevent our young people from going to college. The ability of young 
Americans to pay the high cost of college should not be determined by 
the quarterly earnings of banks.
  There are three steps we must take to help families cope with the 
cost of college education. First, we must increase our commitment to 
Pell grants and other aid. We do that in this budget. This budget meets 
our promise to increase the maximum goal to $5,400 by the year 2012.
  This chart represents the legislation that was passed last year where 
we provided additional funding for the Pell grants. The budget 
resolution showed that help is on the way for more than 5 million Pell 
grant recipients across the country. This chart illustrates how the 
budget resolution will help hard-pressed young people, who are in the 
educational system.
  Second, we should make sure that secure loan options are available to 
students in case the market collapses. We have programs now that are 
backed up by the Federal Government that are not affected by the 
market. Those are the direct loan programs in which the Federal 
Government makes the loans and not the banks--and the lender of last 
resort program that allows guaranty agencies to become lenders with the 
backing of the Federal Government.
  Congressman George Miller, the chairman of the House Education 
Committee, and I have urged the Secretary of Education to make sure 
these two options are fully available to students and colleges should 
they be needed.
  Third, we should strengthen the federally subsidized student loan 
program, and my amendment does that. We all know that student loans are 
indispensable for millions of students and parents struggling to pay 
for college. In the last 20 years, the cost of college has tripled, and 
more and more students are forced to rely on student loans to pay the 
high costs of a college education. In 1993, less than half of all 
students had to take out loans. But in 2004, nearly two-thirds had to 
take out loans to finance their education. This chart illustrates this 
point, showing the increase in students taking out loans from 1993 to 
2004.
  The average student now graduates with more than $19,000 in debt--a 
dramatic increase on the financial burden on the students and their 
families.
  In Massachusetts, the cost of attending a 4-year public college 
increased 59 percent between 2001 and 2005, while family incomes only 
went up 20 percent. This chart illustrates where the family income 
increased and where the cost of attending college has increased even 
more.
  The best way to help students and families afford college is to 
increase grant aid. More aid up front means fewer loans and less debt 
on graduation day.
  Last year, the new Democratic Congress delivered on a 7-year old 
promise by President Bush to raise Pell grants. The maximum grant will 
increase to $5,400 by 2012--an increase of $1,350 over the level at 
which it had stagnated under this administration. This increase means 
that students eligible for the maximum Pell grant will have to borrow 
$6,000 less in loans over the course of their college career.
  The effect of borrowing less saves the average student about $6,000 
in a reduction of their debt. The legislation enacted last year also 
makes Federal loans less costly for students by reducing interest 
rates. These benefits, however, will be meaningless if students cannot 
obtain the loans to pay for the college of their choice.
  The current crisis in the credit market is making it more difficult 
for student lenders to obtain capital. This has cut into the lenders' 
profit margins, causing some lenders to pull out of the student loan 
market and causing those operating outside the Federal loan program to 
cut back on lending to high-risk borrowers.
  So far, the attractiveness of the guarantee in the federally 
subsidized program is encouraging other lenders to fill in the gaps in 
that program. Since interest rates in the Federal program are capped, 
students are protected from exorbitant interest payments.
  But many families need additional loans beyond Federal loans while 
they are in college. We have a responsibility to ensure they can obtain 
the loans at affordable rates.
  One step we can take is to increase the amount that students can 
borrow in low-interest, federally backed student loans, which means 
they won't have to rely on the higher cost, riskier private loan 
market.
  The amendment I am offering today expands the deficit-neutral reserve 
funds for higher education in the budget resolution so that Congress 
can take whatever action is needed to increase the amount students can 
borrow under the Federal programs.
  Over the last 20 years, as the cost of college has continued to 
skyrocket, Federal student aid has essentially remained flat. As this 
chart shows, the cost of attending a 4-year college has tripled--from 
about $4,000 in 1987 to $12,000 today. Over the same period, the amount 
of Federal assistance available to students in grants or loans has been 
essentially flat.
  This goes back, if you extend these lines to 1965, to when they 
passed the Higher Education Act. The basis for passing the Higher 
Education Act in 1965 was a national commitment, which was debated in 
the 1960 campaign, heavily debated, that this Nation was making a 
commitment to the young people of this country. Any young person who 
was able to gain entrance into a school or college of their choice 
would be able to, on the basis of academic merit, put together 
sufficient grants and loans--and what they were able to earn 
themselves--to be able to go to any school or college in this country 
and come out relatively free from indebtedness. That was what the 
debate was at that time.
  But look how we have betrayed that commitment.
  We have seen that assistance to the students has become basically 
flat, but the extraordinary increase we have

[[Page S1947]]

seen in college costs has had a dramatic impact, obviously, on the 
students and their ability to go to school and on their income.
  I wish to illustrate the point we are trying to make with this chart.
  This is a typical family in my State of Massachusetts. Let's say the 
median family income is $68,000 which is higher than the national 
average but not by much, maybe $10,000 or so. Now, the expected family 
contribution is $8,000 to $10,000. The median cost of college is 
$17,000. So after all of the grants and loans, the family still has to 
make up $2,675 in unmet need. This assumes they can even, with this 
amount, put up the $8,000 to $10,000. Many of these families have two, 
three, four, or five children and are hard-pressed even to meet this 
kind of commitment, but they still have this to pay.
  If a member of this family misses a payment, a car payment or some 
other credit card payment, they will be forced to pay the most 
exorbitant high interest rates, which will result in paying thousands 
and tens of thousands of dollars more in interest costs.
  We address this very important point right here with this 
legislation. It might not seem like a very considerable amount, but it 
is the difference between a student going on to college or not 
attending college.
  Mr. President, we have talked to the Budget chair on this issue, and 
we understand we will be moving on to other amendments. This is a very 
important area. The impact of the economic challenge we are facing is 
reflected most particularly in housing but spills over in terms of 
students and their families. This will only be used if we have the kind 
of emergency we hope will not take place, but it will ensure that this 
Senate is going on record to say to families in this country that we 
are aware of the challenges they may very well be facing, and if those 
develop, we are going to have some assistance for them and for their 
family so that the value and worthwhile effort to continue the 
education of their children in the family will be able to continue.
  Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee for the 
opportunity to present this, and hopefully later in the discussion 
there might be an opportunity to have this favorably considered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Kennedy especially for 
his passion and commitment to educating the children of our country.
  I was raised by my grandparents. My grandmother was a schoolteacher 
and was only 5 feet tall. We called her Little Chief. She told us, as 
we were growing up, there were three priorities in our household: 
Education was No. 1, No. 2 was education, and No. 3 was education. We 
got the message.
  I deeply appreciate the absolute passion and commitment that the 
Senator from Massachusetts shows to the education issues. It is 
inspiring that he is able to maintain this level of commitment over 
these many years and has achieved such extraordinary results, including 
last year.
  I thought one of the greatest accomplishments of the budget 
resolution was the education package that Senator Kennedy brought 
before the body and that passed and became law. It increased Pell 
grants, which reduced the cost of getting a college education by 
enhancing and improving the loan program. I thought it was one of the 
two most significant accomplishments of last year. I thought the other 
one was the expansion of assistance for veterans health care. That, 
too, became law, and it did so because it was included in the budget 
resolution. No one had more to do with that package than the Senator 
from Massachusetts, and we thank him for his leadership.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator, and if he will yield 
for a moment, I want to thank him for his comments.
  As he has mentioned, we had the opportunity to follow the rules of 
the Senate in getting the final resolution and judgment, which was 
basically supported in a very strong bipartisan way, ultimately, to 
move in that direction. But, as the Senator pointed out, we have 
provided increased opportunities to more than 5 million of the children 
of hard-working Americans who are hard-pressed trying to go on to 
continue their education with the enhanced Pell grants.
  Included in that legislation was the loan forgiveness program that 
said: If you work in a public service profession, if you work with 
special needs children, if you work as an assistant district attorney, 
if you work as a legal aid officer, or if you work in areas of 
education, you will be able to get your loan forgiven.
  We also, as the Senator knows, put the limitation on monthly 
repayment amounts, so that individuals, idealistic young people in 
America who want to go into some form of public service, would not pay 
more than 15 percent of their income to pay off their debt. This gives 
a pathway to millions of young people in this country who want to give 
something back to their local community or their State or their country 
through some form of public service. This will enhance their 
opportunity to do so.
  I must say, of course, that we would not have been able to do that 
had we not had the chance through the Budget Committee, in compliance 
with the rules of the Budget Committee, to ensure that we were able to 
save hundreds of millions of dollars that went to deficit reduction. As 
a result of the leadership of the Budget chair, we were able to do 
something good for students but also to do something valuable and 
worthwhile in terms of the budget. So I thank the chairman of the 
committee for the opportunity and for all his cooperation and help.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator very much.
  Next, we have Senator Lincoln, and I would just like to ask Senator 
Lincoln how much time she would seek.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. No more than 10 minutes, or less.
  Mr. CONRAD. We will provide up to 15 minutes off the resolution, and 
whatever the Senator consumes.
  I would say to the Senator, at the end of her remarks, if she would 
withhold actually sending the amendment to the desk, that will allow 
Senator Sununu to come to the floor so that we maintain the back-and-
forth order. Then, if the Senator is not here after her remarks, I will 
just enter her amendment so that it will be in the queue, but we will 
do this in a way that is fair to both sides.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Absolutely.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator very much. I thank her for all she 
has done to help us form this budget. I very much appreciate the effort 
and the energy she has brought to it.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arkansas is 
recognized.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I, too, wish to thank the Budget 
Committee chairman and express my appreciation for his hard work and 
that of the ranking member for their diligence throughout this budget 
process.
  I would also like to thank my colleague from Massachusetts for the 
many ways that he affects the lives of Americans all across this great 
Nation in support of a multitude of things but without a doubt in terms 
of higher education and in making that opportunity available to young 
adults across this country who want to reach their potential, who want 
to give back to their country, and through reaching that potential are 
able to add more of the gift they have to give this world and certainly 
to our Nation. His tireless work in those areas has been unbelievably 
important to students in Arkansas--I know myself, having gone to school 
with a student loan--but without a doubt realizing that potential, 
realizing that opportunity, and making it available for Americans all 
across this country. Senator Kennedy has done tremendous work, and we 
applaud that.
  I also again want to applaud Chairman Conrad, who has done a 
phenomenal job in bringing together a budget that I believe truly 
reflects the values of this country and the values of the American 
people. The budget is a blueprint document. It is a place for us to 
really express our priorities as a Congress. We move forward with a 
budget that we hope reflects the things we hear from our constituencies 
and the ways they want to see their Nation, their Government, investing 
in this country.
  They want to see us investing in the education, the human capital 
that is going to continue to make this country great. They want to see 
us investing in infrastructure and in children, in health care and in 
opportunity, where we can improve on all of these many

[[Page S1948]]

things; investments in rural America as well as the needs that exist in 
our urban areas.
  It is a tough job to balance all of that and truly reflect our values 
as Americans, because we are diverse. It is one of the greatest things 
about being a part of this Nation, to know that region upon region is 
different, and individuals in those regions are different. But the fact 
is, we are all under one common denominator--Americans. As a country 
and as a government, we want to see that investment in who we all are. 
I think the chairman has painstakingly looked at how we combine in this 
budget the values, the morals, and the issues of who we are and the 
investments we want to make and setting those as priorities as we move 
forward in the process we have.
  My purpose for rising today is a simple one, and that is to better 
ensure that the men and women who have courageously served our Nation 
in uniform receive the benefits to which they are entitled in a more 
timely manner.
  Last year, we came before the Budget Committee and set forth our 
priorities. One was very similar to what Senator Kennedy was just 
visiting about, and that was to ensure that our Guard and Reserve are 
going to get the educational benefits they deserve, the ones they had 
earned.
  Our Guard and Reserve have been called to duty in a much different 
way in the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan than we have seen ever 
before, and making sure their rewards and their incentives for 
education are commensurate with the Active-Duty members they are 
fighting alongside is important. We were successful with that, we were 
successful in ensuring their ability to access those benefits in a 
timely way, because before they only had 1 year. Now we have given them 
more time to be able to access those benefits when they return home out 
of theater and out of Active Duty.
  This, again, is another issue in terms of timeliness, in how we 
respond to our veterans and the courageous men and women who serve us. 
The amendment that will be offered on my behalf momentarily--and I will 
be offering it with my friend and colleague from Maine, Senator Olympia 
Snowe--would do just that on timeliness. We are joined by Senators 
Biden, Clinton, Mikulski, and Pryor.
  Mr. President, I would also like to ask unanimous consent that my 
colleague, Senator Lieberman, be added as a cosponsor as well.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I would also note that we had 25 Senators who joined us 
in a letter to the Budget Committee recently requesting this as a 
priority in the budget, and I would encourage my colleagues to take a 
look at this amendment and join us because it is truly the right thing 
to do. This amendment would provide an additional $50 million for the 
Veterans Benefits Administration.

  In the scheme of things, and how we talk about things in Washington, 
$50 million is not a great deal. It is not a huge amount in the overall 
scheme of the dollars we talk about in our Nation's budget. But we 
believe it can truly make a difference in providing the Veterans 
Benefits Administration with the additional resources it desperately 
needs to more effectively meet its increasing workload and its 
unacceptability in terms of the large backlog of pending claims.
  In recent years, Congress has taken the lead in tackling the claims 
backlog and improving the management of the VBA. In last year's budget, 
much needed resources were provided to increase the number of claims 
processing staff essential to reducing the pending claims backlog and 
improving the timeliness of that claims process.
  There is not a Member in this body, I am sure, who has not dealt 
with, in their constituent services and their casework, the issues of 
veterans' benefits that have been backlogged, the time it takes to get 
these veterans the benefits they deserve. They have fought hard for 
this country and need and deserve those benefits.
  The leadership and guidance of Chairman Akaka and Chairman Conrad and 
their staffs certainly made all of this possible. Today we seek to 
invest further in the commitment we already made in last year's budget 
and what we were pushing forward and were successful in, in terms of 
additional funding for the VBA dealing with that backlog of cases.
  According to the Veterans Benefits Administration's Workload Report 
from March 8, 2008, the total number of pending compensation and 
pension claims was 666,710. That was up from 627,429 this time last 
year. So we are seeing an increase in our caseload while all the while 
we still have a backlog in those cases that are pending.
  The amount that has been pending for more than 180 days is nearly 27 
percent. Additionally, claims requiring a disability rating 
determination, which are the most time consuming and resource intensive 
to the process, have increased more than 50 percent since 2003.
  This is inexcusable--veterans who return home from Iraq and 
Afghanistan, veterans who are out there with disability claims from 
other circumstances, who have been put into these backlogs. It is 
continuing to grow. We are only asking for $50 million to be able to 
improve upon that situation for these veterans.
  Between the fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2007, the number of 
filed claims increased 45 percent, from almost 579,000 to 838,000. For 
fiscal year 2009, the VA, which has consistently underestimated its 
workload in the past, projects the number to increase to approximately 
872,000. These numbers are increasing and we have to get a handle on it 
so we can stop those overloads and certainly the workloads that are 
backlogged.
  Further, the VA cautions that ongoing hostilities in Iraq and 
Afghanistan could increase its workload even further. So we know 
unfortunately there is not going to be a lessening. There is only, more 
than likely, going to be an increase. We have to make sure we have the 
resources there.
  In light of all these mounting challenges, this amendment would 
provide an additional $50 million to the VBA's general administration 
account so it would have the flexibility to explore pilot programs and 
invest more in training or technology initiatives to help tackle the 
claims backlog. This is not a process that is going to go away if we do 
not address it. It is simply not fair to our veterans.
  It complements the recommendations that are provided in the Budget 
Views and Estimates from both the House and Senate Committees on 
Veterans' Affairs. As discussed in those documents----
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Gallery.)
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will suspend. The 
Sergeant at Arms will restore order.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask for a recess subject to the call of the Chair.


                Recess Subject to the Call of the Chair

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will stand in recess 
while the Sergeant at Arms clears the gallery.
  Thereupon, the Senate, at 2:21 p.m., recessed until 2:22 p.m. and 
reassembled when called to order by the Acting President pro tempore 
(Mr. Cardin).
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arkansas may 
continue.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, there are many passionate pleas we hear 
across our country. Hopefully, the passionate pleas we make here on the 
floor of the Senate on behalf of our constituents can be seen as 
passionate as many we witness--some here today, and certainly others. I 
continue with my passionate plea on behalf of the soldiers, the brave 
American men and women who serve this great country. In what we have 
seen in the backlog, through the Veterans' Administration, certainly it 
is an indication that we can do a better job in providing those 
benefits to the service men and women who have done such a courageous 
job on behalf of this great Nation and all of us.

  What I recommended in my amendment are recommendations that I think 
complement the recommendations provided in the Budget Views and 
Estimates from both the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' 
Affairs. Again, I thank Chairman Akaka for all of his hard work and 
Chairman Conrad for working with us on this issue.
  Our veterans are a very passionate issue to many of us, coming from a

[[Page S1949]]

family where my dad was an infantryman in Korea. We talked earlier 
about the impression our families leave on us. Senator Conrad mentioned 
his grandmother who believed in education. I grew up in a household 
very much like that. My husband did as well. My husband's grandmother 
is going to be 111 this year and she is still preaching education. She 
is still on her own, still out there making sure that every child who 
got her Christmas letter this year knew the importance of education. 
Certainly, without a doubt, those of us who grew up in households that 
had tremendous respect for the patriots, the brave and courageous men 
and women who serve this country in the Armed Forces, deserve that same 
kind of passion.
  We discussed in those documents, coming to a close here, that it is 
imperative for the Veterans Benefits Administration to make greater 
investments in the training programs to prepare new hires for the 
complicated process of compensation claims adjudication.
  Additionally, workload production initiatives such as technological 
improvements offer the hope of reducing additionally the average time 
for a claims decision. The brave men and women who have served our 
Nation in uniform should be a priority for each one of us. As we hear 
all kinds of conversation and talk about people's positions on whether 
we should be in conflict, whether we should be engaged in war, there 
should be no debate, there should be no conflict, in whether those who 
are serving this country in uniform deserve to be sure that the 
benefits they have earned and they deserve are rightly in place for 
them, and something they can use, not set about waiting 180 days to 
hear back from somebody to tell them they have yet another 180 days to 
wait until they actually get those benefits. The number of veterans who 
contact my office for help grows each year, and I am sure it does in 
the offices of many of my colleagues. Unfortunately, the backlog is 
often denying them the benefits they desperately need for years; not 
just weeks or days, but years. It is simply unacceptable.
  The lessons ingrained in me since childhood have taught me that after 
a person has served in the military, we should make absolutely every 
effort, not just priority but every effort, to fund and make real their 
benefits and to honor those individuals who have earned them and care 
for them and their families, those who have served this great country. 
It is the least we can do for those to whom we owe so much. It is the 
least we can do to reassure future generations, and those who are 
serving in the field today, that a grateful nation will not forget them 
when their military service is complete.
  Mr. President, I thank the chairmen for working with us, hopefully, 
again, as passionately as the passion that has been displayed in this 
Chamber today about people's views on military service and certainly 
the conflict in Iraq. We can make good on the promise we made to our 
soldiers who have served so courageously and bravely.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield back the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, under the agreed upon order, Senator 
Sununu was to be next. Do we know if Senator Sununu is on his way? 
Under the agreed upon order, Senator Sununu was to be next. He was to 
be here at 2:30.
  The plan is this. I should do this through the Chair. I say to the 
Chair, the intention is, the agreement was Senator Sununu--we are 
running a little bit ahead of schedule, but Senator Sununu will be here 
shortly. He will go for approximately 15 minutes. Then we will come 
back.
  Mr. GREGG. Then we will call up Senator Lincoln's amendment?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes, we will call up Senator Lincoln's amendment. So we 
will be back and forth.
  Mr. GREGG. Then we are supposed to go to Senator Alexander.
  Mr. CONRAD. We will then go to Senator Sanders for 15 minutes?
  Mr. SANDERS. Twenty.
  Mr. CONRAD. Then we will come back to Senator Alexander and then we 
will come back to Senator Nelson.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield, then we will be out of order.
  Mr. CONRAD. We will not let people send up their amendments. We will 
make sure that we maintain the order as we have previously, so that we 
will keep going back and forth.
  Senator Sununu will send up his amendment; then we will send up 
Senator Lincoln's amendment; Senator Sanders, we will ask him to 
withhold so we are not out of order, we ask him to withhold; Senator 
Alexander could send up his amendment; then we will enter Senator 
Sander's amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Senator Sununu tells me he only needs 5 to 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4221

  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I certainly wish to thank the Chairman of 
the Budget Committee for recognizing the frugality of us from the 
Granite State. Whether it is money or time, we try to be concise, try 
to be direct, and try to use what resources we have very wisely.

 (Purpose: To save lives, promote overall health care efficiency, and 
lower the cost for the delivery of health care services by facilitating 
   the deployment and use of electronic prescribing technologies by 
                              physicians)

  I ask unanimous consent that any pending amendments be set aside and 
I send an amendment to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Sununu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4221.

  The amendment (No. 4221) is as follows:

       On page 62, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       (3) Electronic prescribing.--The Chairman of the Senate 
     Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, 
     aggregates, and other levels in this resolution for one or 
     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or 
     conference reports that promote the deployment and use of 
     electronic prescribing technologies through financial 
     incentives, including grants and bonus payments, and 
     potential adjustments in the Medicare reimbursement 
     mechanisms for physicians, by the amounts provided in such 
     legislation for those purposes, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.

  Mr. SUNUNU. In calling up this amendment, I wish to make sure this 
budget resolution effectively addresses the issue of health information 
technology. I know the issue was addressed, in part, in the 
construction of the budget resolution, but I think we have a historic 
opportunity to enact legislation this year that makes a difference, and 
the kind of technology available to providers, to doctors and nurses, 
to patients, technology that improves efficiency, reduces medical 
errors, and improves the quality of care, not for thousands but for 
millions of Americans, especially older Americans on Medicare.
  A lot of these benefits were recognized in the resolution, but I 
think we need to go further. We need to make sure this budget 
resolution, and the health care fund that was established in it, 
focuses on electronic prescribing in particular.
  While there are a number of areas of health care information 
technology that have great potential, this is an area of health care 
IT, electronic prescriptions, whose time is now. In hundreds of 
thousands of places around the country, electronic prescribing systems 
are being used, being used effectively, to save time, to save money, to 
reduce unnecessary errors in the dispensing of medicine, ultimately 
improving the quality of care and reducing costs.
  I think it is essential that this budget resolution focus on 
electronic prescribing and legislation to expand the use and access of 
electronic prescriptions because it is something we can get done this 
year. There is a lot of partisanship, a lot of differences of opinion 
on many different parts of this budget resolution. But in this 
particular area, we have a bipartisan approach. This has been 
introduced, and Senator Kerry, Senator Ensign, Senator Stabenow, and I 
have crafted electronic prescribing legislation that will do all these 
things and I think more.
  It reduces the number of errors, it increases the usage of electronic 
prescriptions. As I say, in the end, I think

[[Page S1950]]

it significantly improves the Medicare Program for all our seniors. It 
is legislation that is ready to go. It is legislation that can be 
enacted today. It is legislation that has bipartisan support.
  The way we make this difference, the way we improve the acceptance of 
electronic prescribing is, first and foremost, by providing some 
incentives, some costs and funding to physicians to purchase the 
systems, to purchase the software, to fund the hand-held units that are 
especially valuable in remote locations or rural areas.
  So we have grants to make those systems available. Second, we provide 
a bonus, Medicare provides reimbursement to physicians who are using an 
electronic prescription system. We give them a 1-percent bonus in their 
reimbursement rate. We do this over a 3-year period. Then, at the end 
of that period, grants and incentives for those who have not been able 
to or have not been willing to use electronic prescription systems, we 
have a penalty.
  Even with that penalty provision, we do allow the head of Health and 
Human Services to make exceptions because there are some underserved 
parts of the country, rural parts of the country, where such a system 
might not be as effective or as feasible. But in the vast majority of 
networks and provider systems and parts of the country, this is a 
technology whose time has come.
  There are over 1 million cases a year where a mistake is made, where 
there is an adverse reaction because of a mistake in issuing a 
prescription. If this legislation can even reduce a fraction of those 
errors, we will have done a great deal to improve the health care 
system under Medicare for our seniors.
  Because of the impact this legislation has, it has actually been 
evaluated as saving Medicare money in the near term, saving Medicare 
between $1 and $3 billion a year in the long term. There are not many 
pieces of legislation where you can say we are reducing the cost of the 
program for the taxpayers and improving the quality of care and the 
options available to the beneficiaries, to the seniors, and the 
retirees who depend on Medicare every day.
  So this amendment would add to the language that establishes a health 
care technology fund to make clear that our priority within that fund 
needs to be on legislation to improve access to electronic 
prescriptions; that such legislation should use financial incentives; 
it should provide grants to purchase equipment; it should include bonus 
payments; in the long run it should even consider changing the 
allocations of those who are not willing to use this incredibly 
valuable technology that is available today.
  I think this is an amendment that makes the reserve fund for health 
information technology even stronger. It sets the priorities in the 
right way. I urge my colleagues to support its adoption.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Washington.


                           Amendment No. 4194

    (Purpose: To provide the Veterans Benefits Administration with 
additional resources to more effectively meet their increasing workload 
      and to better address the unacceptably large claims backlog)

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, before my colleague speaks, I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the pending 
amendment is set aside in order for the Senator to offer the amendment.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mrs. 
     Lincoln, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Biden, Mrs. 
     Clinton, and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4194.

  The amendment (No. 4194) is as follows:

       On page 23, line 16, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 23, line 17, increase the amount by $44,000,000.
       On page 23, line 21, increase the amount by $5,000,000.
       On page 23, line 25, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 27, line 16, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 27, line 17, decrease the amount by $44,000,000.
       On page 27, line 21, decrease the amount by $5,000,000.
       On page 27, line 25, decrease the amount by $1,000,000.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont is 
recognized.
  Mr. SANDERS. My understanding, I ask Senator Murray, is that my 
amendment will be called up later this afternoon; is that correct?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct. We will be offering his 
amendment later.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. President, I find it interesting that almost every candidate for 
President today is talking about change. It is not only the candidates 
for President. For candidates at every level across this country, the 
mantra out there is: change, change, change.
  And the reason the candidates at all levels are talking about change 
is they understand something. They understand that from one end of our 
country to the other, by vast majority, the American people want to 
move America in a new direction. They want a new set of national 
priorities.
  The American people are angry. They are frustrated with the status 
quo, with politics as usual, and they want action not talk. They want 
action from their elected officials.
  The American people are tired of paying $3.20 for a gallon of gas, 
when ExxonMobil is enjoying recordbreaking profits. The American people 
are tired of paying more and more for health care, and over 8 million 
Americans have lost their health insurance since President Bush has 
been in office, while the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical 
industry continues to rip them off.
  The American people are tired of seeing their good-paying jobs go to 
China or the other low-wage countries while they work 50 or 60 hours a 
week to pay the bills. When we talk about the economy today, let's not 
forget the American people now work the longest hours of any people in 
the industrialized world. People are working incredibly long hours, two 
or three jobs, to pay the bills.
  Most importantly, the American people are deeply worried that the 
American dream is disappearing, that no matter how hard they work, no 
matter how many hours they spend on the job, that for the first time in 
the modern history of the United States, their kids will likely have a 
lower standard of living than they do.
  From a values perspective, I believe the American people are tired of 
the culture of greed which has been so pervasive in recent years, a 
culture which says: Yes, I am rich and I am powerful and I have 
billions and I want billions more. I do not care about anybody else in 
our society; I have got it; I want more.
  That is the culture of greed which is so pervasive in our society 
today. The amendment that will be offered today, that I am offering, is 
cosponsored by Senators Kennedy, Durbin, Clinton, Harkin, Schumer, 
Brown, and Mikulski. I am quite confident that if this amendment is 
adopted, it will not be solving all the problems facing our country.
  But on the other hand, if this amendment is passed, it will begin to 
move America in a very different direction, with a very different set 
of moral and economic values. This amendment will tell the American 
people we understand that Washington must adopt a new set of national 
priorities, that we must be concerned not with the wealthy and the 
powerful who have so much influence over what goes on in Congress but 
that the time is long overdue for Congress to begin paying attention to 
the needs of the middle class and low-income people who have been 
ignored and left behind year after year after year.
  I am very proud to tell you my amendment has been endorsed by over 50 
groups representing tens of millions of Americans. These groups include 
the AFL-CIO, AFCSME, the National Education Association, the Children's 
Defense Fund, the American Federation of Teachers, the YWCA, and the 
National Organization of Women, among many other groups.
  The budget President Bush recently sent to Congress was nothing less 
than a disaster. It gave much to those who did not need any help, while 
it took from those who need help, including those living in 
desperation.

[[Page S1951]]

  As I mentioned to the people in my home State of Vermont, it was a 
Robin Hood proposal in reverse. It took from the poor and it gave to 
the rich. As a member of the Budget Committee, I am happy to say that 
under Chairman Conrad's leadership and hard work, the budget we passed 
out of committee was far superior to what the President proposed and is 
quite a reasonable document.
  I think we can improve upon that document. We can improve upon that 
budget. That is why I am offering this amendment today with my 
colleagues who are cosponsoring it.
  This amendment addresses three major trends in American society that 
we must deal with in the budget process.
  First, the United States has the most unequal distribution of wealth 
and income of any major nation in the industrialized world; and the gap 
between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider.
  Secondly, it is a national disgrace that here in the United States of 
America, this great Nation we are so proud of, that we have by far the 
highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on Earth.
  And third, year after year, we have had recordbreaking deficits, and 
our national debt is now approaching $10 trillion, a grossly unfair 
burden to leave to our children and grandchildren and, in fact, a 
staggering sum of money which is economically unsustainable.
  This amendment addresses all three of those issues.
  The amendment I am offering today puts the needs of our children, 
working families, seniors on fixed incomes, persons with disabilities, 
and the middle class ahead of the needs of the wealthy.
  It says to the wealthy: You do not need any more tax relief when the 
middle class is shrinking, when poverty is increasing, and when the top 
1-percent level has never had it so good since the 1920s.
  It says to my colleagues in the Senate, let's get our priorities 
right. Specifically, this amendment simply restores the top income tax 
bracket to 39.6 percent for households earning more than $1 million per 
year and uses that revenue to address the most urgent unmet needs of 
our children, for job creation, and for deficit reduction.
  Mr. President, 99.7 percent of Americans would not be impacted by 
this amendment. The only families that would be impacted are those 
earning at least $1 million a year. That is the top three-tenths of 1 
percent. What we are simply doing is asking that the upper tax rates go 
back to where they were during the Clinton administration when, I 
remind my colleagues, the economy was far stronger.
  According to the Joint Tax Committee, restoring the top income tax 
bracket for people making more than $1 million to what it was in 2000 
would increase revenue by $32.5 billion over the next 3 years, 
including $10.8 billion in fiscal year 2009 alone. Instead of giving 
$32.5 billion in tax breaks to the very wealthiest people, including 
people who have billions and billions of dollars, people who really 
don't need any more tax breaks, this amendment would invest money in 
the following areas over the next 3 years.
  It would put $10 billion into special education, into the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act. Over 30 years ago, the Federal 
Government made a promise that it would fund 40 percent of the cost of 
special education. Unfortunately, the Federal Government--shock of all 
shocks--has not kept its promise. Today we only spend about 17 percent 
of the cost of special ed. What does this mean? I can tell you what it 
means in Vermont and I am sure it is the same all over the country. 
School districts are faced with growing costs regarding an influx of 
special ed kids. Property taxes are going up to accommodate those 
increased costs, and kids with special ed needs do not get the 
attention they deserve. This amendment begins to reverse that process, 
begins to tell school districts all over America that we are going to 
keep our promise. We will begin adequately funding special education.
  Secondly, this amendment increases Head Start funding by $5 billion 
over the next 3 years. The simple truth is, Head Start works. Its goal 
is to make sure that when low-income kids get into kindergarten or the 
first grade, they are not already far behind everybody else so that by 
the time they are in the fourth or fifth grade, they have given up, 
they have dropped out intellectually. Head Start works. The problem is, 
there are many families who want to take advantage of Head Start, but 
communities don't have the resources to open the doors for those kids. 
After adjusting for inflation, Head Start has been cut by 11 percent 
compared to fiscal year 2002. Boy, is that moving in the wrong 
direction. Meanwhile, less than half of all eligible kids are enrolled 
in Head Start and only 3 percent of eligible children are enrolled in 
Early Head Start.
  This amendment will not solve all of those problems, but $5 billion 
will help open the doors to large numbers of kids who desperately need 
Head Start education.
  This amendment would also provide $4 billion for the Child Care 
Development Block Grant Program. I can tell you the issue of childcare 
is one of those issues that we have managed in Congress to sweep under 
the rug, from one end of this country to the other. Where you have mom 
and dad both working, where is that working family going to find the 
affordable, quality childcare they desperately need? We tell single 
moms, go out and work, but we forgot to tell them where they are going 
to find the childcare they need to take care of their kids. This 
amendment begins to do that with a $4 billion increase for the Child 
Care Development Block Grant Program.
  This amendment would provide $3.5 billion more for the Food Stamp 
Program. I don't have to tell my colleagues that in the United States, 
shamefully, disgracefully, we are seeing more and more of our citizens 
go hungry. I know in Vermont, and I expect in communities all over the 
country, we are seeing working people, not unemployed people, working 
people going to food shelves to get the food they need to take care of 
their families. That is not the way it should be. This $3.5 billion 
increase for food stamps is a step forward.
  This amendment would also increase funding for LIHEAP, the Low-Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program, by $4 billion. In Vermont and other 
States, it gets very cold in the winter. We have seniors living on 
fixed incomes who cannot pay the rapidly escalating cost of home 
heating oil. LIHEAP is a successful program. It is underfunded. Nobody 
should go cold, and we put $4 billion into LIHEAP.
  We also provide more for school construction. Not only is it terribly 
important that our kids study in decent schools, schools that are not 
falling apart, schools which are energy efficient, but by putting money 
into school construction, we create a lot of good-paying jobs, and that 
is what that provision does.
  Finally, last but certainly not least, this amendment would also 
reduce the deficit by $3 billion. In other words, at a time when we 
have seen recordbreaking deficits, we are now closing in on a $10 
trillion national debt. This amendment takes a small step forward in 
lowering this year's deficit.
  Let me quote from a letter I received in support of this amendment 
from over 50 groups across the country, including the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, 
the NEA, the Children's Defense Fund, the American Federation of 
Teachers, the WYCA, the National Head Start Organization, SEIU, and the 
National Organization for Women, among others:

       The economic downturn is creating a crisis for parents who 
     work hard but struggle to afford nutritious meals as food 
     prices escalate; to pay for energy for their homes and fuel 
     for their cars; to pay for child care so that they can work; 
     and to assure that their young children receive the building 
     blocks of a solid education to prepare them for the future. 
     Programs that assist in meeting these needs have been cut 
     significantly in recent years, while tax breaks for 
     millionaires have soared. Your amendment addresses these 
     needs. . . .We are urging the Senate to adopt your fiscally 
     responsible amendment to address the pressing needs of 
     working families while restoring greater progressivity to the 
     tax system.

  I thank these organizations that represent tens and tens of millions 
of working Americans.
  The choice we face is simple. A lot of rhetoric goes on around here. 
It is pretty warm in this Chamber, and it is not only from the heat. It 
is from a lot of hot air from all of us. The time for talk is over and 
the time for action is now. This amendment will not solve all the

[[Page S1952]]

problems, but it does say to the American people that the time is long 
overdue for us to move in a new direction. It is a very simple choice 
we have to make. The richest people in this country have not had it so 
good since the 1920s. Frankly, they do not need any more tax breaks. 
They are doing just fine. But our children are not doing just fine. 
Senior citizens on fixed incomes are not doing just fine. What this 
amendment begins to do is to develop a new set of priorities for our 
Nation. It tells the people we understand that working people are in 
trouble, they need assistance, and that the time is now to ask the 
wealthiest people to rejoin the United States and to help us address 
some of our major social needs.
  My understanding is that later this afternoon this amendment will be 
offered.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the game plan, as the Presiding Officer 
laid out, is to go to Senator Alexander and then come back. We will go 
to the Sanders amendment and then come back. I am not sure which is 
next, but there will be another amendment from our side.
  I wanted to respond briefly to Senator Sanders. I respect Senator 
Sanders because he believes fervently in his view of the way Government 
should work, which is, we should keep making it bigger and keep raising 
taxes to accomplish that. I have to disagree with the basic philosophy 
that the present tax law isn't effectively raising taxes from high-
income Americans. The simple fact is, over the last 4 years especially, 
we have seen a higher growth in revenues than we have ever seen before. 
That growth in revenues has come from wealthy, high-income Americans.
  Today under this tax law, we have a more progressive tax system than 
was in place under President Clinton. The lowest 40 percent of wage 
earners who don't pay income taxes, for all intents and purposes--some 
pay, but the majority do not; they actually get money back under the 
earned income tax credit--are getting about twice as much back today 
under our tax laws than they got back under President Clinton's term. 
The highest percentage income earners, the top 20 percent, are paying 
more into the Federal Government than they were paying into the Federal 
Government under the Clinton years. I think it was 82 percent of 
Federal revenues came from the top 20 percent of income tax payers 
under President Clinton. Today almost 85 percent of revenues come from 
the top 20 percent of income earners. That is a progressive system--
lower income people getting more back; higher income people paying more 
of the burden.
  The reason it works this way under our tax laws is that we have 
created a fair and level playing field where people are willing to do 
taxable investment. Somebody who has income of significant levels has 
two options. They can take action to invest in a way which takes risks 
and generates jobs and also is taxable, or they can take action which 
takes risks, hopefully generates jobs, and probably isn't taxable 
because they use our tax laws in order to legally position their money 
so they don't have to pay the tax burden. It is only human nature, as 
has been proven over and over again, that if you get the tax rates up 
too high, higher income people start to use legal means to reduce their 
tax burden. But if you get the tax burden set correctly, then higher 
income people take the risk, pursue entrepreneurship, and create jobs, 
all of which generates income to the Federal Government. That is what 
is happening today.
  Mr. SANDERS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GREGG. I will yield after I finish making my comment.
  The point is, what is the right tax burden. If you have a progressive 
system where 85 percent of your revenue is coming from one group, the 
high-income people, and the bottom income folks are getting much more 
back than they got back historically, you have a progressive system. If 
you are generating more revenue than you have ever historically 
generated over a 4-year period, and you are well above the average 
amount the Federal Government receives, then you have a pretty 
reasonable tax structure which is giving a fair amount of revenue to 
the Federal Government. In fact, as a percent, we are well over what is 
the norm over the last 20 years.
  I argue that the tax structure which we presently have in place is 
working to the benefit of the Federal Government in getting more 
revenue which is being spent rather aggressively by the other side of 
the aisle. The Senator from Vermont says: Let's just raise it some 
more. Raise that tax some more, and we will get even more revenue. I 
would argue that when you start to jump those rates back up, you will 
probably not get more revenue. You will dampen economic activity. You 
will cause people to take action which causes them to invest in a way 
which reduces their tax liability. You will probably end up reducing 
revenues with that type of action. It is human nature, and human nature 
in a capitalist system tends to produce revenues when you have fair 
taxes and tends to reduce revenues when you have an overly burdened tax 
system.
  I am happy to yield.
  Mr. SANDERS. I don't know if it is a New England characteristic that 
I share, but we make the same points over and over again. The Senator 
is the ranking member of the Budget Committee. He has heard my point. 
Let me make it again.
  My friend from New Hampshire, from the other side of the Connecticut 
River, says we have a progressive system. My God, those rich people are 
paying a fortune. Well, wealthy people do pay a lot. Do you know why? 
The richest people in this country are earning far more than they used 
to, while the middle class is shrinking and poverty is increasing. For 
example, according to Forbes magazine, the collective net worth of the 
wealthiest 400 Americans increased by $290 billion last year--400 
families, $290 billion. The wealthiest 1 percent earn more income than 
the bottom 50 percent. Yes, my friend from New Hampshire, I do know 
they pay more in taxes. The reason is, they get all of the money.
  Every economist understands that in recent years what has been going 
on is the middle class is shrinking, real income is going down, and 
poverty is increasing. The rich are making out like bandits. Yes, they 
are paying more in taxes because they are making a huge amount more. 
That is not progressive taxation. What that is about is the fact that 
we have the most unfair distribution of wealth and income of any major 
nation on Earth.
  I ask my friend, don't you agree with me? That is my question. Of 
course, you do.
  Mr. GREGG. My answer to the Senator from Vermont is, we get two 
things from Vermont and New Hampshire: bad weather and bad economics.
  At this point, I will yield the floor and allow the Senator from 
Tennessee to pursue his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Tennessee is 
recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I wonder if I might ask the Senator 
from New Hampshire a question before he leaves the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, if the Senator has time, I will be happy 
to try to respond to a question.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I have some vague memory in my mind 
that in the late 1960s, or some time in that time period, a 
millionaire's tax was proposed. I am wondering if the Senator from New 
Hampshire remembers that and remembers how many millionaires it was to 
apply to, how many rich people was it whose money they were going to 
get?
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, it is the 
Senator's time, so let me put it in the form of a question to ask him 
back.
  It is my understanding--and I believe the Senator would agree with 
this--at the time it was supposed to be the top 1 percent of taxpayers. 
It turned out it exploded over the years. It was supposed to apply to 1 
million people. It has ended up applying to potentially 20 million 
people.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, the great danger with these 
conversations about ``let's get the rich'' is, we got 115 of them, I 
think, with the so-called AMT tax. Today it traps, according to the 
Senator from New Hampshire, 20 million Americans. That seems to be the 
way things go.
  So I thank the Senator for his time, and I wish to move on to a 
different

[[Page S1953]]

subject. We are talking really--it is the same subject--about the 
Federal budget and how to fix the family budget. The Senator from New 
Hampshire has eloquently described how the Democratic budget will wreck 
the Federal budget by raising taxes--which we have just had a beautiful 
speech about the need for higher taxes--more debt, and more spending. 
That is one view of how we move ahead in this country.
  The view on this side is that we wish to help balance the family 
budget.
  Now, the subject I wish to talk about has to do with where most 
families get their jobs. We balance the family budget by lower energy 
prices, which we talked about earlier, by lower taxes--that is one way 
to do that--by helping every American have access to health insurance 
without the Government picking their doctor.
  Another way is to make sure the small businesses of America have the 
opportunity to make a profit, to create jobs, to take some money home, 
and to avoid unnecessary costs.


                           Amendment No. 4222

  Madam President, I wish to speak for a moment about an amendment I 
propose to send to the desk in a moment that relates to keeping the 
family budget in balance by reducing the costs of small businesses, and 
it has the even more important advantage of helping to unify our 
country. The subject is the same subject that is chiseled into stone 
there: e pluribus unum--the motto of our country, what has been the 
motto of our country: one, from many.
  Let me begin with this story.
  In March of 2007, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a 
Federal agency, sued the Salvation Army for allegedly discriminating 
against two of the Salvation Army's employees in a Boston area thrift 
store. What had the Salvation Army done to earn this lawsuit from the 
Federal Government? Well, it had required its employees to speak 
English on the job.
  The English rule was clearly posted, and the employees were given a 
year to learn it. But this lawsuit, in plain English, means that a shoe 
shop in Tennessee or a small business in Missouri or in Washington 
State would have to hire a lawyer in order to make sure they have a 
clear business reason to require their employees to speak our common 
language on the job. So I have an amendment to bring some common sense 
to this subject. It would be to take $670,000 used by the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission, which it is using to bring actions 
against employers who require their employees to speak English, and 
instead uses the money to help teach English to adults through the 
Department of Education's English Literacy/Civics Education State Grant 
program, which is one of the principal ways we help American adults 
learn our common language.
  So, Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Alexander] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4222.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To take $670,000 used by the EEOC in bringing actions against 
 employers that require their employees to speak English, and instead 
  use the money to teach English to adults through the Department of 
   Education's English Literacy/Civics Education State Grant nrogram)

       On page 4, line 14, decrease the amount by $583,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $415,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $134,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $34,000.
       On page 4, line 23, decrease the amount by $583,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $415,000.
       On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by $134,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $34,000.
       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $583,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $168,000.
       On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $34,000.
       On page 5, line 16, decrease the amount by $583,000.
       On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by $168,000.
       On page 5, line 18, decrease the amount by $34,000.
       On page 18, line 16, increase the amount by $670,000.
       On page 18, line 17, increase the amount by $20,000.
       On page 18, line 21, increase the amount by $482,000.
       On page 18, line 25, increase the amount by $134,000.
       On page 19, line 4, increase the amount by $34,000.
       On page 24, line 16, decrease the amount by $670,000.
       On page 24, line 17, decrease the amount by $603,000.
       On page 24, line 21, decrease the amount by $67,000.

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, this is not the first time I have 
offered this amendment. I offered it in the Appropriations Committee of 
the Senate in June of 2007. Enough Democrats as well as Republicans 
voted for it to be reported to the Senate floor as a part of the 
Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill.
  On October 16, 2007, the full Senate voted 75 to 19 to approve that 
appropriations bill, containing similar language to the amendment I 
have just sent to the desk.
  On November 8, 2007, the House of Representatives, with the support 
of 36 Democrats, voted 218 to 186 to instruct its appropriations 
conferees to recede to the Senate position on the EEOC.
  However, the Speaker of the House canceled the conference of the 
Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittees over this 
issue, even though the Senate and the House both voted that a Federal 
agency should not be suing businesses that ask their employees to speak 
English on the job. The Speaker of the House, for some reason, thought 
it was so important that she canceled the entire appropriations bill 
rather than accept this language. So it must be a matter of great 
significance. I hope the Senate, having already passed this language 
before in the appropriations bill, as I have said by a vote of 75 to 
19, will do it again when the opportunity comes tomorrow.
  Madam president, there are thousands of small businesses across 
America. They may be a Japanese restaurant where the owner may say: I 
would like for my employees all to speak Japanese. That is fine. They 
might be an Irish pub, and the owner might say: I would like for them 
all to speak with an Irish lilt. Or it might be a Chinese restaurant, 
and for a whole variety of reasons, the owner of the restaurant might 
say: We would like for all our employees to speak Chinese. That's fine. 
But in America, if the owner of a business wants to ask his or her 
employees to speak English on the job, that ought to not be an issue. 
You shouldn't have to go ask a lawyer to come up with a business reason 
why you can tell some Federal agency why you asked your employees to 
speak English on the job. There are practical reasons for it. There are 
safety reasons for it. There are communications reasons for it. There 
may be customer reasons for it. But it is a bigger picture than that.
  We have, in this country, valued English as our common language for a 
long time, and let me go back to the reasons why. One of our country's 
greatest characteristics is its diversity. But diversity is not our 
greatest characteristic. Our greatest accomplishment as a country may 
be that we've taken all that diversity and molded it into one common 
country. It is a source of our great strength. No other country has 
been able to do it as well. We see many European and Asian countries 
that wish they had our practice in inviting people from all over the 
world to come to their country and becoming one country. How do we do 
it? Because we say at the beginning in our Constitution that we do not 
make any distinctions based on race or gender or where your 
grandparents came from.
  We say to anyone who wants to become a citizen here: You must become 
an American. You have to raise your right hand. You have to say 
essentially the same oath that George Washington and his officers said 
at Valley Forge, and you basically renounce where you came from. You 
prove you are of good character. You wait for 5 years. You learn our 
history. You must learn our common language. Then we are all Americans.

[[Page S1954]]

  We are proud of where we came from, but we are prouder to be 
Americans. We have made that a great part of our tradition.
  The late Albert Shanker, the head of the American Federation of 
Teachers for many years, felt passionately about the importance of 
helping children and new Americans learn what it means to be an 
American. Once he was asked the rationale for a public school. He said 
the rationale of a public school is to help children learn English, to 
learn the ``three Rs,'' and what it means to be an American. The hope 
was that these students would then go home and teach their parents.
  Since 1906, we have required every new citizen to learn English. 
Federal law requires that all children learn English in public school. 
We have programs to help adults learn English--including the program I 
wish to put the EEOC's lawsuit money into. We have in No Child Left 
Behind, passed not long ago by this Congress, programs to help children 
learn English, and schools are held accountable for students learning 
our common language.
  When the Senate has recently debated immigration, it has passed two 
amendments to help value our common language. One was that by 64 to 33 
we declared English as our national language. Another, I introduced, 
was to say that if a new citizen or an applicant for citizenship 
learned English to a proficient level, that person would be able to 
wait only 4 years instead of 5 years to become a citizen--a way of 
valuing our common language. We even said we will give a $500 
scholarship to any applicant for citizenship who wishes to learn 
English, helping them learn English. So in many ways through the last 
century we have asserted the importance of our common language.
  I am sure many of us in the Senate--and many Americans--saw Ken 
Burns' epic series on World War II. My wife and I went to see a preview 
of that series last fall, and we were struck by how magnificent it was. 
Ken Burns said he felt, after doing years of work on World War II, the 
war was the period of the greatest unity in our country's history. 
Quoting a book by the late Arthur Schlesinger, ``The Disuniting of 
America,'' which was written in the 1990s, Ken Burns said: Maybe what 
we need is a little less pluribus and a little more unum.
  Where do we get our unum? We do not get it from race. We do not get 
it from gender. We get it from learning American history, and we get it 
from our common language.
  The reason we learn American history is so we can understand and 
learn the principles that unite us. It is those principles and that 
language which makes it possible for us to say we are all Americans.
  So the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has turned the civil 
rights laws upside down when it sues the Salvation Army and says: You 
cannot ask your employees to speak America's common language on the 
job.
  The purpose of the civil rights laws is to unify us, to say no 
distinctions based on race. We want to be one country. Well, if we want 
to be one country, we need to have a common language, and in this 
country that language is English.
  It was my hope when I was Education Secretary that every child would 
grow up to speak at least two languages well. One of them would be 
English. That is still my hope today.
  As I look at the motto above the Presiding Officer's desk, and I 
think about whose century this is going to be--is it going to be a 
Chinese century, a Japanese century, an Indian century, a European 
century, an American century?--part of it has to do with our economy, 
part of it has to do with our military strength, a big part of it is 
whether we can stay one country or whether we become just another 
version of the United Nations--the United States of America or the 
United Nations; whether we can say we are all Americans or whether we 
can't. One way to help us be able to say we are all Americans, one way 
to unite us is to value, not devalue, our common language.

  So in some ways this is a very small and simple amendment, taking the 
approximate amount of money that a Federal agency is using to sue the 
Salvation Army and other businesses to say: You can't require your 
employees to speak English on the job, and let's instead use that 
amount of money to help adults who want to learn English.
  We have been sacrificing our unity in the name of diversity for too 
long. Diversity is a great strength, but our most magnificent 
accomplishment is our unity. You can't become German, you can't become 
Japanese, you can't become French very easily, but in order to be a 
citizen of this country, you must become an American. The way you 
become an American is by showing good character, waiting 5 years, 
learning our history, and speaking our common language. The Federal 
Government ought to be consistently on the side of valuing that common 
language and not on the side of devaluing it.
  So I hope the Senate, when it has the opportunity, will find the same 
sort of bipartisan support that it had last year, October 16, 2007, 
when the Senate voted 75 to 19 to approve the Commerce-Justice-Science 
appropriations bill containing substantially the language in this 
amendment. We will then be able to say to American small businesses, of 
which there are hundreds of thousands: No, you don't have to go hire a 
lawyer to come up with some business reason why you need to ask your 
employees to speak English on the job.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the order is that we will go to Senator 
Nelson of Nebraska, and we will reserve the side-by-side for Senator 
Alexander that I will offer on behalf of others at a subsequent moment. 
We will go to Senator Nelson, and I will ask Senator Nelson not to send 
his amendment up because in order to maintain the back-and-forth, we 
need to send a Republican amendment up next. Then, if the Senator from 
Nebraska is not here, I will send his amendment up so that it is in the 
queue.
  How much time does the Senator require?
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Four or 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield up to 5 minutes off the resolution, and if the 
Senator needs more, we will provide it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4212

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I am here to speak about 
amendment No. 4212. It is already at the desk, and as Senator Conrad 
said, he will call it up at the appropriate point. But I rise today to 
speak about this amendment to the budget resolution that will create 
jobs and make a lasting investment in our national infrastructure. I 
ask unanimous consent to add Senator Conrad and Senator Stabenow to the 
amendment as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Let me thank as well the current cosponsors 
of the amendment: Senator Baucus, Senator Voinovich, Senator Klobuchar, 
Senator Durbin, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, and Senator Schumer. I 
am pleased to work with my colleagues to increase our investment in 
infrastructure to help create jobs. I also wish to thank the National 
Conference of State Legislatures for supporting my amendment. I believe 
that as more information is developed about this amendment, others will 
seek to join as well.
  This amendment is very straightforward. It says that if we are going 
to do additional economic stimulus, then we should invest, not simply 
spend, taxpayer dollars.
  My amendment doubles the amount in the stimulus in the budget for 
``ready-to-go'' infrastructure projects from $3.5 billion to $7 
billion. It is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit 
compared to the underlying resolution.
  The budget resolution before us sets aside $35 billion over 2008 and 
2009 for a second economic stimulus package, if necessary, as we 
continue to keep a close eye on the economy. Included in this stimulus 
at the present time is $3.5 billion for these ``ready-to-go'' 
infrastructure projects--projects that can be up and running in a 
matter of weeks. My amendment would increase this amount to $7 billion 
and is paid for by reallocating a portion of the $30 billion of 
stimulus resources to transportation infrastructure.

[[Page S1955]]

  If Congress decides that additional stimulus is necessary, we need to 
ensure that we make a real investment in the economy. Including 
infrastructure investment will create jobs and make a lasting 
investment in infrastructure that is so desperately needed. These are 
projects that will go wanting without the necessary financial support 
to have them concluded, but they won't go away. Infrastructure needs 
will continue, and the only way to reduce the need is by investing in 
them.
  This amendment in effect kills two birds with one stone: We get the 
immediate boost to the economy by investment in job creation, and when 
the economy recovers, the roads we pave and the infrastructure 
improvements we make will last for years. They are truly, in that 
sense, an investment.
  When the initial stimulus package was under consideration, the States 
identified nearly $18 billion in projects that would be classified as 
ready to go within 3 months. These are projects that are waiting for 
only one thing, and that is funding.
  This amendment does, in fact, create jobs. According to a U.S. 
Department of Transportation study, over 40,000 jobs are created for 
each $1 billion we spend on roads and infrastructure. This amendment 
will create jobs in Nebraska and in all 50 States and will provide an 
important boost to the economy at the same time.
  I also want to be clear what this money is intended for: projects 
that are ready to go, as I have said, projects that can begin nearly 
immediately and certainly as soon as funding is available. There are 
already ready-to-go projects in Nebraska and in all 50 States, as we 
have been able to determine.
  States are crying out for help in this area. The National Conference 
of State Legislatures supports this amendment. Our Nation's 
infrastructure needs are immense and are continuing to the point of 
being staggering. We have an opportunity to stimulate the economy, make 
lasting improvements to our infrastructure, and assist in more job 
creation. We can invest more in this area, and we should invest more in 
this area. So I urge the adoption of this amendment by my colleagues. I 
ask that their support continue as others will join in over the next 
day or so.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, if I could ask a question of the Senator 
from Nebraska, this is $3.5 billion in spending which would occur in 
this budget year, not over the 5 years; is that correct?
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. That is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. This is not offset in any way, so it would just be added 
to the deficit; is that correct?
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. This is part of the allocating, part of the 
stimulus package as it is right now for emergency spending. What it 
would do is it would allocate part of the $35 billion already set aside 
in the budget to be added to the $3.5 billion to make a total of $7 
billion. It doesn't add any more to the deficit or outside of the 
deficit than is currently indicated in the current budget resolution. 
In other words, of the $35 billion right now, only $3.5 billion is 
allocated to infrastructure. With this amendment, $7 billion would be 
allocated to infrastructure.
  Mr. GREGG. So if I could ask the Senator another question, the 
Senator from Nebraska is saying that his amendment simply reallocates 
the $35 billion----
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. The $3.5 billion.
  Mr. GREGG. But there was $35 billion put in the mark that was 
available for stimulus. Is the Senator reallocating those dollars or is 
the Senator putting $3.5 billion on top of those dollars?
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Not on top. We are reallocating, of that $35 
billion, an additional $3.5 billion within the $35 billion to 
infrastructure, making a total of $7 billion within the $35 billion.
  Mr. GREGG. And if I could ask further, where is the Senator taking 
the money from?
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. It wouldn't be taking money from, it would be 
allocating money that has not yet been allocated. So there would be 
other projects that would not be funded because of this, but it 
wouldn't be taking any money away from anything already allocated 
because the balance of it is unallocated.
  Mr. GREGG. So this is not a 920--this is not offset with a cut in the 
920?
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. It moved from function 820 over to 400.
  Mr. GREGG. I am not sure I understand how this is paid for, to be 
honest. Maybe the chairman can help.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the Senator from Nebraska is exactly 
right. What he is doing with this amendment, which I support, is of the 
$35 billion which is unallocated, the second stimulus package, an 
insurance policy against further economic downturn, he doesn't add any 
money. What he does is of the $3.5 billion that was reserved for 
infrastructure in the $35 billion, he is doubling that amount to $7 
billion of the $35 billion for infrastructure.
  I think that is a wise thing to do because I frankly think the 
infrastructure projects are the most stimulative. We know for every $1 
billion spent on highways and bridges, 45,000 jobs are created, and 
those are jobs in America. As my colleague knows, the money is 
reserved--the Budget Committee doesn't have the ability to dictate at 
the end of the day how it is used. Committees of jurisdiction will do 
that. But what the Senator from Nebraska is doing is sending a message 
that of this $35 billion, instead of $3.5 billion dedicated for 
infrastructure projects that are ready to go--and, in fact, we know 
there are more than $3.5 billion of infrastructure projects ready to 
fund.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, if I could reclaim my time, I think the 
explanation is that this is a reallocation within the $35 billion which 
was in the original budget, which basically was added to the deficit.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is true.
  Mr. GREGG. Thank you. I think Senator Sessions is ready to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4231

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions], for himself, Mr. 
     Vitter and Mr. DeMint, proposes an amendment numbered 4231.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for border 
security, immigration enforcement, and criminal alien removal programs)

       On page 69, after line 25, add the following:

     SEC. 308. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR BORDER SECURITY, 
                   IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT, AND CRIMINAL ALIEN 
                   REMOVAL PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--The Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of 1 or more 
     committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this 
     resolution by the amounts authorized to be appropriated for 
     the programs described in paragraphs (1) through (6) in 1 or 
     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or 
     conference reports that funds border security, immigration 
     enforcement, and criminal alien removal programs, including 
     programs that--
       (1) expand the zero tolerance prosecution policy for 
     illegal entry (commonly known as ``Operation Streamline'') to 
     all 20 border sectors;
       (2) complete the 700 miles of pedestrian fencing required 
     under section 102(b)(1) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note);
       (3) deploy up to 6,000 National Guard members to the 
     southern border of the United States;
       (4) evaluate the 27 percent of the Federal, State, and 
     local prison populations who are noncitizens in order to 
     identify removable criminal aliens;
       (5) train and reimburse State and local law enforcement 
     officers under Memorandums of Understanding entered into 
     under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)); or
       (6) implement the exit data portion of the US-VISIT entry 
     and exit data system at airports, seaports, and land ports of 
     entry.
       (b) Limitation.--The authority under subsection (a) may not 
     be used unless the appropriations in the legislation 
     described in subsection (a) would not increase the deficit 
     over--
       (1) the 6-year period comprised of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2013; or

[[Page S1956]]

       (2) the 11-year period comprised of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2018.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, we are dealing with an important 
issue; that is, the budget of the United States. Under the Budget Act 
and rules we have established, a budget can be passed without a 60-vote 
margin, a supermajority. Only a simple majority is required. I think 
that is a healthy rule because for years there were so many 
difficulties in creating a budget. So it really gives the majority 
party the power to pass a budget.
  The power of a majority party alone to pass a budget means that 
document is a defining document, and it defines the agenda for that 
party. It tells where they stand on matters of taxing, spending, 
deficits, and the like.
  I say that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who promoted 
their move to majority status--and I certainly understand that goal--
indicated over the last several years President Bush was spending too 
much, they would be more responsible when given the control of the 
Congress and they would produce a better budget for working families in 
America.
  I note that this budget has a major increase in spending--as did last 
year's--over the President's request for domestic discretionary 
spending. It contemplates a major tax increase and it will, fairly and 
objectively stated, increase the deficit. I am concerned about that and 
I wished to make that statement.
  Chairman Conrad is a wonderful gentlemen, a fabulous leader of the 
committee. He asked that I offer the amendment on the floor and not in 
the committee, and I agreed to do that.
  I would like to explain the amendment I have offered. It creates a 
deficit-neutral reserve fund for border security, immigration 
enforcement, and a criminal alien removal program. It sets aside room 
in the budget to fully fund existing border security and immigration 
enforcement programs. It is another statement. Also, the members of 
this Congress meant what we said when we said we wanted border security 
and to complete the fence and many other immigration reform measures 
that we voted on last year. I will talk about that later. We voted on 
those things. One of the things that is eroding public confidence in 
this Congress is that we vote for things and we say we are for things 
and some of them pass and some of them are blocked, but even those that 
pass don't get carried out. So a Congressman or Senator can say I voted 
to build a fence, whereas, they may not at all be taking the necessary 
steps to fund or otherwise ensure that the fence gets built. There are 
other items that are necessary to create a lawful form of immigration, 
but that is where we are.
  This amendment, I think, is another opportunity for the Members of 
our body to say we are prepared to move forward and do the things that 
are necessary to follow through on what we promised when we cast votes 
previously. My amendment is broad. It covers all border security and 
immigration enforcement programs. But, specifically, it highlights six 
programs that will need special attention in this year's budget cycle.
  Those programs are: Operation Streamline, the so-called ``zero 
tolerance'' prosecution policy for illegal entry now in place and being 
utilized by the Department of Justice and Homeland Security in 4 of the 
20 border sectors. I will go into detail about these later. Then there 
is the border fence construction amendment that would complete the 700 
miles that we voted on. It would maintain the presence of a National 
Guard at the border. It would provide help and assets to effectively 
execute the criminal alien removal program, to remove those who have 
been convicted of crimes, as it is supposed to be. The section 287(g) 
program, which trains State and local officers, would be expanded, as 
we voted before to do. And the US-VISIT exit portion of the immigration 
law that was supposed to have been completed in 2005 yet remains 
uncompleted.
  I offered this amendment earlier, but I think some objected that the 
amendment would create open-ended funding for immigration programs. But 
this money is not free to be spent. It is not open-ended in reality. It 
has to be paid for. Full funding for each of these items can only be 
approved if the proper committees come up with the proper funds.
  Simply put, my amendment gives Congress budget flexibility to fund 
these immigration enforcement programs if we can find a way to pay for 
them. And we certainly can. These are not that expensive in the scheme 
of things. They are matters our constituents care about and that we 
have voted for on a number of occasions.
  Also, I note the budget resolution our Democratic colleagues have 
passed includes at least 35 of these reserve funds, and only 4 of them 
have any limitation on funding. The other 31--88 percent--are drafted 
just like my amendment.
  So here are the proposals. First, it would allow for funding to 
expand the zero tolerance prosecution policy for illegal entry. Until 
recently, only the most serious illegal entries and reentries were ever 
prosecuted. Routine offenders caught by the Border Patrol were 
processed in a matter of hours and, if they were from Mexico, they were 
simply returned to Mexico. If they were not from Mexico, they were 
released on bail and asked to come back so they could be shipped back 
to South America or the Middle East or wherever, and we would send them 
back to those locations. Of course, 90 percent never showed up once 
they were released because their goal was to get in illegally from the 
beginning. That has been improved a good bit. We are still, in most of 
our border sectors, releasing people immediately to return to Mexico. 
There was a CNN report on this recently. I saw the video. Within hours 
of two individuals being arrested, they videoed the Border Patrol agent 
walking them, escorting them, back to the middle of the bridge that 
divides our countries and basically sending them off back to Mexico. 
The conclusion of the program was that these individuals, probably the 
next day, again commenced their effort to enter illegally. Since they 
weren't recorded as being apprehended, the program indicated they 
probably successfully made it into the United States. The result has 
been a ``revolving door'' at the southern border.
  According to the Department of Homeland Security, between 20 and 30 
percent of all illegal immigrants physically removed from the United 
States will return within the same year. So a third of them come 
back, we know, the same year. In 2004, of the 169,000 illegal 
immigrants removed from the United States, 65,000 returned illegally. 
In 2006, 37,000 out of 195,000 returned.

  In recent months, however, progress has been made. The new zero 
tolerance prosecution policy, called ``Operation Streamline'' by the 
Department of Homeland Security, has been put into place in 4 of the 20 
border sectors--Del Rio, Yuma, Laredo, and Tucson.
  In just over a year, the guaranteed jail time given under this 
program, the conviction process--instead of escorting them back but 
having an actual prosecution because it is a crime to enter illegally 
in that manner--has resulted in a 50-percent decrease in the number of 
arrests in Del Rio and a 68-percent decrease in the arrests in Yuma, 
proving, I think, with certainty that this kind of consistent 
prosecution and conviction is a critical factor in deterring illegal 
entry.
  In fact, Secretary Chertoff, a former Federal prosecutor I served 
with and have known for some time, was in my office last week. I have 
been a critic of some of the things he has done, and I have admired 
some of the things he has done. Secretary Chertoff believes this 
prosecution sends a different kind of message--and I believe it, too--
that the United States of America is serious about deterring illegal 
entry into our country. When you are simply escorted back to the border 
and turned loose, that sends a pretty clear message it is not a big 
deal to enter illegally. These people are not serving long periods of 
time in jail, but they are prosecuted. A record is made of it, they 
serve some time in jail and a second offense can lead to a higher 
punishment.
  So I am strongly encouraging DHS and the Department of Justice to 
expand the zero tolerance policy to the entire southern border by the 
end of the year 2009. Their efforts ought to be praised. In fact, their 
success in deterring illegal entry exceeded what most people would have 
ever expected. It is a proven technique that ought to be replicated 
across the border. It would need extra funding to make this happen.

[[Page S1957]]

This amendment would allow for that. I will note, parenthetically, does 
it cost us more as taxpayers to prosecute everybody who comes across 
the border when, in fact, you see a 68-percent reduction in the number 
who come? I suspect that maintaining a clear message that our borders 
are not open will cause the number to reduce, and the number of illegal 
entries is what drives up our costs. If you reduce the number who 
attempt to come illegally, you reduce costs at the same time.
  No. 2, the Secure Fence Act of 2006 required the construction of 700 
miles of fencing on the southern border. Eighty Senators voted for the 
Secure Fence Act. 26 were Democrats. In the House, the bill passed 283 
to 138. We know the fence construction, combined with other border 
enforcement increases, is already having some deterrent effect.
  Last year, illegal entries at the border, across the entire border 
fell by 20 percent. Let me ask--I like to ask this question--how many 
people were arrested last year? That is how we determine basically what 
is happening. The number of arrests fell 20 percent. Well, last year we 
arrested, even after a 20-percent drop, 877,000 people trying to enter 
this country illegally. It was over a million the year before--1.1 
million.
  A survey conducted by the Mexican Government, released in November, 
showed a 30-percent drop since 2005 in the number of Mexican nationals 
``looking for a job in another country, or preparing to cross the 
border.''
  In other words, the message is getting out. The National Guard 
increased border patrol, fencing, and prosecution, but people will 
follow what reality tells them.
  In San Diego, where the first 14 miles of fencing were built years 
ago, the results were significant and immediate. Crime rates fell 
dramatically. According to the FBI crime index, crime in San Diego 
County dropped 56 percent. Vehicle drive-throughs fell from between 6 
to 10 per day, to only 4 drive-throughs in a year. Those occurred only 
where the secondary fence was incomplete.
  It does make a difference. Good barriers make a difference. Good 
borders make good neighbors. If you want to enforce your immigration 
laws, you have a million people a year coming illegally, and if you are 
not prepared to build some sort of barrier that is effective, you are 
fooling yourself and attempting to fool the American people. That is 
the fact.
  Drug trafficking dropped in the area--marijuana smuggling by 38 
percent and cocaine smuggling by 88 percent. These new miles of fences 
along the other parts of the border are expected to mirror the San 
Diego success. There are news articles already describing the deterrent 
effect of the new fencing in Arizona. This is new fencing. On November 
4 of last year, an article in the Houston Chronicle, titled ``Fences 
Presence Felt: Residents on both sides of one border crossing say 
barrier is doing what it was intended to do'' stated these things:

       The fence works, residents north and south of it say.
       ``From a law enforcement perspective, it's curtailed a lot 
     of our problems,'' said Sharon Mitamura, a deputy sheriff who 
     patrols the border on either side of Columbus.
       ``That fence, I love it,'' Robinson, a Minuteman in New 
     Mexico said. ``But being a Minuteman in New Mexico is getting 
     pretty boring. There's no illegals here to be found,'' he 
     said wistfully.

  The bottom line is, the message is being heard: Our borders are no 
longer open in certain areas. And to continue sending that message we 
must complete the 700 miles of fencing the Secured Fence Act of 2006 
requires.
  By the end of 2008, the administration, unfortunately, plans on 
completing only 370 miles of actual fencing. We need to ensure that 
funding for the construction of the remaining 330 miles are included in 
the budget. This amendment will help ensure that occurs.
  Now, No. 3. This amendment would allow funding for the National 
Guard. In May of 2006, the President announced the deployment of 6,000 
Guard members to assist Customs and Border Control with surveillance, 
installing fences, and vehicle barriers.
  Since June 15 of 2006, the National Guard units have assisted the 
Border Patrol by executing logistical and administrative support, 
operating detection systems, providing mobile communications, and 
augmenting border-related intelligence.
  Operational successes made possible with the National Guard members 
include direct assistance in 88,000 apprehensions. They cannot 
themselves apprehend because of the Posse Comitatus Act, but they are 
able to provide intelligence and surveillance. They accounted for 
increases in the amount of drugs seized. Marijuana seizures went up by 
309,000 pounds, with the National Guard locating 201,000 pounds of 
that. There have been 91 aliens rescued from being in trouble in the 
desert. So they even help save lives in the desert.
  Although Operation Jump Start has been effective, it is currently 
scheduled to end. Guardsmen currently stationed on the border number 
around 3,000. By this summer, the number will be zero--zero. The Senate 
has already voted twice that the Guard should stay on the border 
through the end of this calendar year at a minimum.
  The Ensign amendment offered during comprehensive reform authorized 
Governors to deploy Guard troops through 2008 to engage in border 
control activities to meet training requirements. That was agreed to 83 
to 10. My amendment, offered to the DOD appropriations bill, funded 
Operation Jump Start through the end of fiscal year 2008. It was agreed 
to by unanimous consent but was stripped from the conference committee.
  See, we all agree to it. Everybody is for the Sessions amendment. 
Yes, we should keep the National Guard longer. But it goes off to a 
conference committee because we have a bill and the House Members have 
a bill and the conference committee meets--sometimes I refer to them as 
masters of the universe--and they just take them out, so the bill comes 
back to the floor and passes and funding for the National Guard on the 
border doesn't become law.
  So I, along with the majority of the Senate, do not believe Operation 
Jump Start should end before operational control of the border has been 
achieved, as required by the Secured Fence Act, which 80 Senators voted 
for. If we want to continue stationing Guardsmen on the border in 2009, 
we must make sure the budget resolution permits funding for the 
continuation of Operation Jump Start.

  The mission of the Department of Homeland Security's Criminal Alien 
Program is to identify criminal aliens--criminal aliens--who are 
incarcerated in Federal, State, and local facilities, evaluate whether 
they should be removed at the end of their sentences, and to coordinate 
a seamless transition from prison to DHS deportation proceedings. A 
perfectly logical thing. Despite this important mission, DHS is only 
just beginning to effectively implement the Criminal Alien Program. 
Congress provided $400 million in 2008 for this program.
  The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, Harry Lapin, testified before 
the Senate Judiciary Committee that 27 percent of the entire Federal 
prison population is composed of non-citizens--individuals who 
committed crimes after they entered the country. They are not in jail 
for immigration offenses. I am not talking about that. We are talking 
about assault, robbery, drug trafficking, murder, and the like. That is 
a dramatic number.
  We don't know the exact percentages for all State and local prison 
facilities, but we do have some snapshot statistics. These statistics 
illustrate that the percentage of State and local jail populations made 
up of illegal aliens is likely to be similar to Federal prison 
percentages in a number of areas.
  According to a February 2008 California Public Policy Institute 
report titled ``Crime, Corrections, and California,'' 17 percent of 
California's jail population was born outside the United States. The 
New York Times reported that the Los Angeles County Sheriff has 
reported that 23 percent of inmates in county jails were deportable.
  A Center for Immigration Studies study, authored by Manhattan 
Institute Scholar Heather McDonald, states that:

       In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for 
     homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. 
     Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are 
     for illegal aliens.

  A 2007 DOJ report indicates that 73 of 100 criminal aliens are 
rearrested at least once, and that the average criminal alien is 
rearrested six times before

[[Page S1958]]

deportation. A 2005 GAO report found the average arrest rate for a 
sample population of aliens incarcerated in Federal, State, and local 
jails to be even higher, an average of eight arrests per illegal alien.
  In 2009, we have the opportunity to expand and carry out effectively 
the existing Criminal Alien Removal Program and to fully evaluate all 
non-citizens in Federal, State, and local prison populations. It would 
ensure that criminal aliens are deported to their home countries at the 
end of their sentences and that they are not released back into society 
first.
  This is the problem. What if a person is in jail serving a sentence, 
is going to be released, and is an illegal who, by law, must be 
deported as a result of being convicted of a crime in this country. If 
you allow them to be released from the State or Federal jail before you 
set up the procedure to have them deported, how many do you think are 
showing up to be deported? They are not showing up. It completely 
eviscerates the whole concept of the system.
  Of course, if we are going to have a deportation system, we need to 
be evaluating those persons who appropriately and lawfully should be 
deported as a result of their convictions for crimes--drugs, assaults, 
murder--and they ought to be deported. It is just not happening 
effectively, and it indicates to me that our Government still does not 
get it--about the things necessary to create a lawful system of 
immigration that we can be proud of. We ought to be encouraging law-
abiding people to come here--people with skills, people who speak 
English, people who are going to contribute to our society--and not 
allowing our immigration slots to be filled with persons who come and 
commit crimes. How logical is that?
  The success of any nationwide law enforcement effort depends on 
effective partnerships with all levels of law enforcement. Federal 
immigration agents alone--there are less than 20,000 in the interior of 
the United States--will not solve our interior enforcement problem. It 
is just a fact. A partnership with the 700,000 State and local law 
enforcement officers is essential if we want to make this system work. 
And everybody knows that, frankly. Some who don't want the system to 
work know it too, and that is why they oppose any effort to give any 
increased ability of local law enforcement to supplement our effort.
  To achieve that partnership, cross-designation of State and local 
officers as Federal agents through the 287(g) program, as done in my 
home State of Alabama and some other States, should and can occur 
throughout the country.
  We talked about this for years. The program was on the books. We had 
to push the Department of Homeland Security to partner with Alabama's 
State troopers to create these cross-designated officers, and it was 
not easy, but we finally got it done. It has worked exceedingly well 
and it should be done around the country.
  The latest reported figures show that 34 law enforcement agencies in 
Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida,--which has a pretty 
good program, I know--Georgia--and Saxby Chambliss and Senator Johnny 
Isakson have sponsored this legislation because it was first championed 
by Congressman Charlie Norwood from Georgia, now deceased, and they 
became interested in this--Massachusetts, North Carolina, New 
Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Virginia--have all signed 
memorandums of understanding with the ICE agencies, and nearly 600 
officers have been trained.
  But that is just a small fraction of the potential that is out there. 
Over the past 2 years, these officers have been credited with 
identifying more than 37,000 people with possible immigration 
violations. State and local law enforcement agencies that voluntarily--
nobody is mandated under this--offer their services to help enforce 
Federal laws should be supported and affirmed. The training we require 
them to receive should be paid for, and the expenses they incur while 
assisting the Federal Government in enforcing our immigration laws 
should be reimbursed. So increasing this funding would be helpful.
  My final point would be to the US-VISIT system. Researchers at the 
Pew Hispanic Center estimate that as much as one-half of the illegal 
alien population was admitted legally. Other numbers are about 40 
percent. They come here on some sort of visa or legitimate crossing 
card but they just stay and do not return.
  We don't know who the visa overstayers are because we don't record 
when visa holders leave or even if they do ever leave. Until the US-
VISIT exit system is put into place, we are never going to be able to 
identify visa overstays. This system was first required 10 years ago. 
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
required an automated entry and exit data system that would track the 
arrival and departure of every illegal alien as they crossed our 
borders.
  Following the September 11 attacks, Congress repeated the mandate. 
Several provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act, the Border Security Act of 
2002, and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 
require the immediate implementation of the automated entry and exit 
data system and call for enhancements in its development.
  On September 2005, DHS announced that it would have the entry portion 
of the US-VISIT system installed at the land border ports of entry by 
December 31, 2005. Implementation of the exit portion at our land 
borders has yet to occur. Only pilot programs now exist at airports and 
seaports--this despite the fact that deadlines for US-VISIT exit 
completion are in current existing law. Are people upset about this? No 
doubt. We have passed law after law. They are just not getting 
executed. For example, December 31, 2003, was the deadline for exit 
system implementation at airports and seaports. December 31, 2004, was 
the deadline for exit system implementation at the 50 busiest land 
ports of entry. December 31, 2005, was the deadline for the exit system 
implementation at all ports of entry--land, air, and sea.
  Failure to complete this system, I am sad to say, is an indication of 
a lack of seriousness about immigration reform by the executive branch, 
and it is an affront to Congress and to the rule of law. Until its 
completion, Congress cannot move forward responsibly on a myriad of 
other immigration-related issues, such as expanding a temporary worker 
program to meet domestic labor needs that may be critical.
  How can you have a strong entry and exit system when you can't even 
know whether somebody leaves the country when they promised to leave or 
they exceeded their time limit? This is not impossible to do. Workers 
all over America clock in and clock out when they go to work every day 
with some card that is computerized. Americans can place their card in 
a bank machine in France or Brazil or anywhere else and get money from 
their banks in the United States. Surely we can clock out people who 
leave this country.
  My amendment makes sure there is room in the budget resolution to 
fund the completion of the US-VISIT exit system and the other important 
components of a legitimate, workable, lawful system of immigration that 
we in this Nation should have.
  The American peoples' instincts on this are absolutely right. We 
allow a million people to enter our country legally every year. We 
ought to improve that system in a lot of different ways, but we cannot 
allow large numbers of people to enter our country unlawfully because 
it makes a mockery of law. It breeds disrespect and anger in people who 
wait for months or years to be chosen to enter the country when 
somebody they know enters illegally.
  It is the right thing for us to do, to create a lawful system of 
immigration that meets our highest standards as Americans. It is time 
to get that done. Each one of these things I have mentioned in this 
legislation is a critical component of creating that lawful system. It 
cannot be done without these. More needs to be done than these, but 
these are critical.
  I hope my colleagues will support this amendment as they have 
supported most of these matters already that are referred to in the 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Alabama 
publicly for the courtesy he showed in the Budget Committee markup. We 
had a circumstance where he offered an amendment. I asked him to 
withhold a vote on the amendment until we had a

[[Page S1959]]

chance to see if we could work out the amendment. It turns out we kind 
of ran out of time, so we were not able to work out the amendment.
  Another Senator wanted to have an alternative amendment offered, but 
Senator Gregg and I had already agreed that we would not have 
additional amendments.
  The Senator from Alabama was a consummate gentleman and agreed to 
withhold his amendment until we got to the floor so as not to 
disadvantage a colleague, although he would have had the right to do 
so. I want to say how much I admire that. That, again, is in the best 
traditions of the Senate and I think reflects well on the whole body. 
Certainly it reflects well on the Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the chairman. Senator Gregg 
and he have alternated chairmanships of the Budget Committee. It is a 
contentious committee, there is just no doubt about it, because we have 
things about which we disagree that are important to our members and 
our constituents. But I think both of them have done a really good job 
of conducting the committee with grace, gentility and courtesy, so it 
was not at all unusual that I would agree with that request, and I 
thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. I think the key to what the Senator from Alabama said is 
that we alternate chairmanships, and it is my turn.
  Mr. CONRAD. You know, at about this stage, you might be careful what 
you ask for.
  I ask Senator Pryor if he would not send his amendment up at the end 
of his remarks about his amendment so we can maintain the going back 
and forth? We will slot it in as soon as we can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4181

  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I rise today to talk about amendment No. 
4181 which, at the appropriate time, I would like to call up but not 
right now. I will defer to the wisdom of the bill managers and their 
protocol and procedure they have set up.
  This is a deficit-neutral reserve fund amendment. Even though it is 
deficit-neutral and only a reserve fund, I do think it is important for 
this country that we agree to this amendment. It deals with science 
parks. Science parks provide a launch pad that startup companies need 
when they are spun out of a university or a company. Many are 
affiliated with a university. They do not have to be. I have 
legislation I will talk about in a minute that makes it clear that they 
do not have to be, but nonetheless one of the patterns we see is that 
they oftentimes are affiliated with a university and that becomes a 
symbiotic and very productive relationship.
  Science parks go by many names. They are also called research parks, 
technology parks, incubators or business incubators, and technopoles. 
Whatever we call them, they are good at doing one thing; that is, 
creating jobs and spurring innovation. That has really been their 
hallmark, that they create jobs and they spur innovation. At a time 
when our economy is slowing and international competition is growing, 
we need to do everything we can in this country to spur innovation and 
create jobs. These are not just any jobs, these are good-paying jobs, 
oftentimes high-tech jobs.
  Earlier this year, I introduced a bill called Building a Stronger 
America Act, along with Senators Snowe, Bingaman, and seven other 
cosponsors. Many countries, including China, Hong Kong, Singapore, 
India, Japan, and the European Union, are investing heavily in science 
parks in order to attract a talented and educated workforce. America 
should too.
  My amendment builds on a commitment we made through the America 
COMPETES Act to develop an infrastructure that will again enhance 
innovation and competitiveness in the United States. We see that things 
here in this country are undergoing a dramatic transformation. Our 
economy is changing. Now our economy is really based on knowledge and 
technology.
  The world's first science park was started in the 1950s and led to 
what we now call Silicon Valley. Another park that was early on in this 
was designed in North Carolina to stop the brain drain in that State. 
Today, it is the Research Triangle Park, and it is home to many of the 
world's most advanced high-tech businesses, and they employ over 40,000 
people.
  Science parks are often recognized as the gold standard of 
technology-led economic development. These are formats, these are 
venues where smart people, scientists, innovators, and entrepreneurs 
can collaborate, come together and not just come up with ideas but 
actually come through with the commercialization of new products and 
new technology.
  Last year in the Commerce Committee we had a hearing on science 
parks, and Dr. Randall Kempner of the Council on Competitiveness said:

       American job growth will come primarily from small- and 
     medium-size businesses and science parks will play a critical 
     role in accelerating entrepreneurship and innovation.

  According to a study by Battelle, the typical North American science 
park is located in a suburban community with a population of less than 
a half million. Most parks are operated by university or university-
affiliated nonprofits. More than 30,000 workers in North America work 
in a university science park. Every job in a science park generates an 
average of 2.57 jobs in the economy. Most of these parks were built in 
the 1980s and 1990s and really have outgrown their original space. 
Madam President, 78 percent of science parks expanded beyond their 
physical presence after they were created.
  In Arkansas, we have two excellent examples of successful science 
parks, first with the Arkansas Research and Technology Park, which is 
affiliated with the University of Arkansas and within the city limits 
of Fayetteville. That park today has 27 companies. The average salary 
for the people who work in that park is $81,000. It is the home of 
GENESIS Technology Incubator, the Innovation Center, the Engineering 
Research Center, the High Density Electronics Center, and National 
Center for Reliable Electric Power Transmission. That is at the 
University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. At Arkansas State University at 
Jonesboro, AR, the Arkansas Bioscience Institute is focused on plant 
biotechnology and is completing its Commercial Innovation Center as we 
speak.
  Last year, the Arkansas General Assembly established a research park 
authority to facilitate the development of research parks. The 
authority and the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce are looking 
at establishing new science parks to leverage the basic research being 
done at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and the University of 
Arkansas for Medical Sciences, which is also in Little Rock. All three 
of these groups have told me they need additional funding to meet the 
growing demand of companies that want to locate in their science parks.
  Here again we see an opportunity for the Senate to spur innovation 
and create jobs for the U.S. economy. This is not a short-term game. 
But for a small financial commitment from the Congress, we can really 
spur innovation over the next several decades.
  Again, I mentioned Silicon Valley. I mentioned the Research Triangle 
in North Carolina. Those are two great examples. There is no reason we 
cannot start this phenomenon all over the country and really build on 
this knowledge-based and technology-based economy we have today.
  I am offering this amendment to try to build in the right budget 
room. Hopefully, what we will do is later this year, in the coming 
months--at some point we will pass the broader authorization bill, and 
then, of course, we will fight the fight when it comes to 
appropriations at the appropriate time. But I believe strongly this 
will be a very positive thing for the U.S. economy.
  I ask my colleagues to consider this amendment and consider the bill. 
I definitely ask their support for this amendment today.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the 
time be charged equally to each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S1960]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes off the resolution to 
the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I will speak for a few minutes about 
the amendment I have cosponsored with Senator DeMint concerning the 
earmarking process in Congress.
  It is very unusual that a problem is as bipartisan as this problem 
is. Spending public money is something we should take very seriously. 
It is one of the most important things we do. We all have to remember, 
it is not our money. This spending of public money should be done on 
merit; it should be done on a cost-benefit basis; it should be done on 
getting the most bang for our buck.
  Spending public money should not be based on your political party. It 
should not be based on what State you come from. It should not be based 
on which committee you are assigned to. And it should certainly not be 
based on how politically vulnerable you might be in the next election.
  If you look at the numbers, for example, the minority Members of the 
House of Representatives who represent primarily African-American 
districts, it is frankly hard to explain that they get less in 
earmarking money than even the Republican Members of the House. Why is 
that? Many of them are in politically safe seats.
  In other words, what happens around here sometimes is you get more 
money if everyone thinks you need to be able to spend more money 
because that will help you get reelected.
  Well, that is a goofy way to spend public money. That is not the way 
we should be spending public money. Many of these projects that are 
funded are great projects. Many of them I support. But distribution is 
not done on merit.
  I have heard over and over again the arguments about the power of the 
purse, and that somehow if we do not do earmarking we are ceding 
congressional authority to the executive branch. Well, with all due 
respect, for 200 years we did fine without earmarking. I do not recall 
President Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson or FDR or LBJ saying it was 
essential for the balance of power in our constitutional form of 
Government to make sure that individual Members of Congress have the 
ability to personally decide how to spend public money.
  So I think the idea that this practice, which started in the 1980s, 
late 1980s, and did not become an art form until the last 5 or 6 years, 
is kind of a hollow argument to say somehow this building is going to 
shake and lightning is going to strike and our power is going to 
dissipate.
  We are debating this week all the power we have. The power of the 
purse is reflected in our budget amendments and is reflected in the 
appropriations. We continue to make the decisions. We will always 
continue to make the decisions about the priorities of the way our 
Government should spend its money. That is the way the Constitution was 
designed.
  Finally, there are practices that continue to occur that hurt many 
States and hurt many citizens in terms of the way we are sacrificing 
the formula grants and the competitive grants in order to fund 
earmarks.
  We give haircut after haircut after haircut to our formula grants and 
to our other grants. If you look at the Byrne grants, if you look at 
the violence against women grants, if you look at the COPS Program, all 
of these were based on merit. I know, because I used to apply for them 
when I was a prosecutor. They have been cut and cut and cut while 
earmarks have gone up and up and up. We are still air-dropping. We are 
continuing to fund private companies for projects not even requested by 
the Government.
  It is time for, as I would say to my kids when they were young, a 
time-out. We need to take a deep breath, see if we can take another run 
at more reform and see if we cannot get to the business of spending 
public money based on merit and getting the best value for the dollar, 
not on the power of an individual Member or who you know.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that 
the time be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Missouri for 
her remarks.
  Next up is Senator Cornyn. Could the Senator give us a rough idea of 
how long he will require?
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I should not take more than 10 minutes, 
perhaps as few as 5.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator, who is always a gentleman.
  Then Senator Reed wishes to speak or offer an amendment?
  Mr. REED. I would offer an amendment. I need 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. We will have to ask the Senator to speak on the amendment 
but to reserve sending it up, because we have this order where we have 
to go back and forth. If you are not here, I will send up your 
amendment when your slot arrives. It may be a while before your slot 
arrives. We are going to go back and forth. It requires a delicate 
balance. Is that okay with the ranking member?
  Mr. GREGG. We wish to see the amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. If you could share the amendment with the Republican side 
so they have a chance. They give us their amendments, we give them 
ours.
  I yield to Senator Cornyn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4242

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I have an amendment that will create a 
60-vote point of order against any legislation that raises income tax 
rates on the American people.
  If this sounds familiar, it is. Last year the Senate voted, by a vote 
of 63 to 35, to pass this particular amendment. In a time when there is 
precious little bipartisan cooperation in the Senate on important 
matters, this is a list of the Senators on the other side of the aisle 
who, on March 21, 2007, voted in favor of this point of order that 
would require a vote of at least 60 Senators in order to raise income 
tax rates on the American taxpayer.
  Now I know the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee and 
others have claimed that this budget does not contemplate an increase 
in taxes for the American people. I frankly do not understand that, 
because I do not know how you raise the kind of revenue that is 
necessary in order to make this budget balance without raising taxes 
dramatically on the American people.
  But I believe this point of order is an insurance policy, so when 
Congress decides to look into the pocketbook of taxpayers for more 
revenue, we ought to look first to eliminate Government waste, fraud, 
and abuse.
  What concerns families and small businesses have about the economy is 
now is not the time to think about raising taxes. Of course, this 
amendment will not hinder our efforts to close down illegal tax 
shelters or close perceived loopholes in the Internal Revenue Service 
Code.
  The amendment deals with the tax tables contained in 1040 forms that 
the IRS annually sends to every American taxpayer. Nor will it hinder 
efforts to overhaul the Tax Code. I believe the Tax Code is way too 
Byzantine and complex. We need to make our Tax Code fairer, simpler, 
and our tax rates flatter. But any tax simplification and reform effort 
will need bipartisan support from the Senate.
  I believe the support for the amendment as we had last year would 
demonstrate a strong bipartisan commitment not to raise taxes at a time 
particularly when our economy is starting to show some softness.
  As former Chief Justice John Marshall once said:

       The power to tax is the power to destroy.

  The power to tax is indeed one of the most powerful tools available 
to the Congress. My amendment puts in place safeguards that will 
protect the pocketbooks of middle-class families, college students, and 
hard-working American taxpayers, put a safeguard in place that will 
protect them.

[[Page S1961]]

  I know there will be strong bipartisan support for this amendment 
when it is offered. I believe it is important that the American people 
hear the Senate's voice that now is not the time to raise income tax 
rates. I ask my colleagues once again to support this strong bipartisan 
protection for American taxpayers.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I would ask the Parliamentarian, through 
the Chair, a series of questions, if I could, about the Cornyn 
amendment.
  Does the Parliamentarian have the Cornyn amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has not been proposed.
  Mr. CORNYN. The amendment has not been called up. I would be happy to 
do so, but I was told that is not possible; that there was an objection 
to calling up the amendment at this time.
  Mr. CONRAD. Actually, I would ask the Senator--we are in this 
situation in which we try to go back and forth on both sides. There are 
a number of other Senators who have preceded you in presenting the 
argument for their amendment, but they have had to withhold actually 
sending it up so we can go back and forth. I do not know if we are at 
the point where Senator Cornyn can send his amendment to the desk.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I am happy to wait for my turn in line.
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator is next. The amendment can be sent to the 
desk.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I certainly do not want to cut in line 
ahead of my other colleagues who have already talked about their 
amendments. I will patiently wait my place in line and then call it up.
  Mr. CONRAD. It is OK. You would not be going out of line. We have 
cleared the others who are before you. It would be OK for you to send 
yours up.


                           Amendment No. 4242

  Mr. CORNYN. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4242.

  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4242) is as follows:

(Purpose: To protect the family budget by providing for a budget point 
of order against legislation that increases income taxes on taxpayers, 
   including hard-working middle-income families, entrepreneurs, and 
                           college students)

       At the end of title II, insert the following:

     SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER ON LEGISLATION THAT RAISES INCOME TAX 
                   RATES.

       (a) Point of Order.--
       (1) In general.--In the Senate, it shall not be in order to 
     consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report that includes a Federal income tax rate 
     increase.
       (2) Definition.--In this subsection the term ``Federal 
     income tax rate increase'' means any amendment to subsection 
     (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of section 1, or to section 11(b) 
     or 55(b), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that imposes 
     a new percentage as a rate of tax and thereby increases the 
     amount of tax imposed by any such section.
       (b) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended only 
     by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, dully 
     chosen and sworn.
       (c) Appeals.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be 
     required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 
     point of order raised under this section.

  Mr. CONRAD. While we are giving a chance for the Parliamentarian to 
review this amendment, maybe we can go to Senator Reed for discussion 
of his amendment.
  How much time does the Senator require?
  Mr. REED. About 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island 
off the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from New 
Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. I am not sure the Senator from Texas heard that 
discussion.
  Mr. CORNYN. I thought I had the floor, Madam President.
  Mr. GREGG. If I could interject, what has happened is the 
Parliamentarian desires a few minutes to look at the amendment of the 
Senator from Texas. We thought we could grant him that and then during 
that period have Senator Reed speak for 5 minutes and then come back to 
the amendment of the Senator from Texas, which would remain pending.
  Mr. CORNYN. I have no objection.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Texas for his courtesy. We are 
trying to use the floor time as efficiently as possible. The 
Parliamentarian needs a chance to review the Senator's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. I thank Senators Conrad and Gregg for graciously allowing 
me to speak.
  We are debating the Federal budget today. While we do that, thousands 
of families in my State of Rhode Island and across the country are 
struggling to balance their household budgets. They are, in many cases, 
in dire circumstances. They are dealing with the effects of failed 
economic policies. Over the last several years, wages have been 
stagnant for most Americans. There has been no real increase in family 
income for almost a decade. In addition to a stagnant income, they have 
been assaulted by extraordinarily high prices. I had bakers in my 
office today whose bakeries in Rhode Island have to pay 100 percent 
more for wheat. What is staggering today is a fact my colleagues are 
probably aware of. The price of a barrel of oil is exceeding $110. That 
is the highest price ever for oil. It is even higher in real terms than 
we saw in the wake of the oil embargo of the 1970s. So wage growth and 
skyrocketing costs, particularly energy costs, are crushing and 
squeezing families. I regret that the President's budget proposal does 
not respond realistically to these current challenges. Instead, it 
offers more of the same.
  Since he took office, President Bush and his allies in Congress have 
increased our national debt to over $9 trillion, which is roughly 
$30,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. They have also made 
it harder for working families to make ends meet. In contrast, the 
resolution advanced by Senator Conrad and the majority would provide 
much-needed relief for millions of Americans and begin to reverse some 
of the negative trends that have accelerated with President Bush's term 
of office.
  I am pleased, for example, that the Budget Committee has increased 
the fiscal year 2009 authorization for low-income home heating energy 
assistance to $2.5 billion, $500 million more than the President's 
request. But I believe we need to do more. We certainly need to do more 
when the price of oil is soaring above $110 a barrel. That cost will 
quickly translate into heating oil costs, increased prices at the pump, 
and other energy costs throughout the economy and will have dire 
impacts on families.
  I will, at the appropriate moment, offer an amendment, along with 
Senator Collins, to provide an additional $2.6 billion for LIHEAP for a 
total level of $5.1 billion, the fully authorized amount. As my 
colleagues know, LIHEAP helps low-income families, seniors, and 
individuals with disabilities with their heating and cooling bills, 
bills that have become unmanageable, and with the skyrocketing price of 
oil, will become even more so. Family budgets have been squeezed. We 
have to do something to help them out.
  For example, heating oil prices have increased 138 percent from 
January 2000 to January 2008. Paychecks for working families have not 
increased 138 percent and neither has LIHEAP funding. We are not even 
keeping pace with the acceleration in the cost of energy. LIHEAP helps 
these households avoid making the tough choices between paying their 
energy bill or putting food on the table or also, in this environment, 
paying their mortgage. So we have to increase, not cut, LIHEAP funding. 
Funding LIHEAP at $5.1 billion would help literally millions of 
families cope with high energy prices during bitter cold winters and 
accelerating costs of energy and hot summers for those who live in the 
Southeast and Southwest and other parts of the country.
  I urge all my colleagues to join with me and Senator Collins in 
supporting

[[Page S1962]]

this vital amendment to the budget. At this juncture, I ask unanimous 
consent that in addition to the 16 cosponsors listed on amendment 4154, 
as submitted, further, Senators Coleman, Kohl, Leahy, Lieberman, 
Lincoln, and Schumer be added as original cosponsors as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. In conclusion, this budget resolution and the amendment I 
have offered provide a blueprint for legislative action. The amendment 
that will be offered in its appropriate turn by Senator Conrad will 
address the critical issue of helping families make ends meet by 
helping them with their energy costs, both in severe winters and 
scalding summers.
  However, we have to do much more than this. We have to help people 
with mortgage bills, the rising cost of food and energy and stagnant 
wages. I hope the administration and my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle will join us in the coming months to enact legislation that 
will make a huge difference for Americans in all phases of the economic 
issues that challenge them--paying the mortgage, feeding the family, 
heating their home, paying the health care bills, getting jobs in the 
United States that pay wages with which they can support their 
families. We could do that. We have done it in the past. There is no 
reason we cannot work together to make it happen now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 4181

  Mr. CONRAD. I send the Pryor amendment to the desk to be in order 
after the Cornyn amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for Mr. Pryor, 
     for himself, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4181.

  Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To add a deficit-neutral reserve fund for Science Parks)

       At the end of Title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR SCIENCE PARKS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other levels in this resolution for one or 
     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or 
     conference reports that would provide grants and loan 
     guarantees for the development and construction of science 
     parks to promote the clustering of innovation through high 
     technology activities, by the amounts provided in such 
     legislation for such purpose, provided that such legislation 
     would not increase the deficit over either the period of the 
     total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the 
     total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018.

  Mr. CONRAD. Maybe we should thank the desk crew for working under 
very challenging circumstances because we know we are sending them a 
tremendous flood of amendments and paper. They are having to keep it 
straight, and we very much appreciate their diligent work.


                           Amendment No. 4242

  Mr. GREGG. I was wondering if we could set the order here before we 
go back to the Cornyn amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. I think we could.
  Mr. GREGG. If the order is now, the Cornyn amendment is the regular 
order, that would be followed by the Pryor amendment in the voting 
sequence, followed by the Allard amendment, followed by a side-by-side 
to the Allard amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes, we may have a side-by-side for the Allard amendment. 
We have reserved that slot at least.
  Mr. GREGG. And then after this discussion, we would turn to Senator 
Biden.
  Mr. CONRAD. After I ask the Parliamentarian a number of questions 
with respect to the Cornyn amendment, which we set aside so the 
Parliamentarian could study it.
  I ask, through the Chair, the Parliamentarian if the Cornyn amendment 
is germane to the budget resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is not germane.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask further if this amendment was accepted on the 
floor, if that would be corrosive to the privileged nature of a budget 
resolution?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would be.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask further if the Cornyn amendment came back from 
conference committee, if that would be fatal to the privileged nature 
of the budget conference report?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would be.
  Mr. CONRAD. Therefore, I have no choice but to raise a point of order 
on germaneness on the Cornyn amendment at the appropriate time. I will 
not do that now, but I wished to have this conversation in the presence 
of the Senator from Texas. We had this conversation last year. I 
alerted him that this issue was raised with us afterwards, and I wanted 
him to hear for himself the answers of the Parliamentarian.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I understand the concerns of the 
Senator. It will take 60 votes to waive the point of order. Sixty-three 
Senators voted for the amendment last year. My hope would be they would 
vote with me to waive the point of order. Unfortunately, the Senator is 
correct. After 63 Senators voted on a bipartisan basis for this 
amendment last year, it was stripped in the conference. Unfortunately, 
this is the kind of thing that tends to undermine public confidence in 
what we are doing, when we see a strong bipartisan show of support for 
a commonsense amendment and then, behind closed doors, it is later 
stripped from the legislation. I respect and understand the concerns of 
the Senator. I will move to waive the budget point of order at the 
appropriate time.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. Now we have time for Mr. Biden, the 
senior Senator from Delaware. Would 15 minutes be plenty?
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask if the chairman would be agreeable 
to recognizing Senator Allard around 5:15 and that debate on his 
amendment and any substitute to his amendment be for 1 hour, up to an 
hour equally divided.
  Mr. CONRAD. One understanding we might have, if that amendment 
consumes less time or the side-by-side consumes less time, that we go 
on to other business.
  Mr. GREGG. Absolutely.
  Mr. CONRAD. All right. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware.


                           Amendment No. 4164

  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I thank the chairman of the Budget 
Committee. It is a job I don't envy.
  Let me say at the outset, I have two purposes in rising today. One 
is, I am going to, at the end of my comments, introduce an amendment 
that restores full funding for the 150 function, the State Department 
budget, cosponsored by Senators Feinstein, Smith, Durbin, Sununu, Dodd, 
Martinez, Menendez, Snowe, Kerry, Collins, Levin, Voinovich, Obama, 
Corker, Leahy, and Hagel. 
  What I rise to speak to now is an amendment already at the desk, 
amendment No. 4164. That amendment will add $551 million to the $599 
million already provided in the budget resolution for the COPS Program 
for a total funding of $1.15 billion. I thank the Budget Committee for 
allocating the $599 million to the COPS Program in this resolution. 
That is a significant increase from the President's priorities. In 
fact, for the first time since its inception in 1994, the President's 
budget proposes to eliminate the COPS Program entirely. I am offering 
my amendment to get us closer to full funding of the level of $1.15 
billion that proved successful in driving down crime in the 1990s.
  I realize I am a broken record on this issue. Each year my colleagues 
hear me come down and talk about the COPS Program, the fact that we 
have to fully fund the program. Why am I such an advocate for the COPS 
Program? Mostly because I wrote the original legislation. There is a 
tendency around here, if you write something, you hang onto it, even if 
it no longer functions. But that is not the reason. It is not pride of 
authorship. I support it because it works. It worked. It continues to 
work. And it will work even better if we fund it.

[[Page S1963]]

  In the 8 years following the creation of the COPS Program, we have 
driven down violent crime by 30 percent in the United States. Cops and 
sheriffs themselves have told us the COPS Program works and is critical 
to their ability to keep communities safe. In addition, we have one 
dozen academic studies showing that COPS grants help reduce crimes in 
cities of all sizes.
  If it ain't broke, as Ronald Reagan used to say, why fix it? I have 
never heard the other side argue that this program does not work. They 
all agree it works. But they choose not to fund it because they think 
funding of local law enforcement is not a Federal responsibility or 
that we need to defund the program to be fiscally responsible. The 
truth is, this devolution of Government argument I find not very 
compelling. The argument that the Federal Government has no 
responsibility for local crime would be true if the Federal Government 
had no responsibility, if the States were able to do something about 
the drugs pouring across our international borders, if, in fact, States 
were able to affect crime coming across their borders from some other 
States, if, in fact, they had jurisdiction to reach out and deal with 
60 percent of the crime that occurs in their communities because of 
drug abuse and drug trafficking. So there is an overwhelming Federal 
responsibility here.
  My view is that allowing crime rates to grow and not doing everything 
in our power to protect our constituents is irresponsible. It is not 
that we are being fiscally responsible, we are being irresponsible by 
not funding programs we know work.
  I should point out, the COPS Program actually saves money in the long 
run. I hear from some of my neoconservative friends, who are big on the 
devolution of Government and fiscal responsibility, as they talk about 
it. I also hear them use phrases as businesspeople: You have to spend 
money to make money. Well, we should, as I say, change the paradigm 
here.
  Last March, the Brookings Institute issued a study showing that the 
COPS Program greatly benefits society as a whole. The study found that 
every $1.4 billion invested in COPS generates a benefit to society of 
between $6 billion and $12 billion by reducing crime. According to 
Brookings scholars:

       COPS appears to be one of the most cost-effective options 
     available for fighting crime.

  That is because when you prevent a crime or you fight crime, you do 
not pay for the cost of the injury, you do not pay for the cost of the 
physical damage done to the community, you do not pay for all the 
ancillary costs that are associated with high crime rates. You actually 
save money by spending money on COPS.
  The Bush administration argues that because crime is lower than it 
was in the early 1990s, we can afford to slash crime-fighting 
assistance. Well, I find that striking. I start with the basic premise 
that if we do not see a drop in crime rates each year, then we failed. 
The fact is, we talk about the number of crimes, violent crimes being 
committed in America. If you take the total number of crimes being 
committed, even though they have leveled out or are only slightly 
increasing, they are down from the high points in the mid 1980s and the 
early 1990s. The fact is, there are still over 1,400,000 of those 
crimes being committed. Is that OK? Should we not spend money to deal 
with what is still an incredible number of crimes committed in 
America--17,000-plus murders this year? We need to get back on track 
now.
  Our law enforcement agencies are facing a perfect storm. Let me 
explain why I mean by that.
  Since he took office, the President has cut annual funding to COPS 
and Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Programs by $1.7 billion. The 
President's budget proposes now to eliminate these programs entirely. 
At the same time, he asks State and local law enforcement to take on 
new responsibilities--new responsibilities--relating to 
counterterrorism, homeland security, and immigration duties. The 
President is asking cops to do much more and giving them considerably 
less.
  The FBI agents reassigned away from fighting crime to terrorism--and 
they must do that--have not been replaced. One investigative report 
last year stated that the number of criminal cases investigated by the 
FBI has dropped by 34 percent. I am not being critical of the FBI, nor 
critical of the commitment to counterterrorism. But in our effort to 
protect America from terrorism, we cannot leave them vulnerable to 
violent crime on their streets. It does not matter if you get blown up 
by a terrorist or shot by a drug thug on the street, you are dead. You 
are dead. Family members do not make a distinction between how you die. 
We have to protect them from both the crime on the street and from 
terrorism. That takes a commitment of resources that has been lacking 
in recent years.

  Finally, the economy has slowed down. The Washington Post reported 
recently that next year 20 States expect their budgets to be in the 
red. As State governments are forced to tighten their belts and cut 
back on critical law enforcement funding, as they do that, Federal 
assistance is going to become even more important.
  Many of you have heard me say this before: Fighting crime is like 
cutting grass. This spring, when the grass begins to grow, you go out 
and cut it. For 1 week, it is going to look great. Don't cut it for 2 
weeks, it looks a little ragged. Don't cut it for a month, it is really 
ragged. Don't cut it for the summer, and you have a jungle in your 
front yard.
  Ralph Waldo Emerson once said in another context: Society is like a 
wave. The wave moves on, but the particles remain the same.
  God hasn't made a new brand of man in a millennia. As long as there 
are people and the population is increasing, there is going to be 
continued crime. The idea that we can spend less money one year than 
the year before in fighting crime I find preposterous because you do 
not change human nature.
  Many of you have, as I have said, heard me say this for a long, long 
time. But the fact is, we have neglected State and local law 
enforcement for much too long, and we have an increasing problem on our 
hands.
  A recent poll published by the nonpartisan Third Way indicates that 
94 percent of Americans view crime as a ``very serious'' or ``fairly 
serious'' problem. Sixty-nine percent of Americans think violent crime 
is a bigger threat to them than the possibility of terrorist attacks. 
It is sort of a self-evident proposition, but it is interesting to know 
they feel that way.
  The concerns of these Americans are serious, and they are real. Last 
year, 1.4 million Americans were victims of violent crime. Now, if 
crime is down from what it was a decade ago, is that an acceptable 
rate? Is it acceptable to say we do not have to spend any more money, 
we can level off violent crime at 1.4 million violent crimes a year? 
Are we doing our job? Are we winning the war? Are we protecting 
Americans? How can we justify spending less money when there are still 
1.4 million violent crimes in America? More than 445,000 Americans were 
robbed. More than 17,000 were murdered. Is there anyone in this body 
who does not think these numbers are unacceptably high for a civilized 
nation? We know what the solution is. We know how to make American 
communities safer. But we know it takes a commitment, and it takes a 
financial commitment.
  In all my years dealing with this issue of crime and the criminal 
justice system, there are only a few things we know for sure. One is, 
the older you get, the less violent crimes you commit because it is 
harder to run down the street being chased by a cop and to jump a 
chain-link fence when you are 50 years old. So violent crime decreases 
as you get older. The other thing we know for sure is that cops matter. 
If there is going to be a crime committed at an intersection and there 
are three cops at that intersection, the crime is going to be committed 
on the corner of the intersection where the cops are not standing. Cops 
matter.

  So I find it preposterous that no one has argued against the merits--
the merits--of the COPS Program and the crime bill originally written. 
No one argues that it does not work, but they argue we fiscally cannot 
afford it. Can we afford 17,000 murders in this civilized country? Can 
we afford 1.4 million violent acts against our fellow citizens? Can we 
afford 445,000 robberies, for which we know if we commit these 
resources of $1.15 billion a year we can significantly reduce the 
number

[[Page S1964]]

of people being victims of violent crime?
  My amendment will add $551 million for the COPS Program to support 
the local law enforcement officials on the front lines, and it is fully 
offset by an across-the-board cut to nondefense, discretionary 
spending.
  So when the appropriate time comes, I will urge my colleagues to vote 
for this amendment. I might add, it passed last year. It passed, and it 
passed the appropriations process until we ended up with a continuing 
resolution. So there has been overwhelming support for this, and I 
think it is needed.
  Now, Madam President, I would like to turn, in the moments I have 
left, to an amendment I would like to offer at this time for myself and 
Senator Lugar. We are joined by a number of our colleagues whom I 
mentioned earlier. Our amendment builds on similar work done by Senator 
Feinstein. We all share the same goal.
  My amendment restores the full amount of the President's requested 
$39.5 billion to the international affairs budget. To put this in 
perspective, for every $19 we spend on the military, we spend $1--$1--
on diplomacy and development.
  Last week, two distinguished former senior military officers, GEN 
Anthony Zinni and Admiral Smith, came before the Foreign Relations 
Committee to tell us that we must reorder our Nation's priorities in 
order to protect our national security. With more than 50 of their 
fellow former flag officers behind them, they are calling for a new 
emphasis on smart power--using our Nation's diplomatic and economic 
resources to protect our interests.
  Secretary of Defense Gates has made the same point absolutely clear. 
He said:

       Having robust civilian capabilities could make it less 
     likely that military force will have to be used in the first 
     place.

  We can all see the results in both Iraq and Afghanistan of not having 
those capabilities, the resources, or the plan to turn military action 
into a sustainable peace.
  But Secretary Gates was also perfectly clear about the real issue. In 
his words:

       Sometimes there is no substitute for money.

  He was talking about the need for an international affairs budget 
that can do the jobs that are now increasingly shifted onto our 
overburdened military or simply are not being done at all. The way we 
do things now, we have, in his words, ``field artillerymen and tankers 
building schools and mentoring city councils--usually in a language 
they don't speak.''
  We have to do better. We face many challenges around the world in the 
rise of religious fundamentalism, the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction, the spread of disease, and failed states. They are all 
vectors that, in fact, intersect and cause great threats to us. Not one 
of them can be met solely or even primarily with military force. No one 
knows that better than our men and women in uniform.
  The message we heard in our committee last week was: ``We cannot rely 
on military power alone to make our nation secure.'' Yet, as I said, 
for every $19 we spend on military resources, barely $1 goes toward 
civilian programs that can prevent military action, support a balanced 
response to security threats, or secure the peace once the shooting 
stops. We spend more in 3 weeks on military operations in Iraq, for 
example, than we have spent since 9/11 to rebuild and secure 
Afghanistan--the total amount of money spent in Afghanistan, which is 
one end of the superhighway of terrorism between Afghanistan and 
Pakistan. We have spent less money, since 9/11, in Afghanistan 
defeating the Taliban and dealing with its civilian as well as military 
needs than we spend for 3 weeks in Iraq. This amendment will not fix 
that problem, but it will keep us from making it worse.
  Last month, I wrote to my colleagues on the Budget Committee asking 
them to treat the President's budget for international operations ``as 
a floor, not a ceiling.'' I ask unanimous consent, Madam President, to 
have a copy of my views printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                               Committee on Foreign Relations,

                                Washington, DC, February 26, 2008.
     Hon. Kent Conrad, Chairman,
     Hon. Judd Gregg, Ranking Member,
     Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate,
      Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Conrad and Senator Gregg: I write in response 
     to your request for the views and estimates of the Committee 
     on Foreign Relations, as required by Section 301(d) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, regarding the budget for 
     programs under the jurisdiction of the Committee. Most, but 
     not all, of the programs within function 150 are under the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Relations.
       At the outset, I repeat my suggestion made in years past 
     that the Committee consider functions 050 and 150 as part of 
     a ``national security budget.'' Both national defense and 
     international affairs programs are essential to the security 
     of the country, and we should fund both adequately. This was 
     true before the attacks on the United States in September 
     2001, and is even more so today.
       International affairs funding is the ``first line of 
     defense,'' and the request should be treated as a floor, not 
     a ceiling. The international affairs agencies remain 
     underfunded and understaffed, in spite of increases in the 
     last decade. That is not my conclusion alone, but that of 
     several recent studies performed within and without the 
     government. Therefore, in preparing the budget resolution, I 
     urge you not to reduce the money allocated to function 150 
     under the President's request.
       I also urge the Committee to bear in mind the difficulty of 
     estimating foreign affairs funding over the duration of the 
     budget resolution. Predicting the future in foreign policy 
     can be difficult, because so many events outside the control 
     of the United States can affect the course of American 
     policy. I think it safe to say, however, that our 
     international interests are unlikely to diminish over this 
     period; the opposite is true. In the age of globalization, 
     with ever-increasing links in commerce, travel, and 
     communications, it is more likely that our interests will 
     increase. Most important, we face a continuing threat of 
     attack by international terrorist organizations. The 
     unclassified portions of a National Intelligence Estimate, 
     issued in July 2007 (entitled ``The Terrorist Threat to the 
     U.S. Homeland''), stated that the ``U.S. Homeland will face a 
     persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three 
     years.'' The main terrorist organization threatening the 
     United States--al Qaeda--has its base of operations overseas. 
     Our foreign policy institutions devote substantial resources 
     to combating al Qaeda and its affiliates in numerous 
     countries overseas. In sum, our security and economic 
     interests dictate that we continue to provide adequate 
     funding for the international activities of our government.
       Against this background, let me discuss several specific 
     items that your Committee should consider in preparing the 
     budget resolution.
     Funding for Iraq and Afghanistan
       The President has requested a relatively small amount of 
     foreign affairs funding for Iraq in the FY 2009 budget--$397 
     million in foreign assistance funds, and $65 million for 
     State Department operations. But this modest request obscures 
     a much larger supplemental request of over $2 billion for 
     State Department operations in FY 2008. I would expect 
     additional supplemental funds to be requested in FY 2009. 
     This continues an objectionable practice of treating these 
     costs as somehow unforeseen and worthy of exemption from the 
     normal budget discipline. We should not force the taxpayers 
     of tomorrow to bear the costs of today's military and foreign 
     policy priorities.
       I am pleased that the President's budget contains over $1 
     billion in additional assistance for Afghanistan, but I 
     remain concerned that the level of commitment falls far short 
     of the President's pledge, made in 2002, of a reconstruction 
     program modeled on the Marshall Plan. In fact, over the past 
     six years the funds spent on Afghanistan's reconstruction 
     equal what we spend on military operations in Iraq every 
     three weeks. The budget presents little cause for optimism 
     that the Administration will adopt a coherent plan for 
     combating the illicit narcotics trade, which remains a major 
     threat to the objective of establishing a secure and stable 
     society. We, and the Afghan people, have waited half a decade 
     for the President's promises to be fulfilled for Afghanistan. 
     It is in our vital national interest to see that this budget 
     funds a new strategy for success rather than a continuation 
     of the failing policies of the past. Accordingly, I expect 
     that the Committee on Foreign Relations will closely review 
     the ongoing programs in Afghanistan and will reauthorize the 
     Afghan Freedom Support Act (P.L. 107-327) at levels higher 
     than those in the President's budget.
     Non-proliferation programs
       An ongoing priority of the Committee will be to improve the 
     non-proliferation and counterterrorism posture of the United 
     States. The Administration has emphasized military action 
     against states, but has paid insufficient attention to. non-
     military efforts to keep the world's deadliest weapons, 
     materials, and technology out of the hands of the world's 
     most dangerous people.
       Committee priorities in this area will include: ensuring 
     that sufficient resources and authority are available to take 
     advantage of opportunities to verifiably disable and 
     dismantle sensitive nuclear facilities in North Korea and, if 
     possible, Iran (additional resources will be of particular 
     importance if

[[Page S1965]]

     Congress is unable to enact a budget-neutral Glenn Amendment 
     waiver for disablement, dismantlement, and verification 
     activities related to North Korea's nuclear programs, a 
     proposal that is supported by the Administration, Senator 
     Lugar and me); providing robust funding in a timely manner to 
     key international organizations carrying out critical 
     nonproliferation tasks, such as the International Atomic 
     Energy Agency and the Organization for the Prohibition of 
     Chemical Weapons; funding new State Department efforts to 
     promote biosecurity worldwide; and enacting the Global 
     Pathogen Surveillance Act to strengthen the ability of 
     developing countries to detect and combat bioterrorism 
     threats and infectious diseases. I first developed this 
     legislation in 2002, and it has been approved by the 
     Senate twice (most recently in December 2005 as S. 2170, a 
     Frist-Biden-Lugar bill). The authorization of 
     appropriations for these initiatives is expected to be 
     $150 million in FY 2009 and $180 million in each of the 
     out years.
       Lastly, I would highlight a need that Senator Lugar has 
     rightly raised in the past. The Department's Directorate of 
     Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) is seriously under-staffed and 
     in need of funds to hire more full-time personnel to process 
     munitions license applications. Without an increase in funds 
     for the activities of DDTC, license applications for critical 
     arms sales to support our allies and their activities in 
     Afghanistan and Iraq will continue to be processed far more 
     slowly than we believe would be the case if more funds were 
     available. Last year, for instance, DDTC had to process more 
     than 40,000 cases with only 34 licensing officer positions 
     filled. By comparison, the Bureau of Industry and Security at 
     the Department of Commerce has far more staff to process far 
     fewer cases involving dual-use export licenses. Yet the 
     President's budget request for FY 2009 includes no funding 
     for additional staff at the Licensing Office at the 
     Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. The Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (P.L. 107-228) 
     authorized $10 million to be available in FY 2003 for DDTC 
     salaries and expenses. Six years later, the Administration's 
     request for FY 2009 is only $6.9 million. A doubling of that 
     figure is warranted, to ensure that DDTC has sufficient 
     funding to hire additional licensing officers.
     Reconstruction and stabilization assistance
       A priority for Senator Lugar and me continues to be to 
     significantly improve the U.S. civilian capacity to undertake 
     stabilization and reconstruction missions in countries that 
     are recovering from War or conflict. I am encouraged that the 
     President has requested $248 million for the Civilian 
     Stabilization Initiative (CSI), and I urge your Committee to 
     assume funding for this initiative. The request level for the 
     CSI would support a civilian active response corps of 250 
     personnel, a standby response corps of 2,000, and a civilian 
     reserve of 2,000 drawn from the general U.S. workforce. This 
     capacity is the core of legislation which Senator Lugar and I 
     have introduced in every Congress since the 108th Congress. 
     The Senate approved our bill in the 109th Congress and, with 
     strong support from the Administration, we are working for 
     enactment of the current version (S. 613).
     Global health
       Progress in the battle against HIV/AIDS constitutes one of 
     the leading accomplishments of this administration and U.S. 
     foreign policy in recent years, but the President's request 
     for global health funding, including HIV/AIDS, will fail to 
     build on those achievements. The request includes a very 
     small increase for HIV/AIDS funding overall, but it cuts 
     funding for the multilateral Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 
     Tuberculosis, and Malaria by $340 million from the enacted 
     funding level for FY 2008, requesting only $200 million 
     within State and Foreign Operations and $300 million within 
     the Health and Human Services budget. In keeping with 
     Congress's strong support of the Global Fund, I urge that the 
     budget resolution assume additional funds for a U.S. 
     contribution that will be provided within the 150 account. 
     The President's budget request also significantly reduces 
     funding for Child Survival and Health, including a 
     substantial cut in bilateral funding to combat tuberculosis, 
     despite the fact that drug resistant strains of tuberculosis 
     are growing increasingly common and more dangerous.
       Additionally, I would note that the authorization period 
     for the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, 
     Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 will expire at the end 
     of FY 2008, unless extended by Congress. I believe that a 
     strong, bipartisan majority in Congress is committed to the 
     reauthorization of these important and successful programs. I 
     expect that the Committee will initiate and Congress will 
     pass reauthorization legislation. Therefore, the budget 
     resolution should assume the continuation and, I hope, 
     expansion of these programs.
     International Violence Against Women
       Current U.S. efforts to address violence against women are 
     well intentioned, but fragmented and piecemeal, and lack 
     systemic integration into current U.S. foreign assistance 
     programs. Our approach to this issue can, and needs to be, 
     more effective. Senator Lugar and I recently introduced 
     comprehensive legislation to address the issue, entitled the 
     International Violence Against Women Act (S. 2279). The bill 
     contains three primary components: First, it reorganizes and 
     rejuvenates the gender-related efforts of the State 
     Department by creating one central office, directed by a 
     Senate-confirmed Ambassador who reports directly to the 
     Secretary. The Coordinator will be charged with monitoring, 
     coordinating, and organizing all U.S. resources, programs and 
     aid abroad that deals with gender-based violence. Second, we 
     know that in humanitarian crises, conflict and post-conflict 
     environments, women and girls are even more vulnerable to 
     horrific acts of violence. The legislation requires training, 
     reporting mechanisms and other emergency measures for those 
     who are working directly with or protecting refugees and 
     other vulnerable populations. Finally, the Act mandates a 5-
     year, comprehensive strategy, with coordinated programming, 
     to prevent and respond to violence against women in 10 to 20 
     targeted countries. The Act authorizes $175 million a year to 
     support programs to prevent and address violence. against 
     women in areas such as strengthening criminal and civil 
     justice systems, enhancing women's access to property and 
     inheritance rights, improving access to health care and 
     education, and supporting public awareness campaigns to 
     change social norms. I urge your support for the additional 
     funding contemplated by this bill.
     Millennium Challenge Corporation
       The President has requested $2.225 billion to fund the 
     Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) in FY 2009, which is 
     significantly below the FY 2008 request of $3 billion. I 
     remain concerned about the lack of funds disbursed by MCC and 
     delays in implementing its Compacts. Of the nearly $7.6 
     billion appropriated to MCC since 2004, only $145 million has 
     been disbursed to date. At the same time, MCC enjoys the 
     continued support of the development community and represents 
     one of the few institutions in the U.S. Government dedicated 
     to providing longterm development funding. Given the slow 
     pace of disbursements, Congress has continued to reduce the 
     President's requests. This year, he has scaled back his 
     budget request to an appropriate level. Therefore, I 
     request the Committee assume MCC will receive its full 
     funding request.
     Development Assistance funding
       The President requests an increase in funding for the 
     Development Assistance account to over $1.6 billion, 
     reversing a declining trend in this account as well. I have 
     watched with increasing concern as the Administration has 
     diverted funds from the development assistance account to the 
     shorter-term Economic Support Funds. I believe adequately 
     funding both accounts is critical to supporting a multi-
     faceted and balanced foreign policy. The programs supported 
     by Development Assistance funds--basic education, water and 
     sanitation, agriculture and trade capacity building--are 
     essential building blocks for developing countries. I support 
     the request level for this account.
     Humanitarian assistance
       I am concerned by the President's reduced request for 
     humanitarian assistance funding, especially funds for the 
     International Disaster and Famine Assistance account. The 
     Administration has conveyed that it intends to request 
     additional funds for this account through a budget 
     supplemental. I do not believe this represents the best 
     approach for dealing with emergencies as they arise. In each 
     of FY 2004 through FY 2007, the total appropriation for the 
     International Disaster and Famine Assistance account has 
     exceeded $500 million. There is little reason to expect this 
     year to be any different, yet the President's request stands 
     at $298 million. As a result, humanitarian agencies working 
     on the ground are forced to plan in a vacuum, leading to 
     lives lost and inefficient expenditure of taxpayer funds. I 
     believe it is much more sensible to fully fund these accounts 
     in the regular budget.
     Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities
       The President's request for Contributions for International 
     Peacekeeping Activities--the account through which we pay the 
     U.S. share of United Nations peacekeeping operations--
     significantly underestimates the amount that we will be 
     required to pay for the United States' proportionate share of 
     assessments in 2009. The estimate of U.S. payments for fiscal 
     year 2008 was $2.3 billion; the budget request for fiscal 
     year 2009 is $1.5 billion. We know that the need for 
     peacekeepers in Africa alone is immense, and projected to 
     remain the same, if not grow. Darfur, Chad, and Somalia are 
     still in the grips of terrible conflicts. The Democratic 
     Republic of Congo, which has seen horrendous violence in 
     recent years and contains the largest of the U.N. 
     peacekeeping missions, may be on the verge of a breakthrough 
     toward genuine peace and needs a stable environment to 
     support such a breakthrough. The President's budget request, 
     however, would effectively cut funding for nearly all of the 
     U.N. peacekeeping operations from estimated 2008 levels, and 
     in particular a cut of $75 million for the Congo mission, a 
     $56 million cut for the mission in Liberia, and a cut of $39 
     million in the Cote d'Ivoire mission. No justification for 
     these reductions is provided in the budget request; the 
     budget resolution should assume that these projections are 
     inadequate.
     Migration and Refugee Assistance
       The request for $764 million for the Department of State's 
     Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account represents 
     deep cuts from the Fiscal Year 2008 appropriation of $1.023 
     billion. These cuts are most troubling at a time when 
     significant refugee crises

[[Page S1966]]

     continue in nations such as Thailand and Chad. and where 
     refugees remain in camps for a decade or more in some regions 
     of the world. Of greater concern is that the President's 
     request makes these cuts following a year where up to two 
     million Iraqis have now sought refuge in neighboring 
     countries in the Middle East, millions more Iraqis are 
     internally displaced within Iraq, and at a time when the 
     world community is struggling to address the needs of these 
     populations. The budget resolution should assume a higher 
     level of funding, at least consistent with last year's level.
     USAID operating expenses
       The President reverses a declining trend of funding towards 
     USAID's operating expenses by increasing its FY 2009 funding 
     request to over $767 million. This will cover critical 
     salary, operational, administrative, IT and central support 
     costs. I believe it is a well-needed and much delayed step in 
     the right direction. In particular, this request will allow 
     the Agency to recruit, hire and train 300 new Foreign Service 
     Officers, barely covering attrition rates. We have asked the 
     Agency to expand its mission and operations into new theaters 
     like Iraq and Afghanistan. We cannot expect it to achieve 
     U.S. foreign policy objectives if we do not provide 
     appropriate resources. I view this request as just the first 
     step in a comprehensive reform and overhaul of how USAID 
     operates.
     State Department operations
       The President has requested a 6.5 percent increase in the 
     operating budget of the Department of State. Much of this is 
     devoted to addressing personnel shortfalls and the need for 
     more officers trained in difficult languages. The lack of 
     experienced officers with adequate language skills in 
     languages such as Arabic or Chinese is well known. In 
     addition, several studies in the past few years--including by 
     the Government Accountability Office and the Center for 
     Strategic and International Studies--have noted that the 
     Department suffers from serious personnel shortages. 
     Altogether, the budget requests 1,543 new positions in the 
     Department, of which 448 would be funded by fees in the 
     Border Security program (i.e., visa and passport fees). I 
     support this increase in personnel.
     Extension of Overseas Private Investment Corporation
       The basic authorities of the Overseas Private Investment 
     Corporation (OPIC), set forth in Section 234(a), (b), and (c) 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, expired at the end of 
     FY 2007, but have been extended by Congress to April 1. The 
     House has approved a four year reauthorization (H.R. 2798); 
     the Committee on Foreign Relations ordered reported a 
     substitute version of this bill on February 13. I believe a 
     majority of the Senate supports OPIC programs. Therefore, the 
     budget resolution should assume the continuation of OPIC 
     operations.
     Direct spending
       I request that the Committee provide the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations with a small allocation (not more than $10 
     million) for direct spending for Fiscal Year 2009. In recent 
     authorization legislation for the Department of State, the 
     Committee has approved provisions related to management and 
     personnel in the Department that have resulted in small 
     amounts of direct spending, though most of these provisions 
     affect direct spending and revenues by less than $500,000 
     annually.
       I appreciate your consideration of these views and look 
     forward to working with you on the budget resolution.
           Sincerely,
                                             Joseph R. Biden, Jr.,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, working under tight constraints, the 
committee reduced the President's budget request by $4.1 billion. I 
understand they have a difficult task and a great staff, but I believe 
we have to do a lot better.
  I ask my colleagues today to join me, when this amendment comes 
forward, in restoring the full $39.5 billion the President requested. 
That will allow us to at least continue the work now underway to help 
rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, to support our ongoing nonproliferation 
programs, to provide the manpower and skills for our Civilian 
Stabilization Initiative, to fight AIDS, and to do all the things that 
reduce threats, relieve human suffering, and help to rebuild the moral 
stature of the United States in the world.
  Our amendment is supported by the One Campaign, Interaction, the U.S. 
Global Leadership Campaign, and many other groups, many of whom are men 
and women who have worn the uniform their whole life.
  The money we are asking for is less than a couple weeks of military 
operations in Iraq. It is an absolutely essential investment in our 
national security. So at the appropriate time, I will urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Madam President, I thank my colleagues for the time on the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
proceedings under the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schumer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to enter a plea to my colleagues: 
We need an attitude adjustment around here. We need an attitude 
adjustment around here. Here it looks pretty placid. Underneath all of 
this, there is a great deal of turmoil. If we are going to complete 
this in any reasonable way, we have to have people be more cooperative, 
less confrontational, less insistent on side-by-side amendments for 
even minor matters. I plead with my colleagues. I have a feeling what 
we have here is a lot of staff members who have gone into hyperactive 
mode, insisting on things in the name of their boss, and I bet their 
boss doesn't even know. I bet a lot of bosses would be a little 
embarrassed, frankly, about the insistence being made here from their 
staffs about how they have to have this and they have to have that, no 
matter how minor, no matter how insignificant, no matter how petty. I 
will tell my colleagues, it is wearing pretty thin with me. It is 
wearing real thin with me. I want to send that message.
  Senator Gregg and I have been here for hours, we will be here hours 
more. We were here all day yesterday. Let's get serious. If we want to 
get done, then everybody is going to have to start getting a little 
better attitude about getting done. I hope people think very carefully 
about what I have said.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. What is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. What is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Conrad-Pryor 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 4246

  (Purpose: To raise taxes by an unprecedented $1.4 trillion for the 
purpose of fully funding 111 new or expanded Federal programs)
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment, and I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk has not yet reported the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4246.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I simply ask--we have an order to go 
through. We will protect the rights of the Senator from Colorado to 
have it voted on and he is actually in the queue to come after Senator 
Pryor at this point. So I don't think the Senator from Colorado needs 
to ask for the yeas and nays right now.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, and I will 
respect those wishes. I will move right to the debate on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, one of my goals for this debate is to 
fight what I see as an erosion of fiscal discipline in the budget. I 
have offered an amendment to fully--I planned on offering an amendment 
to fully budget for the war, a war we know we are going to pay for but 
we are underbudgeting for by about $100 billion. I had planned on 
offering an amendment to tighten the requirements on reserve funds so 
they cannot be gimmicked into adding billions of dollars in spending. I 
plan on offering an amendment to curb the use of time shifts to allow 
budgets to falsely make claims on spending levels when the true picture 
is unchanged. I had planned on offering an amendment to allow authority 
to fight Medicaid waste, fraud, and abuse to be extended.
  I am offering another ``truth in budgeting'' amendment now. I think 
we

[[Page S1967]]

need to work harder to tie what is in this budget with what is actually 
going to be spent by the U.S. Government.
  As a component of that work, I want to add an amendment--an amendment 
I intend to vote against, but an amendment I think needs to be a part 
of this process--that will budget for some of the rhetoric we are 
hearing on the campaign trail. Three of these amendments could be 
offered, but I am going to offer only one.
  Senator Obama has offered 188 campaign proposals that would add up to 
at least $300 billion in new annual spending. That has a 5-year cost of 
more than $1.4 trillion. Of the 188 new spending proposals, the $300 
billion pricetag only covers 111 proposals. There are another 77 
proposals with unknown cost estimates that will add billions to this 
number. This new spending, if enacted, would represent an almost 10-
percent increase over the President's budget for fiscal year 2009.
  To put this in perspective, this $300 billion spending proposal would 
cost more than 42 States' budgets combined when we look at their 
general fund expenditures. It is more than the United States spent last 
year on imported oil, and it is more than 60 percent larger than any 1-
year Federal spending increase ever.
  Who will pay for the proposed $300 billion increase in spending? The 
middle-class American taxpayers and small businesses, which are the 
engine of growth for our economy, that is who. Raising taxes on just 
the rich simply won't cover it.
  Under pay-go budget rules, new spending or tax cuts are paid for by 
spending cuts or tax hikes. The CBO budget baseline already 
incorporates the extra revenue due to higher tax rates, so the end of 
the Bush tax cuts won't pay for the proposed spending and still satisfy 
our pay-go requirements.
  Senator Obama has promised to pay for his record new spending 
increases with a tax increase on families making $250,000 and over. 
However, this increase would only yield $225 billion over 5 years. Now, 
that is a far cry short of the $1.4 trillion required under his new 
spending plan. So we will need to raise taxes on the middle class and 
small businesses or deficit spend. Those are the choices we have.
  According to CBO, President Clinton's 1993 tax increase raised taxes 
$240.6 billion over 5 years. The late Senator Patrick Moynihan called 
it the ``largest tax increase in the history of public finance in the 
United States or anywhere else in the world.'' This proposal will 
increase spending $300 billion in a single year.
  To finance the first year of this proposed spending--the $300 
billion--Congress would need to increase taxes on the top 1 percent of 
taxpayers by 57 percent. Under that scenario, taxpayers with incomes 
over $365,000 would see a tax hike of at least $40,300 on top of what 
they are currently paying. That is simply not realistic. So if Congress 
decides to widen the pool of taxpayers footing the bill, it would have 
to raise taxes on the top 5 percent by 38 percent. It would have to 
raise--the top 10 percent of taxpayers, it would have to raise their 
tax rates by 32 percent; or the top 25 percent by raising their tax 
rates 26 percent; or the top 50 percent of taxpayers by raising their 
tax rates 23 percent.
  The top 50 percent of American taxpayers, who already pay 96.9 
percent of all Federal income taxes, are those who earn $31,000 of 
adjusted gross income or more.
  To translate this point into language everyone can understand, if you 
have an income of $104,000 or more, the plan would cause your tax bill 
to go up at least an additional $5,300 a year. If you have an income of 
$62,000 or more, the plan will cause your tax bill to go up at least--
at least--$2,300 a year. This is on top of the $2,300 increase already 
assumed by the failure to extend the current tax policy that was put in 
place by this President and a Republican Congress. But we are not just 
looking at new spending. He also wants to balance the budget and stop 
spending the Social Security surplus. If he follows through with these 
promises, it would mean the average taxpayer earning $62,000 would see 
their income tax bill rise 5,300 or 61 percent, or the average taxpayer 
earning $104,000 would see their income tax bill rise by 12,300, or 74 
percent. The average taxpayer earning $365,000 would see their income 
tax bill rise by an astounding $93,500. That is a 132-percent increase.

  Keep in mind that all these tax increases would be on top of the 
$2,300 tax increase 43 million families will feel, when the current tax 
policy expires; the $2,200 tax increase seniors will experience, when 
the current tax policy expires; and the $4,000 tax increase small 
business will have to pay, when the current tax policy expires.
  If such a massive hike is deemed politically undoable, all of this 
staggering spending would simply be added to the Federal debt each 
year, to the tune of over $1.4 trillion over 5 years. That debt would 
be passed along to our children and grandchildren, with interest.
  I will oppose this amendment. But I think we need to include these 
proposals in our budget debate. I refer to, and other Members have 
referred to, this as the ``Obama spend-orama.'' It is a huge spending 
proposal that he is talking about in the campaign, which we can expect 
him to present to Congress if he is elected President. The consequences 
are a huge increase. When you pay for that, he is going to have to 
implement a huge tax increase. That is on top of the expiring taxes 
that will be taking place in the next 2 or 3 years.
  So we have a tax increase built into current law that will be 
compounded by this type of spending plan.
  My point is that the taxpayers of this country simply cannot afford 
this kind of budgeting. Their taxes are too high. They are going to be 
too high in the next 2 or 3 years. We are going to have tax increases 
when our economy can least afford to deal with them.
  So I ask my colleagues to join me in voting against this ``Obama 
spend-orama'' amendment. I think it is the wrong answer in today's 
world. We need to have the American people keep their money in their 
own pockets so they can spend it on their own family needs, so it can 
be used in their local communities to take care of the needs of those 
communities in which they live. Sending it to Washington and sending it 
back in some type of programmatic dollars simply will not do the trick 
to keep our economy growing, and that is certainly not what I want to 
see.
  I came to Washington to make sure we kept power at the State and 
family level. So I am proposing this amendment so we can have this 
debate and move forward with this budget policy, which we may have to 
deal with after this particular Presidential election.
  Mr. President, I see Senator Burr. I will yield the floor so he can 
raise his concerns.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his amendment. I 
want to make it clear to my colleagues in the Senate that you should 
not vote for this amendment. I will say that again. You should not vote 
for the Allard amendment.
  The amendment reflects the proposals that one candidate made in the 
Presidential race to, in a blanket way, spend $300 billion a year--the 
first year. We all know if you have 1 year of spending up here, all you 
need to do is multiply it by how many years you are going to watch it 
because you will end up close to what the total is. If you look at over 
a 5-year period, you are looking at a tremendous growth in spending.
  Now, this may be considered by some an economic stimulus package--I 
think that is probably the only way it could be billed--and that we are 
going to grow the size of the Federal Government through what they 
spend. That is not how I envision economic growth. I envision that when 
you fuel, through policies, the commitment by the private sector to 
invest in bricks and mortar and buy new equipment, to create jobs and 
hire our children and grandchildren, to continue to innovate to bring 
new resources to the marketplace and make sure the U.S. economy grows--
not the U.S. Government--I think if the American people wish for 
anything today, they wish we would slash the size of the Federal 
Government. They wish we would cut the number of employees and that we 
would actually take a look at the programs that the Federal Government 
has that we have funded--and that we created many times--that don't 
work today, and actually fix them and make

[[Page S1968]]

them work or get rid of them. But, no, in typical fashion, every 
election year we say the Government is broken, this or that doesn't 
work, so let's create new programs. Let's not try to fix the ones that 
are there. Maybe they will just go away on their own. But they never 
do. Spending piles up and piles up.
  So there is a big difference as we go into this budget debate, and as 
we go into this election year. The question is, are you going to ask 
the private sector to fuel the economic growth? Are you going to ask 
the private sector to invest in bricks and mortar and job creation or 
are you going to let the Federal Government do it? Our track record in 
the Federal Government is not too good.

  Senator Obama's $300 billion spending proposal--in one year, again--
would cost more than 42 State budgets combined; 42 of the States in 
this country, in total, have a smaller budget than the $300 billion 
that Senator Obama is proposing to spend in the first year of his 
administration.
  Quite frankly, who will pay for the $300 billion increase in the size 
of the Federal Government, the spending and the number of employees in 
the Federal Government? The American people will, the middle class 
will. I think my colleague from Colorado said it very well--that even 
though the rhetoric says we are going to target those people at just 
the top of the income level, that Congress would need to increase taxes 
on the top 1 percent of taxpayers 57 percent, which would be a $40,000 
increase, if you want to try to raise it just on the backs of the 
wealthiest or highest taxpayers. In all likelihood, the average 
taxpayer earning $62,000 a year would see their income tax rise $5,300 
or 61 percent. That is how low you would have to go on the taxable 
scale to be able to raise the money you need to fund the $300 billion 
increase in the Federal Government.
  Let me put things into perspective. CBO said that President Clinton, 
in 1993, raised taxes in this country $240.6 billion over 5 years. The 
late Senator Moynihan, from New York, called it the ``largest tax 
increase in the history of public financing in the United States or 
anywhere else in the world.'' Now, what Senator Obama is proposing for 
a spending increase in 1 year is bigger than the 5-year increase that 
President Clinton imposed on the American taxpayer, which was the 
largest in the history of the country or, as Senator Moynihan said, 
anywhere else in the world. Senator Obama has promised to pay for this 
new record spending with tax increases on families making over $250,000 
a year. That is a pretty attractive target, as we have learned. I think 
more Americans aspire to get there than worry about getting there.
  However, as my dear friend from Colorado points out, this increase 
would only yield $225 billion over 5 years, which is a far cry from 
what the amount is that we will need, which is $1.4 trillion. I will 
say that again. It is $1.4 trillion, which is required under the new 
spending program.
  So in typical Washington fashion, we have a proposal by somebody to 
spend $1.4 trillion and to pay for it in total with the taxes on just 
families making over $250,000 in income, which would equal $225 billion 
over 5 years. Somehow in Washington that is understood as a promise to 
pay for it in total--$225 billion collected in taxes and $1.4 trillion 
spent.
  I don't need to belabor the point. I am here to beg my colleagues to 
vote against this amendment. Vote against my friend from Colorado. Turn 
him down. America doesn't need us to spend more money. They need us to 
fix the programs designed to affect the American people today. We don't 
need to tax the American people more. We need to tax them less. We need 
to look at corporate taxes in this country and we need to reduce them. 
We need to look at health care and fix it. We need to look at education 
and we need to figure out how every child crosses the goal line of 
graduation on time. Government is not going to do that. Communities and 
the private sector are the ones that will invest in bricks and mortar 
and will create the jobs. If we create them here, it is not the job 
most Americans want. If we allow the private sector to create those 
jobs, the future of every child in this country is unlimited, only 
controlled by their commitment and their willingness.
  Let's make sure our investment is to make sure our policies support 
the private sector, our programs help the American people, and that we 
don't fuel the economy fictitiously by proposing that the Federal 
Government can increase spending and, in fact, balance it on the backs 
of a select few. It will be like every other tax increase. We will 
balance it on the backs of Americans who cannot afford any more taxes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Carolina 
for his comments. He is entirely right. This is an appropriate time to 
consider this because we are talking about the budget of 2009. Whoever 
is going to be the next President, we are talking about his or her 
budget. We are talking about the same year he or she will be in his or 
her first year in office.
  There is a debate going on out on the campaign trail for President, 
and I think we need to seriously look at the proposals that are being 
put forward on the campaign trail. This particular amendment looks at, 
right now, the leading Democrat candidate for President, the proposal 
he is going to be making, with the 188 programs he is promoting out 
there. We have done an analysis on 111 of them. Spending just goes 
through the roof. Consequently, taxes will go through the roof. If you 
don't raise taxes to take care of the spending program, then your 
deficit spending is going to go through the roof.
  I think this is a meaningful amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote 
no, and my view is that, if you make this argument that you are going 
to make the rich pay for all these programs, that just cannot happen. 
It will filter down, and the middle class and small businesses are the 
ones that will carry most of it.
  I have mentioned this before on the Senate floor, and I will say it 
again. If you want economic growth in this country, it comes out of the 
small business sector. When you raise their taxes markedly, it is going 
to have an adverse effect on the economy. So this is the wrong solution 
at the wrong time. I ask my colleagues to vote no on this important 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how is the time being charged now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Then I ask that the time I am on the floor and the time 
going forward be charged against the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the order. Time is being charged 
against the resolution.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if I might have the floor, there are a 
number of folks who wish to speak to this bill and have amendments 
relative to the bill. I strongly urge them to wander over here in the 
next few hours and give their talks and talk about their amendments. It 
is possible that we will start the vote-arama tomorrow. Once we start, 
there is not going to be any discussion. There will be one vote after 
another, with a very brief time period in between equally divided. If 
people want a substantive discussion on their amendments, now is the 
time to come over and make their presentation.
  Taking my own advice, I will mention an amendment I intend to offer 
which deals with the H-1B issue. H-1Bs are visas which go to people who 
can contribute immensely to our economy. We have an economy that 
depends on value added--smart people creating ideas which create jobs. 
A lot of those smart people come from overseas, and we should take 
advantage of them wanting to come to the United States. One of our 
great strengths as a nation is people want to come here, and we should 
take advantage of that strength and convert it to an economic engine.
  The way to do that, of course, is to encourage people who want to 
come here and who are going to contribute to the economy by being job 
creators--rather than taking jobs, they will be actually job creators--
to come to the United States. So I will have an amendment to expand the 
H-1B program. This is critical to the high-technology industry 
especially.

[[Page S1969]]

  I expect that this amendment will be strongly supported by those who 
wish to expand our economy, especially by advancing our leadership in 
the area of technology, and I know it will be strongly supported by 
everybody----
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GREGG. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Illinois for a 
question. There will be no dead people brought over to the United 
States.
  Mr. DURBIN. Lucky 7,000.
  I would like to ask the Senator from New Hampshire, if I might, is he 
aware of the companies that took advantage of the H-1B visas in 2006, 
which companies led in the number of H-1B visa awards?
  Mr. GREGG. Well, I know the Senator from Illinois doesn't like the H-
1B visa program, doesn't desire it to be expanded. I appreciate that 
and I understand we have a difference of opinion on that, and when he 
wants time, I will be happy to listen to his views again. But the fact 
is I happen to think, even though there may have been abuses in the 
program, I don't think they were at the core of the problem; that the 
primary energy of this program has been to create jobs in the United 
States by bringing smart people here.
  We should be going across the world and saying to the best and the 
brightest----
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GREGG. I will in a second--and saying to the best and the 
brightest in the world, if you want to come to the United States and be 
a job center that adds to the value of our economy, we would like to 
have you come. We would like to consider you as being a participant 
under an H-1B visa program.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. The Senator inadvertently misstated my position. I know 
it was an accident. We are good friends. He is probably not aware I do 
support the H-1B.
  But is the Senator aware that out of the top 10 companies that 
secured H-1B visas, 6 of those companies were Indian corporations; 
5,000 visas to Infosys, an Indian corporation which is a body shop 
which moves H-1B engineers from India to the United States for a fee 
and then back to India to compete with American companies; WoodPro, 
which is the second largest company, 4,000 visas; and the first 
American company on the list for H-1B visas was Microsoft, with 3,000. 
So 9,000 had already been awarded to Indian companies, and the 
Government of India has said the H-1B is what they consider their 
outsourcing visa so they can send engineers to the United States to 
learn how to compete against American companies.
  Does the Senator believe that is an abuse which should be addressed?
  Mr. GREGG. Well, I would say to the Senator from Illinois that when 
you bring a person here who has the capacity to add to the strength of 
a Microsoft, for example, which is probably our single biggest 
international producer of economic activity for us as a nation, after 
maybe, I don't know, Wal-Mart, but it is a value-added company of the 
first level, and that when you bring somebody here who Microsoft feels 
adds to their ability to be more competitive, if that person decides to 
go back to India or back to China, well, that will be a choice they 
make.
  But I suspect the odds are pretty good if that person has the 
opportunity to stay here under an H-1B visa program, they will probably 
end up staying here, or at least a large enough percentage of them will 
stay to add to our economy.
  Now, what my amendment does----
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GREGG. I will in a second. What my amendment does, to make it 
clear, is it recaptures visas that are unused and it uses those visas 
now. It also specifically targets bringing in high-skilled nursing, 
people who are trained in the nursing facility area, which is very much 
in demand right now.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GREGG. Certainly. Of course.
  Mr. DURBIN. Does the Senator feel the option of job vacancies that 
may be filled by H-1B visa holders should first be offered to Americans 
to fill those jobs before an H-1B visa is given to a person coming from 
another country?
  Mr. GREGG. I happen to believe the H-1B program is one of those 
programs that expands jobs in the United States, and by getting people 
here, you actually create jobs and you will create more jobs for 
Americans rather than lose jobs.
  So, no, I don't happen to think you create a uniform rule that says 
nobody can come here if somebody else can take the job because then you 
are going to get the bureaucracy behind that which would basically bar 
those people from ever getting here. That becomes then a bureaucratic 
nightmare for building those jobs. It makes much more sense to bring 
these smart, intelligent people here, have them create jobs here, 
rather than leave them creating jobs in China and India.
  Bill Gates speaks to this far more eloquently than I do. He speaks to 
most things more eloquently than I can because he can pronounce the 
words. But as a practical matter, he says these people are centers for 
the energy that creates the ideas, that creates the jobs that drive the 
economy. And if you leave them in China, if you leave them in India, as 
those types of individuals creating jobs, they become huge competitors 
to the entrepreneurship of America. If you bring them here, they become 
adjuncts to our economy.
  I think the proposal makes a lot of sense from the standpoint of job 
creation and from the standpoint of making our economy stronger, so I 
will be offering it later in the day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I can ask my friend to withhold for a 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have had a conversation with Senator 
McConnell, and he and I have had a discussion as to what is going on 
here and what needs to go on. We believe we should start voting about 
11 o'clock tomorrow, or maybe a half-hour earlier. We have an event in 
the Rotunda that he and I have to attend, and there is a moment of 
silence for our troops, so we can start about 10:30 or 11 o'clock.
  Tonight, Members should offer any amendments they want, talk as long 
as they want. But it appears, based on my conversation with the 
Republican leader, it will not be necessary that we be in all night. So 
that would be all I have to say, and that is also based on the 
conversation we had with the two managers of the bill earlier in the 
evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would ask the leader, for the purposes 
of clarification, if Members would be permitted to speak tonight on 
their amendments but to call them up tomorrow. We already have a very 
long line of amendments in the queue. I think the ranking member would 
probably agree that we would permit Members to speak tonight, but they 
would have to sequence their amendments tomorrow because we already 
have a long line of amendments in the queue. I think that would provide 
a better discipline for the process tomorrow.
  Mr. REID. I would say to my friend, if the managers of the bill agree 
to that, I am sure Senator McConnell would agree to that. So unless we 
hear from the Republican leader to the contrary, I would say, based on 
that, there will be no rollcall votes tonight and that we will proceed 
along that line. Staff will draw up a consent agreement the two of you 
can take a look at and make sure it is in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. I take it the Senator from North Dakota is suggesting we 
will continue this evening, but in debate only, unless the chairman and 
the ranking member of the committee agree to put an amendment in order.
  Mr. CONRAD. I think that would be the best way to proceed, don't you, 
to maintain some discipline for what is to come tomorrow?
  Mr. GREGG. I agree. I wished to make certain.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that be the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand that Senator Dodd is going to 
speak for 20 minutes. At the end of Senator Dodd's presentation, I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Ensign be recognized.

[[Page S1970]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. I would not object, but if Senator Ensign can give an 
idea, for the knowledge of other Members, how long he will take. An 
approximation.
  Mr. ENSIGN. About 20 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. That might be helpful to our colleagues who might be 
listening, in knowing how much time it would take.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. So the order will be the Senator from 
Connecticut for 20 minutes and the Senator from Nevada for 20 minutes?
  Mr. CONRAD. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator the Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to talk about a couple amendments I 
will be offering, but let me inquire, if I may, of the chairman of the 
Budget Committee, if it would be appropriate for us to submit our 
amendments this evening. I understand the sequence will be left to the 
committee, but I am not sure whether I should be submitting an 
amendment or whether we can do that tomorrow.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I think you can file one, but it can't be called up.
  Mr. DODD. I understand that. That is the point.
  Well, Mr. President, what I will do, then, is I would like to file 
two amendments, and I send them to the desk and ask they be filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me discuss these two amendments, and I 
will reserve about 5 or 6 minutes at the end to talk about the present 
housing issue that is critical to all of us. I wish to take a few 
minutes, which is far more than I will probably get tomorrow with the 1 
minute allocated to talk about these amendments that are important in a 
number of aspects.
  I wish to thank Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, Senator Schumer, the 
Presiding Officer, and Senator Durbin for joining me in the first 
amendment I will be offering to increase funding for the Maternal and 
Child Health Block Grant. This amendment that I will be calling up is 
supported by a large coalition of organizations, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the list of organizations and letter from the 
organizations be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                   Friends of the Title V Maternal


                                     and Child Health Program,

       Dear Senator: As organizations committed to improving the 
     health of America's women, children, and families, we urge 
     you to support full funding for the Title V Maternal and 
     Child Health (MCH) Services Block Grant. Full funding at the 
     authorized level of $850 million will enable all states and 
     territories to provide vital public health and health care 
     services to millions of women, infants and children, 
     including children and youth with special health care needs.
       The MCH Block Grant is the only Federal program that 
     focuses solely on improving the health of all of our nation's 
     mothers and children. State and territorial health agencies 
     and their partners use MCH Block Grant resources to reduce 
     infant mortality, deliver services to children and youth with 
     special health care needs, support prenatal and postnatal 
     care, screen newborns for genetic and hereditary health 
     conditions, deliver childhood immunizations, and prevent 
     childhood injuries. MCH Block Grant funding assists states in 
     addressing critical health workforce needs, including the 
     training of health professionals, and supports the 
     development and testing of innovative public health 
     practices.
       State and territorial MCH programs coordinate their work 
     with Medicaid agencies, state Special Supplemental Nutrition 
     Programs for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and other 
     programs serving vulnerable and at-risk populations. This 
     collaborative work assures that every dollar is used to 
     provide necessary services without duplication to underserved 
     mothers, children, and families in your state.
       Six years ago, funding for the MCH Block Grant was $731 
     million and has remained flat or has decreased ever since. 
     The FY 2008 omnibus appropriations bill cut MCH Block Grant 
     funding to $666 million, the lowest level since 1993. Five 
     years of cuts have curtailed progress in improving the health 
     of mothers, children, and families. Full funding for the MCH 
     Block Grant will allow states to efficiently meet increased 
     demand for public health and health care services in their 
     communities.
       We strongly urge you to fully fund the Title V MCH Block 
     Grant at $850 million. Your support of this vital program is 
     appreciated.
           Sincerely,
         Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs; 
           American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of 
           Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American Public Health 
           Association; Association of Public Health Laboratories; 
           Association of State & Territorial Health Officials; 
           Association of University Centers on Disabilities; 
           Autism Society of America; CityMatCH; Children's Dental 
           Health Project; Division for Early Childhood of the 
           Council for Exceptional Children; Epilepsy Foundation; 
           Family Voices; Families USA; First Focus; IDEA Infant 
           Toddler Coordinators Association (ITCA) March of Dimes 
           Foundation National Association of County and City 
           Health Officials; National Assembly on School-Based 
           Health Care; National Center for Children in Poverty; 
           National Healthy Start Association; National Hispanic 
           Medical Association; Prevent Blindness America; The Arc 
           of the United States; The Children's Defense Fund; The 
           Children's Health Fund; United Cerebral Palsy.    
                                  ____


  Support for Dodd Amendment on Maternal and Child Health Block Grant

       Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs; American 
     Public Health Association; Association of Public Health Labs; 
     Association of State & Territorial Health Officials; Autism 
     Society of America; AFSCME; Child FIRST, Bridgeport Hospital, 
     Yale New-Haven Health System; Child Welfare League of 
     America; CityMatCH; Division for Early Childhood of the 
     Council for Exceptional Children (DEC); Easter Seals; 
     Epilepsy Foundation; Family Voices; First Focus; IDEA Infant 
     Toddler Coordinators Association (ITCA) March of Dimes 
     Foundation; National Assembly on School-Based Health Care; 
     National Center for Children in Poverty Mailman School of 
     Public Health, Columbia University; National Center for 
     Learning Disabilities; National Child Abuse Coalition; 
     National Healthy Start Association; Prevent Blindness 
     America; SEIU; Voices for America's Children.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, among the associations and organizations 
that are supporting this amendment is the Association of Maternal and 
Child Health Programs, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the March of 
Dimes, and many others.
  In a minute, I will speak to the second amendment I am offering 
relating to autism funding.
  Under the President's budget, the Maternal and Child Health Block 
Grant will be funded at $666 million for the second consecutive year. 
This amount represents a cut of $65 million from 5 years ago, when 
funding peaked at $731 million. These persistent cuts and flat funding 
have a real impact on the services States are able to offer to nearly 
35 million women, children, and youth affected by maternal and child 
health programs.
  The Maternal and Child Health programs include direct health care for 
children with special needs, preventive and primary care for children 
and youth, integration of health care with other child and family 
services, newborn screening for genetic disorders, lead poisoning 
prevention, injury prevention, and public education.
  We must ensure that the States are able to continue to offer these 
services to those in need. That is why I am offering this amendment, 
which will increase the funding of this block grant by $184 million to 
the authorized level of $850 million.
  Again, I wish to thank Senators Hatch, Schumer, and Durbin for 
supporting this effort in a bipartisan way. The Maternal and Child 
Health Block Grant services act as a critical source of care for many 
of our Nation's uninsured children. Of the more than 23 million 
children receiving services in 2006, 6.8 percent, or nearly 1.8 million 
children, had no known source of health insurance at all.
  More than a third of MCH funds are used to provide primary and 
preventive health care services to children--including immunization 
clinics, outreach to enroll eligible children in Medicaid and the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, and funding and technical 
assistance to school based health centers, that serve adolescents.
  In other words, MCH funds are used to ensure that mothers and 
children in traditionally underserved populations receive absolutely 
necessary care.
  Yet, despite this important mission, we continue to ask State MCH 
programs to do more with less. According to the Association of Maternal 
and Child Health Programs, the purchasing power of the MCH block grant 
has decreased close to 24 percent since 2003.

[[Page S1971]]

  Consider this: at present, low birth weight and preterm births are 
increasing, the U.S. ranks 32nd out of 33rd of the world's 
industrialized nations in the rate of infant deaths with African 
American infants in the United States more than twice as likely as 
white infants to die before their first birthday, and childhood obesity 
rates for some age groups representing a three-fold increase in rates 
over the past two decades. We can do much better. This program has 
proven it works. Thus you have the support of Senator Hatch and others 
who know that this program has made a difference in the lives of 
millions.
  Nearly one-half of all preterm births have no known cause but what we 
do know is that by reducing certain risk factors in the mother such as 
cigarette smoking and obesity, we can help reduce rates of prematurity.
  I chair the Children and Families Subcommittee of the HELP Committee 
and authored the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act with Senator Hatch--
passed the Senate unanimously last December--and the Preventing 
Prematurity Research Expansion and Education for Mothers who deliver 
Infants Early Act, better known as the PREEMIE Act with Senator 
Alexander, enacted into law. These initiatives have made important 
steps toward giving children a healthy start at life. But now it's time 
for us to ensure that the money will be there to continue the success 
of these vital programs.
  The MCH block grant is a proven success for helping ensure a healthy 
future for our Nation's children. States are required to match $3 for 
every $4 of Federal funds provided by the block grant. The MCH block 
grant has performance measures and evaluations that document the 
effective impact of this modest investment. To quote the Bush 
administration:

       The program is well designed. The [MCH Block Grant] serves 
     as a safety net to help improve the health of mothers and 
     children and has a positive impact on their health.

  The MCH program is critical to the health and well-being of millions 
of families across this country, including some of the most vulnerable 
members of our society. Years of funding cuts and level funding have 
stretched maternal and child health programs to their limits. I urge my 
colleagues to support my amendment to increase MCH block grant funding 
to $850 million in this year's budget resolution. On behalf of Senators 
Hatch, Schumer, Durbin and others, we hope that members will be in 
favor of something that has enjoyed broad support.
  Mr. President, I would now like to speak on an amendment I will be 
offering with Senators Collins and Kennedy. I thank Senator Collins and 
Senator Kennedy, the distinguished Chairman of the Health, Education, 
Labor and Pensions Committee for their support for this amendment. I 
would also like to thank Autism Speaks for their support for this 
amendment.
  The amendment increases funding for autism in the fiscal year 2009 
budget by $197 million in a budget-neutral manner, bringing autism 
funding up to its authorized level and then doubling our commitment to 
funding research into the causes of and treatments for autism.
  In 2006, the Congress unanimously passed the Combating Autism Act, 
which my colleague from Pennsylvania former Senator Rick Santorum and I 
authored along with the strong support of Senators Kennedy and Enzi. 
This initiative was the largest Federal expansion of funding and 
programs for children and families with autism spectrum disorder. It 
authorizes $800 million to find the causes and decide how to treat the 
myriad of problems faced by families of children with autism.
  At the time the bill passed, the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, CDC, estimated that 1 in 166 children were diagnosed with 
autism. Today the CDC estimates that number to be 1 in 150. In fact, 67 
children are diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder per day. A new 
case is diagnosed almost every 20 minutes.
  It continues to be a challenge to determine how much Federal funding 
is actually going to study the causes of and treatments for autism. In 
fact, some estimates are that actual NIH funding for research specific 
to autism is less than half of what is being reported.
  That is why this amendment is so critical. It will redouble our 
Federal commitment to funding autism, the fastest-growing developmental 
disability in the U.S.
  At a time when the number of children and families living with autism 
has grown exponentially, the President's budget proposes to freeze 
Federal spending on autism at levels that are insufficient to make the 
kind of discoveries in autism that are needed.
  Many of my colleagues no doubt have been visited by children and 
their families with autism. Autism is a complex neurological disorder, 
which manifests itself differently in each individual but occurs in all 
racial, ethnic and socioeconomic groups. It is a lifelong condition 
that affects not only the individual with the disability, but impacts 
the entire family, often requiring intensive levels of support and 
intervention.
  There are so many unanswered questions about autism. And it will 
require a major scale-up in funding to bring us closer to answering 
them. We should close no doors on promising avenues of research into 
the causes of autism and my amendment allows all biomedical research 
opportunities on autism to be pursued.
  The amendment I am offering would enable us to redouble our efforts 
on autism research and treatment services by increasing funding for 
research, treatments, education and interventions by $197 million in 
fiscal year 2009 and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Again, I emphasize it is the fastest growing developmental disability 
in our country. The number of children who will be born with autism is 
increasing every day in this country. Again, on behalf of Senator 
Collins and myself, Senator Kennedy and others, we urge you to be 
supportive of this amendment when it comes up. It is deficit neutral, 
which ought to make it easier for Members to support this amendment.
  Lastly, I want to take a couple of minutes, to commend the chairman 
of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad and Senator Judd Gregg, the 
ranking member as well, and the other members of the Budget Committee. 
I served on that committee for many years and have nothing but 
admiration and respect for those going through this process. This 
budget is a positive step to address the serious challenges our economy 
is facing today. Having just spoken on the specific issues regarding 
the resolution, on autism and maternal and child health, I want to take 
a moment to again address some of the problems that are plaguing our 
economy.
  I have been coming to the floor with some regularity in recent weeks 
to speak on economic issues. I do not wish to test the patience of our 
colleagues. But I believe that these issues are of such paramount 
importance at this point in our national life that they merit the 
consideration of our colleagues.
  Just yesterday the Federal Reserve announced a significant new action 
that attempts to address the liquidity lock-down that has spread 
through our credit markets and crippled the ability of lenders to lend 
and borrowers to borrow. The announcement by the Fed is a significant 
measure that is intended to address this very serious situation. The 
markets' strong positive reaction to the Fed's action demonstrates that 
policymakers can undertake actions which have the potential to improve 
our situation. However, I do not believe that the Fed's action alone 
will be enough to right our Nation's economic ship. Additional steps 
should also be considered to address the root cause of the present 
market turmoil--namely, the housing market and specifically the 
foreclosure crisis.
  New data was released last week regarding the condition of America's 
homeowners. It is stark, even alarming in certain respects. 
Foreclosures have hit a new all-time record, according to the Mortgage 
Banker's Association, MBA. This data shows that more than 1 in every 50 
homes with a mortgage in the country is in foreclosure, as of the end 
of last year. Foreclosure rates have been growing at record levels for 
some time. Foreclosures are increasing because people are continuing to 
struggle to make their payments, and because those payments are 
increasing for millions of Americans. The report tells us

[[Page S1972]]

that 1 in every 13 homeowners with a mortgage has fallen behind on 
their mortgage.
  The Federal Reserve also released new data, which shows that 
Americans' equity in their homes is at a record low. Home equity has 
fallen for three straight quarters and now, for the first time in 
recorded history, which dates back to the end of the Second World War, 
Americans own less than 50 percent of the value of their home. By 
virtually all estimates, the housing problem is getting worse, not 
better.
  Congress can and in my opinion, must, address the situation. There 
are several pieces of legislation that I, along with others, am working 
to do just that. I am working with my ranking member, Senator Shelby 
and our colleagues in the House on legislation to reform the Federal 
Housing Administration. I remain committed to creating a world-class 
regulator for the GSEs. I also believe that we need to expand the 
community development block grant program to enable cities and 
localities with the tools and funding they will need to address the 
foreclosure crisis which is upon us. I have worked with Senators 
Schumer, the Presiding Officer Bond and others to make sure that high-
quality counseling is available to homeowners who are facing the brunt 
of the storm, and I remain committed to this important program.
  Congress should consider creating a home ownership preservation 
entity that can help restore stability and liquidity to the mortgage 
market and credit markets generally. Fed Chairman Bernanke called for 
such an entity in an important address last week.
  In addition to addressing the problems in the housing market, which 
are at the epicenter of our current economic crisis, we also need to 
make sure that our economy is fundamentally strong for the future. One 
of the most effective ways to do that is to invest in our Nation's 
infrastructure. Just yesterday, I chaired a hearing of the Senate 
Banking Committee on the condition of our Nation's infrastructure and 
on ideas as to how to improve it. The hearing generated some good ideas 
that I believe we need to act on. One such idea is contained in 
legislation written by Senator Hagel and myself to establish a national 
infrastructure bank.
  I commend Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and Senator John Thune for 
their efforts as well, on a similar idea which we intend to incorporate 
with our idea that can help us in this effort as well.
  The budget resolution before allows for such action. It establishes a 
reserve fund for the specific purpose of meeting our infrastructure 
needs. The fund could encompass the legislation Senator Hagel and I 
have introduced. I appreciate the willingness of the Budget Committee 
to work with us on this issue. I commend Chairman Conrad and Senator 
Gregg for establishing this fund. It is evidence of a growing consensus 
in Congress and the country that complacency can no longer substitute 
for action.
  From the days of the Roman aqueducts to the present, a nation's 
ability to grow and prosper rests upon its success at effectively 
moving people, goods, and information. Ask any American today how we 
are doing in achieving this objective, and chances are the response 
would be the same: we can do better. When the average American spends 
51.5 hours a year in traffic congestion, we can do better. When 33 
percent of all urban and rural roads are in poor, mediocre, or fair 
condition, we can do better. When the United States invests less than 2 
percent of its gross domestic product on infrastructure while countries 
like China and India invest between 7 and 12 percent, we can do better.
  Economist Stephen Roach, in a recent op-ed in the New York Times, 
suggests that investing in infrastructure would be an effective 
strategy for dealing with the current economic slowdown. Specifically, 
he recommends that:

       Fiscal initiatives should be directed at laying the 
     groundwork for future growth, especially by upgrading the 
     nation's antiquated highways, bridges, and ports.
  I have been working closely with Senator Shelby on these issues and 
remain hopeful that when the Senate returns after the Easter recess, we 
can get back to working on cost-effective approaches to allow people to 
keep their homes and bring liquidity to the housing market.
  Lastly, the budget resolution was a good step to address the problems 
before us by allocating funds to existing programs, such as the 
Community Development Block Grant Program, as well as, of course, I 
mentioned the reserve account here to deal with infrastructure needs.
  I commend the authors of this resolution. I urge my colleagues to 
consider the two amendments I will be offering dealing with maternal 
and general health offered by myself, Senators Hatch, Schumer, Durbin, 
and others.
  Dealing with autism, Senator Collins and I will be offering two 
critical issues. We are accounting for them here in the budget 
resolution, so they are budget neutral but also making a difference in 
the lives of people in the kinds of proper investments we may have.
  I thank the chair for the time. I thank my colleague from Nevada.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Would the Senator from Nevada wait to proceed for one 
moment for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. ENSIGN. I would.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this appear 
before the gentleman's remarks so his remarks are not interrupted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I have talked with Senator Gregg about this matter. The 
one thing we did not agree to formally that needs to be agreed to is 
that Senator Menendez would have a right to offer the side-by-side 
amendment to Senator Sessions' this evening. That would be the only 
thing that would be permitted tonight, other than additional agreements 
between the ranking member and the chairman.
  But that is one piece of business we previously agreed to informally 
but have not done formally. We should do that at this moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.
  Madam President, to modify that request, there are a number of 
Senators wanting to know what the order would be following the Senator 
from Nevada. I see Senator Gregg here. We have Senator Akaka, Senator 
Corker, Senator Chambliss. How much time will the Senator from Georgia 
seek?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. No more than 10 minutes, probably less.
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from Tennessee?
  Mr. CORKER. Six or seven.
  Mr. GREGG. Senator Grassley is here.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. May I speak at 8:05?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes. For how long at 8:05?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Six minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Would you be again praising the resolution and the 
chairman of the Budget Committee or would it not be so favorable?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I know you will not believe it, but I will not have 
anything negative to say.
  Mr. CONRAD. It is my birthday. I wonder if we can agree, after the 
Senator from Nevada, that Senator Chambliss be recognized for 10 
minutes, Senator Akaka for 10 minutes, then come back to Senator Corker 
for up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. CORKER. Six will work for me.
  Mr. GREGG. And that Senator Grassley be recognized at 8:05.
  Mr. CONRAD. After Senator Corker, then Senator Menendez have his 
opportunity for 15 minutes, Senator Grassley at 8:05.
  I ask unanimous consent that that be the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request, as 
modified?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell.) The Senator from Nevada.


                           Amendment No. 4240

  Mr. ENSIGN. I wish to speak on two amendments I will be offering to 
the budget. The first amendment has to do with means testing Medicare 
Part D, the new prescription drug benefit, by making sure that seniors 
who are wealthier pay a little more so that middle-class Americans are 
not subsidizing their prescription drug benefits to the extent they do 
today.
  As Members of Congress, we have an obligation to all Americans to 
ensure that senior citizens and individuals

[[Page S1973]]

with disabilities have access to medical care. We must maintain that 
commitment by strengthening the program and controlling costs. We 
already means test Medicare Part B, which helps cover doctor services 
and outpatient care.
  Today, I am proposing that we finish the job. In order to put the 
Medicare Program on better financial footing, we should means test the 
Medicare prescription drug program so that beneficiaries with higher 
incomes pay higher Part D premiums.
  Five short years ago, many of my colleagues, both Democrats and 
Republicans, voted with me in support of a Feinstein amendment to 
require high-income Medicare beneficiaries pay a greater share of their 
Medicare Part B premiums. Many of these Senators are still with us in 
the Senate today. In fact, the current chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee, Senator Conrad, supported an amendment to means test 
Medicare Part B. Other Democrats who supported the measure include 
Senators Biden, Carper, Dodd, Feingold, Kohl, Landrieu, and Wyden.
  I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize that our 
entitlement programs are in serious danger. As our Nation grows older, 
these programs will only devour more and more of our Federal budget. 
Without reform, our entitlement programs will consume our entire 
Federal budget somewhere around 20 years from now, leaving no funds for 
national security, education, transportation, or anything else.
  Unfortunately, the Democrats are not proposing anything to solve the 
problem of entitlements in this budget.
  Today, I am asking my colleagues to again show the courage to make 
tough choices and to take our lead from American families across the 
country who make hard choices each and every day.
  My amendment would impose an income test on the wealthiest seniors to 
ensure that they pay their fair share for prescription drug coverage. 
This amendment will extend the existing Medicare Part B income test to 
the Medicare Part D program, the prescription drug part of the program. 
By doing so, we will save almost $2 billion over the next 5 years.
  Under the proposal, single Medicare patients with an adjusted gross 
income over $82,000 and couples with incomes of more than $164,000 will 
be responsible for a greater share of their Medicare Part D premium 
based on a sliding scale. For example, a single Medicare beneficiary 
with an adjusted gross income between $82,001 and $102,000 a year will 
see an increase of only about $10.41 in the monthly Medicare premiums 
they pay. These income levels will be adjusted in the future for 
inflation.
  The vast majority of Medicare beneficiaries will not be impacted by 
this proposal. This chart shows the percentage of Medicare 
beneficiaries who are impacted: 96.6 percent of all seniors enrolled in 
Medicare Part D will not be affected by my amendment. Almost 3.5 
percent of seniors will be affected, just the wealthiest of those 
seniors.
  This proposal does not deprive senior citizens of the Medicare 
prescription drug benefit. What it does say is that if you can afford 
to pay a little more, then you should pay a little more. I believe it 
is wrong for the retired CEO of a Fortune 500 company not to pay a 
little more so that middle-income taxpayers are not subsidizing their 
prescription drug benefits. It really makes no sense for someone like 
Bill Gates' father to have his prescription drugs subsidized by a 
waitress in Las Vegas or a truck driver in Elko, NV. I strongly believe 
that American taxpayers, struggling to make ends meet, certainly should 
not be subsidizing, to the current extent, the Medicare Part D premiums 
of those seniors who can afford to pay for the cost of premiums 
themselves.
  In this instance, means testing is fair. Remember, this prescription 
drug benefit is a new benefit. It is not something seniors paid for 
through their taxes, it is a new entitlement benefit that current 
taxpayers are subsidizing. I think it is only fair to the school 
teacher, the firefighter, the police officer, and the small 
businessperson who is struggling to make ends meet, that wealthy 
seniors pay a little more per month for this new prescription drug 
benefit.
  Madam President, the second amendment I am going to be offering has 
to do with an issue that is fundamental to our country, the right of 
employees to have a secret-ballot election for determining whether you 
are going to have a union represent you in the workplace. This issue is 
also known as ``card check.'' We need to ensure the right of employees 
to a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations 
Board. My amendment will create a reserve fund to ensure that the 
National Labor Relations Board has sufficient resources to conduct 
secret-ballot elections.
  The NLRB is a Federal agency that was created by Congress in 1935. It 
is responsible for administering the Labor Relations Act, which is the 
primary law governing relations between unions and employers in the 
private sector. The NLRB works to protect the rights of employees to 
organize and collectively bargain with or without a union.
  We need to ask a fundamental question: Should Americans have the 
right to a secret ballot in choosing whether to have a union represent 
them?
  The Democrats offered a bill last year, that passed in the House, 
which was filibustered by Republicans in the Senate. Their bill would 
say: No longer are we going to allow employees the ability to have a 
secret ballot on whether to have a union represent them. Instead, they 
say: We are going to have a card check.
  The Democrats have offered something they deceptively title the 
Employee Free Choice Act. As I was saying, instead of secret ballot 
elections to determine whether or not to be represented by a union, 
they would pass out cards, have employees sign them, and as long as 
they get 50 percent of the employees, plus one, to sign a card saying 
they wanted a union, they automatically have a union.
  The problem is that when you use these cards, instead of a secret-
ballot election, coercion and intimidation can take place. That is why 
we have secret-ballot elections to elect our representatives virtually 
everywhere. Right here in the Senate, when we elect our leaders in each 
party, we do secret-ballot elections. This reduces the opportunity for 
intimidation.
  People want secret-ballots so that they are free to exercise their 
right and their conscience while voting. In whatever they do, whether 
it is a union or electing somebody to represent them in the Halls of 
Congress, they elect them through the use of a secret ballot. It is 
fundamental to the American system of government and the American way 
of life.
  Unfortunately, the Democrats have sided with the big labor bosses on 
this, and not with the union members. If you read the polling data, 80 
percent of union members want to maintain their right to secret ballot 
elections. As a matter of fact, that number is pretty consistent 
whether you are in a labor union or not. Eighty percent of the American 
people support the right to secret ballot elections to decide whether 
or not to have a union represent them.
  We have had actual experiences with this in my hometown of Las Vegas.
  Bruce Esgar, then an employee at the MGM, testified in front of a 
House Committee about his experience. He talked about how, when the 
union wanted to come into his workplace, he and others asked for a 
secret ballot vote. They were labeled ``anti-union.'' And when the card 
check campaign began, they were threatened that if they did not sign 
the card and the union came in, they would lose their jobs and their 
benefits.
  He said that employees were harassed in the dressing rooms before 
shifts, and that these tactics worked. Employees got tired of being 
harassed all the time so they signed the cards. Mr. Esgar testified 
about a coworker whose wife was the union at another casino, and that 
the union threatened to fire her if her husband did not sign the card 
at MGM. Another coworker was told that the union knew where his wife 
worked and where his kids went to school. He was told, ``accidents 
happen.'' I wonder which of these workers feels that the union is 
standing up for them?
  Bruce summed it up pretty well. He said:

       These are the things that the employees put up with. We did 
     it for two years. And all we were asking for was our right to 
     vote. In America, you vote for your future.


[[Page S1974]]


  My amendment is fundamental. It says, let's preserve the secret 
ballot right that Americans have in choosing whether to have a union 
represent them in the workplace. This is a critical issue facing our 
country today. It literally goes to the very fabric of our society. I 
realize that labor unions are big supporters of the Democratic Party 
across the country. I realize this is their No. 1 issue, the labor 
unions' No. 1 issue. It is and the labor union bosses No. 1 issue, but 
it is not for the labor union members. We need to make sure we are 
standing up for the rights of American workers everywhere, of union 
workers everywhere and make sure that we preserve their right to a 
secret ballot in the workplace.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after 
Senator Menendez speaks, Senator Enzi be recognized for 10 minutes, 
then Senator Casey for 15 minutes, and then if Senator Cardin seeks 
time, he be recognized for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Georgia.


                           Amendment No. 4230

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise to discuss and support 
amendment No. 4230 which has been filed by Senator Feinstein and 
myself. While this amendment is identical to amendments Senator 
Feinstein and I have offered previously to budget resolutions and that 
have been adopted by unanimous consent, Senator Feinstein has been an 
excellent partner and colleague in developing this amendment. She has 
been a strong supporter not just of this particular provision but of 
law enforcement in general. It has been a pleasure to work with her.
  What this amendment does is to provide for an increase in the funding 
level for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, 
which we commonly refer to as the Byrne/JAG provision, to a total of 
$906 million. This amendment is fully offset, and I am pleased to say 
that the following Senators have asked to be added as cosponsors in 
addition to myself and Senator Feinstein: Senators Bond, Harkin, 
Cantwell, Biden, Inhofe, Brown, Coleman, Clinton, Bingaman, Obama, 
Collins, Durbin, Isakson, Kerry, Burr, Lincoln, Feingold, and Dole.
  The Byrne/JAG program is the primary provider of Federal criminal 
justice funding to State and local jurisdictions, and the funding 
supports all components of the criminal justice system--
multijurisdictional drug and gang task forces, community crime 
prevention programs, substance abuse programs, prosecution initiatives, 
domestic violence programs, and information-sharing initiatives. Our 
law enforcement officials, our sheriffs, prosecutors, and drug court 
professionals, and many other public servants in the law enforcement 
community, rely on these particular grants to fight the drug issue in 
their particular jurisdictions. They are making their communities safer 
because of the awarding of these grants over the years.

  According to a survey conducted by the Iowa Governor's Office of Drug 
Policy, in the 2004 grant year, multijurisdictional drug enforcement 
task forces, funded by the Byrne/JAG program, made more than 221,000 
drug arrests. Almost 18,000 kilograms of cocaine was seized, with an 
estimated consumer street value of $1.6 billion. Almost 5,500 kilograms 
of methamphetamine was seized, with an estimated street value of $518 
million. The total value of drugs seized was over $12 billion, 
representing $63 in seized drugs for every $1 spent on drug task 
forces.
  I know the results our law enforcement community gets with Byrne/JAG 
funding are tangible and real. In my State of Georgia, we have used 
this program extensively. It has been essential to fighting crime, 
drugs, and gangs across the State. Last year in Georgia, with Byrne/JAG 
funding, the following successes were achieved: Multijurisdictional 
task forces were able to make 5,600 drug arrests and seize almost $50 
million in drugs; 2,500 law enforcement officers were trained in more 
than 100 different classes offered by the Georgia Public Safety 
Training Center through its drug enforcement training program; the 
Georgia Bureau of Investigation's State drug task force led a 
cooperative investigation resulting in an interstate drug enforcement 
effort with Alabama that received national recognition. The Georgia 
Information Sharing and Analysis Center is Georgia's Homeland Security 
State-level fusion intelligence center. The center expanded its 
Southern Shield initiative and widened the focus for intelligence 
integration in the region by coordinating with 12 other States within 
the Southeast on intelligence collection and dissemination. Nine drug 
court programs were supported, as was a mental health court diversion 
program.
  One great thing about this Byrne/JAG program is that the money is 
allocated so that 40 percent of the funding is distributed to local 
governments. In many cases, grants from the Byrne/JAG program are the 
only source of Federal funding for sheriffs and police in smaller 
communities. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting 
this amendment.
  The former president of the National Sheriffs Association happens to 
be a good friend and constituent of mine, Sheriff John Cary Bittick in 
Forsyth County, GA. Sheriff Bittick was here recently when Senator 
Feinstein, Senator Harkin, Senator Biden and I, along with Senator 
Bond, talked about the Byrne/JAG program. During that conversation, my 
friend Sheriff Bittick related the fact that there are a number of 
joint programs in our State that, due to the decrease in the funding 
last year in the omnibus bill, were having to eliminate their programs. 
If we eliminate these programs in small rural communities around my 
home State and the other 49 States, what we are going to see is 
certainly an increase in drug and illegal trafficking activities in 
those rural areas. This program is essential to fighting the drug 
problem in rural America.
  Our amendment is supported by the following organizations: the 
National Criminal Justice Association, the National Sheriffs 
Association, the American Correctional Association, the American 
Probation and Patrol Association, the National Narcotic Officers' 
Coalition, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, the 
National Association of Police Organizations, International Association 
of Chiefs of Police, Major County Sheriffs' Association, National 
Center for Victims of Crime, National Association of Counties, 
International Community Corrections Association, and Boys and Girls 
Clubs of America.
  It is pretty obvious that this program is very popular in the law 
enforcement community. The reason is because it works. Lives are being 
saved. More drugs are being confiscated. More bad guys who are 
manufacturing and distributing drugs around America are being locked up 
and put away because of this program.
  I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 4230 sponsored 
initially by Senator Feinstein and myself.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I am pleased to discuss funding for VA in 
the budget resolution for fiscal year 2009. Chairman Conrad and his 
colleagues on the Budget Committee have done impressive work on this 
resolution.
  They have demonstrated sound judgment in their funding recommendation 
to address the needs of our country.
  Service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, like those who 
returned from Vietnam, Korea, World War II and all previous wars, bear 
the effects of their service.
  They show us that the costs of war do not end on the battlefield. In 
crafting this budget, we are in a position to ensure that care for 
returning service members, of every war, is a top priority.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs provides superior health care to 
millions of veterans every year.
  It is widely regarded as one of the top health care systems in 
America. Today, VA faces a growing wave of new demands--veterans of 
past wars are aging and making greater use of the system, and younger 
veterans of the current conflicts require a new range of services from 
VA.
  Congress must provide the resources for VA to meet all of these 
demands.
  This budget resolution acknowledges the challenges facing VA. It 
meets our responsibility of caring for our Nation's service members and 
veterans.

[[Page S1975]]

  In recent years, VA and Congress have made a tremendous investment in 
mental health services. I am pleased that this budget reflects an 
ongoing commitment to better serve the needs of veterans with mental 
health concerns.
  Madam President, I remind my colleagues that battle wounds frequently 
manifest themselves as invisible wounds. These wounds can be just as 
devastating as physical wounds. Indeed, many mental health disorders, 
including substance use disorder and PTSD, have both physical and 
mental manifestations.
  They impact the veteran's relationships and his or her ability to 
work and to interact in society. The effects of many mental health 
disorders can be limited or even avoided if they are caught and treated 
promptly, before long-term disabilities develop.
  This budget resolution provides the funds to continue the essential 
task of providing timely access to mental health care for all veterans.
  Families play a critical role in the well-being of veterans. As 
chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I held a hearing 
yesterday on the role of families in veterans' lives, and on the 
support VA and DoD provides them.
  Families are often the primary caregivers for injured veterans, and 
provide essential assistance in recovery and rehabilitation through 
reintegration into civilian life. The degree of support provided by 
family members is directly related to a veteran's ability to deal 
effectively with readjustment and mental health concerns.
  Providing support to veterans' families is in VA's vital interest.
  One of the harshest realities of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is 
the number of soldiers who have sustained complex and multiple injuries 
in combat.
  Significant improvements in battlefield medicine have enabled many 
seriously wounded servicemembers to survive their injuries. These men 
and women are coming home with extraordinarily complex health care 
needs.
  VA and Congress have focused on addressing the needs of these 
veterans. There have been improvements in screening and care for 
service members with traumatic brain injury, but much remains to be 
done.
  In addition, Congress directed VA to establish specialized centers 
for rehabilitative care in response to the challenging medical and 
rehabilitative needs of veterans with multiple and complex injuries.
  VA's four lead polytrauma rehabilitation centers are essential to 
meeting the needs of the most severely injured veterans and their 
families.
  As we work to meet the needs of all returning servicemembers, we must 
pay close attention to the full range of war wounds--from eye trauma 
and damage to servicemembers' hearing, to PTSD and depression, to burn 
injuries.
  Another important tool which VA is still developing is comprehensive 
health screening for returning servicemembers. This is absolutely 
essential. Without effective screening for mental health disorders, 
traumatic brain injury, hearing and vision loss and other injuries or 
disorders, VA will miss opportunities to help veterans in need of 
services.
  Further, I believe comprehensive health screening before deployment 
is essential to help with the evaluation and understanding of the 
effects of combat on servicemembers. As chairman of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, I have worked to ensure that all veterans receive 
appropriate health screenings. I will continue to advocate for these 
screenings.
  On the benefits side of the ledger, in the last year, Congress has 
provided a significant amount of funding to VA for much-needed staffing 
to adjudicate claims. Our Nation's veterans deserve nothing less than 
having their claims rated accurately and in a reasonable period of 
time. Now, the American people, especially veterans, will expect to see 
a decreasing backlog and increased timeliness and quality.
  I pledge my continuing support to get veterans the benefits they need 
in an appropriate amount of time. Congress must now assure that VA has 
sufficient funding for technology and training initiatives to aid in 
its endeavor to reduce the backlog of claims. This budget resolution is 
certainly a step in the right direction.
  The entitlement funding provided to veterans in this budget 
resolution reflects the Nation's continuing responsibility to care for 
he who has borne the battle, long after the last shots of war have been 
fired. Indeed, I view funding for veterans' entitlements as a 
continuing cost of war.
  The administration's VA budget request proposed severe cuts to many 
essential programs and accounts. Research, the inspector general, the 
National Cemetery Administration, and grants for State home 
construction would all be unnecessarily cut.
  I am particularly troubled by the proposed cuts of nearly 50 percent 
to the VA construction accounts. Over the past year, internal reviews 
identified widespread maintenance concerns, in addition to already 
planned construction projects. I find it unconscionable that in the 
face of the pressing demands across the country, the President would 
suggest such cuts. The budget proposal advanced by Chairman Conrad and 
his colleagues rectifies these mistakes in the President's request, and 
I appreciate their foresight on these issues.
  I am pleased with the investment in veterans programs that is made in 
this budget resolution. I again commend Chairman Conrad and the Budget 
Committee for their thoughtful and responsible work. Care for our 
Nation's veterans is truly a cost of war, and it is our responsibility 
to meet their needs.
  I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of the resolution 
before us.
  I thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I know Senator Corker is next. I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Voinovich be recognized for up to 10 
minutes at the conclusion of Senator Cardin's remarks and that Senator 
Barrasso be recognized at 8:45 for 15 minutes and that after Senator 
Voinovich, Senator Brown be recognized for 10 minutes.
  So the order, as it presently stands, is: Senator Corker, Senator 
Menendez, Senator Enzi, Senator Casey, Senator Cardin, Senator 
Voinovich, Senator Brown, then Senator Grassley, who would like his 
time to be expanded to 20 minutes, and then Senator Barrasso at 8:45. 
Senator Grassley is recognized at 8:05.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CORKER. Madam President, it sounds like it is going to be a long 
night. I hope you have some relief coming. But I wish to thank the 
Senator from New Hampshire.
  I rise today to talk about the budget that is getting ready to be put 
forth. I do not wish to talk specifically about this budget. But having 
gone through this process once before, it is obviously a very 
undignified process we are getting ready to enter into tomorrow, where 
we will have 30, 40, 50, maybe 60 amendments to a budget, many of which 
are set up solely to send messages, cause people to vote on things that 
might make them look good in the next election so that 30-second ads 
might be generated. I do wish to say I have tremendous respect for our 
budget chairman and ranking member. I think they are outstanding 
leaders in the Senate. I realize they are dealing, if you will, with 
the process that has been set forth in the Senate. I think they both 
exercise their duties very diligently.

  I know there are differing points of view as to how we might deal 
with this next year's budget. Let me say in general I think this entire 
process is not what it ought to be. It is, to me, a great disservice to 
our country the way we handle our budgeting, and appropriations 
processes that follow. I wish to talk about a couple things as it 
relates to this issue.
  First of all, I know one of the amendments that will come up tomorrow 
will be the DeMint amendment relating to earmarks. It is an amendment I 
will support because I do believe earmarks have gotten way out of 
control in the Senate. I do not believe people who earmark necessarily 
in any way are doing bad things. I think it is actually an outcome that 
has been generated due to processes breaking down in the Senate.
  When various Senators want to see road projects go forward or other 
things that are needed, they have now sort of sidelined the processes 
we ought

[[Page S1976]]

to be going through, which requires planning and responsibility on our 
part--a little bit of discipline. Instead, now we have moved to this 
very cumbersome and, I will say, most inefficient earmarking process. I 
think that is not a good thing.
  I realize, in essence, in the Appropriations Committees earmarking 
pots are set up and allocated based on numbers of things, in most cases 
having nothing to do with the priorities of our country. I do wish to 
say that while I support this amendment in the hopes that together 
somehow or another through a moratorium this year on earmarks we will 
begin to look responsibly at ways of funding--funding infrastructure, 
funding projects that are very needed in our country--that is done so 
on merit and with oversight, I do not believe that solving the earmark 
problem in any way is going to deal with our overall budgetary process, 
nor with the appropriations process that follows that.
  As a matter of fact, I worry sometimes that we talk so much about 
earmarks that we feel like if we were to solve this earmark issue--and 
the American public, I think, is beginning to buy into this--we would 
solve all the financial woes this country has. Earmarks--as bad as I 
think they have gotten out of control and need to stop--do nothing of 
that sort. It is a small piece, very small piece, in a bigger picture 
that needs to be solved. As a matter of fact, I hope at some point all 
of us in this body will realize how ridiculous the processes are that 
we go through and realize we are not in any way dealing with the longer 
term issues our country faces. One of those things I would like to see 
us do--I know there is an amendment that has been brought forth before: 
the biennial budgeting process, where we would actually look at the 
budget in a 2-year process.
  I know Ranking Member Judd Gregg has brought forth such an 
amendment--I am a cosponsor of that amendment--so that in the odd years 
we are actually allocating resources and in the even years--election 
years--we are actually doing oversight and making sure we are spending 
money wisely.
  One of the things in the process we go through right now that I think 
we are totally blind to is the tremendous entitlement tsunami that is 
getting ready to face our country. I think most people realize we as a 
body are not dealing with that issue. For us to even be down here 
passionately debating amendments over a budget and not dealing with 
that, again, does not serve the country well. I think everybody knows 
we have huge problems that are coming up in the future. Let me give a 
little bit of a picture of that.
  Today, if you took in all the money we have set to come in over the 
next 75 years and then looked at the liabilities we have toward Social 
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, we have $66 trillion in unfunded 
liabilities. Yet tomorrow you are going to see us on the floor haggling 
over amendments that, at the end of the day, will have no effect 
whatsoever on this huge problem we have to deal with in the very near 
future.
  To put that in perspective, today if you looked at the entire net 
worth of our country, it is only $57 trillion. So because of the Social 
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid entitlement issues, we have a greater 
unfunded liability than the entire net worth of our country. I think 
that is a pretty big issue.
  To put that in perspective, since our Government was formed a couple 
hundred years ago, we have taken in during that entire time only $42.7 
trillion in revenues.
  So, Madam President, I look forward to coming tomorrow and going 
through an exercise--an exercise that I realize will have some impact, 
if you will, on the amount of money we spend on various programs. Then 
I realize at the end of the year we will have an appropriations 
process. Then, during that period, unless we are able to have a 
moratorium on earmarks, we will have another 10,000 or 15,000 earmarks 
that direct money out in various places. But I know in the process of 
all that occurring, we still will not have dealt with the major issues 
this country has to deal with. I hope somehow this body will have the 
courage, in a bipartisan way, to come together and deal with this 
issue.
  I strongly support the Gregg-Conrad amendment that would cause this 
body, in a bipartisan way, to bring forth solutions to this problem--to 
this entitlement problem--in a manner that can only be voted on up and 
down, with no amendments, so we as a body, hopefully, will have the 
courage to deal with the real issues our country has to face as it 
relates to fiscal issues.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                           Amendment No. 4259

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, pursuant to a previous unanimous 
consent agreement, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside and 
that amendment No. 4259, which is at the desk, be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4259.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To establish a reserve fund for immigration reform and 
                              enforcement)

       On page 69, after line 25, add the following:

     SEC. 308. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM 
                   AND ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a 
     committee or committees, aggregates, and other levels in this 
     resolution for 1 or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports, by the amounts 
     provided in such legislation for the purposes described in 
     paragraphs (1) through (7), that--
       (1) provide for increased border security, enforcement of 
     immigration laws, greater staffing, and immigration reform 
     measures;
       (2) increase criminal and civil penalties against employers 
     who hire undocumented immigrants;
       (3) prohibit employers who hire undocumented immigrants 
     from receiving Federal contracts;
       (4) provide funding for the enforcement of the employer 
     sanctions described in paragraphs (2) and (3) and other 
     employer sanctions for hiring undocumented immigrants;
       (5) deploy an appropriate number of National Guard troops 
     to the southern or northern border of the United States 
     provided that--
       (A) the Secretary of Defense certifies that the deployment 
     would not negatively impact the safety of American forces in 
     Iraq and Afghanistan; and
       (B) the Governor of the National Guard's home State 
     certifies that the deployment would not have a negative 
     impact on the safety and security of that State;
       (6) evaluate the Federal, State, and local prison 
     populations that are noncitizens in order to identify 
     removable criminal aliens; or
       (7) implement the exit data portion of the US-VISIT entry 
     and exit data system at airports, seaports, and land ports of 
     entry.
       (b) Limitation.--The authority under subsection (a) may not 
     be used unless the legislation described in subsection (a) 
     would not increase the deficit over--
       (1) the total period comprised of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2013; or
       (2) the total period comprised of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2018.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment, an 
alternative to the amendment offered by Senator Sessions, an 
alternative that I think actually has a chance to help fix our broken 
immigration system.
  My amendment would increase border security and enforce immigration 
laws without wasting our resources in unnecessary and potentially even 
dangerous ways. We have to be smart when we think about solutions to 
the immigration problem. We have to enact measures that do more than 
sound tough. They have to be tough. We have to consider the impact our 
legislation will have on other programs and other priorities, and we 
cannot just throw money and personnel at the border without thinking 
carefully about the consequences.
  My amendment gets to the real heart of the problem. It provides for 
increased border security and increased enforcement of immigration 
laws. It gives us the manpower we need to address our immigration 
problems by providing for greater staffing for the Department of 
Homeland Security because the Department can't do its job if it simply 
doesn't have sufficient staff.
  My amendment addresses the real root of the immigration problem: the 
incentive--the incentive for crossing

[[Page S1977]]

the border without a visa. It helps eliminate this incentive by getting 
tough on employers who hire undocumented immigrants. We know 
undocumented immigrants come to the United States--for what? They come 
looking for a job. They want a better life. They see an American 
paycheck as the means to get it. Well, without the draw of the job, 
without the draw of income, the motivation to risk it all to cross the 
border illegally dries up. Building a bigger, stronger, taller fence 
simply doesn't cut it because, as we all know, if there is a will, 
there is generally a way. Rather than create new obstacles that 
undocumented immigrants are going to try to figure out how to get 
around, we need to address the underlying motivation that is the magnet 
that drives them to migrate in the first place. The way to do this is 
to come down harder on the employers who provide them the incentive.
  My amendment would do this by increasing criminal and civil penalties 
against employers who hire undocumented immigrants. It seems clear that 
today's penalties are not a sufficient deterrent for these companies. 
So my amendment sends them a clear message: we are going to hold you 
accountable for your actions. There are going to be real consequences 
for breaking the law.
  My amendment would also prohibit employers who hire undocumented 
immigrants from receiving Federal contracts. There is simply no reason 
any company that receives a Federal contract should be breaking the law 
by hiring undocumented immigrants. It is interesting that there are 
some news stories about those who are actually building the wall doing 
exactly that. Isn't that ironic? The amendment I am offering isn't just 
about getting tough; it is about getting smart.
  Senator Sessions and others on the other side of the aisle would not 
only build a bigger, longer, taller fence along the border--something 
we have seen which simply will not work on its own--they also want to 
deploy a significant number of our National Guard to help support the 
Border Patrol.
  Let me say from the outset I am not at all opposed to sending 
reinforcements for the Border Patrol. I voted for those increases in 
the Border Patrol agents. They are understaffed and underfunded, and 
they need all the help they can get. What I am opposed to is taking one 
resource away from a desperate situation in order to give that resource 
to another allegedly desperate situation. Just like our Border Patrol, 
our National Guard is stretched thin. Right now, there are over 15,500 
members of the National Guard deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the 
time between September of 2001 and November 30, 2007, close to 255,000 
National Guard troops have been deployed in support of Operation Iraqi 
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. This year, my home State of New 
Jersey, by way of example, will witness the largest deployment of 
National Guard personnel since World War II.
  So before we rush to act, we should know what the impact of moving 
the National Guard would have on the safety of our troops in Iraq and 
Afghanistan in terms of those needs. That is why my amendment would 
prohibit deployment of the National Guard--would ensure, I shouldn't 
say prohibit--would ensure that deployment of the National Guard to the 
borders could take place, but two important things would have to happen 
first. First, the Secretary of Defense would have to certify that the 
deployment would not negatively impact the safety of our troops in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. Second, the Governor of the home State of the National 
Guard must certify that the deployment would not have a negative impact 
on the safety and security of that home State. After all, protecting 
the people of the home State is the whole reason States have National 
Guard units in the first place.
  We cannot endorse a policy that robs Peter to pay Paul. We have to 
think long and hard about the impact of taking resources away from Iraq 
or Afghanistan, taking resources away from the States that face the 
risk of natural disasters as big and as devastating as Hurricane 
Katrina. We have to know that taking these resources away will not hurt 
us more than it helps us. My amendment makes sure that before we act, 
we know what we are getting into.
  Now, I do not disagree with every aspect of my colleague's 
amendments. In fact, there are two provisions in the Sessions amendment 
that I wholeheartedly support and they are in my amendment as well. I, 
as Senator Sessions, believe we can do more to remove those 
undocumented immigrants in our prison system who should be removed. 
That is why my amendment would evaluate the Federal, State, and local 
prison populations that are noncitizens in order to identify removable, 
undocumented immigrants.

  I also believe, as Senator Sessions does, that we need to do more to 
implement the US-VISIT entry and exit data system to make sure we are 
keeping track of those who actually exit our country once their visas 
expire. That is why my amendment would help to implement the exit data 
portion of that program.
  So I will close on this issue by simply saying it is interesting to 
see some of those who have some of the harshest rhetoric, as well as 
some of the harshest legislative initiatives, then come and say: But 
while I am doing this, we need ag workers, we need H-1B high-tech 
workers, or we need H-2B lower skilled workers. So they want their 
piece of the immigration pie, but they also want to portray themselves 
as sentries at the border. It just doesn't quite work that way. It just 
doesn't quite work that way.
  Immigration is a difficult problem to tackle. That is something I 
think we can all agree on. Any solution needs to be smart, it needs to 
be tough, and it needs to be effective. That is what my amendment is--
smart, tough, and effective. It provides for enhanced, improved border 
security and enhanced enforcement of immigration laws, while allowing 
the Department of Homeland Security and the States to determine how 
best to use Federal resources. It provides support for our Border 
Patrol without threatening the safety or security of our troops serving 
overseas, or for that matter, people of our States. It gets to the root 
of the immigration problem by beefing up enforcement against employers 
acting illegally by hiring undocumented immigrants, the very essence--
the magnet--of what drives people to this country.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment when we have the 
opportunity tomorrow rather than the amendment offered by Senator 
Sessions. I think it gets to the heart of the problem that all of us 
are challenged to achieve.
  Very briefly, let me move to one other issue while I still have time. 
I have said before that our debate over this budget is a fight for the 
economic future of America. The core of our economy is America's middle 
class: How productively they work, how much they save, how much they 
spend. It is clear as day, clear from the tsunami of foreclosures, 
clear from the reports that are coming in about thousands of people 
losing their jobs, clear from rising gas prices and health care bills 
and college tuition, it is clear that the middle class needs help.
  What the middle class does not need is another round of tax giveaways 
for some of the richest members of our society in which their 
collective taxes are being used in a way that is disproportionate to 
those who least need it.
  Budgets are about priorities; they are about choices. We have to 
choose. Are we going to do what many of my colleagues on the Republican 
side of the aisle are advocating and spend the people's money helping a 
billionaire avoid taxes when he bequeaths his mansion to his child or 
are we going to help out two parents who are struggling with the 
mortgage payments on a house for them and their children?
  When Senate Democrats put together this budget, we made the choice to 
put middle-class families first. I am proud to join Senator Baucus in 
offering a responsible plan for expanded middle-class tax relief.
  The amendment he is offering will take some of the pressure off the 
families who are most in need of help by providing $300 billion in tax 
relief for working families.
  First, it provides tax benefits to members of America's armed 
services. It is up to us to make sure that when our men and women in 
uniform risk their lives overseas, they have some measure of financial 
security at home. This amendment would help those servicemembers in 
need by allowing combat pay to count toward eligibility for

[[Page S1978]]

the earned income tax credit. It would also provide additional relief 
to small businesses that continue to pay the salaries of National Guard 
and Reserve members who are called to duty.
  The amendment extends relief to parents and married couples. It would 
expand the child tax credit to provide relief to more families, provide 
permanent relief for married couples from the marriage penalty, and 
make the 10-percent tax bracket permanent.
  I am also especially pleased that this amendment includes a provision 
that I have worked closely in the past with Senator Baucus on expanding 
Federal tax relief for property taxes. It is a provision that would be 
welcome news to thousands of New Jersey families since property taxes 
are always a top concern. We would create a new standard deduction for 
property taxes that could benefit more than a half million New Jersey 
taxpayers alone, and could send $86 million to the people across the 
State. So that is only one example of how it is replicated across the 
country.
  So I say to my colleagues: remember that American families are all 
watching us right now to see what we are going to do. Are we going to 
spend $51 billion to hand out tax breaks to Americans who are earning 
over $1 million a year? Or are we going to focus our resources, spend 
them wisely, to put tax breaks in the hands of those who need it: 
families, service men and women, and Americans who are working hard 
every day to achieve the American dream? Are we going to do the same on 
the amendment on immigration? Are we going to focus our resources 
against the very essence--the magnet--of what drives people to come to 
this country in an undocumented fashion and to make sure that our 
National Guard and Reserves are used the right way and to pursue the 
assistance of the Border Patrol where they ultimately need the help? 
Those are our choices. That is what we will have tomorrow.
  I hope we will join together to give this responsible tax relief to 
middle-class families in America who need it most.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I am here today to explain the three 
amendments I have filed to the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution.
  The Federal Government is now telling a majority of the States, which 
of course includes Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, and other 
States that allow for the production of minerals in their State, that 
an even split is not enough for the Federal Government, even though the 
law--the agreement in effect for years--says there will be a split. So 
in an attempt to satisfy an insatiable appetite for money, the 
administration's budget is to take more of it away from these States--
$40 million more every year. I am referring to net receipt sharing. 
That title kind of gives you an idea that these Federal mineral 
royalties are divided in half--net--that is after expenses--the sharing 
of receipts from mineral leasing activities on public lands. This is 
money that our State governments actually use for roads, for health 
care, for residents of our States, for education for our children, and 
more efficient and environmentally friendly development of our energy 
resources. It is money that finds its way directly to the people, not 
down in some bureaucratic black hole. Similar policy that was 
implemented in 1991 was repealed in 2000. At that time, they were 
stealing 1 percent after the net receipts. That led to a loss of nearly 
$250 million in State revenues. Now they are back again, trying to take 
more money away from the States. This time they said 2 percent is 
better. The Federal Government has maneuvered itself to be in a 
position where it can take an even higher percentage of our mineral 
royalty money.
  Last year, the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act took 
2 percent of the net receipt sharing of Federal mineral royalties from 
the States. Furthermore, the administration's budget includes a plan to 
make permanent a 2-percent net royalty receipt sharing provision in 
fiscal year 2009.
  I ask my colleagues now whether your State is being taken advantage 
of, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, I am asking you to 
stand with us and support this amendment, amendment No. 4214, to 
restore the 2-percent net receipt sharing of Federal mineral royalties 
lost to the States in last year's appropriations bill. You know as well 
as I do that your State's money could be next.
  The Federal Government collects mineral royalties from States that 
allow for energy production on lands in their State. Under the law, the 
States are entitled to half of the loyalties collected. To distribute 
the State share, the law intends for the Minerals Management Service to 
divide the amount of mineral royalties collected by two, write a check 
for that amount, and mail it to the States. That is all it entails. But 
the Federal Government's feeble excuse was that it needed an extra 2 
percent share for ``administrative costs.'' Now, they have been doing 
this for years without the administrative costs, but they remembered 
there was this time they were able to steal it before, so now they are 
trying to steal it again and decided to double the amount. It is not 
anything that is done from an accounting standpoint. It is a Washington 
shakedown.

  As an accountant, I can tell you that dividing by two and writing a 
check doesn't take a significant amount of time. Somehow the 
administration believes it deserves approximately $40 million per year 
to do this activity. This is logic that only happens inside the 
beltway, and I am telling you that it is patently unfair. If they can 
do it here, they will do it on other things. It drastically affects my 
State of Wyoming, which supplies a disproportionate share of energy to 
our country. Yet the Federal Government still wants more.
  We need to pass my amendment not only to keep the mineral royalty 
system fair and equal, not only to ensure that more money is used 
directly to help people rather than for trumped-up administrative 
charges, but also to ensure that a few States aren't trapped in a 
corner by the administration and some in Congress who have their ideas 
for the money.
  Unlike bureaucrats, we answer to our constituents. Mine are telling 
me they don't want the Federal Government to take anymore of the 
State's money. I am sure yours will tell you the same thing, either now 
or later. Think about that and support my amendment, which will help 
ensure the Federal Government gets a fair share but just a fair share.
  I also want to speak about two amendments I filed earlier today and I 
will offer at a later time. One amendment, No. 4215, is designed to 
ensure that our States continue to receive formula funding for animal 
health research and disease programming. It is administered by the 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service in the 
Department of Agriculture. This assistance allows State research 
institutions to carry out critical animal health research that is used 
in our communities.
  We know that animal health is one of the greatest threats to the 
animal agriculture in our Nation. Recent experiences in other countries 
with foot-and-mouth disease, avian flu, and mad cow disease bring home 
the importance of how animal diseases can affect the food supply, human 
health, and even national economies.
  In Wyoming, these funds have been used to help State officials and 
researchers respond to outbreaks of brucellosis in cattle and help stop 
incidences of blue tongue in livestock. This Animal Health Research and 
Disease program is an excellent investment in American agriculture. 
This amendment seeks to ensure that animal health formula funding is 
fully funded so our Nation can continue to enjoy the benefits of 
healthy animals and a safe food system.
  The third amendment, No. 4216, concerns Ryan White CARE Act funding. 
Some have wondered why we need to discuss this issue. The answer is 
simple: We need to ensure that the authorization process and the 
appropriations process work in sync with each other. The budget is the 
first step in doing that.
  I worked diligently with Senator Kennedy and others for over a year 
to retool our discretionary domestic HIV/AIDS care program--the Ryan 
White CARE Act. In putting that reauthorization together, Senator 
Kennedy and I did some background research. We learned that more 
African Americans,

[[Page S1979]]

more women, and more individuals in rural areas--especially in the 
South--are infected and dying from HIV than ever before. We learned 
that the old Ryan White formulas didn't count someone until they had 
AIDS, instead of trying to help them when they had HIV only--that is 
``only'' with a very small ``o.'' We learned that the funding formulas 
hurt areas where most African Americans lived because they were more 
likely to have HIV and not AIDS. Given what we learned, Senator Kennedy 
and I had a principle that the money should follow the person. We 
realized the program had to be fairer, the money had to follow the 
person.
  The Senate passed the revised Ryan White funding formulas by 
unanimous consent on December 6, 2006. A few days later, the House also 
passed the Ryan White program unanimously. We were all pleased when the 
President signed that bill and that formula into law a week or so 
later. Then, of course, we all worked to ensure that the Ryan White 
program received the appropriate funding for those newly revised 
funding formulas. You can imagine my dismay when, during the 
appropriations process last year, the Ryan White funding formulas were 
hijacked for other purposes. As noted by the GAO, one provision, which 
was called on the Senate floor a ``Pelosi fix,'' funneled $4.8 million 
away to the San Francisco metropolitan area, or EMA, from all of the 
other cities receiving funding. In other words, one city changed the 
formula in appropriations, as opposed to authorization, and stole money 
from the other cities to give themselves a level of funding that was 
not related to the people who had HIV. GAO also noted that ``the San 
Francisco EMA continues to be the only urban area whose formula funding 
is based on both living and deceased AIDS cases.'' I will repeat that--
``deceased AIDS cases.'' San Francisco continues to receive funding for 
dead people.

  So, in effect, this misguided appropriations process took money from 
the growing population of individuals infected with HIV, including 
African Americans, women, and people living in rural areas, so that San 
Francisco could receive more dollars. This is further infuriating 
because a recent report by the HHS Office of the Inspector General 
noted that in the last 5 years, San Francisco has been unable to spend 
all of the funds it has received. This simply doesn't make sense.
  Therefore, I hope this year we will start the debate off right and 
reaffirm our commitment to those who have the HIV domestically by 
standing by our newly revised Ryan White funding formulas, which passed 
by unanimous consent in both Houses, and were addressed in an amendment 
referred to the budget where, again, those people objected to having 
money stolen from their funds to go to a community that didn't follow 
the authorization funding. So we don't want it funneled off for 
inappropriate purposes. That is why I will be offering this amendment, 
and I hope the Senate will be able to accept it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the next speaker in order is in the chair. 
When somebody replaces him, I will yield the floor. I rise to say a 
couple of words about what I consider to be a very dangerous precedent 
that appears about to be reset through the House resolution on the 
budget. There is something called reconciliation, which is the true 
hammer in the budget resolution. It allows changes in things such as 
Medicare, Medicaid, entitlement programs, or tax policy to be passed 
under an expedited procedure here in the Senate with only 51 votes. It 
is at the essence of the Budget Act.
  Its whole purpose, and the reason it was created, was in order to 
discipline the rate of growth of entitlement programs as its primary 
cause and to address tax policy.
  Last year, there was a token reconciliation instruction given of $750 
million. I say that because reconciliations passed always have been 
used to save considerable sums of money, or reduce the rate of growth 
of programs by considerable sums.
  When I chaired this committee, we reconciled primarily Medicare, but 
other spending accounts, including agriculture, to the tune of almost 
$40 billion. In 1996, reconciliation was used for, I believe, $96 
billion of savings and reductions in the rate of growth of programs. So 
this $750 million alleged savings put in the House vehicle last year 
was essentially a fig leaf to cover up not a use of reconciliation for 
the purpose it was originally designed, which is to control the rate of 
growth of spending, but to actually use it as a stalkinghorse to 
radically expand programmatic activity, with the protection of a 51-
vote procedure that is basically not amendable.
  What happened last year was that under that $750 million of savings, 
almost $19.2 billion of new spending occurred--new spending, new 
programs, expanded programs.
  As a result of that, the Government grew by $19.2 billion in the long 
run. Yes, there were savings taken from other accounts, basically 
reducing the reimbursement to student lenders, but those savings pale 
compared to the outyear costs of what the programmatic activity that 
was added under reconciliation will be in last year's bill. Now we see 
this game being played again.
  This is a cynical game, because reconciliation applies only to the 
Senate. The House doesn't need reconciliation protection. They have a 
House Rules Committee. No bill in the House can come to the floor 
without a rule, and the Rules Committee has the ability to enforce the 
will of the majority--without the filibuster.
  In the Senate, of course, there is the filibuster. Reconciliation was 
designed for the sole purpose of addressing these very significant 
programmatic activities, and trying to control their rate of growth in 
a way that would not have the filibuster applied, because these 
programs were so significant and because making progress on controlling 
the rate of growth is always a challenge.
  So reconciliation is a vehicle that only disciplines the Senate 
activity. It doesn't discipline House activity. What it does in the 
Senate is denies the minority rights, because it basically eliminates 
the filibuster, as things are put under reconciliation.
  Why would the House of Representatives include reconciliation 
instructions? The Senate bill doesn't have any reconciliation 
instructions--none. Well, there is a game going on. As I said, it is 
cynical, and it is a game that undermines the basic purpose of the 
Budget Act. This is a direct attack on the rights of the Budget Act and 
the rights given under that act. When the House puts in that 
reconciliation instruction for a token amount of money--it is a lot of 
money, but under the terms of this budget, it is a fig leaf event--$750 
million. What happens is when they go to conference, they will claim 
they have the right to pursue reconciliation instructions, which will 
not affect the House's ability to pass a bill, but it will affect the 
Senate's bill and how the Senate proceeds. We may see that 
reconciliation instruction--in fact, I almost guarantee we will see it 
in conference balloon into a massive programmatic expansion of some 
nature, and it could be two or three different programs, protected by 
reconciliation, and then passed in the Senate under a procedure of 
reconciliation; and while the savings may be a token amount that is put 
forward in the House bill, the expansion in the size of the Government 
will be extraordinary.
  The whole purpose of the Budget Act, which is to discipline the rate 
of growth of the Federal Government and put some discipline into the 
process of budgeting, will have been made a farce by this procedure. It 
truly damages and destroys the Budget Act, in my humble opinion, for 
this process to go forward. It is also an incredibly cynical act.
  If the Senate leadership wants to expand programs in the Senate with 
reconciliation protection, have the courage to bring the language to 
the floor of the Senate and let us vote on it during the budget 
process. Don't use this backdoor procedure of having the House Budget 
Committee do your dirty work, which is what is happening in this 
situation.

  So this, regrettably, appears to be the game that is about to be 
played. I happen to think it violates the privilege of the budget 
resolution. I think when something like this happens, which is such a 
clear and obvious affront to the process of the budget and is so 
outside the scope of what was

[[Page S1980]]

originally considered as the purpose of reconciliation, that basically 
undermines the privilege of the budget resolution. Clearly, if it does 
not do it from a standpoint of a parliamentary situation, it does it 
from a standpoint of what is fair play around here and what is a proper 
procedure and the proper way to budget.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and whoever is in order next I 
guess will be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                           Amendment No. 4238

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, 
amendment 4238, which I will call up at the appropriate time, but for 
now I would like to explain to my colleagues what this amendment is 
about.
  This amendment is very similar to a provision Senator Gregg included 
in the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget resolution. It would stop Congress's 
addiction to emergency spending. It would create a point of order 
against any spending over a designated amount set aside for 
emergencies--called an ``emergency reserve fund.'' By now Congress 
knows that we will have emergencies every year.
  We should, therefore, set aside a designated amount for true 
emergencies to meet that obligation and try to stick to it, rather than 
continuing on with an unlimited emergency designation that just invites 
abuse and irresponsible budgeting.
  When I was Governor of Ohio I had a rainy day fund, or a savings 
account, for those economic downturns or unforeseen events beyond the 
control of even the best money managers. Soon after I arrived at the 
statehouse, I discovered that Ohio's rainy day fund was at 14 cents, 
but by the end of my eight years as Governor, I had increased the rainy 
day fund balance to $906.9 million.
  Again and again, the United States Congress has abused the emergency 
designation to skirt around budget limits and pay-go. We all understand 
that on occasion we face natural disasters or unanticipated crises such 
as Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 that require emergency resources. For 
this reason, we cannot estimate all of our emergency spending in the 
budget each year.
  But I am extremely concerned that Congress has abused the emergency 
designation in recent years to spend large sums of money outside the 
budget for purposes that are not true emergencies. Congress doesn't 
even count the money as spending. If spending is designated as 
``emergency,'' it is exempted from budget controls and spending limits. 
Congress doesn't even count the money on spending.
  An example of the sort of abuse of emergency spending that concerns 
me is the designation of funding for the 2000 Census as an emergency, 
even though the U.S. Constitution has required a census be conducted 
every 10 years since 1790. The definition of ``emergency'' uses words 
like ``sudden'' and ``unforeseen.'' But in 2000 we had known about the 
census for 210 years. This is absurd.
  As part of my effort to reign in wasteful spending and conduct 
meaningful oversight of government programs, I asked the GAO to review 
trends in so-called ``emergency'' and ``supplemental'' spending over 
the decade stretching from 1997 through 2006, as well as propose 
reforms to ensure that emergency funding truly is for real emergencies 
and not simply a way to camouflage spending that is driving up the 
national debt.
  GAO found that $31 billion over a 10-year period did not fit the 
definition of an ``emergency,'' 35 spending accounts received emergency 
funding in at least six out of 10 years, and over one-third of 
emergency spending has no time limit on when agencies can spend the 
money.
  My amendment would state that the fiscal year 2009 emergency 
designation can only be used for $65 billion worth of spending-
reserving $50 billion for the global war on terror and leaving another 
15 billion for any legitimate emergencies. Of course, this $50 billion 
would be in addition to the $70 billion already in the Budget for Iraq 
and Afghanistan-and so my amendment would allow $120 billion total for 
the global war on terror outside the discretionary spending limits.
  This point of order could be raised against any spending over the 
designated amount set aside for emergencies and would make clear that 
this increase in spending would have to bust through the regular 
budget. Of course, the Senate could still bust the budget with 60 
votes, but at least someone would be throwing a penalty flag so that we 
are being honest about it, instead of using the emergency label to 
claim we are staying within the budget when we are not.
  Mr. President, $50 billion is based on the 5-year average for 
emergency defense spending and $15 billion is based on the 10-year 
average for certain other types of emergencies, as estimated by the 
GAO. These levels are based on a recent study conducted at my request 
by the Government Accountability Office evaluating recent trends in 
emergency spending.
  I hope that my amendment can find broad bipartisan support, and that 
we can begin to eliminate some of the outright abuses of the emergency 
designation.
  It is time for us to be honest with the American people about the 
true state of our nation's fiscal health and stop relying on smoke and 
mirrors. The longer Congress waits before it gets serious about fiscal 
responsibility, the heavier the burden will be for our kids and 
grandkids. And it all starts with honest and transparent budgeting.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that the Presiding 
Officer has the right to the floor as soon as someone comes over and 
helps him out. Pending him being relieved of his duties as the 
Presiding Officer, I ask unanimous consent that we yield to Senator 
Collins 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Maine.


                           Amendment No. 4209

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this is the only time I am happy that a 
Democratic Senator is in the chair. It actually worked out well 
tonight. I thank Senator Gregg for his courtesy as well and also for 
his tremendous leadership on budget issues.
  Senator Levin and I have filed an amendment, No. 4209, that will help 
set us on a path toward energy independence, as well as provide a more 
sensible and balanced energy tax policy.
  This has been a very long, hard, cold, and snowy winter in the State 
of Maine. As I have visited communities across the State, I hear time 
and again that the high cost of energy is imposing such a burden on our 
citizens.
  My hometown of Caribou, ME, saw 17 days of at or below zero 
temperatures in February. Caribou is only inches short of setting a 
record for snowfall in the winter. The previous record was 181 inches 
of snow. It is clear that record is going to be broken. In fact, more 
snow and cold weather is forecast for this weekend. It takes a great 
deal of energy to heat a home under such conditions.
  Rapidly increasing prices for home heating oil, gasoline, diesel 
fuel, and other products refined from fuel are a huge burden for most 
Maine families, for our truckdrivers, for our small businesses, for so 
many people. High oil prices affect virtually every corner of our 
economy in Maine and throughout the Nation, and they are a significant 
cause of the current economic downturn.
  With net profits of a single oil company reaching almost $10 billion 
in a single quarter, I believe we should not expect taxpayers 
struggling to pay their bills to continue to subsidize the oil industry 
through tax incentives.
  Last year, I introduced a bill that would take away needless tax 
breaks for the oil industry, and along with my colleague, Senator 
Levin, I am proposing much the same approach today with the Collins-
Levin energy independence amendment. These are the very tax breaks that 
at a hearing in November of 2005 executives of the big oil companies 
themselves conceded are not necessary. I simply see no justification to 
continue to provide reduced tax rates for one of the world's most 
profitable industries at a time when so many families and small 
businesses are struggling due to the high cost of oil.
  Mr. President, does it not make sense for us to take a look at these 
tax subsidies which the oil companies themselves have admitted they do 
not need

[[Page S1981]]

as incentives? In fact, obviously, with oil over $100 a barrel, it is 
difficult to think that price alone is not a sufficient incentive for 
exploration and drilling to find additional supplies.
  We also must embrace the goal of energy independence. I think we 
should establish the year 2020 as the date by which we want to be 
energy independent. We need to pursue this goal of energy independence 
with just as much fervor and commitment as we pursued the goal of 
landing a man on the Moon in the 1960s.
  I am pleased that the Budget Committee included provisions to extend 
the renewable energy production credit, the clean renewable energy 
bonds, and provisions for energy-efficient buildings, products, and 
powerplants in section 304 of the budget resolution. But we need to do 
more. We need to develop policies that are all aimed toward the goal of 
freeing us from our dependence on imported oil.
  I know it must trouble you, Mr. President, as much as it does me when 
I hear the dictator in Venezuela threatening to shut off oil to this 
country. The fact is, with 12 percent of our oil coming from Venezuela, 
that would hurt our economy. I don't think we should be dependent on 
Middle East oil given the instability of that region as well.
  So we can embrace the goal of energy independence by the year 2020. 
We have taken a step toward that goal by increasing the fuel-efficiency 
standards for our cars, light trucks, and SUVs. That will help save a 
million barrels of oil a day. But there is more we can do.
  In addition to the energy tax credits that I have mentioned that are 
in the budget resolution, the Collins-Levin amendment would provide for 
a tax credit for replacing old, inefficient wood stoves with clean-
burning, more efficient wood stoves and pellet stoves that can provide 
much more heat for far less fuel than was once the case.
  In addition, we should provide a production tax credit for cellulosic 
ethanol and a vehicle tax credit for plug-in hybrid electric drive 
vehicles. I know that has been a goal of the Senator from Utah for many 
years as well.
  Unlike the current language in the budget resolution, the Collins-
Levin amendment also proposes offsetting some of the costs of these 
renewable energy credits and other kinds of conservation credits by 
pulling back some of the tax breaks for the large oil companies. 
Estimates of savings from this proposal range up to $6.4 billion over 5 
years. I think that is reasonable, and that will help shift our tax 
policy toward credits and other incentives that will help us reach the 
goal of energy independence.
  Let me describe a little bit more the provisions having to do with a 
tax credit for clean-burning wood stoves or for wood pellet stoves.
  During the height of the oil crisis in the 1970s, many families 
throughout the country turned to wood as an affordable way to heat 
their homes. With oil prices soaring once again, wood is the fuel of 
choice for an increasing number of households, particularly in a 
heavily forested State such as the State of Maine. But, unfortunately, 
many of the wood stoves purchased decades ago are outdated, 
inefficient, and are contributing to both indoor and outdoor air 
pollution. The emissions from these old-style wood-burning stoves 
present a serious health concern, contributing to respiratory ailments 
such as asthma.

  There have been great, exciting advances in wood stove technology. I 
saw them personally at a Jotul plant in Gorham, ME. They now have a 
second burn of the emissions, which makes them far more efficient and 
also far cleaner burning. New EPA-certified wood and wood pellet stoves 
can cut emissions by more than 70 percent and use as much as a third 
less firewood for the same amount of heat.
  But it is expensive to make that transition from the old, dirty, 
inefficient wood stove to the clean-burning stove. That is why our 
amendment includes a $500 tax credit to help consumers purchase and 
install these new clean-burning stoves as well as the efficient, clean 
wood pellet stoves.
  We also provide a tax credit for the production of cellulosic 
ethanol. While there has been a great deal of focus on corn-based 
ethanol in order to decrease our reliance on foreign oil, there are 
other renewable plant-based energy sources.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the University of Maine is doing exciting 
work in this area.
  In addition and finally, our proposal would provide a tax credit for 
plug-in hybrid vehicles. That, too, would help reduce our reliance on 
foreign oil.
  This amendment takes a balanced approach toward our tax policy, and 
it will help advance us toward the goal of energy independence.
  The Collins-Levin amendment would provide for a tax credit for 
production of cellulosic ethanol. While there has been a great deal of 
focus on using corn-based ethanol in order to decrease our reliance 
upon foreign oil, there are other renewable, plant-based energy sources 
that are more environmentally friendly and have greater potential to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These technologies will help move our 
petroleum-based economy toward a renewable, sustainable forest bio-
economy. In fact, researchers at the University of Maine recently 
teamed up with a local pulp mill to demonstrate cellulosic ethanol 
production at a commercial scale. It is an exciting time for this new 
technology.
  Finally, the Collins-Levin amendment would provide for a tax credit 
for plug-in hybrid vehicles. If all new vehicles added to the U.S. 
fleet for 10 years were plug-in hybrids, an additional 80 billion 
gallons of gasoline could be saved each year. Obviously, we won't be 
replacing all new vehicles with plug-in hybrids, but that statistic 
illustrates the large impact plug-in hybrids can have on reducing our 
use of oil.
  The provisions in our amendment are in addition to renewable energy 
production and energy efficiency provisions already in section 304.
  Section 304 would allow for extension of the renewable electricity 
production tax credit. I believe it is important to give companies 
certainty now to plan investments in renewable electricity generation 
for the near future. These efforts represent a large up-front capital 
investment. Thus, companies will not continue to expand renewable 
energy production in the absence of this credit, which makes such 
projects cost competitive with traditional energy sources.
  Section 304 also would allow for legislation to encourage energy 
efficient buildings, products, and powerplants. Making buildings more 
energy efficient can dramatically reduce our use of oil and save money 
for consumers at the same time. For example, on average, weatherizing a 
home reduces heating bills by 31 percent and overall energy bills by 
$358 per year.
  Mr. President, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, this 
amendment provides for the rescission of tax breaks that the oil 
companies themselves testified they do not need. It uses that revenue 
for additional renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives. I 
urge my colleagues to support the Collins-Levin energy independence 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Collins-Levin 
amendment when it is voted on.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the close 
of business tonight, all statutory time be yielded back, except for 30 
minutes to be equally divided and controlled between the chair and the 
ranking member for their use when the Senate resumes consideration of 
the concurrent resolution on Thursday, March 13.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I compliment my distinguished colleague 
from Maine. She does such a great job around here, and we all respect 
her and know how hard she works. She has terrific ideas, so we are very 
grateful to have her as a colleague.
  Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment designed to protect 
Medicare beneficiaries' coverage choices. It will protect beneficiaries 
living in rural areas. It will protect beneficiaries with chronic 
conditions such as diabetes, congestive heart failure, and even cancer. 
It will protect beneficiaries who use preventive health screening 
benefits. It will protect low-income Medicare beneficiaries from high 
out-of-pocket costs.

[[Page S1982]]

  Simply put, my amendment creates a budget-neutral reserve fund so 
that if Congress takes action to improve the Medicare, Medicaid, or 
CHIP Programs, it may not limit coverage choices for Medicare 
beneficiaries. It also may not reduce the benefits of those who are 
enrolled in Medicare Advantage Plans.
  The Medicare Advantage Program was established by the 2003 Medicare 
Modernization Act. I know; I was on the conference committee and one of 
the key people in helping to pass that bill. Through the Medicare 
Advantage Program, health plans receive a monthly payment to provide 
beneficiaries at least all of the health benefits covered by 
traditional Medicare.
  Prior to the MMA, these plans had difficulty existing in rural areas, 
such as Utah, due to very low monthly payments. In fact, Utah did not 
have Medicare Plus Choice Programs for any length of time because the 
plans simply could not exist due to low reimbursement rates, and that 
was true in almost every rural area in the country. The Medicare 
Modernization Act of 2003 increased payments to these plans, and as a 
result, every State now has Medicare Advantage Plans that are offered 
to its residents, and each State's residents are benefiting greatly 
from this.
  Medicare Advantage Plans provide a lot more to beneficiaries than 
traditional Medicare. Medicare Advantage Plans provide a range of 
additional benefits not available in traditional Medicare, such as 
vision and dental care, annual physical exams, and hearing aids. 
Medicare Advantage Plans also have chronic-care programs for 
beneficiaries with chronic diseases, such as diabetes or congestive 
heart failure. Through chronic-care plans, these beneficiaries are able 
to manage their illnesses because their doctors provide a coordinated 
care approach to their conditions. That is why these plans work. That 
is why they are so much appreciated by seniors, especially, all over 
this country. In other words, health care providers actually talk to 
each other under Medicare Advantage, and they try to figure out the 
best course of action so that the patients will stay healthier longer.
  This is not the case in traditional Medicare. A beneficiary in 
traditional Medicare may see as many as five or six physicians for 
various health problems--a nephrologist for kidney failure, an 
orthopedic surgeon for a broken ankle, an endocrinologist for an 
underactive thyroid, and an internist for general health issues. In 
addition, medicines are prescribed by each of these physicians without 
consultation, which sometimes may have disastrous results, all maybe 
not even understanding the others in the picture. Would these 
physicians talk to each other when the beneficiary is covered by 
traditional Medicare? Chances are very high that they would not. That 
is why Medicare Advantage Plans are so good for beneficiaries. These 
plans encourage providers to approach health care collaboratively--
something that I believe is in the beneficiary's best interest.
  Health plans have been covering Medicare beneficiaries for many years 
through programs authorized by Congress. However, these Medicare health 
plans were typically limited to beneficiaries living in urban areas. 
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 prompted Congress to take action to 
provide more coverage choices for beneficiaries living in rural areas.
  Mr. President, in Pennsylvania, in your State, there are a lot of 
rural areas. In fact, I remember my good friend, Senator Chuck 
Grassley, the ranking Republican of the Senate Finance Committee, 
pushing for equitable payments in rural areas so that plans could be 
offered to beneficiaries living in areas such as Pennsylvania, Utah, 
and Iowa. At that time, payment rates to plans offered in urban areas 
were higher--in some cases, a lot higher--than payments in rural areas. 
Unfortunately, we didn't quite get it right in the BBA 1997, the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997. We should have listened to Senator 
Grassley because he was right. In fact, my home State of Utah could not 
keep Medicare Plus Choice plans in the State primarily because the 
payment rates were too low, and that is true of every rural State. 
Ironically, many Utahns wanted to participate in these plans because 
they were the only ones offering the supplemental benefits such as 
vision care, preventive benefits, and prescription drugs to Medicare 
beneficiaries at that time.
  Now, let me go to chart one here. We finally were able to achieve the 
appropriate payment rates for both rural and urban parts of the country 
through the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. In fact, this chart 
shows how many Medicare Advantage Plans are available throughout the 
country since its passage. While this chart illustrates the different 
payment levels of Medicare Advantage Plans across the country, it also 
shows that many Medicare Advantage Plans are available in every county 
in every State in this country. Think about that. In other words, all 
Medicare beneficiaries have access to at least one Medicare Advantage 
Plan, but every part of the United States of America is covered by 
Medicare Advantage. It has been a terrific thing for our people who 
have suffered in these areas and who now are covered under Medicare 
Advantage.

  Now, these people may choose between traditional Medicare or a 
Medicare Advantage plan. They can make the choice of whatever plan they 
want. The primary goal of the Medicare Modernization Act was to give 
beneficiaries a choice of coverage.
  Now, again, when we first established ceilings for Medicare Plus 
Choice plans, we discovered that our floor payments for rural areas 
were too low. Medicare Plus Choice plans simply could not exist in 
rural areas.
  Congress learned an important message from that experience, and that 
is why we adjusted the payment ceilings and floors for Medicare 
Advantage Plans in the Medicare Modernization Act, to ensure access to 
Medicare Advantage Plans in both rural and urban parts of the country. 
They are in all parts of the country today because of the changes we 
made in that bill. This chart proves that we accomplished that goal.
  Now, let me go to chart two. This next chart will give my colleagues 
and everybody in America who is watching an idea of what could happen 
if Congress eliminates the rural and urban floor payments for Medicare 
Advantage Plans. The white parts of this map highlight the regions of 
the country where Medicare Advantage Plans may no longer be offered. It 
is the vast majority of America, if we do what some are saying we 
should do. It is very disconcerting to me that my very home State of 
Utah is almost completely white--right over there. There is only one 
little yellow spot and one dark-blue spot. In other words, we would 
decimate one of the programs that has worked so doggone well.
  In essence, if we eliminate these payments from Medicare Advantage 
Plans, we will have a repeat of what happened with Medicare Plus 
Choice. Plans will pull out of the rural parts of the country, and 
beneficiaries will be left without any choice at all. It will be deja 
vu all over again. I, for one, do not want to see that happen again.
  Now, let me go to chart three. This is important because another 
interesting point about the Medicare Advantage Plans is that 
beneficiaries are less likely to have problems accessing care compared 
to beneficiaries enrolled in traditional Medicare.
  This chart shows that Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, as 
represented by the light blue on the left--there is light blue, green, 
then dark blue--Medicare Advantage beneficiaries have an easier time 
accessing care compared to those in traditional Medicare with and 
without supplemental health care. The light blue are Medicare Advantage 
enrollees, the green are all fee-for-service enrollees, and the dark 
blue are all fee-for-service who get supplemental coverage. When we 
were creating the Medicare Advantage Program, we strongly believed that 
beneficiaries should be able to have access to health care similar to 
the health care plans of Members of Congress.
  Now, let's take a couple of minutes to go through this chart. It is 
an important chart. Only 2.8 percent of Medicare Advantage 
beneficiaries have no usual source of care, compared to 11.8 percent of 
those beneficiaries in traditional Medicare who do not have 
supplemental health coverage. Only 7.7 percent of Medicare Advantage 
beneficiaries do not have a usual doctor, compared to 24.6 percent of 
beneficiaries in traditional Medicare without supplemental coverage. 
Only 4.5

[[Page S1983]]

percent of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries had trouble getting care, 
compared to 8.4 percent of those beneficiaries in traditional Medicare 
without supplemental health coverage. Only 6.5 percent of Medicare 
Advantage beneficiaries delayed getting their care due to costs, 
compared to 18.6 percent of those beneficiaries in traditional Medicare 
without supplemental coverage. Only 7.5 percent of Medicare Advantage 
beneficiaries needed to see a doctor but didn't, compared to 14.3 
percent of those beneficiaries in traditional Medicare who do not have 
supplemental coverage.
  Look at it, starting on the left. No usual source of care--the light 
blue shows that they do have care compared to the other two. No usual 
doctor--the light blue again shows that they have their doctors. The 
third one over in from the left had trouble getting care, and you can 
see the light blue had less trouble than the other two. Then you go to 
delayed care because of cost. The light blue again was not delayed, 
compared to the green and the dark blue. Needed to see a doctor but 
didn't--the light blue, compared to green, compared to the dark blue 
didn't see the doctor and saved money over that time.
  These statistics, based on the 2006 Medicare Current Beneficiary 
Survey, make one point very clear: Beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage 
Plans have been getting better care.
  So let me conclude by urging my colleagues to keep in mind the 
following:
  Today, beneficiaries across the country, whether they live in a rural 
State, such as Pennsylvania, Iowa, Utah, or in almost every State in 
the Union, or urban areas such as Boston, they have better coverage 
choices.
  Today, beneficiaries are offered more choices in Medicare Advantage, 
more benefits, and lower out-of-pocket costs. Today, most beneficiaries 
are satisfied. Over 90 percent of beneficiaries are satisfied with 
their Medicare Advantage plans. That is historically an astounding 
success story. We all need to remember that these policy decisions, in 
creating the Medicare Modernization Act, were created on a bipartisan 
basis. I was there.

  These bipartisan decisions helped achieve these impressive results, 
and these results should be protected. This is really important, and 
unfortunately we have people who want to get money out of Medicare 
Advantage and take away these benefits that have helped so many people 
in our country today, especially in the rural areas. We just cannot let 
that happen. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to protect 
these Medicare Advantage plans and to quit playing with something that 
is working so wonderfully well.
  I hope my colleagues on the other side will listen to these remarks I 
have been making. I know some of them know this is true, and the 
others, who have not studied it, ought to study it. They should not 
carve money out of a program that is as effective as is this one. It 
has exceeded the expectations we had when we were negotiating the 
Medicare Modernization Act by far. It is one of the most successful 
Federal programs. Frankly, it has done an awful lot of good to bring 
health care to those throughout our country and all of those States 
where plans have proliferated because they work.
  I hope everybody will vote for this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 4268

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise to speak to amendment No. 4268. This 
amendment would provide for a total of $200 million over the next 5 
fiscal years for tribal justice and law enforcement. Specifically, this 
amendment would do two things in a fiscally responsible way. First, it 
would increase the BIA's public safety and justice account, which funds 
tribal law enforcement, tribal court systems, and tribal detention 
centers by $25 million a year for the next 5 years. Second, it would 
increase funding for U.S. attorneys to prosecute crimes in Indian 
Country by $15 million a year for the next 5 years. The need for this 
amendment on our Nation's reservations cannot be overstated, as the 
absence of basic levels of public safety is reaching a crisis point.
  The statistics are startling. Nationally, studies show that one of 
every three Native American women will be raped in their lifetime. 
Crime rates on remote reservations are an average of 10 times higher 
than the rest of the Nation. The Department of Justice has found that 
American Indian women are 2\1/2\ times more likely to be raped or 
sexually assaulted than women throughout the rest of the country.
  In my home State of South Dakota, homicide rates within reservations 
are almost 10 times higher than those found in the rest of South 
Dakota. According to the BIA, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has the second 
highest rate of crime of all the reservations in the Nation.
  In order to start to help improve public safety on our Nation's 
reservations, there needs to be a two-part solution. First, we have to 
ensure there are adequate law enforcement personnel on the reservations 
to respond to, to investigate, and to deter crime--something that is 
not currently happening. For example, again, my home State of South 
Dakota, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which sits on the border of 
North and South Dakota and occupies over 2 million acres of land, 
currently has only 16 commissioned police officers. That works out to 
no more than three officers a shift for over 2 million acres of land.
  To put that in perspective, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe land is 
more than two times larger than the State of Rhode Island, which has 
200 sworn State troopers plus additional county, city, and Federal 
officers. That means Rhode Island has 12 times as many State troopers 
as the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has law enforcement officers, to 
police half the land.
  Rhode Island also has 10 State trooper police dogs, meaning that at 
any given time, Rhode Island has more canine officers patrolling than 
Standing Rock Indian Reservation has human law enforcement officers. 
While there are population discrepancies between the Standing Rock 
Sioux Tribe and Rhode Island, the differences between the two are still 
startling. My amendment addresses this need to increase the number of 
law enforcement officers on reservations by increasing funding for the 
BIA's public safety and justice account.
  Second, there has to be some assurance that those who have been 
arrested, especially those arrested for violent crimes, are prosecuted 
to the fullest extent of the law. Over the past two decades, only 30 
percent of tribal land crimes referred to U.S. attorneys were 
prosecuted, according to Justice Department data compiled by Syracuse 
University. This compares with 56 percent of all other cases.
  My amendment addresses this need with an increase in the BIA's Public 
Safety and Justice Account, which also funds tribal courts, and an 
increase for U.S. attorneys to prosecute crimes in Indian country.
  The bottom line is that violent crime has become a serious problem on 
our reservations, particularly on our reservations in South Dakota, and 
I am determined to help reduce it. This $20 million increase in 
spending in fiscal year 2009 is small, less than 4/1000 of 1 percent of 
the total discretionary spending in fiscal year 2009 in this budget 
resolution, but it will have a big impact on the reservations that are 
truly in need.
  I hope my colleagues will support this amendment so we can start 
restoring basic public safety to our Nation's Indian reservations.


                    METH HOT SPOTS BUDGET AMENDMENT

  Mr. President, I would also like to speak about an amendment that I 
filed earlier this afternoon, amendment No. 4269.
  This amendment, which would provide for a total of $99 million in 
COPS meth hot spots funding for fiscal year 2009.
  The underlying budget resolution assumes $70 million for this 
program, and my amendment simply provides the additional funds needed 
for a total of $99 million, as authorized by the Combat Meth Act. This 
important program trains State and local law enforcement to investigate 
and lock up meth offenders.
  In 2006, we passed the Combat Meth Act, which authorizes an 
additional $99 million per year for 5 years under the COPS Meth Hot 
Spots Program. During the budget debate last year, I offered a similar 
amendment that was accepted by unanimous consent.

[[Page S1984]]

  Like last year, my amendment this year would simply provide, in a 
fiscally responsible way, the authorized $99 million for fiscal year 
2009.
  Meth abuse has become one of the most dangerous problems impacting 
small-town rural America and our Indian reservations.
  As the Department of Justice's 2007 National Drug Assessment notes, 
Mexican criminal groups have expanded direct distribution of 
methamphetamine, targeting smaller communities across the Midwest as 
new markets.
  Young people, ages 12-14, who live in small towns, like those across 
South Dakota, are 104 percent more likely to use meth than those living 
in large cities.
  Sadly, hundreds of young children are brought up in households every 
year by parents who are hooked on meth. Studies show that children were 
present in more than 20 percent of the meth labs seized.
  In addition to the costs associated with investigating, locking up, 
and prosecuting meth offenders, there are significant environmental 
clean-up costs involved.
  The chemicals used to make meth are toxic, and meth producers and 
users often dump waste into our streams, rivers, fields, and sewage 
systems. Cleaning up these sites requires specialized training and 
costs an average of $2,000-$4,000 per site. My amendment would not only 
provide much-needed funding for law enforcement expenses associated 
with meth, but also for environmental clean-up to protect our lands and 
water systems from the harmful effects of this toxic drug.
  I strongly urge the adoption of this amendment, so we can continue to 
crack down on the growing meth abuse problem in rural States like South 
Dakota and other states across the country.
  Mr. President, I would like to speak, if I might, as well, to the 
broader issue of the budget resolution. There has been a lot of debate 
about it. We are in the 50 hours leading up to tomorrow when we have 
the so-called vote-arama when many of the amendments that have been 
filed will ultimately be voted on, but I want to make some observations 
about this budget because I think it is important.
  I think the American people derive from this an idea about where the 
political parties in Washington want to take the country, what their 
priorities are in this budgeting process. Of course this is now a $3 
trillion budget that we deal with every single year. The budget 
resolution is a statement of priorities. In many respects, because it 
is nonbinding, it doesn't have the force of law. Sometimes it seems 
this whole exercise would appear at times, perhaps, to the watching 
public, to be somewhat more symbolic than anything else. But I do think 
it is important in that it does set the direction, the tone, the 
agendas in Washington, DC. It is a statement of priorities, and it is a 
blueprint for how the two respective political parties in the Senate 
would govern the country.
  If you look at where we are in terms of the economy today, and you 
look at where we have come from in the last 7 years, we did enact over 
the past several years some historic tax reductions for all Americans. 
Despite a recession, terrorist attacks, corporate scandals, the 
collapse of the Internet bubble, these tax cuts have resulted in 52 
consecutive months of job growth, the second longest period of job 
growth on record. Thanks to the progrowth tax policies that were put in 
place by previous Congresses, unemployment remains relatively low and 
productivity is higher than the previous three decades. Additionally, 
significant job growth followed the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Since 2003, 
nonfarm employment has increased by 8.3 million jobs, including 1.7 
million new jobs last year alone.
  There is a simple fact of fiscal policy: reducing taxes, reducing 
marginal income tax rates and capital tax gains rates puts more money 
back into the economy, encourages investment, and creates jobs.
  On the other hand, tax increases drag the economy down and discourage 
job creation.
  Unfortunately, on account of high energy prices and falling home 
values, our economy faces several short- and long-term challenges. In 
the fourth quarter of 2007 gross domestic product only increased by .6 
percent. Payroll employment declined in January and February. Oil 
traded for almost $110 per barrel this week. Subprime mortgage 
foreclosures are at an all-time high, and the dollar is at an all-time 
low.
  In response to these economic challenges, the budget resolution put 
forth by the majority in the Senate calls for a dangerous combination 
of larger Government bureaucracies and higher taxes. In total, the 
Democratic budget includes a $1.2 trillion tax increase on over 116 
million families and 27 million small businesses.
  Under the Democratic budget, the reduced individual tax rates are set 
to expire within 20 months. As millions of families prepare their taxes 
ahead of the April 15 deadline, I think it is important to point out 
that this deadline will be even more painful in future years under the 
Democrat budget resolution, if it is ultimately here adopted.
  On January 1 of 2011, the 10-percent tax bracket would expire; the 
25-percent tax bracket would increase to 28 percent; the 28-percent tax 
bracket would go up to 31 percent; the 33-percent tax bracket would go 
up to 36 percent; and the 35-percent tax bracket would increase to 39.9 
percent.
  On top of the increased tax rates, the increased child tax credit 
will expire. In other words, in the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, the per-
child tax credit was increased to $1,000 per child. Under this budget, 
if the tax cuts are allowed to expire, that would fall back down to 
$500. Families with children would see their tax burden increase 
substantially when that $1,000 tax credit is reduced to $500 after the 
year 2010.
  Additionally, the marriage penalty is reinstated and the 31 million 
filers who report dividend income, and the 26 million filers who report 
capital gains income, would see taxes on their investments go up as 
well. That impacts, significantly, senior citizens. We have a lot of 
senior citizens around the country who have investments that they live 
on--dividend income, capitol gains income. So these particular tax 
increases are going to strike disproportionately harshly on those 
senior citizens across the country who depend on investment income.
  Finally, the death tax is reinstated at pre-2001 levels. If you took 
a look at the 2001 levels, it allows a $1 million exemption and a 
maximum statutory level of taxation of 55 percent, which is one of the 
highest death tax rates in the world.
  Ironically, under the current law, in the year 2010, the death tax 
would completely disappear, which has prompted a lot of people who do 
estate planning to suggest that, if somebody wants to be able to pass 
on their earnings and their lifetime of assets tax free to the next 
generation, it would behoove them to decease or to pass away in the 
year 2010. But the bad news is in 2011, if you are still around, the 
death tax kicks back in and it kicks in at enormously high levels: 55 
percent maximum tax rate and a $1 million exemption. In a State such as 
mine, South Dakota, where you have a lot of farm and ranch families who 
are asset rich but cash poor, in many cases it causes them to liquidate 
their assets; in other words, to sell the farm in order to pay the IRS.
  That is something that makes absolutely no sense. I hope we can avoid 
that happening. There is going to be an amendment offered by some of my 
colleagues that would reform the death tax and reform it in a way so 
that in 2011 we don't go back to the old law, which is incredibly 
restrictive in terms of the way it takes the money away from those who 
have accumulated it and worked hard, including a lot of hard-working 
farmers and ranchers in South Dakota, over the course of their lifetime 
putting away some of their investments and acquiring land and farm 
equipment and that sort of thing.
  They want to pass it on to the next generation. The next generation 
wants to stay on the farm. But, unfortunately, in many cases, as I 
said, they have to sell their assets in order to pay the IRS. In total, 
the average family is going to see their taxes increase by 
approximately $2,300 per year, which is enough to buy 8 months of 
groceries for the average family or a year's worth of health care.
  Over the past few years, there have been a lot of misconceptions 
about the tax cuts that were enacted in 2001 and

[[Page S1985]]

2003. The first misconception is that the tax cuts are too expensive 
and cost the Federal Government too much in terms of lost revenue. If 
you look at what has happened in terms of Federal receipts, Federal 
receipts have dramatically increased since we enacted the 2001 and 2003 
tax cuts. In fact, in 2000, the Federal Government raised $1.99 
trillion in revenue. In 2007, after those historic tax cuts had spurred 
increased economic growth, the Federal Government collected an all-time 
record of $2.57 trillion. So, from the year 2000, where it was just a 
little under $2 trillion, to the year 2007, where $2.57 trillion was 
collected, over a half trillion dollars additional revenue is now 
coming into the Treasury on an annual basis as a result of the tax cuts 
that were enacted in 2001 and 2003.
  So for somehow to believe for a moment that the Federal Government 
has been deprived of revenue as a result of tax rates being reduced 
does not at all jibe with the facts.
  The first misconception, I would argue, is the one that is held 
around here and often used in debates around here, and is very 
misguided because tax rates, when they were cut, actually led not to 
less Government revenue but to more Government revenue, and not only 
that but dramatically more Government revenue.
  The second misconception is tax cuts created an overly regressive tax 
structure that only benefits the wealthy. But if you look at recent 
data from the Congressional Budget Office, the effective Federal tax 
rate for middle-income households is the lowest it has been in the past 
25 years, thanks to the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.
  For the bottom 20 percent of U.S. households, the total effective 
Federal tax rate fell by nearly a third from the year 2000 to the year 
2005.
  According to the Tax Foundation, approximately 30 million tax returns 
had no income tax liability in 2000. After enactment of the historic 
tax cuts, an additional 13 million returns had no income tax liability. 
So now there are 43 million tax returns in this country where there is 
no income tax liability, as I said, an increase of 13 million returns 
from the year 2000.
  Add that to the 15 million households and individuals who do not file 
tax returns at all, and you have 41 percent of the U.S. population 
completely outside the Federal tax system as a result of the tax cuts 
that were enacted in 2001 and 2003.
  Now, under the Democratic budget plan, millions of low-income 
Americans are going to be put back on those tax rolls. My colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle will claim they are extending middle-class 
tax cuts by voting for the Baucus amendment.
  I wish to make a couple of points about the Baucus amendment. First, 
we heard this very same claim last year. This is the same song that we 
heard last year, that the Senate is going to pass an amendment that 
addresses some of these, or puts back or restores some of these tax 
cuts.
  We passed an amendment on the budget resolution last year, a similar 
Baucus amendment, as part of the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. 
But we were falsely promised action to extend selected tax cuts as part 
of that budget process.
  Here we are a year later, the same promises are being made, and the 
same wall of tax increases is 1 year closer. Now, second, the Baucus 
amendment excludes a whole lot of tax cuts that are absolutely critical 
to the well-being of the middle class. Even after the $320 billion 
Baucus amendment, if it is adopted on the budget resolution tomorrow, 
Americans are still faced with one of the largest tax increases in 
American history.
  Now, those taxpayers who are following this year's budget process are 
probably asking themselves: If the Democrats in Congress are going to 
raise taxes by $1.2 trillion, certainly they are going to bring 
stability and solvency to entitlement programs and reduce the Federal 
debt.
  Unfortunately, the answer to both those questions is no. The 
Democratic budget does nothing to rein in out-of-control entitlement 
spending. Rather than enact meaningful reform, the Democratic budget 
resolution leaves our children and grandchildren with $66 trillion 
worth of unfunded Government liabilities.
  The baby boom generation has already started to retire this year. And 
the over-65 population will nearly double by the year 2035 to 75 
million people. These demographics, coupled with increasing health care 
costs, create a $34 trillion unfunded Medicare liability and a $4.7 
trillion Social Security liability over the next 75 years.
  The spiraling cost of entitlement spending is the single greatest 
threat to the long-term health of our economy, and under the Democratic 
budget, entitlement spending grows by $488 billion over 5 years. If 
left unchecked, entitlement spending will account for 70 percent of our 
Federal budget by the year 2017.
  Under the Democratic budget resolution, the gross Federal debt climbs 
by $2 trillion by 2013. Every American child will owe an additional 
$27,000 to pay down the national debt on account of this budget. This 
debt will create an economic drag on our Nation for generations to 
come.
  The bottom line, the budget resolution that will be voted on 
tomorrow, offered by the majority in the Senate, raises taxes. The 
largest tax increase in American history we had was back in the 1990s, 
when taxes went up about $250 billion under the Clinton administration.
  At that time, Senator Patrick Moynihan described it as the largest 
tax increase in American history. This will be four times that level of 
tax increase. It increases spending, discretionary spending, increases 
mandatory spending dramatically and does nothing to curb entitlement 
spending to reform entitlements or reduce our Federal debt.
  In the coming days, Senators are going to have several opportunities 
to correct the shortfalls in this budget. There are going to be a 
number of amendments offered tomorrow. I encourage my colleagues to 
take a good look at these amendments and take advantage of the 
opportunity they have to do what is right for the Federal budget and 
for hard-working taxpayers across this country and to hopefully adopt 
some amendments that will make this budget better.
  But, in the end, I am afraid that in light of the fact that it is 
going to increase taxes by $1.2 trillion and increase spending and do 
nothing to reduce the Federal debt, this is a budget I do not think 
many right-thinking people in the Senate are going to be able to vote 
for.
  I would close by noting that as you listen to the Presidential 
campaign this year, it has been a great experience in democracy. You 
have seen candidates running out there holding townhall meetings, 
listening to constituents. It is a wonderful example I think of our 
Democracy at work and in action.
  But as typically happens during the course of Presidential campaigns, 
there are lots of promises that get made on the campaign trial. And in 
many cases, the other side of the story does not get told; that is, how 
are those programs going to be funded? How are they going to be paid 
for?
  That is the side of the story I hope that at some point in the 
campaign we are going to hear, because if you add up all the new 
programs that were gathered together into one Cabinet-level department, 
these programs, posed by our colleague, the Senator from Illinois, you 
could call it the Department of Unfunded Campaign Promises. There are 
188 new Federal programs that add up to $300 billion a year in new 
Federal spending--$300 billion a year. And that is only 111 programs 
added up. The other programs they have not been able to score yet.

  But of those they have been able to attach a cost to, $300 billion a 
year in new spending. That would constitute the third largest Federal 
department in our entire Federal Government, behind only the Department 
of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services.
  That new department, consisting of 111 new programs, would have a 
larger budget than the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the 
Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, the Department 
of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Labor, 
the Department of Energy, and the Department of Justice combined.
  To look at it another way, this new Department of Unfunded Campaign

[[Page S1986]]

Promises would cost more than 42 States' budgets combined. Not only do 
we have a budget in front of us today that leads to higher taxes, more 
spending, more debt, we have a lot of obligations that are being 
promised out there on the campaign trail.
  It seems to me at least that we ought to start tomorrow by defeating 
this budget that takes us down the wrong path of more Government, 
higher taxes, and does not do the right thing for the taxpayers of this 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 4171

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I am going to speak to two amendments that 
I have at the desk that I will be able to talk more about tomorrow. But 
I wished to describe them tonight.
  First of all, amendment No. 4171 is an amendment that focuses on a 
problem we see all around us. It seems we cannot go too long in a week 
when we do not pick up a newspaper that talks about the safety of the 
food we eat. It has been an issue of concern for Americans and 
certainly from people in my home State of Pennsylvania.
  Over the past year, there have been a steady stream of news reports 
on countless incidents of recalled or otherwise contaminated food 
products.
  To mention a few: Spinach contaminated with E. coli; peanut butter 
contaminated with salmonella; imported fish containing high levels of 
antibiotics; and, finally, culminating last month with the largest meat 
recall in the history of the United States, 143 million pounds of 
ground beef.
  The safety of our food supply is an issue we can no longer afford to 
ignore. My amendment would expand the deficit-neutral reserve fund to 
allow for legislation that enhances the protection and safety of the 
Nation's food supply.
  The funds of this legislation would allow for congressional action. 
It would do the following: First of all, expand Federal food inspection 
field forces; second, develop risk-based approaches to inspecting the 
food supply; third, develop the infrastructure to ensure a coordinated 
Federal food safety approach; No. 4, we would enhance the Food and Drug 
Administration's recall authority; and, finally, expand food-borne 
illness awareness and education programs.
  This is a critically important issue, and I know the current 
cosponsors include Senator Grassley, who is on the floor with us 
tonight; Senators Durbin, Brown, Schumer, Lautenberg. So that is the 
food safety amendment No. 4171. I would urge my colleagues to support 
that amendment.


                           Amendment No. 4172

  The second amendment is No. 4172, the Wounded Warriors Bonus Equity 
Act. I am proud to introduce this bipartisan amendment to the budget 
resolution calling for payment of bonuses to troops who have retired or 
separated for combat-related injuries.
  I wish to thank Senator Clinton and Senator Sessions for agreeing to 
be original cosponsors on this amendment. The three of us introduced 
legislation in December of last year in response to reports that 
wounded troops were asked by the Department of Defense to return their 
enlistment bonus. I will say that again. These were troops asked by the 
Department of Defense to return their enlistment bonuses after they 
retired or separated from the Armed Services due to combat-related 
injuries.
  These troops and tens of thousands of others across the country that 
were injured in Iraq are struggling to support themselves and their 
families. We owe them what we promised, and we must not drop our 
commitment to our troops at the shoreline of the United States.
  The Senate passed our bill, S. 2400, the Wounded Warriors Bonus 
Equity Act, last year by unanimous consent. But we have not reconciled 
our version with that of the House of Representatives which does not 
require retroactive payment of the bonus that has already been withheld 
or returned.
  I wished to commend Congressman Jason Altmire from my home State of 
Pennsylvania, in the Fourth District, who helped bring this problem to 
light when one of our constituents faced the loss of his enlistment 
bonus.
  I am hopeful that expanding the deficit-neutral reserve fund for 
veterans and wounded servicemembers will include legislation that will 
require the Department of Defense to return promised bonus payments and 
conduct an audit to identify any servicemembers who are owed payments.
  This will pave the way for signing this legislation into law. We have 
often heard the words of Abraham Lincoln when he talked about those who 
perished in war, those who gave the last full measure of devotion.
  He also spoke, in his Presidency, of those who have been injured in 
war. He talked about those who have borne the battle and what we owe 
them. Abraham Lincoln was right. We owe them much. The least we can say 
is we owe them, to fulfill the promise we made to them for those who 
have indeed borne the battle.
  I would urge all my colleagues to support this amendment as well, 
amendment No. 4172, the Wounded Warriors Bonus Equity Act.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as we all know, the Federal budget is a 
statement of the Nation's priorities. I want to commend my good friend 
from North Dakota who chairs the Budget Committee for setting the right 
priorities for America in this budget resolution.
  Our Nation is enduring profound changes as we adapt to the global 
economy. It seems like every day there is more bad economic news. 
Savings are falling and debt is rising. Americans now collectively owe 
more than $900 billion in credit card debt.
  Foreclosures are skyrocketing: 200,000 families each month are at 
risk of losing their homes. Bankruptcies soared by 40 percent last 
year, and are expected to rise even more this year. Entire industries 
are disappearing, leaving workers and communities devastated in their 
wake. And unemployment is up and going higher.
  And there is more bad news for America's working families. Now, for 
the first time in 5 years, we have seen job losses for 2 months in a 
row, a sure sign that the economy is headed for a recession. Employers 
cut 63,000 jobs in February, the worst job losses since March 2003. And 
it is only likely to get worse.
  Economists foresee a significant unemployment problem for at least 
the next 2 years. Goldman Sachs has predicted that the national 
unemployment rate will rise to 6.5 percent by the end of 2009. Many 
States around the country are already struggling with high 
unemployment. Michigan's unemployment rate is 7.6 percent. South 
Carolina's is 6.6 percent. Ohio just hit the 6 percent mark as well.
  And workers who lose their jobs are having more and more trouble 
finding work. Today, roughly 18 percent of unemployed workers have been 
looking for a job for more than 26 weeks, compared to only 11 percent 
before the last recession. That is a dramatically higher level of long-
term unemployment, and it is a deeply troubling sign.
  These aren't just statistical trends or indicators. Every bad number 
reflects a real hardship in people's lives. For these workers and their 
families, a recession isn't just part of the business cycle; it is a 
life-altering event from which they may never recover.
  With this kind of uncertain economic future, we need a budget that 
puts a priority on stimulating the economy and giving hardworking 
Americans the support they need to weather the storm. If we want an 
economic recovery that works--if we want real opportunity and 
sustainable growth--that effort must start and end with working 
families.
  This budget sets the right priorities to address these challenges. I 
commend Senator Conrad for including room in the budget for a second 
stimulus package. This will allow us to take what Democrats know is the 
right path during a recession, putting working people's needs first. 
That means extending unemployment insurance benefits for the long-term 
unemployed, increasing food stamp benefits, and providing State fiscal 
relief.
  This budget further aids those caught up in the economic downturn by 
setting aside funds that can be used for unemployment insurance 
modernization, a much needed reform to our social safety net. Many 
workers who lose their jobs today are finding our unemployment 
insurance system leaves them out because federal laws haven't changed 
since the 1960s, even though the American workforce has changed

[[Page S1987]]

dramatically since then. In 2006, only one third of unemployed 
Americans received unemployment benefits.
  These workers have paid into the system for years and it is wrong to 
leave them out when they need help the most. This budget will help us 
to give States the resources and flexibility they need to serve working 
families more effectively.
  These are all important measures, but strengthening the safety net 
during a crisis is not enough. We need to redouble our efforts to 
restore economic opportunity for working families. This budget looks 
beyond the short term. It makes a priority of investing in the 
preparation workers need to compete in the 21st century global economy. 
Comprehensive education and job training programs are the keys to that 
preparation.
  At times like this, we have turned to education to help strengthen 
the Nation. We did so when developing and expanding the Nation in the 
early 1800s, when transitioning World War II veterans back into 
society, when launching the war on poverty.
  We have seen time and again that education is one of the best 
investments we can make in the Nation's economic strength. For every 
dollar invested in the GI bill, the Nation reaped $7 in return. 
Research from the OECD shows that when we increase the average number 
of years of education by just 1 year, we can increase our GDP by 3 to 6 
percent. For every $1 invested in high quality early preschool 
programs, our society benefits from a $13 return.
  The Nation's prosperity depends on our ability to prepare our 
citizens to face a changing economy. But as other nations modernize 
their education system, America must also break free of the shackles of 
a school system designed for the industrial age, not the information 
age.
  We know the school model of centuries past doesn't cut it in today's 
economy:
  A single, isolated teacher lecturing to a class of 30 students 
reflects the production-line model of the Industrial Age. Today, our 
knowledge economy demands smaller classes with individualized 
instruction and a focus on more advanced skills.
  Fifty years ago, only one-third of mothers worked outside the home. 
Today, twice as many do, which means nearly 7 million children are left 
without adequate supervision after school.
  High schools were designed in the last century with the goal of 
graduating only 20 percent of students. A 16-year-old could drop out of 
school, get a job, and support a family. Today, over 60 percent of jobs 
require not only a diploma, but postsecondary skills--either a college 
education or advanced career and technical education. We need high 
schools graduating all students with college- and work-ready skills.
  We wouldn't think of sending our astronauts to Mars in the same 
spaceship in which President Kennedy sent them to the Moon.
  We wouldn't think of defending our troops with the armor they used in 
World War I.
  Why do we teach our students using outdated schools?
  This budget provides investments critical to ensuring that we have an 
education system compatible with the 21st century knowledge economy.
  The resolution increases funds for education programs by $6 billion.
  It provides $3.5 billion for our public schools, the largest increase 
in funding for K-12 education since 2002.
  This increase can put us on track to double title I funding in 5 
years.
  With those funds, our schools can:
  Hire 35,000 new teachers to reduce class sizes and provide students 
with individualized attention; provide high quality professional 
development for 100,000 teachers to assist them in teaching 21st 
century skills; and enroll 1 million more children in high quality 
afterschool programs.
  This is a real investment of new resources to help struggling 
schools. The funding for K-12 education will enable schools to 
implement needed reforms to turn around. It will allow states, 
districts, and schools to improve middle and high schools, so that 
students will stay in school and graduate.
  The budget resolution also provides $424 million for Head Start, 
which will provide more children with the services they need to ensure 
they start school ready to learn.
  It increases funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act by $340 million, so that students with disabilities have the 
support and opportunities they deserve.
  It also provides needed increases in funds for higher education. Last 
year, we passed a historic student aid bill and, with the Budget 
Committee's efforts and leadership, we were able to chart a course to 
increase the maximum Pell grant to $5,400 in 5 years. This budget 
resolution helps fulfill that promise by providing funds for a $4,800 
maximum Pell grant in fiscal year 2009.
  This budget also includes $414 million more for job training 
programs, which is greatly needed after years of cuts in job training 
programs under this administration. This funding will allow 165,000 
more workers to retool their skills for 21st century jobs.
  We know job training helps workers learn new skills, become better 
equipped for jobs in demand, and earn higher wages. As families across 
America struggle to make ends meet, and watch as foreclosures increase, 
jobs go oversees, and benefits vanish, job training can help provide 
real security for workers.
  The Senate budget resolution makes key investments in strengthening 
our economy and provides the building blocks for a prosperous future. 
It supports good schools for our children, good jobs for workers, and a 
fair shot at the American dream. It puts the Nation on a path to 
reinventing our public schools and strengthening our education system 
so that we are competitive in today's knowledge economy.
  Unlike the budget before us, the President's budget ignores the 
demands of today's economy and the needs of our students, our teachers, 
and our schools.
  In his message to Congress, the President said his budget was based 
on ``clear priorities that will help us meet our Nation's most pressing 
needs while addressing the long-term challenges ahead.''
  But those priorities are not reflected in the numbers I see in the 
President's budget proposal for the Department of Education.
  For too many years under a Republican Congress and administration, we 
have seen a great contradiction between the administration's rhetoric 
on education and their budgets.
  They say that education is the cornerstone of our competitiveness in 
the global economy, but then they underfund the No Child Left Behind 
Act by $14.7 billion this year alone--leaving 3 million children 
without needed services.
  They say that education levels the playing field for disadvantaged 
students, but then they deny a million poor students the ability to 
come to school ready to learn by flat funding Head Start.
  They say that education is the key to America's future, but then they 
allow children to attend crumbling schools by blocking funding for 
school construction.
  They say that a good teacher can erase the harmful effects of 
poverty, but then they cut funding for teacher preparation and support.
  They say that education is the gateway to the American dream, but 
then, with 7,000 students dropping out of school each day, they cut a 
$1.3 billion program to provide career and technical education for at-
risk high school students.
  They say that the good jobs of the future require a college 
education, but then they cut campus-based grant and loan programs and 
eliminate programs that ensure that low income, first generation 
students are prepared for and successful in college.
  We must do better than this. The Nation, and the Nation's children, 
deserve better than this.
  It is time to stop making empty promises. It is time to act.
  It is time for a new, bold commitment to investing in education, to 
give teachers the support they need and the opportunity to go further 
in their careers, to support schools that need to turnaround, to help 
every student reach graduation day, to open the gates to college for 
all students, regardless of family income.
  When a student walks through the doors of a public school, they 
should be opening the doors to opportunity, to

[[Page S1988]]

higher education, to a good job, to a better life.
  The Senate budget resolution puts an end to the empty promises. By 
making education a priority, it takes bold action to address the 
mounting economic concerns and it is about time.
  Likewise, this budget takes action to address the growing health 
concerns that threaten the not only the health of our families, but 
also our economic well-being. It rejects the irresponsible budget cuts 
for NIH included within the administration's proposals, which would 
result in NIH being funded at $1 billion less than is needed just to 
keep pace with inflation. The budget resolution is a good basis for 
further strengthening of the NIH budget, and I look forward to working 
to see that NIH has the support it deserves.
  Investment in NIH is essential not just for medical progress, but for 
our economic security too. The United States has a long tradition of 
being a global innovative leader but we can't take our leadership for 
granted. Today, it's at risk. Thirty years ago, U.S. researchers 
published 90 percent of all scientific literature on information 
technology. Today, it's less than half. Unless we invest in the life 
sciences, the story will soon be the same for biotechnology.
  The budget also includes an important reserve fund for the millions 
of Americans suffering from mental illness whose insurance does not 
cover their treatment. Lack of equitable insurance coverage for mental 
illness is not only a civil rights issue, but it's also an economic 
issue with serious consequences. Recently, the National Institute of 
Mental Health revealed that mental and addictive disorders cost our 
country more than $300 billion annually. This includes productivity 
losses of $150 billion and $70 billion in healthcare costs. The reserve 
fund provided in this budget is a major step forward in end insurance 
discrimination and making our country more productive.
  The budget before us today also makes a commitment to our elderly and 
disabled citizens who are capable of living in their community, but are 
denied the supports they need. With the proper support, these Americans 
are able to live and flourish in the community. But too often they have 
to give up the dignity of a job, a home, and a family so they can 
qualify for Medicaid, the only program that will support them. That is 
why we introduced the CLASS Act last summer, so citizens get the 
services they need so they can remain in their community and lead a 
full life. This budget includes a reserve fund to support the 
infrastructure necessary to save Medicaid over the next decade and help 
all our citizens have a chance realize the American dream. It also will 
allow the parents and children of these citizens who have had to quit 
their jobs to care for a loved one to reenter the workforce.
  I commend my colleagues on the Budget Committee, and all their staff, 
for their hard work in recent months. The Senate budget resolution 
represents a strong commitment to American families across this country 
in this time of economic uncertainty, and I strongly urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment offered by 
the Senator from South Carolina that would create a point of order 
against consideration of any legislation that contains an earmark.
  Since the earliest days of our country's existence there has been 
tension between the executive and the legislative branches. Each has 
attempted continually to gain power at the expense of the other. The 
balance of power has tended to ebb and flow over time. The instances 
where one branch gets absolute advantage over the other are rare. That 
is the fundamental genius of the system created by our Nation's 
Founding Fathers. It is a system that is unique because of the balance 
of power that exists between the Congress and the Chief Executive. We 
should honor this unique relationship that has made our country the 
envy of the world for stability, and fairness for our citizens.
  The President has said that he believes earmarking has gotten out of 
control, notwithstanding the many pieces of legislation containing 
earmarks that he has signed into law over the last 7 years. The 
President has further stated that he will now veto any fiscal year 2009 
appropriations bill if the number and cost of earmarks isn't cut in 
half.
  It is the President's right to veto bills. I don't deny that the 
practice of earmarking should be the subject of review and debate and I 
don't deny the right of the President to express his views on the 
subject and to use his veto pen if he feels that it is justified.
  What I cannot understand is why the legislative branch would 
unilaterally relinquish a fundamental power granted to it in article I 
of the Constitution; the power of the purse.
  This debate is not about the level of Federal spending, the size of 
the deficit, or the national debt. Nothing in this amendment would 
change the level of discretionary spending called for in the budget 
resolution. Nothing in this amendment issues reconciliation 
instructions to committees that might begin to address the entitlement 
crisis that faces our Nation. This debate instead is about who decides 
how Federal dollars are spent, and where?
  Proponents of this amendment apparently are content for Congress to 
provide large sums of money to Federal agencies for general purposes, 
either to be distributed by a formula or by some sort of executive 
branch allocation process. Congress's only input would be after the 
fact. I fundamentally disagree. Congress is well within its rights to 
target spending for purposes that the legislative branch concludes are 
in the public interest.
  Senators and Members of Congress represent the several States and the 
American people. While some funding formulas or agency-run processes 
may have their rightful place in the allocation of Federal dollars, 
there should be an opportunity for Congress to identify its own 
priorities, as the Constitution contemplates.
  There have been cases where the power of the purse has been abused 
for personal or political gain, just as other aspects of the 
legislative process have been abused. That is an unfortunate truth. But 
it is also true that nearly all earmarked projects are put forth by 
Members with honorable intentions. Nearly all earmarked projects match 
the general purposes of the programs within which they are funded. The 
question is, who decides how the people's money is spent. I think it is 
the people's representation in Congress.
  I am aware that my own party's nominee for President, the Senator 
from Arizona, supports this amendment. I am also aware that Senator 
McCain has stated that, if elected President, he would veto any bill 
that includes an earmark. Even though I disagree with him on this 
issue, I understand he thinks the executive branch of government should 
decide how taxpayers' money is spent.
  It doesn't surprise me that the other Presidential candidates in this 
body support this amendment. Any President would want the ability to 
allocate Federal funding as he or she sees fit.
  Why would the Senate assume it would be preferable for the executive 
branch to allocate funds based on the whims of an assistant secretary, 
or on the political pressures that can influence the White House or the 
Office of Management and Budget? Do we have faith that executive branch 
agencies will not embarrass themselves with inappropriate grants for 
art exhibits, overpriced hammers for the Pentagon, or million dollar 
outhouses in our national parks? History tells us otherwise.
  I think Congress should continue to hold the purse strings as the 
Founders of our great country contemplated. We should not shirk our 
duty to make spending decisions. If the President disapproves, he can 
veto the bill.
  This amendment doesn't fix anything. It doesn't save any money. It 
doesn't propose any reforms. And in spite of its supposed 1-year 
duration, the amendment will do nothing to mollify those who wish to 
put Congress permanently on the sidelines of the process of allocating 
Federal dollars.
  This amendment will most assuredly do nothing to help Congress and 
the next President of the United States address the budgetary 
challenges facing our country in Medicare, Social Security, and tax 
policy. We shouldn't be seduced into thinking that a `timeout' on 
Congressionally directed spending will somehow help us deal with those 
issues. What we should do instead is stay in the game, consider 
spending

[[Page S1989]]

bills on a timely basis, and carefully scrutinize the spending in those 
bills. Then we need to engage the President on those proposals through 
established, constitutional processes and determine the collective will 
of the people as determined by all of their elected officials.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator 
from South Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 4233

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss my 
amendment to codify the unborn child rule in the pending budget 
resolution, by modifying the SCHIP reserve fund.
  This needs to be done, and it needs to be done during this budget 
year.
  I am not here to argue SCHIP. There is a SCHIP reserve fund already 
in the budget. I am merely seeking to ensure that since it looks like 
we are going to pass this reserve fund, we make sure to address the 
unborn child as a patient.
  We attempted to codify the unborn child rule during the SCHIP debate, 
but unfortunately we were not successful. I am hopeful that we will be 
successful on this attempt.
  The unborn child rule is a regulation that, since 2002, has allowed 
States to provide prenatal care to unborn children and their mothers. 
It recognizes the basic fact that the child in the womb is a child.
  When a pregnancy is involved there are at least two patients--mother 
and baby.
  It only makes sense to cover the unborn child under a children's 
health program.
  We have previously modified the SCHIP statute to allow States to 
cover ``pregnant women'' of any age.
  My amendment would codify the principle of the rule, by amending the 
SCHIP reserve fund to codify the current unborn child rule to clarify 
that a covered child includes ``the period from conception to birth.''
  Many States' definition of coverage for a pregnant woman leads to the 
strange legal fiction that the adult pregnant woman is a ``child.''
  Surely it was not the intent of anyone who developed the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program to allow a loophole for States to 
define a woman as a child.
  Surely we can agree that the child who receives health care in the 
womb is a child receiving care along with his or her mother.
  There are many conditions that can affect a mother's health during 
pregnancy that are not related to her pregnancy.
  Under current statute pregnant mother could not get coverage for any 
condition that isn't related to her pregnancy. Without a codification 
of the unborn child rule, we cannot guarantee that these services 
continue.
  Many medical advances, such as surgeries, have allowed for the unborn 
child to be treated as a patient separate from the pregnant mother. 
They should therefore be able receive coverage as a patient.
  We should be allowing mothers to stay healthy, so that they will have 
healthy babies.
  This also leads to reduced costs associated with premature or low-
birth weight babies.
  Eleven states are already using this option to provide such care 
through the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
  If the intent of the Senate is to provide coverage for the pregnant 
woman and her unborn child, then there should be no problem in 
supporting my amendment.
  We should ensure that pregnant women and their unborn child are both 
treated as patients.
  This is a matter of common sense.
  Every obstetrician knows that in treating a pregnant woman he is 
treating two patients, the mother and her unborn child.
  Keeping this coverage in the name of the adult pregnant woman alone 
is bad for the integrity of a children's health program, bad for the 
child, and even bad for some of the neediest of pregnant women.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.


                     Amendments Nos. 4234 and 4235

  Mr. President, unfortunately, the resolution before us continues the 
erosion of fiscally responsible budget processes. I have offered four 
amendments to this budget that will, I believe, increase economic 
discipline.
  I joined the Budget Committee because I believed the best way to 
enforce fiscal responsibility and guarantee appropriate Federal 
spending was to have a rigid and meaningful budget. Fiscal discipline 
begins in the planning--the budgeting--stage. This is where the choices 
are made, and the decisions are reached, that will ensure that the 
income matches the spending and that taxpayers dollars are used wisely. 
But the budget has been moving away from this. Our discipline has been 
eroding.
  We have seen increases in ``reserve fund'' shenanigans, we have seen 
the use of reconciliation--a process originated to cut government 
spending for spending increases, and we have seen a mockery of the pay 
go rules; there was $143 billion in pay-go violations last year.
  I believe this Budget Committee should be committed to rigid budget 
discipline, not politically expedient gamesmanship.
  One of my amendments is to fully budget for the expected costs of the 
war. I know there will be those who say that they are just following 
the President in allocating $70 billion in fiscal year 2009. But the 
budget is a congressional document. Say what you want about the genesis 
of the ideas in this document, but let me repeat--it was written and 
prepared on the sixth floor of Dirksen, not in the White House.
  We know the war is expected to cost $170 billion this year. Everyone 
knows this. We had testimony in committee supporting this number. And 
so we have an obligation to budget for that amount.
  If we are going to pay for this war, fiscal discipline and legitimate 
budgeting requirements demand that we include those costs. There is no 
legitimate reason to fail to include the known estimates of the war 
into our budget. Failure to do so is gimmickry, and devalues the budget 
exercise we are engaged in. Hiding the war costs from view, when every 
Member knows we will be spending, is ridiculous.
  On another matter, this budget resolution has an increase in 
``reserve funds.'' There are 37 this year, up from 24 last year. They 
contain up to $300 billion in spending that hangs over our treasury and 
taxpayers as a threat. I have heard them referred to as harmless, but 
any device that serves to weaken the authority and legitimateness of 
our budget is not harmless.
  Many feel that these reserve funds have become an over complicated 
type of sense of the Senate, but I feel they weave weakness into what 
should be a rigid and honest document. I have offered an amendment that 
will prohibit time shifting tax receipts or spending levels to exploit 
the reserve fund language. If these reserve funds and their spending 
assumptions are going to be included, we need to see that they are 
fully walled off and under strong restrictions that will prohibit them 
from being realized without proper spending reductions.
  I have also offered an amendment to prohibit time shifts on a larger 
scale, not just in reserve funds but in the budget itself. Time-
shifting incomes and spending to change where they impact the budget 
cycle produces no real economic effect, except allowing more spending 
by evading limits. This practice needs to end.
  The last amendment I have offered will ensure the ability of the 
Secretary of HHS to combat waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid and 
SCHIP.
  My amendment is very simple. It will make sure that the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services has continued authority to prevent fraud and 
protect the integrity of the Medicaid Program and SCHIP and to reduce 
inappropriate spending under these programs.
  This should be a very bipartisan amendment. Waste, fraud and abuse 
should not consume even $1 of taxpayer's money.
  The Secretary should have the ability to see that tax dollars are 
being spent appropriately.
  As long as providers are acting appropriately my amendment would have 
no affect on them. Good actors in the Medicaid Program and SCHIP will 
feel no impact by my amendment.
  My amendment would guarantee the Secretary's ability to enforce any 
antifraud provisions of law in effect as of the date of enactment of 
the budget with respect to the Medicaid Program or the State Children's 
Health Insurance Program, and would allow the

[[Page S1990]]

Secretary to develop new proposals during such period to eliminate 
fraud in such programs.
  My amendment would not harm beneficiaries' access to health care 
under such programs, and only states that the Secretary has the ability 
to seek out bad actors.
  Combating waste, fraud, and abuse in any program should be a 
bipartisan issue. Combating waste, fraud, and abuse to ensure the 
integrity of the Medicaid Program and SCHIP is a necessary objective to 
so that taxpayer dollars are being spent appropriately to provide 
patients with access to care.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendments, and help move the 
budget back towards fiscal discipline, improving our financial 
standards and accountability for taxpayer's dollars.


                           Amendment No. 4232

  Mr. President, my amendment will pay down the Federal debt and 
eliminate government waste by reducing spending 5 percent on programs 
rated ineffective by the OMB Program Assessment Rating Tool.
  Some of my colleagues may be unaware that the PART reviews were 
mandated under the Government Performance and Results Act, Public Law 
No: 103-62. This law was written by Senator Roth of Delaware and 
sponsored by 20 of his then-colleagues, 10 of whom are still here.
  I mention this only to make sure that my colleagues are aware of the 
fact that the PART Program was not invented whole cloth by the current 
administration. OMB is under mandate from Congress to review and make 
budget recommendations on all Federal programs. Let me read from the 
purposes of that act:
  (1) improve the confidence of the American people in the capability 
of the Federal Government, by systematically holding Federal agencies 
accountable for achieving program results;
  (2) initiate program performance reform with a series of pilot 
projects in setting program goals, measuring program performance 
against those goals, and reporting publicly on their progress;
  (3) improve Federal program effectiveness and public accountability 
by promoting a new focus on results, service quality, and customer 
satisfaction;
  (4) help Federal managers improve service delivery, by requiring that 
they plan for meeting program objectives and by providing them with 
information about program results and service quality;
  (5) improve congressional decisionmaking by providing more objective 
information on achieving statutory objectives, and on the relative 
effectiveness and efficiency of Federal programs and spending; and
  (6) improve internal management of the Federal Government.
  So, again, 15 years ago Congress demanded that the Office of 
Management and Budget review Federal spending programs with a 
nonpartisan analysis to determine if taxpayers are receiving value for 
their tax dollars. The Clinton administration worked on this, and the 
current administration developed their plan as well.
  The current implementation of this is the Program Assessment Rating 
Tool, or PART. You can go on line and see these reviews at 
www.expectmore.gov.
 I use this Web site with every meeting I have with Federal agencies, 
with every appropriations hearing, every Federal appointee. I ask 
constituents, when they come in to share their support for a certain 
program, to look at that program's PART review and hold the programs 
accountable for it.
  A small percentage of programs receive an ``ineffective'' rating. 
Programs receiving this rating are not using your tax dollars 
effectively. As they elaborate on the Web site, ``ineffective programs 
have been unable to achieve results due to a lack of clarity regarding 
the program's purpose or goals, poor management, or some other 
significant weakness.''
  I hold no ill will towards any specific program, I just believe in 
accountability for Federal spending. Everyone agrees we have to start 
somewhere, and the nonpartisan, agenda-free and mutually-conducted PART 
Program seems to me to be the best place.
  My amendment cuts 5 percent of the funding under this bill for 
programs labeled ``ineffective'' under the OMB PART Program and uses 
that funding to cut the deficit. This is about the amount that these 
programs will see in increases under this budget. They won't face cuts, 
but given the failure to pass a mutually conducted performance review 
with OMB I don't think they should see an increase.
  We are not ending any programs or zeroing out any agencies. All we 
are doing is taking 1 dollar in 20 under this budget from programs that 
cannot justify their effectiveness and using it to begin to address our 
over $9 trillion national debt.
  I understand many people have fond thoughts for some of these 
programs, but fond thoughts and good intentions do not equal good 
government. This is the barest babystep forward for good government and 
fiscal responsibility.
  So I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment. I 
believe it is a commonsense amendment to a problem we need to address. 
We wish to make sure our taxpayer dollars are being used in a way that 
can be described as effective. That is the ideal situation.
  Certainly for those programs that are classified as ``ineffective'' 
we can at least question their budget. Even though they may have a 
mission statement drawn up that may be somewhat appealing, when OMB 
gets right down into the workings of the agency and finds nothing much 
is happening to accomplish the goals and objectives the Congress had in 
mind at the time it passed the legislation, how can we consider 
increasing their budget?
  I think this is a commonsense amendment that brings some fiscal 
sanity to the process. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for 
the amendment.


                           amendment no. 4247

  Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the importance of making 
permanent a progrowth tax cut passed and signed into law earlier this 
decade.
  I was proud to join my colleagues in passing and implementing 
landmark tax legislation. Unfortunately, if Congress does not act soon 
to make this critical tax cut permanent, I believe that we will see the 
upcoming economic downtime be worse than it should be.
  Small business expensing is a key component of the progrowth tax 
legislation. It played a vital role in promoting economic growth and 
raising revenues.
  As a former small business owner, I know and understand the hardships 
of running a small business. That is why I strongly supported and 
continue to support the small business expensing provisions of the Jobs 
and Growth Act of 2003. The small business expensing provisions in this 
bill increased the amount small businesses can expense from $25,000 to 
$100,000.
  I have had occasion to discuss this small business expensing with 
former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan.
  Small business expensing lowers the cost of capital for small 
businesses and helps them expand, which in turn helps the Nation's 
economic growth. Encouraging new business purchasing has helped kick-
start certain sectors of the economy, created new jobs, and helped to 
increase productivity.
  Congress has increased the amount a small business can expense in the 
Jobs and Growth Act of 2003, and just recently in the economic stimulus 
package last month, but these increased expensing levels are set to 
expire. Unless Congress acts to make these provisions permanent, 
expensing levels will revert back to $25,000, with a phase-out cap of 
$200,000, in 2011.
  Allowing small business owners to keep more of their hard-earned 
profits will enable them to hire new employees and buy the technology 
and equipment needed to expand their business. By relieving the tax 
burden placed on small business owners, all Americans will benefit.
  I call on my colleagues today to work together on implementing 
legislation that would make permanent this pro-growth tax cut.


                           Amendment No. 4194

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of an 
amendment that my friend and colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, 
and I have offered to the budget resolution, which would provide an 
additional $50 million to the Veterans Benefits Administration, VBA, 
allowing our Nation to continue investing in the programs and resources 
necessary so that

[[Page S1991]]

our courageous veterans may receive the benefits that they have earned 
in a timely and efficient manner.
  Every year, hundreds of thousands of America's finest look to the VBA 
to process their claims for disability compensation, pensions, and 
other entitlements due them as a result of their unselfish and 
steadfast service to our Nation. However, according to a VBA Workload 
Report from February 16, 2008, the total number of pending compensation 
and pension claims once again increased to 663,319, up from 626,429 
this time last year and 517,574 from 2006.Additionally, the VA is 
currently projecting claims receipts to increase to approximately 
872,000 in fiscal year 2009 and cautions that ongoing hostilities in 
both Iraq and Afghanistan may further burden the workload.
  Furthermore, although the VA attempted to reduce the average number 
of days that claims were pending from a high of 182 days at the end of 
fiscal year 2001 to 111 days at the end of fiscal year 2003, the 
average age of pending claims has crept back up to 132 days by the end 
of fiscal year 2007.
  Despite this unfortunate trend, we must not discount the initial 
steps that Congress has taken in order to alleviate many of the 
challenges facing our Nation's veterans within the VBA system. The 
first crucial step over the past year was to improve the management of 
the VBA, by providing welcome resources to boost the number of claims-
processing staff, essential to curbing the backlog and improving the 
timeliness of the claims process. In fact, at this time last year, 
Senator Lincoln and I introduced an amendment to the fiscal year 2008 
Budget resolution to address staff and resource shortages at the VBA by 
providing $64.5 million in order to hire an additional 600 disability 
claims processors and $4.1 million to hire an additional 32 processors 
at the Board of Veterans Appeals, BVA, to expedite the adjudication 
process to acceptable levels.
  Overall, the President's fiscal year 2009 budget request funds nearly 
11,000 full-time equivalent employees working on compensation and 
pension claims, and represents an additional 2,600 positions, or 32 
percent above fiscal year 2007.
  Notwithstanding the recent actions that I have outlined and the VA's 
expectation that productivity will expand in the long term, veterans 
continue to endure lengthy delays in order to receive their benefits 
from the VA--and this is simply unacceptable. Therefore, I believe it 
is vital for the VBA to maintain the resources necessary to seek and 
implement fundamental reforms that will help bolster recent gains in 
manpower in order to enhance both productivity and efficiency 
throughout the disability claims process. That is why Senator Lincoln 
and I have introduced an amendment that will provide the VBA with an 
additional $50 million in funding to initiate innovative pilot programs 
that will decrease this unprecedented backlog of disability claims.
  Given how integral disability payments are for veterans and their 
families, especially in a lagging economy, the VA has an undeniable 
responsibility to sustain an effective delivery system and look for 
solutions that honor our veterans' service. The funding provided within 
the Snowe-Lincoln amendment would allow the VBA to build upon recent 
efforts to streamline the claims process through such initiatives as 
amplifying staff training, improving data collection, or streamlining 
data transmission.
  As we continue to debate this year's budget resolution, I applaud the 
Senate Committee on the Budget and its strong commitment to veterans, 
by providing $48.2 billion in discretionary funding within the budget 
resolution for fiscal year 2009, which is equal to $3.2 billion above 
the President's request and $5.2 billion more from fiscal year 2008 
budget levels. Certainly, this increase in veterans' health care 
funding is timely as Congress strives to address an ever-growing 
contingency of new veterans, who will transition from active duty into 
the VA system during the upcoming year, while an aging general veteran 
population continues its increased demand for acute medical and long-
term-care services.
  It is profoundly imperative that we in Congress fulfill our 
obligation to America's best and bravest, whose selfless sacrifices on 
behalf of us and the freedoms we cherish are immeasurable. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Snowe-Lincoln amendment, which will help the 
VBA take the additional steps towards realizing our nation's pledge to 
give our veterans the compensation and benefits they have rightfully 
earned.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, this amendment to S. Con. Res. 70 requests 
the Senate to take action to stop the abuse, neglect, and exploitation 
of vulnerable individuals who reside in the Nation's 17,000 nursing 
homes and receive services in thousands of other long-term care 
facilities.
  It proposes that the Senate reserve $160 million over 3 years in a 
deficit-neutral reserve fund to pay for a nationwide expansion of a 
successful background check pilot program enacted as part of the 
Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, of 2003. This seven-State pilot 
program has already prevented more than 7,200 people with records of 
substantiated abuse or a violent criminal record from working with and 
preying upon frail elders and individuals with disabilities.
  The amendment's reserve fund would be triggered only if the Finance 
Committee reported out legislation or submitted a conference report 
providing for a nationwide expansion of the MMA pilot program. If this 
occurred, the reserve fund amount would be offset by the Finance 
Committee.
  Today, abuse, neglect, and exploitation of vulnerable individuals 
within long-term care facilities result in costly consequences or 
elderly or disabled victims, their families, and society as a whole. 
Numerous reports issued by GAO, the HHS Office of Inspector General, 
and State governments have recommended that comprehensive background 
checks should be a routine part of preemployment screening for all 
workers serving vulnerable populations, including frail elders and 
individuals with disabilities.
  A nationwide system of background checks for long-term care workers 
would offer greater protection to seniors across the country in a wide 
variety of settings s--including the home. The policy would decrease 
not only physical abuse but also financial exploitation of vulnerable 
home-dwelling seniors, and would produce significant crime prevention 
savings.
  The policy has broad-based support from outside groups, including the 
National Association of State Attorneys General, the National 
Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units, the Elder Justice 
Coalition, the nursing home industry, and eldercare advocates in States 
and communities across the country.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to commend the Budget Committee 
for its efforts to fund a strong homeland defense, and to introduce an 
amendment with my friend Senator Collins on one issue where we think 
additional work is needed--funding to continue building the new Federal 
Emergency Management Agency.
  First, I want to praise the Budget Committee for working within our 
difficult budget environment to find adequate funding for critical 
homeland security needs, especially support to our State and local 
partners in homeland security.
  The President's fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Department of 
Homeland Security, DHS, includes some useful increases for targeted 
programs, but comes up short overall. It is basically a steady State 
budget with the glaring exception of homeland security grants, where 
the administration has once again proposed aggressive and unwise cuts 
to core Federal grant programs that States, tribes, cities, and towns 
rely on to keep their citizens safe.
  If the President's budget were enacted, it would mean a 48-percent 
drop in overall grant funding--seriously limiting the ability of State 
and local officials to prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of 
terrorism and natural disasters and to protect their communities the 
way they should be protected. The threats we face have not diminished 
over the years and neither should the funding to combat those threats.
  Most dramatically, the fiscal year 2009 budget request cuts the State 
homeland security grant program, SHSGP, from $950 million to $200 
million--a whopping 79-percent reduction from fiscal year 2008. SHSGP 
grants

[[Page S1992]]

are basic preparedness grants to States, and the failure to fund them 
would significantly undermine national preparedness efforts.
  I am pleased that the budget resolution before us rejects those 
proposed cuts and funds SHSGP at its current level of $950 million, 
which also happens to be the level we authorized in the Implementing 
the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007, which for the first 
time set forth statutory requirements for the grants' allocation and 
use.
  The budget resolution also rejects proposed cuts to other vital grant 
programs including grants to firefighters, for emergency management, 
and for port and transit security. All of these important programs are 
restored to fiscal year 2008 levels, adjusted for inflation, in the 
pending budget resolution, and I thank the Budget Committee for that.
  On the critical matter of interoperable communications, the Budget 
Committee has done better still--increasing funding for the 
interoperable emergency communications grant program, IECGP, from $50 
million this year to $200 million in fiscal year 2009. State homeland 
security directors recently identified the development of interoperable 
communications as their top priority, and it is a complex problem that 
will be resolved only through strong--Federal leadership, coordination 
at all levels of government, and a substantial commitment of dedicated 
funding. This grant program, which was authorized in the recent 9/11 
Act, will help achieve this critical goal.
  I also want to thank the Budget Committee for providing funds to 
begin building a new DHS headquarters at the St. Elizabeths West 
Campus. We cannot expect DHS to succeed at its many challenging 
missions without the fundamental management tools that are taken for 
granted by much smaller organizations. Today, DHS is spread throughout 
70 buildings across the national capital region making communication, 
coordination, and cooperation between DHS components a significant 
challenge. A unified headquarters, which would bring together many of 
the Department's components into a single facility and allow employees 
to work more efficiently and interactively. I believe it is a critical 
cornerstone of the efforts to improve management at the Department of 
Homeland Security.

  I am concerned, however, that the budget resolution does not provide 
enough to continue reforms underway to strengthen and rebuild FEMA, 
which is why Senator Collins and I are offering this amendment today, 
to increase FEMA's operations, management and administration account by 
$141 million.
  Following Hurricane Katrina, the Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs Committee conducted an extensive bipartisan investigation into 
the failed response at all levels of government, especially and 
including FEMA's response. We found that FEMA was woefully unprepared--
and in fact had never been prepared--to deal with a catastrophe on the 
magnitude of Hurricane Katrina, lacking essential capabilities and 
resources. Our committee subsequently made significant recommendations 
to strengthen FEMA's capabilities and resources. Congress implemented 
many of those recommendations in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management 
Reform Act, which was intended to recreate FEMA into a stronger, more 
robust agency that would, for the first time, be equipped to prepare 
for and respond to a true catastrophe. The legislation also reunited 
the agency's preparedness and response functions; strengthened FEMA's 
regional offices and emergency response teams; and fortified its 
emergency planning and preparedness responsibilities.
  Last year, FEMA received a much needed funding increase, enabling it 
to take the essential first step in the long process of rebuilding. 
While the budget resolution would sustain FEMA operations at current 
levels, it does not include the increases needed for it to continue 
strengthening its core capabilities. Our amendment proposes an 
additional $141 million to fully fund the Administration's requested 
increase to pay for modernizing the agency's IT systems; strengthening 
and expanding key teams and other personnel that handle disaster 
operations, logistics and other vital capabilities; and converting 
certain temporary disaster support employees to permanent staff, which 
should help provide a more stable and professional workforce for this 
program. The cost of the amendment would be offset by reductions in a 
government-wide, general account.
  The President's request does not provide enough to strengthen these 
core FEMA capabilities, and I would readily support a larger increase. 
But at a minimum, we should all be able to agree on the 
administration's proposed figure to correct the significant 
deficiencies we witnessed during the response to Hurricane Katrina. 
Therefore, Senator Collins and I are offering this amendment to ensure 
that FEMA continues its transformation into the agency envisioned by 
the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, which is an agency 
prepared to respond to the many potential catastrophes--from natural 
disasters to manmade terrorists acts--that we face today. Without 
additional funds, significant deficiencies exposed by Hurricane Katrina 
will persist and FEMA simply will not be able to protect the American 
people the way we want it to.
  I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to 
improve our homeland security.

                          ____________________