[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 60 (Thursday, April 23, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4641-S4657]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                                  2010

  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate a 
message from the House on S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent budget 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message 
from the House of Representatives:

       Resolved, That the House insist upon its amendment to the 
     resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) entitled ``Concurrent resolution 
     setting forth the congressional budget for the United States 
     Government for fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate 
     budgetary levels for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the 
     appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 
     2014.'', and ask a conference with the Senate on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon.

  Mr. REID. Madam President, the following request has been approved by 
Senator Gregg and the Republican leadership.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate disagree to the amendment of 
the House, agree to the request for a conference on the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint 
conferees; that prior to the Chair appointing conferees,

[[Page S4642]]

the following motions to instruct the conferees be in order; and that a 
majority side-by-side motion to instruct be in order to any Republican 
motion to instruct and that the majority motion be voted on first; that 
upon disposition of all motions, any remaining statutory time be 
yielded back; and that the conferee ratio be 2 to 1; provided further 
that the statutory time be considered as having started running at 3 
p.m. today, and that the time be charged equally to both sides. The 
motions in order are Johanns, cap and trade; Stabenow, cap and trade, 
which is a side by side; Gregg, no debt increase; Sessions, nondefense, 
nonveterans spending freeze; Ensign, point of order relative to raising 
taxes; Cornyn, taxes; Alexander, competitive student loans; Coburn, 
budget line by line; DeMint, health care, that no point of order be in 
order to this motion; Vitter, oil and gas tax.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, Chairman Conrad has emphasized how 
important it will be to tackle the major issues--health care reform and 
climate change--in a bipartisan way. I wish to spend a few minutes 
first expressing my support for that position and urging that the 
conference on the budget proceed expeditiously because then the heavy 
lifting in the Senate will begin.
  For example, for American health care, what is needed is nothing 
short of a transformation of our system. American health care is simply 
broken. Medical costs are gobbling up everything in sight. Middle-class 
people know their paychecks are not going up, and the prime reason is 
because medical costs take away all of what would otherwise be a wage 
increase.
  Our newspapers report daily that Americans are being laid off at 
their jobs. They lose their health benefits. What we see again and 
again is a spiral of tragedy, as they simply lurch from one effort to 
another to try to find health care and cannot get it.
  For example, on Tuesday, the New York Times published a front page 
story titled, ``No Job and Soon No Benefits, Race to Help Son Stay 
Cancer Free.'' Dana Walker of Humble, Texas, was laid off from her job 
at DHL leaving her and her family without health insurance. Her son 
Jake is just 21 years old and is a cancer survivor. Now uninsured, the 
Walkers have had to defer their own care, pay up front for Jake's care, 
and have essentially been refused care at the hospital that specializes 
in care. In the article, Mrs. Walker said, ``Your job as a parent is to 
protect your children at any cost. I really feel like I had let him 
down.''
  I don't believe Mrs. Walker has let her son down. She's doing all she 
can. In the individual market health insurers can discriminate on the 
basis of age, gender, family size, geography, health status and pre-
existing conditions like cancer. Even though Jake has been cancer free 
for a year, he can't find affordable health insurance on his own. 
Insurance companies can pick and choose the customers who are the good 
risks and leave the bad risks, like Jake Walker, out in the cold. It 
isn't Mrs. Walker who's let her son down. It's the health care system.
  This is not going to be fixed by a piecemeal approach to health care 
reform that tackles one part of the system or another and produces 
incremental change for perhaps a short period of time. What is needed 
is transformational change. I believe Democrats and Republicans in the 
Senate are committed to that objective.
  I think there is a growing recognition that both parties have had a 
valid point. Democrats, in my view, are correct that you cannot fix 
health care unless you cover everybody because without full coverage 
you cannot organize the market. There is too much cost-shifting. There 
is no emphasis on prevention. You have to get all Americans good 
quality, affordable care. Republicans have valid points, in my view, as 
well. You should not just turn everything over to the Government and 
say that is the answer.
  What is really needed for transformational change is containing the 
costs. The Congressional Budget Office, last May, said that for the 
amount of money America is spending today on health care, all Americans 
in a couple years could have good quality, affordable coverage like 
their Members of Congress. That is what the Congressional Budget Office 
said when it looked at one approach to dealing with health costs.
  I am very confident, under the leadership of Chairman Baucus and 
Chairman Kennedy, that they will have a lot of support for 
transformational change so we make sure all Americans have access to 
good quality, affordable choices, and they get rewarded when they take 
sensible steps, for example, in preventive health care and wellness and 
shop carefully for health care coverage.
  Today, if you are lucky enough to have health care coverage, you do 
not get any choice at most employers. That is not the way it is for 
Members of Congress. So why don't we agree, Democrats and Republicans, 
after we get this budget conference put together, that we are going to 
make sure all Americans get good quality, affordable choices like 
Members of Congress have? Then let's start rewarding them. Let's reward 
them for sensible prevention. For example, the Safeway Corporation has 
been doing that for some time. I would like to say that seniors who 
lower their blood pressure and lower their cholesterol would get 
reduced Part B premiums. That is the outpatient portion of the Medicare 
program. But these are areas where Democrats and Republicans can come 
together.
  There has been considerable discussion on the Senate floor about the 
idea of reconciliation for tackling health care. I think Chairman 
Conrad is absolutely right in his approach.
  I will say there have been many of us on both the Democratic and 
Republican side, as we have looked to health care, who want to make the 
issue of reconciliation irrelevant. We want to make the issue of 
reconciliation irrelevant because we are hoping to bring enough 
Democrats and Republicans together so we will have 70 or more Senators 
gathered to fix the health care system.
  These issues, ultimately, in my view, are not ones that automatically 
produce a partisan divide. The private insurance system is also broken. 
It is about cherry-picking.
  Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes 31 seconds.
  Mr. WYDEN. For the remainder of my time, Madam President, let me tick 
off a number of other areas where Democrats and Republicans on this 
health care issue can come together for transformative change.
  Today's private insurance model is also broken. It is all about 
cherry-picking. It is about taking healthy people and sending sick 
people over to Government programs more fragile than they are. So what 
Democrats and Republicans want to do--again, in the name of 
transformative change--is we want to say that the companies are going 
to have to take all comers. We understand that is a key part of health 
care reform.
  But we are going to put them all on equal footing. There are not 
going to be any price controls or big Federal regulatory systems. But 
everybody is going to be part of a big group so we contain costs as 
part of a big pool. We will reward prevention and wellness, which, of 
course, is not done today. This is where I think it will be possible 
for firms in the health care area to both do good and do well by 
offering better service to our people.
  Other areas of transformative health care reform: The issue of 
portability and making sure our people can take their health care 
coverage with them so they do not lose their coverage when they lose 
their job or they wish to leave their job. That is what happens today. 
Of course, much of the health care system does not offer that kind of 
portability because it is built around what happened in the 1940s, when 
somebody started working and stayed put for 25 years, until you gave 
them a gold watch. Well, today the typical worker changes their job 11 
times by the time they are 40. We need portable coverage. Democrats and 
Republicans can work together on that.
  I want to close, again in the name of bipartisanship, by talking 
about how we can help people who have coverage. They have been 
described by some as the contentedly covered Americans. I

[[Page S4643]]

think what we ought to say for those folks, Democrats and Republicans, 
is, let's let them keep the coverage they have. Let's make sure they 
are wealthier in the new system because they get rewarded when they 
engage in those preventive practices or make a good purchase. Let's 
make sure they are healthier in the new system. Chairman Conrad is here 
and has talked about improvements, for example, in chronic care, which 
is certainly part of making Americans healthier.
  Finally, let's make sure that if they leave their job or their job 
leaves them, as I have touched on, they are going to have a safety net 
of affordable coverage.
  Each and every one of those points I have talked about is an issue on 
which Democrats and Republicans can come together. I hope the Senate 
will follow Chairman Conrad's advice about proceeding expeditiously. I 
think there are many Members of the Senate who want to tackle these big 
issues--climate change and health care--in a manner that makes 
reconciliation irrelevant because we have brought together the kind of 
broad majorities that I think are particularly within the grasp of the 
Senate on this issue of reforming health care. I look forward to 
working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle for exactly that 
kind of transformative policy to better meet the needs of the American 
people.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, just briefly, I want to thank Senator 
Wyden for his leadership. He is really an outstanding member of the 
Budget Committee. No one--no one--has spent more time on health care 
reform and tax reform than the Senator from Oregon. No one has reached 
across the party divide more assiduously than Senator Wyden. I very 
much appreciate his contributions to the committee and to the Senate 
and especially to a thoughtful debate and discussion of the key issues 
facing the country.
  One of the things that is so striking on health care is that we are 
spending about 18 percent of our gross domestic product on health care. 
And some are saying: Well, we have to spend another $1 trillion to $1.5 
trillion. It strikes some of us as improbable that when we are spending 
$1 in every $6 in our economy on health care--about twice as much 
proportionately as any other country in the world--that the answer is 
to spend another $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion.
  Senator Wyden, through really years of effort--and I mean years--
working week after week with the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office, with other policymakers, has put together a bipartisan health 
care plan. It is the only one of significance I know of that has broad-
based bipartisan support. He deserves all of our thanks for the efforts 
he has extended. I once again thank the Senator for his leadership in 
the committee, on the floor, in the Senate, and for the seriousness of 
purpose he has brought to the task.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, while I agree with Senator Conrad that 
Senator Wyden has worked hard on this and he is raising some important 
issues, I am very worried about where we may be heading in the realm of 
health care. I have been impressed with Senator Wyden's efforts to 
create something that could result in bipartisan agreement. I don't 
know where we are headed, but I respect him greatly for his efforts.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my motion to 
instruct conferees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama Mr. Sessions moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the concurrent 
     resolution S. Con. Res. 13 (the current resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2010) be instructed to insist that the 
     conference report on the concurrent resolution shall freeze 
     non-defense and non-veterans funding for 2 years, and limit 
     the growth of non-defense and non-veterans funding to 1% 
     annually for fiscal years 2012, 2013 and 2014.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the budget resolution is on the floor 
now, and I believe we ought to talk about it and be honest with 
ourselves about it. I will speak as one Senator. I know it passed this 
Senate. I don't think any Republican voted for it. Maybe a couple of 
Democrats voted against it, but it passed with extra votes to spare.
  I would say--and I hate to say it, but I will repeat what I have said 
before: I believe this is the most irresponsible budget in the history 
of this Republic. It surges debt to a degree to which we have never 
seen before, not because it assumes we are going to be in long-term 
economic turmoil--they assume we are going to have economic growth 
roaring back in a year or two and that revenues will be surging in to 
the Government. The debt and deficit we are incurring is a direct 
result of massive spending--an alteration, I believe, by all accounts 
of an historic concept that Americans have of limited government, lower 
taxes, and a vibrant private sector. We have always objected to the 
Europeans and their more socialist model. We have consistently, year 
after year, had greater growth than they have had, lower unemployment 
than they have had, and we have been proud of that.
  Of course, both Europe and the United States are in trouble today. I 
was rather mortified when the European leaders told our President and 
our Secretary of the Treasury that no, they were not going to spend 
like the United States; no, they believe we are incurring too much debt 
and they were not going to follow us; and the President of the European 
Union said our financial proposals were the road to hell. That is what 
he said about them.
  Let me share a few things before we get started on the specifics of 
the motion to instruct. This is what the President's budget called for. 
He submitted a 10-year budget, and this is not something, let me add, 
that he was forced to do. This budget represents the President's, the 
administration's, and now, I guess, this Senate's fundamental view that 
we need to spend, spend, spend more than we ever have in history and 
not be too much worried about the debt.
  So under the present state of affairs, in 2008 the debt of the United 
States, from the founding of the Republic over 200 years, totaled $5.8 
trillion--a lot of money. We paid on that $170 billion in interest in 
2008. That is how much interest we paid. We spent less than $100 
billion on education and $40 billion on highways. This year we paid 
$170 billion on interest on our debt. But, within 5 years, according to 
the President's own budget numbers we will double that debt to $11.8 
trillion in 5 years, and in 10 years, the debt will triple to $17.3 
trillion. The young people who are coming out of school today and 
beginning to work, how much interest will they be required to pay on 
that 10 years from now? Not $170 billion, but according to our own 
Congressional Budget Office that scored this carefully--and they are 
under the control of the Democratic majority, but they are a 
nonpartisan group, and I respect what they do--they calculate we will 
pay $806 billion in interest, over ten times what we are spending today 
on the education expenditures of the Federal Government, and many times 
the $40 billion we spend on highways this year.
  I would say this is a stunning development. I am worried about it. I 
think every American should be worried about it. Are those projections 
off base? I have the numbers; they just released the numbers for this 
year. Remember, last year was the biggest deficit this Nation has had 
since World War II--$455 billion. We need to be working that annual 
deficit down.
  Look: In October, the first month, we hit $134 billion; by January--4 
months--we were at $563 billion this fiscal year. That is this fiscal 
year. By January of this year, in 4 months, $563 billion in deficit 
represents the largest deficit in the Republic since World War II. Here 
we go back to the end of the quarter, at 6 months from October, through 
March, it is now $953 billion, already twice what last year's numbers 
were. So we are on track this year to see an annual deficit of $1.8 to 
$1.9 trillion. That is unbelievable.
  I ask my colleagues, does it get better? Not under the President's 
budget. Under the President's budget, in the outyears, the numbers 
continue to go

[[Page S4644]]

up, and in the tenth year, his budget projects a deficit of $1.2 
trillion. Over 10 years, his budget deficit will average over $900 
billion each year. Again, this is not projecting a war; it is 
projecting a decline in defense spending for military activities around 
the globe. It is projecting solid, even robust economic growth. The 
deficits are caused by spending. I am so disappointed we haven't done a 
better job of controlling it.
  I know the Senate budget is a 5-year budget. That is what they think 
is going to look a little better than the President's 10-year budget, 
but according to the Republican staff, they did an analysis of it and 
it is essentially the same over the first 5 years. In fact, Mr. Orszag, 
of the President's Office of Management and Budget, who used to be the 
Director at CBO, said publicly it was 98 percent of what the President 
wanted. This chart shows that in discretionary outlays it is 98.8 
percent identical to the President's 5 years; on total outlays, it is 
96.6 percent identical; and the revenue they project is 99.8 percent 
identical.
  What can we do about it? There are a lot of things we can do. The 
most difficult--and our chairman, Senator Conrad, and the ranking 
member, Senator Gregg, have made some steps toward dealing with the 
crisis in entitlements. They are growing at a rapid pace and we have to 
do something about it. This budget assumes no reform on entitlements 
whatsoever, but maybe they will be able to make something happen. I 
would like to see us project some savings in that, but it is not shown 
in this budget.
  So the motion to instruct I have filed, and that at some point we 
will be voting on, would say we ought to begin to establish some sense 
of fiscal responsibility by containing the growth in discretionary, 
nondefense, nonveteran spending. This can be done. It is particularly 
easy to do so this year because we, a few months ago--a few weeks ago, 
really--passed an $800 billion stimulus package, on top of our base 
budget. So I would have thought, when we did our baseline budget this 
year, knowing we had pumped in $800 billion over the next 2 years to 
try to stimulate the economy, that we would have a frugal baseline 
budget. Not so. In fact, according to the budget that is on the floor, 
I believe, it shows a 7-percent increase in baseline discretionary, 
nondefense spending.
  Most of my colleagues know the rule of seven: A 7-percent growth rate 
doubles your money in 10 years. So this proposal puts us on a track to 
double the spending for discretionary, nondefense spending in 10 years. 
It is an unsustainable track.

  I propose this: In light of this stimulus package--the largest single 
appropriation of money in the history of America that we passed, and 
every penny going to the debt; all $800 billion of it has to be 
borrowed so we can spend it. In light of that, we ought to be able to 
keep the baseline budget flat for 2 years and show a modest increase of 
1 percent over the next 3 years. This will make a difference. It will 
save us $173 billion. It will give us--it will start us on a process of 
having a baseline spending level for this country at a more frugal 
rate. Most States are having to cut. Most cities are showing 
reductions, 3.56 percent, some more than that, all over the country. 
They are not disappearing from the face of the Earth. It is not 
impossible to cut spending, but this doesn't propose any cut. It 
proposes 2 years of flat spending--but remember, we added $800 billion 
on top of it; and then for 3 years, a 1-percent increase. This will 
make a difference. In over 10 or 15 years, it will have an even bigger 
impact than we might think.
  I urge my colleagues to consider this. We ought to show some 
restraint. Everybody is saying, Well, we will worry about that 
tomorrow. We have a crisis today, and we are going to spend today, and 
we will worry about the debt later. But it is time for us to stand up 
and be counted, I believe. I think my amendment is modest, I think it 
is responsible, but I think it is significant. I urge my colleagues to 
consider this motion to instruct.
  I appreciate the opportunity to speak on it. I appreciate those who 
worked on this budget, but I have to say, it should not become law. It 
is a bad mistake for this country to do it. I urge my colleagues to not 
go forward with a lockstep movement to vote for this budget. I don't 
think the American people are at all happy with it. I believe they know 
we are doing something fundamental to this country--and that was a big 
part of some of the tea party talk--a deep angst out there that 
something is happening to their country that is unprecedented.
  I appreciate my colleagues' attention to this motion to instruct and 
I urge their support for it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I thank the Senator for his remarks. I 
disagree with them, but I respect them. They are deeply held on the 
part of Senator Sessions, who is an important member of the Senate 
Budget Committee.
  Let's review the record, because I have heard some things here today 
that are a bit of rewriting of history. How did we get in this ditch? 
This wasn't the Obama administration's doing. The Obama administration 
has been in office less than 100 days. They inherited this colossal 
mess. Who did they inherit it from? They inherited it from the previous 
administration, aided and abetted by what was for 6 years solid 
Republican majorities in the House and the Senate. And what was the 
record they produced? Not projections in the sweet bye-and-bye of what 
the new President's budget might do. We can look back and see what 
their policies actually did. And what did they do? Well, on spending, 
it is interesting to see the crocodile tears now, but when they had a 
chance, they doubled the spending of the country. That is a fact. They 
doubled it.
  Much more than that, they took the deficit to unprecedented levels.
  This is the deficit record of the previous administration. What you 
see is an ocean of red ink. The black is the previous administration. 
The Clinton administration balanced the budget and stopped raiding the 
Social Security trust fund. The Bush administration came in and ran up 
the deficit to record levels, put the economy in the ditch, and then 
left town. They said to the Obama administration: Good luck.
  This is what happened to the debt under the Bush administration. Not 
only did they double spending, they more than doubled the debt of the 
country, and that was at a time when the economy was relatively good. 
What a tragic record. What a legacy they have left for this country--a 
legacy of debt, deficits, and decline--the three Ds. And they are the 
Ds that belong and describe the record of the previous administration.
  What did President Obama inherit? Record deficits, the more than 
doubling of the national debt, the worse recession since the Great 
Depression, the financial markets and housing markets in crisis, almost 
4 million jobs lost in the last 6 months alone, and war in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. My goodness, what a mess he was left to try to clean up.
  Senator Gregg has made it very clear--and he is right--that we have a 
need to increase the short-term deficit, unless we want to return to 
Hoover economics, which put this country in a depression and, 
unfortunately, that is exactly what I heard in the previous speech--a 
desire to return to Hoover economics. The markets will correct 
themselves; the Government doesn't have to do anything. We can just sit 
by and watch the whole thing collapse.
  That was the philosophy of the last administration. We can see what 
happened. It was a tragic mistake. We can go back further in history 
and see what happened in the 1920s and 1930s when that same philosophy 
prevailed. It put this country into the worst depression in the 
economic history of our country.
  All I can say is, no thanks. My vote is no on going back to Hoover 
economics.
  I say to my colleague, Senator Gregg, who recognizes that Hoover 
economics is not the answer, this is the statement he made:

       I am willing to accept the short-term deficit number and 
     not debate it, because we are in a recession, and it's 
     necessary for the Government to step in and be aggressive, 
     and the Government is the last source of liquidity. And so 
     you can argue that this number, although horribly large, is 
     something we will simply have to live with.

  Senator Gregg said much the same thing today. Of course, he is right.

[[Page S4645]]

Look, nobody is more of a deficit hawk, I don't think, in this place 
than I am. But I understand in the short term, when your economy is 
collapsing, deficits and debt will grow. That is necessary because only 
the Government can provide the liquidity to prevent a complete 
collapse. But over time, it is absolutely essential that we pivot and 
go back to a more sustainable fiscal course. That is what this budget 
begins to do.
  For example, on domestic discretionary spending, we take it from 4.3 
percent of GDP in 2010 down to 3.2 percent in 2014. We are stepping 
down discretionary spending in each and every year, measured as a share 
of our national economy. That is what economists say is the right way 
to measure. I could show it in dollar terms, but that doesn't take into 
account inflation. This does.
  When I hear this talk about this being a big-spending budget, please, 
I don't know what budget they are talking about. They are not talking 
about the budget that passed the Senate because the budget that passed 
the Senate increases nondefense discretionary spending, on average, per 
year, by 2.5 percent. That is not a big spending budget.
  Let's look at the defense side as well because in 2010 defense 
spending under this budget is 4.8 percent of GDP. Over 5 years, we step 
it down to 3.7 percent of GDP almost the exact same trajectory as 
nondefense discretionary spending that we are taking from 4.7 percent 
of GDP in 2010 down to 3.6 percent in 2014. So it is one thing to come 
out and make a claim, it is another thing to prove it. Everybody has a 
right to their own opinion, but they don't have a right to their own 
facts.
  These are the facts of the budget before us. This is a tough and 
fiscally responsible budget that increases nondefense discretionary 
spending, on average, by 2.5 percent a year. Measured against the share 
of the economy, we are taking both defense spending and nondefense 
discretionary spending down as a share of our national income to the 
lowest level it has been in many years.
  Madam President, where are the increases that are in this budget, the 
2.5 percent, on average, increase in nondefense discretionary spending? 
I have already shown that we are taking both defense spending and 
nondefense spending down as a share of the national income. But where 
are the increases, as modest as they are?
  In overall discretionary spending, the biggest increase is in 
defense, which is 37 percent. Why? Because this President and this 
budget were honest about war spending, unlike the previous 
administration, which played hide the ball and acted as though the war 
wasn't going to cost anything.
  I am not overstating because for several years in a row the previous 
administration, even though we were at war, said the war in their 
budget was going to cost nothing. Let me repeat that. The previous 
administration, even after the war in Iraq had begun, claimed in their 
budget submissions that the war was going to cost nothing--nothing. 
What an amazing thing. It wasn't true.
  This President came in and said: No, we are going to write a new 
chapter. We are at war, and we are going to put the war cost in the 
budget. So in the modest increases here, 37 percent of them are 
defense; 14 percent is in international. That is also something hidden 
in the previous administration. They kept presenting what they called 
``supplemental'' budgets after their regular budget to hide the full 
cost of their involvement overseas.
  The next largest increase in the modest overall increases we have is 
for veterans; 10 percent of the increases is for our Nation's veterans. 
Why? Because they deserve the best care we can provide. We have the 
largest dollar increase for veterans health care in this budget than in 
any budget that has been presented. I am proud of that because we are 
keeping faith with our Nation's veterans.
  Ten percent of the increase is for education, and 10 percent is for 
income security. That is because we are in a deep recession. That means 
people are out of work, and if we are going to provide unemployment 
benefits to keep them from losing their homes and being out on the 
street and not being able to feed their families, we provide 
unemployment benefits. That costs money, and that is in the budget.
  Eight percent is for the census. We only do the census once every 10 
years, but we have to pay for it. It is in the budget. Six percent is 
for natural resources and the environment. Three percent is for 
transportation, and 2 percent is for other items.
  The overall context of this budget, I want to make clear--the 
deficit, in dollar terms, is being reduced from $1.7 trillion this 
year, and this year's budget is almost totally the responsibility of 
the previous President because he set in place the policies that the 
new administration inherits. We stepped down the deficit, very 
dramatically, by more than $500 billion from 2009 to 2010, by more than 
$300 billion from 2010 to 2011, by another $300 billion from 2011 to 
2012, and then more modestly thereafter, so that we are reducing the 
deficit over the 5 years of this budget by two-thirds. Measured as a 
share of the gross domestic product--which, again, economists say is 
the best way to measure--the deficit is reduced by more than three-
quarters, from 12.2 percent of GDP to less than 3 percent of GDP in 
2014. So over the 5 years, we are reducing the deficit by three-
quarters.
  One other point I want to make is that the previous administration--
not only did they more than double the debt and double spending, they 
tripled foreign holdings of U.S. debt. It took 224 years and 42 
Presidents to run up $1 trillion of U.S. debt held abroad. The previous 
President alone tripled that amount. You talk about a legacy of debt, 
you talk about a legacy of weakening the country, that is it.
  Madam President, I don't mind hearing criticism of the budget we have 
proposed. Is it a perfect document? No. Do we have to do much more, 
especially in the next 5 years? Absolutely. But this budget is a good 
and responsible beginning. If our budget is so bad, why haven't they 
offered an alternative? If our budget is as irresponsible as they 
claim, why did they not offer an alternative?
  Well, I think we know the reason. They didn't want to have to be held 
responsible for the tough choices of presenting a budget. So talk is 
cheap around here. This budget upholds the President's fundamental 
priorities of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, a focus on 
excellence in education, and fundamental health care reform because 
that is the 800-pound gorilla that can swamp this boat. Without such 
reform, we are headed on a course in health care that is totally and 
completely unsustainable. Finally, we are dramatically reducing the 
deficit over the next 5 years.
  Those are the priorities the President asked us to preserve. We have 
done it in the budget. The President supports it. He is right to do so. 
Let's remember this President did not create this mess; he inherited 
it. He has been asked to clean it up. I am proud of the aggressive 
actions he has taken to try to get us on a better course.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I will take this moment to ask those 
Senators who have motions to instruct to please come to the floor. We 
have had Senator Johanns offers his, and Senator Sessions offer his. We 
have other Senators--Senator Ensign, Senator Cornyn, Senator Alexander, 
Senator Coburn, Senator DeMint, and Senator Vitter. It would be very 
helpful if those Senators would come and be prepared to offer their 
motions so we do not unduly take the time of the Senate in quorum 
calls, especially on a day in which we are going to have 9 or 10 votes. 
We know we can only do about three votes an hour. That means three 
hours of voting when we get started on voting. So it is already going 
to be a late night. It would be very helpful and considerate to our 
colleagues if those who have motions to instruct would come to the 
floor and offer their motions.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S4646]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next two 
speakers on our side to be recognized--and, of course, there be an 
alternative speaker possibly from the Democratic side--the next two 
speakers on our side are Senator Vitter for 10 minutes and then Senator 
Alexander for 10 minutes to talk about their motions to instruct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent that after 
Senator Alexander, Senator Coburn be recognized to talk about his 
motion to instruct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I wish to speak on behalf of a motion 
to instruct the conferees, which I have here. Do I need to send this to 
the desk?
  Mr. GREGG. Not yet.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I will speak on behalf of it and send it at the 
appropriate time.
  This should be a relatively easy motion for our colleagues to support 
because it simply instructs the conferees to support a position that 
the entire Senate adopted unanimously. That provision during our budget 
debate was to accept the position of maintaining a competitive student 
loan program that provides students and institutions of higher 
education with a comprehensive choice of loan products and services.
  I ask the Chair if she will let me know when I have 2 minutes 
remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be notified.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, there are three reasons in support of maintaining a 
competitive student loan system. The first is that 12 million students 
rely on it today in New Hampshire, in Tennessee, in North Dakota--all 
across our country.
  Second is that now is not the time to be creating a new half-
trillion-dollar national bank that would run up the debt, a bank that 
would replace 2,000 private lenders, and make $75 billion in new loans 
a year. That is not a proper function of the U.S. Department of 
Education.
  And third, the cost savings that is alleged is--and I will be gentle 
in my words--a trick on students to make Congressmen look good.
  What we are going to be doing if we do not preserve this choice is 
saying to all the students who get a loan that we are going to take 
money from them and then give it to other students so that Congressmen 
can go home and brag that he or she has increased the amount of the 
Pell grants. Let me be specific in what I say.
  I was the U.S. Secretary of Education in 1991 and 1992 when we 
created something called the Direct Loan Program. We have a federal 
student loan program. Most people who go to college are familiar with 
it. About two-thirds of the students at our 6,000 different 
institutions from the University of New Hampshire to the Nashville Auto 
Diesel College to Harvard to San Francisco State have a Federal grant 
or a loan. When you get a student loan, you take it to the institution 
of your choice.
  We now have 2,000 lenders who help provide all those different kinds 
of loans. They give financial aid counseling, they give interest rate 
deductions, they help students and families plan on how to pay for 
college. In other words, they service the loans and then the Government 
supports that by guaranteeing almost all of the loans.
  We set up a separate program which we called direct lending. That 
was, you could come straight to the Government to get your loan. In 
other words, we created a government bank run by the Department of 
Education. We said to the students and to the institutions: You make 
the choice. You may either have a private student loan guaranteed by 
the Government through your local bank or financial institution, or you 
may come to the U.S. Department of Education to get your loan.
  We have had more than 15 years of experience with that now, and what 
have the students and institutions said? Three out of four say we like 
the regular student loan program, we like the choice, we like the 
private lender. Since we are getting the loan, we like the idea of 
going to a bank to get a loan because that is what banks do. If you 
want a car, you go to a car dealer. That may be changing. You may have 
to go to the Department of Treasury to get a loan the way the country 
is going. For 15, 16 years we market tested this and so we have that 
direct loan program.
  The situation right now is we have 12 million students at 4,400 
different institutions getting $52 billion in loans by their choice 
from banks instead of from the Government. One-fourth get it from the 
Government. It has been that way for a long time.
  What the President's proposal wants to do is to take all those 
choices away from the students and say: Line up outside the Department 
of Education to get your student loan, all 15 million of you. There 
will be 4,400 institutions and 12 million students who may not like 
that.
  Second point. Is a national bank a good idea? We read in the paper 
that the Government is going to take stocks in the biggest banks. So we 
are going to nationalize the banks. Then we read in the paper the 
Government is going to take stock in General Motors and Chrysler--
hopefully that is not true--so we are going to have the Government 
deciding what kind of car we are going to be making, what kind of 
plants we will have, where the plants are going to be. I cannot think 
of a worse organization to do that.
  This is a proposal to say: All right, now the Government is going to 
be your bank. It is going to be the bank for your student loans. We are 
going to create a new national bank. It would have over a half trillion 
dollars in outstanding student loans. It would make 15 million student 
loans every year, $75 billion in loans a year. We will run all this out 
of the U.S. Department of Education, a wonderful Department. I was 
myself there for 2 years. But what do we know about being a national 
bank? Not very much. Andrew Jackson would roll over in his grave about 
the idea of a national bank of this size.
  My final point. This proposal, with all due respect, is a trick on 
students to make Congressmen look good, and here is why.
  The budget we originally got said we will take $94 billion in savings 
and we will spend it on Pell grants. Let's think about that a minute. 
Common sense will tell you that the Department of Education is not 
going to know more, is not going to be able to replace 2,000 lenders at 
a cheaper cost. That simply is not going to work. That is what common 
sense would tell you.
  The Congressional Budget Office has told us that in order for the 
Department of Education to administer these loans, it would cost about 
$28 billion over the next 10 years. That is the computation I have 
made. They estimate that the cost of administering the current Direct 
Loan Program is about $700 million a year. So if they did them all, 
that would be at least $2.8 billion a year.
  Conservatively speaking, you don't have $94 billion in savings; you 
have 94 minus 28. So you have around 66. So you have $66 billion that 
goes somewhere out to banks, maybe to reduce loans, maybe to reduce 
interest rates, maybe to administer the loan program. But the bottom 
line is, if the Government takes this program over, it is going to be 
borrowing money at one-half of 1 percent and loaning it out to 15 
million students at 6.8 percent. Borrowing at one-half of 1 percent and 
loaning it out at 6.8. On every student loan--and I hope all 15 million 
students listen to this--your friendly Government is going to take back 
6.5 percent

[[Page S4647]]

of the 6.8 percent interest you are paying. What is it going to do? The 
Congressman or Congresswoman can go home to Tennessee or wherever and 
say: I increased Pell grants. But they won't tell you: I took money 
from this student to give it to that student. That is not the way to do 
it.
  What we should do, if that spread is too high right now, is let's cut 
it down--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ALEXANDER.--if the savings is estimated at $90 billion. We know 
it is closer to 60. Maybe it is 20, maybe it is 30, maybe it is 35. 
Maybe we should lower the interest rate to 3 or 4 percent or 5 percent 
or whatever is the appropriate rate. But that does not justify creating 
a national bank in the Department of Education to try to handle 15 
million loans.

  So my argument, Madam President, is this: There are colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle--and there are a number of Democrats--who 
strongly support the idea of competition and choice in higher 
education. That is why we have the best higher education system in the 
world. We have competition and choice all the way through it. The 
grants and the loans don't go to colleges; they go to the students, and 
the students choose the college. They can go to Nashville Auto Diesel 
College if they want or they can go to Harvard; it follows them to the 
school of their choice. They ought to be able to go to the lending 
institution of their choice and not line up outside of the Department 
of Education to get 15 million loans every year. That is not right. It 
is not the way our country ought to work. So the first is to preserve 
choice for the 15 million students who now have it at 4,400 
institutions.
  The second reason is, let's not be creating another nationalized 
asset in America. We need to be thinking of ways of getting the 
Government out of the private sector. I mean, this recession is not for 
the purpose of the Government taking over every auto company, every 
bank, all the student loans, and every business that is in trouble. We 
need to be thinking of ways of going the other direction. That is the 
America we know. That is the America we want. So we don't need a new 
national bank.
  Arne Duncan is the new Secretary of Education. I think he is the 
President's best appointee. He ought to be working on paying teachers 
more for teaching well, creating more charter schools, helping states 
create higher standards. That is his agenda. I don't think he came from 
Chicago to Washington to be named banker of the year, which is what he 
would be doing if he became a national bank president for student 
loans. That is what this proposal would do unless the Senate sticks to 
its position.
  Finally, I don't want to be a part of any situation which has 
Congressmen and Senators playing a trick on 15 million students and 
saying: I am going to borrow money at a quarter of 1 percent and loan 
it to you at 6.8, and then I am going to take credit for giving the 
rest of it away. I think that will come home to roost, and it ought to 
come home to roost.
  I appreciate the opportunity to make this motion to instruct, and I 
hope it will come to a vote. I hope it has the kind of bipartisan 
support it had before. I hope the President will think of all the other 
things there are to do that need attention, such as fixing the banks, 
getting credit flowing, restoring the auto companies, and leave the 
student loan system to continue to work in the way it should work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield, I would suggest that he send 
his motion to the desk at this time and set aside the pending motion.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I send to the desk my motion to 
instruct conferees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending motion is set 
aside. The clerk will report the motion to instruct.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Alexander] moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the concurrent 
     resolution S. Con. Res. 13 (the current resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2010) be instructed to insist that the 
     final conference report include the Senate position 
     maintaining a competitive student loan program that provides 
     students and institutions of higher education with a 
     comprehensive choice of loan products and services, as 
     contained in section 203 of S. Con. Res. 13, as passed by the 
     Senate.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
motion be set aside and that my motion be sent to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the concurrent 
     resolution S. Con. Res. 13 (the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2010) be instructed to insist that if 
     the final conference report includes any reserve funds 
     involving energy and the environment, that such sections 
     shall include the requirements included in section 202 (a) of 
     the Senate-passed resolution to require that such legislation 
     would not increase the cost of producing energy from domestic 
     sources, including oil and gas from the Outer Continental 
     Shelf or other areas; would not increase the cost of energy 
     for American families; would not increase the cost of energy 
     for domestic manufacturers, farmers, fishermen, or other 
     domestic industries; and would not enhance foreign 
     competitiveness against U.S. businesses.

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, a few weeks ago, when we debated the 
budget here on floor of the Senate, I passed language contained in 
section 202(a) of that budget resolution. This motion to instruct 
conferees is very simple. It says that we will fight to keep that 
language in the final budget resolution.
  What does that language do? Well, it is very simple. It says that 
this budget legislation `` . . . would not increase the cost of 
producing energy from domestic sources, including oil and gas from the 
Outer Continental Shelf or other areas; would not increase the cost of 
energy for American families; would not increase the cost of energy for 
domestic manufacturers, farmers, fishermen, or other domestic 
industries; and would not enhance foreign competitiveness against U.S. 
businesses.''
  That is a pretty simple, straightforward plea, and it is one we 
should keep in this budget resolution--fight and demand to retain that 
language in our budget. That is why I ask all my colleagues to join me 
in supporting this motion to instruct.
  At a gut level, this is very simple. New taxes kill jobs. New taxes 
kill jobs. According to a preliminary estimate based on the Center for 
American Progress data, 271,000 oil and gas jobs would be destroyed by 
the administration's proposed new taxes and fees on energy. That would 
be a bad idea, in my opinion, at any time. But now, as we are in the 
midst of a horrible recession, which is still getting worse, it is a 
horrendous idea. Now is not the time to impose these new taxes on the 
economy, including the oil and gas industry. New taxes would hurt 
workers by extending the recession and by depressing job creation just 
as, hopefully, an economic recovery in the next several months starts 
to gain a foothold.
  The oil and gas industry is significant to our economy and employs 
more than 6 million fellow Americans. Attacking that industry in the 
midst of a horrible recession is attacking those 6 million of our 
fellow citizens. Right now, they feed their families, put a roof over 
their kids' heads because of good, solid jobs in the energy sector 
producing good, affordable energy for Americans. These proposed taxes 
would kill those jobs in the midst of a horrible recession.
  This is not brain surgery. We know from history, from practice, that 
higher taxes in this sector result directly in less domestic energy, 
and restrained supplies lead to higher energy costs for consumers too. 
So in today's economy, that would stifle recovery and make Americans 
more dependent on foreign oil and natural gas.
  New taxes will make it more expensive for oil and natural gas 
companies to expand or initiate new exploration and development 
programs, and that would mean fewer jobs for American workers.
  New taxes hurt businesses, threaten jobs, and they are then passed on 
to

[[Page S4648]]

consumers as higher prices. And higher taxes are a burden felt 
throughout the economy. They discourage business expansion, investment, 
and job creation.
  Again, this is a very simple, basic, but important notion. This is no 
time to increase taxes on domestic energy production. This is no time 
to stifle what will hopefully soon become the beginnings of a recovery. 
In terms of our energy picture, this is no time to lessen domestic 
production when we should be moving in the opposite direction and 
increasing domestic production and independence from foreign sources. 
All of these energy tax proposals would do exactly that.
  Let's be clear about it. These proposals have been made. They are 
there in black and white. They are concrete. They are real proposals 
from the Obama administration and some liberal Members of Congress, and 
they fall into two big categories: No. 1, a very aggressive, ambitious 
cap-and-trade program, which is a tax on so many forms of energy and 
activity in our country; and No. 2, direct tax increase proposals on 
domestic oil and gas production. I don't believe any time is a good 
time to push that policy, but I would hope we can all agree that now, 
in the midst of a severe recession, which unfortunately is still 
getting worse, is really not the time to increase taxes on the domestic 
energy sector. It will cost us jobs, it will stifle a recovery, it will 
increase costs on consumers, and it will hurt American businesses and 
consumers.
  Madam President, let's all join in support of this language in the 
Senate version of the budget resolution. In our previous debate of a 
few weeks ago, it was adopted by unanimous consent. Let's make sure it 
is fought for and preserved in the final version of the budget 
resolution.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
motion be set aside, and I offer a motion to instruct the budget 
conferees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the concurrent 
     resolution S. Con. Res. 13 (the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2010) be instructed to insist that 
     Conference Report include a reserve fund that promotes 
     legislation that achieves savings by going through the 
     Federal Budget line by line, as President Obama has called 
     for, to eliminate wasteful, inefficient, and duplicative 
     spending, as set forth in Section 224 of S. Con. Res 13.

  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, this was accepted during our debate. The 
reason I bring it back is that if you ask the American people what they 
are worried about, they are worried about their jobs, they are worried 
about their health care, but they are also worried that we are spending 
their children into oblivion. And they are right--we are.
  One of the great things about President Obama's promises was that he 
said he recognized we have waste in the Federal Government. He 
recognized we have duplication in the Federal Government. He recognized 
we have programs that aren't working in the Federal Government. And the 
commitment he made--and he has made three times since being sworn in as 
President--is to do a line-by-line evaluation of every Federal program 
out there, to check it for waste, No. 1; No. 2, to check to see if it 
is duplicative of something else, which a third of them are; and No. 3 
is, does it have any metrics on it and is it being defrauded?
  The fact is, it is now common knowledge that at least $300 billion a 
year--at least $300 billion a year--is either wasted, defrauded, or 
duplicated in the Federal Government. The real problem is that even 
though we now have a President who wants to attack that, Congress 
hasn't been willing to do it. We have not been willing to keep our side 
of the bargain in terms of oversight and evaluation.
  It strikes me that if all the money we are borrowing to run the 
Government today was really our money, none of us would ever allow what 
is going on in the Federal Government. None of us would. None of us 
would allow the duplication.
  We had a hearing yesterday in Senator Carper's Federal Financial 
Management Subcommittee on the waste and fraud in Medicare and 
Medicaid. It went up to $74 billion--$74 billion, and we are not doing 
anything about it? Total improper payments. We only have improper 
payments in about three-quarters of the Federal Government even though 
it is a mandated law that they have to supply it. But they can't 
measure it because they don't know what they are paying for.
  The fact is, we know we have big problems. We have a fraud bill in 
front of us that we haven't finished working on that is to go after 
fraud. Well, the biggest fraud is right here. The biggest waste is 
right here. So the point ought to be, as we go into a conference on the 
budget, that we ought to commit to the American people that we are 
willing to do what they are having to do right now; that we are going 
to look at where things aren't working, we ought to look at where 
things are wasted, we ought to look at things we are not measuring and 
start measuring them, and the things that are not effective, we should 
get rid of. That is all this says. It just says we will go line by line 
through every Federal program; that we will have oversight at least 
once a year on everything that is out there, and we will make a dent in 
this $300 billion-plus.
  Here is the question. Is it moral to waste $300 billion and that $300 
billion come out of lost opportunity of our children? Is this a moral 
position the Senate wants to stand on? Does the Congress want to stand 
on that? Can our country ultimately survive, if we keep doing what we 
are doing? The answer to that is emphatically no, we cannot. Every 
republic in the history of mankind has died under fiscal collapse. They 
have not been invaded from outside until they rotted from within.
  This is a straightforward commitment by the Senate and the Congress, 
through the budget, to meet President Obama's request that what he is 
going to do we are going to do, and we are going to weed out a large 
portion of the ineffectiveness, of the duplication, and of the waste 
that is in our Government and our grandkids' Government. There is no 
reason for us to have anything other than a unanimous vote on this 
motion to instruct.
  If you do not think we should be doing that, you do not belong in the 
Senate. If you do not think we have a constitutional obligation to 
evaluate where we are spending the money, get rid of the waste and go 
line by line through all these programs, we need some other people up 
here. That is because right now our Republic is in jeopardy. It is not 
from terrorism. It is from our own potential fiscal collapse. The time 
to attack that is now.
  It is my hope the Senate will send a huge vote on this motion that we 
mean business, we are going to join hands with President Obama, and we 
are going to fix most of what is wrong, in terms of these programs.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  I withdraw that. I see Senator DeMint is here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.


                      Motion To Instruct Conferees

  Mr. DeMINT. I send a motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the concurrent 
     resolution S. Con. Res. 13 (the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2010) be instructed to insist that the 
     conference report on the concurrent resolution shall include 
     a point of order against legislation that eliminates the 
     ability of Americans to keep their health plan and eliminates 
     the ability of Americans to choose their doctor, as contained 
     in section 316 of the concurrent resolution, as passed by the 
     Senate, and insist further that an additional condition be 
     added providing such legislation shall not decrease the 
     number of Americans enrolled in private health insurance, 
     while increasing the number of Americans enrolled in 
     government-managed, rationed health care.

  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, we are here to talk about the budget. 
Obviously there are a number of different

[[Page S4649]]

things in the budget of concern and some controversy. I appreciate the 
opportunity to speak on this motion which addresses a particular part 
of the budget related to health care. During the campaign the President 
promised that any changes in health care would protect the patient's 
right to pick their plan, their doctor, and to keep the plan they have 
if they want it. My motion simply codifies that, in a sense, we make 
sure we keep the promise.
  In the budget there is a downpayment which has been referred to of, I 
think, around $700 billion on some massive changes in health care. My 
concern is this could mean an expansion of Government plans rather than 
making private health insurance more available to patients. We do not 
need to just speak of the public interest when we are talking about 
health care; it is important that we talk about the patient's 
interests. I think most of us agree that when the patients can work 
directly with their doctors, choose their own doctors, choose their own 
health plans, the Nation is better off.
  There is an old saying that success has many fathers while failure is 
an orphan. Our health care failures have a father. In most cases it is 
the Government. See, our policies make it hard for individuals to have 
a health insurance plan they can afford and own and keep. One part of 
that is the Government today pays for over half of the health care in 
America through Medicare, Medicaid, children's health programs, and 
veterans health programs. But, unfortunately, when they pay doctors in 
hospitals they often pay below cost.
  In fact, it has been estimated that Government payment causes private 
health insurance to be 20 percent to 30 percent more expensive than it 
would be if everyone paid their fair share of the cost. So the 
Government at the beginning is a big part of the problem of making 
health insurance too expensive for individuals.
  A number of us had the opportunity this week to hear from the 
President and CEO of Safeway Supermarkets. They have over 200,000 
employees. He was going through a lot of the statistics about their 
health plan and how they have been able to keep the cost of health care 
level for the last 4 years. They have done a lot of things not only to 
make health insurance and health care more accessible, they have done a 
lot of things to make their employees healthier. You see, they use a 
lot of incentives, recognizing that 70 percent of our health problems 
as Americans are caused by our own behavior--whether it be smoking or 
overweight or poor diets. It is pretty obvious through the statistics 
that people have a lot of control over how healthy they are and 
therefore how much they have to spend on health care.
  Safeway, through a lot of incentives that discourage smoking and 
encourage people to get in better shape--eat better, lose weight--are 
able to save their employees money and to make them healthier and to 
reduce the cost of the health care for the company and for the 
employees.
  There are a lot of demonstrations like this around the country that 
show private health insurance can work. Freedom can work if we let it.
  The President of Safeway asked us to make some changes that would 
give them more flexibility to offer even more incentives for people to 
cut their own cost of health care by changing their behaviors. This is 
something we should all want. Instead of moving immediately to some 
massive new Federal plan, let's look at what we can do to let the free 
market system work, where patients and doctors and employers and 
associations can work together to make private health insurance work.
  There are a lot of things we do here that make it harder. I will list 
a few. Small businesses could do the same thing as Safeway if we 
allowed them to work together in associations to buy their health 
insurance and to provide these incentives for better health and better 
access to health care. But, yet, we have consistently voted against 
allowing this to happen. Why will we not let that happen? Why will we 
not let individuals deduct the cost of their health insurance, like we 
do employers? It is almost as though we do not want individuals to have 
health insurance. Then we throw up our hands and talk about how many 
people are uninsured in our country.
  Health insurance would work much better if it were portable. We could 
change some of our laws and regulations to make it much easier for 
people who have insurance with one company to take it with them when 
they leave to go to another company or to start their own business. Yet 
we refuse to do those things that would allow the market to work.
  Right now in this country, individuals can only buy health care or 
health insurance from companies that are in their State, that are 
certified in their State. Why not let people buy health insurance from 
any State in the country as we do with other services? Why restrict it 
to a one-State monopoly, where regulations or mandates or other things 
could shoot up the cost of health care? We could create a more 
competitive, higher quality health insurance market if we let it become 
national market.
  We do other things that seem absurd, such as we will allow a small 
employer to put money in a health savings account for their employees 
but we will not let that employee use the money in the health savings 
account to pay for a health insurance premium. Why do we do that? If we 
want people to have health insurance, to have the freedom to buy and 
own their own health insurance, we would do these simple things that 
put the patient more in charge. They would have better health care, 
better health insurance, and probably a lot better health.
  What we are doing every day is sliding closer to a national or 
socialized health care system, saying the system we have does not work 
when the fact is we have done about everything we can to make it 
impossible for a free system to work. We do have serious problems and 
challenges in our health care system but almost all of them are made 
worse by the people who work in this place everyday.
  The question now is whether more Government will make those problems 
better or worse. I think to ask that question answers it on its face. 
We know the free market did not create these problems because there is 
no free market for health care in the United States today. Government 
dominates the market. It does not pay its fair share. It regulates 
everything to the point where it makes it very difficult for the 
private market to work.
  Let's not give up on freedom and go to socialism here in America 
before we have tried to fix the simple things that are obvious, in 
front of us, the things that companies such as Safeway say we can do to 
provide better insurance and make people healthier and lower their cost 
and give them plans they can keep.
  No matter what the problem is in Washington, people here seem to 
think the solution is more Government. But we do not need a new Federal 
program for health care. We need to remove the Federal barriers that 
keep freedom from working in health care.
  We have taken over banks, auto industry, mortgage lending, education, 
transportation system. Look at the areas the Government is running 
today and ask yourself, do you want to run health care the way we have 
been running education in America; as we have been running the 
financial markets for the last few months; or how we are doing with the 
auto industry now that we have essentially taken it over?
  Health care is the best in the world here in America because of that 
small segment of the private market, the free market, that is working--
the best pharmaceuticals, the best technology, the best private health 
care.
  Socialism does not work. There is not an example in the world where 
it does. We keep hearing here, why don't we be more like Europe or more 
like Canada, where people have to wait 6 months or more to get an MRI. 
The only reason theirs works as well as it does is they are the 
beneficiary of a lot of American technology that is developed in the 
free market system. They are the beneficiaries of a lot of the 
prescription drugs that come out of our country that are developed here 
because there is still a free market. This is a reason that the 
technology and the prescriptions are not being developed in other 
countries that are socialistic. Freedom works and we need to expand it 
here in America.
  Let me talk briefly about this motion to instruct conferees. 
Hopefully it

[[Page S4650]]

will not be controversial because it is essentially a promise from the 
President of the United States. My amendment would require a 
supermajority vote to consider any legislation in the future that would 
take away people's freedom to keep their own health plan or take away 
people's freedom to choose their own doctor or decrease the number of 
people with private insurance while increasing the number of people in 
Government-rationed health care programs. All my amendment says is give 
freedom a chance. The American people have not given up on freedom and 
neither should their elected officials.
  I thank the ranking member, I thank the Presiding Officer, and ask 
for the consideration of my motion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. For the information of our colleagues, we have three more 
speakers on our side who will take 10 minutes each, offering motions to 
instruct. There may be other speakers but I do not know of them. I hope 
we can sort of start voting here, depending on what the chairman 
desires to do, at some point in the near future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would be eager to do that. I think what 
we need to do is have other Members come and offer their motions to 
instruct and see what time is needed in terms of rebuttal on that. It 
would be our intention to--if you have three more on your side, 10 
minutes each, so we will probably need 30 minutes on the other side. I 
don't want to lock this in at the moment because I have not talked to 
leadership and I do not know if there are other considerations, but the 
intention would be to begin voting about 7 o'clock. Perhaps we can move 
that up. Perhaps I will not need all of that time. Hopefully not.
  Mr. GREGG. We may not need all of the time on our side either.
  Mr. CONRAD. We need to check with the leadership to see when votes 
can start, but it would be our intention, perhaps in the 6:45 to 7 
o'clock timeframe, to begin voting, perhaps even a little bit before 
that. We will have to check with the leadership.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send a motion to instruct to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the concurrent 
     resolution S. Con. Res. 13 (the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2010) be instructed to insist that the 
     final conference report limit the increase in the public debt 
     for the period of 2009 through 2019 to an amount no greater 
     than the amount of public debt accumulated from 1789 to 
     January 20, 2009.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, as we have discussed earlier at some 
length, there are three essential problems with the President's budget. 
The first is that it spends too much, the second is it taxes too much, 
and the third is it creates too much debt. It is the third issue I 
think many of us find to be the most severely distressing issue.
  Of course, it is driven by the first two issues. But the idea that we 
are going to double the debt in 5 years, triple it in 10 years; we are 
going to have, on average, a $1 trillion deficit every year for the 
next 10 years, and that we are going to build up the national debt to a 
point where it is 80 percent of the gross national product, the public 
debt is disturbing. It basically is on an unsustainable path. It means 
our Nation will be put at risk by that type of debt.
  Now, the Congress is not doing a very good job of disciplining 
itself. This problem is driven primarily by spending. But the fact is, 
the result of that spending is this explosion in debt.
  As I have held up before this chart that shows the picture of the 
Presidents since the beginning of our Nation, President Washington 
through President George W. Bush, they generated this much debt on this 
country, $5.8 trillion.
  President Obama's budget just in the first 4.5 years essentially is 
going to double that debt. All the debt added to the United States, to 
the backs of American citizens since 1776, or actually 1789 when the 
Government started creating debt, over 200 years, all of that debt is 
doubled now in just 5 years.
  That is not tolerable. Then that debt, after doubling in 5 years, 
triples in 10 years. Our children end up with this debt. Our children 
are the ones who have to pay for this. The people who will be working 
in America are the ones who are going to have to pay for this and bear 
the burden of this debt. They are going to suffer either massive 
inflation, massive devaluation of the dollar, massive tax increases or 
a dramatic disruption in our capacity to sell debt as a nation because 
of this.
  The chairman of the committee has said this is an unsustainable path. 
Yet nothing in this budget addresses the fact that this path is one we 
have chosen to follow. It is akin to saying: We know we are going to go 
off a cliff. We are on a path that takes us off a cliff, but the budget 
does nothing to change the direction we are walking and, in fact, 
accelerates our pace toward that cliff.
  That makes no sense at all to me. Why would we pass a budget which we 
know will create so much debt and so much of a burden on our children 
that our Government will not be able to be sustained and our children 
will not be able to afford the Government.
  It is counterintuitive to do something that is certainly not correct. 
One generation has sort of a fiduciary responsibility to the next 
generation. In the history of our Nation, each generation has passed on 
to the next generation a better nation, a stronger nation, a more 
prosperous nation. Yet this budget locks in place a path that 
absolutely guarantees, absolutely guarantees, that our generation will 
pass onto our children a country that is not as prosperous, is not as 
strong as what we received from our parents.
  That is not right, not fair, inappropriate. It is a totally 
inappropriate thing to do. It can be corrected. It is not as if this is 
not an uncorrectable event. There has been a decision made on the other 
side of the aisle and by the President in bringing forward this budget 
to significantly explode the size of the Government. That is a 
conscious decision that was made. The President is very forthright 
about this. He thinks that is a way to create prosperity. It does not 
happen if at the same time you are running up the national debt at 
rates which are unsustainable.
  The debt, the public debt will double during the term of this 
budget--double from 40 percent to 80 percent. We have the public debt 
so high under this budget, or the President and the Democratic Members 
of this Senate and the House have it so high under this budget that if 
we tried to apply it to the European Union as a country in Europe, for 
example, we would be rejected because, under the terms of the European 
Union, a country cannot have as high a debt as we are going to have 
after this budget runs its course.
  Actually, it is about the middle of the budget that we hit that 
threshold. Can you believe that? Countries such as France are going to 
be more fiscally responsible than we are. But that is the truth. That 
is the way this budget plays out. As I say, this is a path over a cliff 
for our Nation.
  I have offered this motion to instruct. I call it the 1789 motion 
because that is the date when we started running up debt in this 
country. In essence, it says this: We cannot pass a budget here in this 
5-, 10-year cycle that adds more debt to the backs of our children than 
the total debt that was added to this country from 1789 through January 
20, 2009.
  I think that is a fairly reasonable standard. We are going to say you 
cannot exceed the amount of debt that is being added by this budget--
that amount of debt cannot exceed the amount of debt that has been 
added to this country since our beginning, 230-some-odd years.
  We have to have some standard to live by. That seems like a 
reasonable one, that in 5 or 10 years we do not take the debt up so 
quickly and so horrifically that we actually exceed all the debt put on 
the backs of the American people since the beginning of our Nation, 
from 1789 through January 20, 2009.
  This standard, if it is passed, will be a standard that will be 
enforced under the budget. The effect of it will be that we will have 
to figure out some way to

[[Page S4651]]

reduce debt or the rate of growth of debt under this budget. That is 
reasonable. If it is the desire of this administration to radically 
expand the size of Government, as it appears to be the desire of this 
administration to take spending in this Government up to astronomical 
levels in the context of our historical spending at the Federal 
Government, to go from 20 percent of GDP up to 25, 26 percent of GDP, 
if that is the purpose of this administration, and it appears to be 
their purpose, it is their purpose, it is what they said they are going 
to do in this bill, in this budget, well, then they cannot do it by 
passing those bills on to the next generation and creating this massive 
debt.
  They have to come up with some other way to do it. My suggestion 
would be that they do not spend that much money. That would be the 
suggestion from our side of the aisle. But maybe from the other side of 
the aisle is that they raise taxes radically on all working Americans, 
which they do anyway in this bill, but they would have to raise money 
in any event. We should not put the burden on our children by creating 
all this additional debt.
  This is a simply fairly reasonable test as to how much debt this 
budget should be able to run up on our people. It should be less debt 
in 5 years than has been run up on the American people in over 200 
years.
  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. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
motion be set aside, and I send to the desk another motion for which I 
ask its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] moves that the managers 
     on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the concurrent 
     resolution S. Con. Res. 13 (the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2010) be instructed to insist on the 
     inclusion in the final conference report of the point of 
     order against legislation that raises Federal income tax 
     rates on small businesses as contained in section 307 of the 
     concurrent resolution, as passed by the Senate.

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my motion instructs Senate conferees to 
include section 307, which is included in the Senate-passed budget 
resolution, in the final conference report. As the distinguished 
chairman of the Budget Committee knows, this creates a 60-vote point of 
order against any legislation that raises income taxes on small 
businesses. The Senate, in a bipartisan vote of 82 to 16--a rarity 
these days, when we see that kind of overwhelming bipartisan support on 
anything--approved this point of order which I offered as an amendment 
to the budget. The Senate voted so overwhelmingly for this amendment--
and I suggest it would be appropriate to vote for this motion to 
instruct in at least the same numbers--because the Senate should not 
pass a budget that increases income taxes on small businesses in Texas 
or Alaska or anywhere else, especially during a time when the economy 
is struggling and when our No. 1 priority is to help employers retain 
employment for their current employees and, hopefully, at some point 
begin to increase the number of jobs available to Americans.
  Almost 400,000 businesses in Texas that employ around 4 million 
people would be especially hit by a failure to pass this motion to 
instruct and by any increase in income taxes on small businesses. For 
example, earlier when I spoke on the budget resolution, I mentioned Don 
Thedford, a small businessman in Tyler, in east Texas, and how he told 
me he has been able to grow his small business in part because of the 
tax relief we provided in 2001 and 2003. It is common sense and 
certainly intuitive that taxes can have an impact on the ability of a 
business to expand or, when taxes are unnecessarily high, cause it to 
contract.
  Another businessman in east Texas, Cory Miller from Winnesboro, tells 
a similar story. Through one business that Cory has, he drills and 
services water wells. Of course, in the process, he gives families and 
communities access to fresh water. In his business, he manufactures a 
type of pump he invented, one which he now sells to other well drillers 
and drilling rig manufacturers. He has been in this business for 25 
years and now employs 35 people. Cory, like Don, believes the tax 
relief we passed in 2001 and 2003 created the kind of positive, 
progrowth environment which allowed him to grow his business and that 
higher taxes in the middle of a recession will force him to make tough 
decisions and possibly lay off employees.
  Higher taxes for people such as Don and Cory will mean they will not 
be able to reinvest more money in their businesses to purchase 
equipment or to hire more people because they will have to pay Uncle 
Sam higher taxes instead. As Cory put it:

       Every dollar taken from an aggressive, growth-oriented 
     small businessman like myself is a dollar that will not be 
     used to expand my business or hire new employees.

  We all know if small businesses are hit by higher taxes such as those 
proposed in the administration's budget, it will cause them to 
contract. We also know that small businesses are the vehicle that has 
produced most of the new jobs over the last decade. Given that 
President Obama and his administration have said their primary 
objective in dealing with the economy is job creation and retention, I 
don't understand why they would propose in their budget to increase 
taxes on the engine of job creation known as small business.
  The Senate made its voice clear when a bipartisan majority supported 
my point of order as an amendment to the budget in the Senate. I ask my 
colleagues once again to reaffirm their support in the same bipartisan 
fashion by joining with me in supporting this motion to instruct 
conferees not to raise taxes on small businesses, the primary job 
engine in the country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are going to start voting shortly. I ask 
unanimous consent that the votes be in the order as listed in the 
original unanimous consent request under which we are functioning, 
which would be Senators Stabenow, Johanns, Gregg, Sessions, Ensign, 
Cornyn, Alexander, Coburn, DeMint, and Vitter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. As I understand from the chairman--and certainly it is our 
sentiment--we can pretty much begin voting whenever anybody is ready.
  Mr. CONRAD. I am told by leadership staff we have a problem voting 
before 7 in terms of getting some Members here.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 7 be 
equally divided between the two parties under the leadership of myself 
and Senator Conrad, and that should Senator Ensign be here, he has the 
last motion to instruct which we need to discuss. So he gets 10 minutes 
from our side or such time as he may desire from our side that is still 
remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me observe that we have a chance to 
handle a number of these motions by voice vote. There are a number of 
them we could support, we could accept. Senator Gregg will be talking 
to those Members who have motions to instruct that we could accept. I 
ask them to carefully consider that offer. We have stacked up 10 
potential votes. We can do three votes an hour. That would be three 
hours of voting starting at 7. That would take us until 10 tonight. 
Frankly, as I count them, we have six of these motions that we could 
accept, shortening the time for voting by 2 hours. That would mean we 
could be done by roughly 8. It is dependent on Senators being willing 
to take voice votes or being willing to have their motions accepted on 
a unanimous consent basis.
  I make that plea to Senators. We could do it the way that gets us 
finished with our business in a reasonable way by 8 or we could go 
until 10.
  The other thing I want to add is, this will not affect how these 
motions do in conference. If somebody has that in

[[Page S4652]]

mind, sometimes it does make a difference, but in this case it will 
not.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk on behalf of 
Senator Johanns and ask that it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Johanns] moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the concurrent 
     resolution S. Con. Res. 13 (the current resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2010) be instructed to insist that if 
     the conference report includes a Deficit Neutral Reserve Fund 
     to Invest in Clean Energy and Preserve the Environment and 
     Climate Change Legislation similar to section 202 of S. Con. 
     Res. 13, as passed by the Senate, then that Deficit Neutral 
     Reserve Fund shall also include the language contained in 
     section 202(c) of S. Con. Res. 13, as passed by the Senate, 
     which provides that the Chairman of the Senate Budget 
     Committee may not revise allocations for legislation if that 
     legislation is reported from any committee pursuant to 
     section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. GREGG. I send a motion to the desk on behalf of Senator Ensign 
and ask that it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the concurrent 
     resolution S. Con. Res. 13 (the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2010) be instructed to insist that the 
     conference report on the concurrent resolution include the 
     point of order against legislation that raises taxes directly 
     or indirectly on middle-income taxpayers (single individuals 
     with $200,000 or less in adjusted gross income or married 
     couples filing jointly with $250,000 or less in adjusted 
     gross income) as contained in section 306 of the concurrent 
     resolution as passed by the Senate.

  Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the motion 
of the Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, that instructs the 
conferees to include some but not all of the limitations the Senate 
voted for with respect to climate change legislation.
  I think the Senate needs to understand that the effect of this motion 
would be to instruct conferees on the issue of climate change without 
including the Senate's protection for consumers against higher gas and 
electricity prices, which was adopted by the Senate by a vote of 89 to 
8 during the debate on the budget resolution. The Senate adopted 
several budget amendments to try to specify what the parameters should 
be in the debate over climate change legislation.
  One of those amendments that was adopted was one that was sponsored 
by me. That amendment specified that climate change legislation could 
not increase electricity or gasoline prices. It was adopted by the 
Senate by a vote of 89 to 8.
  What Senator Stabenow's motion would do if it were agreed to is it 
would instruct that it would be the Senate's only specific instruction 
on what should be included in the final budget on climate change 
legislation, apart from the reconciliation limitations that would be 
included. So, in other words, other protections, such as those included 
by my amendment, could be excluded were the conferees to adhere to the 
instructions in her motion.
  The bottom line is, Senator Stabenow's motion to instruct would 
encourage conferees to drop the commonsense protections adopted by the 
Senate with a vote of 89 to 8 when it adopted my amendment to the 
budget resolution.
  Just, again, by way of background, I do not think there is anybody 
who would argue the point that a cap-and-trade proposal is going to 
raise energy prices. This motion does nothing to include protection 
against those higher prices.
  Under the President's cap-and-trade proposal that was contained in 
his budget, it would impose what is a massive new energy tax on anyone 
who drives a car or turns on a light switch.
  In fact, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood has said the 
administration is ``not for an increase in the gas tax as long as the 
economy is bad, people are out of work, people don't have jobs. No one 
should be promoting an increase in the gas tax.'' The cap-and-trade 
proposal the President has put forward would do just that. It would 
also increase the cost of electricity prices.
  Secretary of Energy Chu just testified recently:

       I think especially now in today's economic climate it would 
     be completely unwise to want to increase the price of 
     gasoline.

  The President and his Budget Director have been very clear that 
prices are going to go up on consumers, and they are going to feel the 
pain, the economic pain associated with higher prices for electricity 
and gasoline.
  The President himself acknowledged that when he was talking about a 
cap-and-trade proposal some time back. He acknowledged his plan would 
lead to higher electricity prices, and he said:

       Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates 
     would necessarily skyrocket.

  What happened during the debate on the budget is we adopted my 
amendment, by a vote of 89 to 8, which specifically stated that any 
cap-and-trade climate change legislation could not increase electricity 
rates or gas prices for consumers in this country. The Stabenow motion 
to instruct, if adopted, would instruct the conferees in an opposite 
direction. It would exclude that protection that was included in my 
amendment to the budget resolution.
  So I ask my colleagues in the Senate to defeat the Stabenow motion. 
The Johanns motion, on the other hand, to instruct the conferees not to 
use reconciliation to accomplish climate change legislation is a good 
motion. I hope the Senate will vote to adopt it. That was also one that 
was adopted by a fairly large margin when it was voted on during the 
debate on the budget a couple weeks ago.
  But let me restate as clearly as I can, if the Stabenow motion is 
adopted by the Senate today, it would instruct the conferees in a 
number of areas with regard to cap-and-trade legislation, many of which 
sound good: invest in clean energy technology initiatives, decrease 
greenhouse gas emissions, create new jobs in a clean technology 
economy, strengthen the manufacturing competitiveness of the United 
States, and I could go on. There are nine of them that are stipulated 
here. The one that is conspicuously and noticeably absent is the 
protection against higher prices for consumers in the form of higher 
gasoline prices and higher electric rates.
  So it was an amendment adopted by the Senate by a vote of 89 to 8. It 
would be my view that the Senate should not go back on an overwhelming 
vote like that, which made it very clear that any climate change 
legislation should not raise electricity and gasoline prices on 
American consumers. The Stabenow motion, if adopted, would not include 
that protection. I ask my colleagues to vote to defeat it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, for the advice of our colleagues, we are 
very close to being able to begin voting. At roughly 7 o'clock, we will 
begin. We have 10 motions pending, or we will have by that time. We are 
still waiting for a signed copy of one motion that I will send up when 
that is available. Again, we are asking colleagues--we have a number of 
these we can take which would reduce the number of votes that would 
have to be conducted. Senator Gregg is working diligently to talk to 
colleagues to see if they are willing to take a voice vote or take an 
acceptance by unanimous consent, and we are still waiting for final 
answers on all of those matters. So again, for the advice of our 
colleagues, we are very close to the time when we can do that.
  I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending motion to instruct 
so I may offer a motion to instruct on behalf of Senator Stabenow.

[[Page S4653]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow] moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the concurrent 
     resolution S. Con. Res. 13 (the current resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2010) be instructed to insist that the 
     final conference report include a Deficit-Neutral Reserve 
     Fund to Invest in Clean Energy and Preserve the Environment 
     (as provided in section 202(b) of S. Con. Res. 13, as passed 
     by the Senate) that would allow the Chairman of the Committee 
     on the Budget of the Senate to revise the allocations of 1 or 
     more committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels and 
     limits in the resolution for 1 or more deficit-neutral bills, 
     joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports 
     that would--
       (1) invest in clean energy technology initiatives;
       (2) decrease greenhouse gas emissions;
       (3) create new jobs in a clean technology economy;
       (4) strengthen the manufacturing competitiveness of the 
     United States;
       (5) diversify the domestic clean energy supply to increase 
     the energy security of the United States;
       (6) protect consumers (including through policies that 
     address regional differences);
       (7) provide incentives for cost-savings achieved through 
     energy efficiencies;
       (8) provide voluntary opportunities for agriculture and 
     forestry communities to contribute to reducing the levels of 
     greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; and
       (9) help families, workers, communities, and businesses 
     make the transition to a clean energy economy.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, earlier today, the Senate was very close to 
reaching an agreement to complete action on the financial fraud 
measure. It is a bipartisan measure which is the result of significant 
bipartisan work of Senators Leahy, Grassley, and virtually every member 
of the Judiciary Committee. I thought we had an agreement, but we were 
not able to do this, in spite of all of the good work of Senator Leahy. 
We simply want to limit amendments to this bill. Everyone has had ample 
opportunity to offer amendments. I guess it would have been nice if we 
had voted later last night, but I had a meeting at the White House. I 
had to be at the meeting, and I left here about 5:15 and the meeting 
lasted until about 7:30.
  We are going to file cloture tonight on this measure. Everyone should 
acknowledge that this means we are going to have a cloture vote 
Saturday morning around 11 a.m. There will be another vote on Sunday, 
if we are asked to use up all of this time. It is unfortunate, since 
people had all the opportunity they had to offer amendments. No one has 
tried to stifle amendments on this or anything else this year. It is 
unfortunate, and that will mean there will be some amendments, well 
intentioned and good, that deal with the financial crisis facing this 
country that will fall, but we have had good debate the last few days 
on this legislation.
  I wish there were some other way to do this. I pulled out all the 
stops to try to talk to a number of Senators, and I apologize for not 
being able to work something out, but that is the way it is sometimes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, would the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I think the distinguished leader is doing 
all he can do in this case. I am surprised, as he said, since this bill 
has had huge bipartisan support and bipartisan sponsorship. It is to 
try to protect people from losing their retirement funds, their home, 
their savings for their children to go to college, from these mortgage 
fraud people. Everybody across the political spectrum has endorsed the 
bill.
  We voted on every amendment to remain to the bill. There are about a 
dozen or more that have nothing to do with the bill. It is unfortunate 
for the people who are seeing their life savings being ripped off by 
unscrupulous criminals, and that we cannot criminalize it in such a way 
as to stop it. So I will be here to vote. The irony is that when the 
bill finally gets to a vote, it will probably pass about 90 to 5.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Republican 
leader be allowed to make a statement prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Republican leader is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. McConnell are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on the motions to instruct, I ask unanimous 
consent that there be 2 minutes between each vote for debate equally 
divided between Senators Gregg and Conrad or the sponsor of the motion. 
Senators Gregg and Conrad can determine who has the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that there be 10-minute votes after 
the first vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is on agreeing to the 
Stabenow motion to instruct.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Stabenow would like to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this amendment was included in the 
Senate budget resolution. It lays out clear, positive instructions for 
balanced climate change legislation that allows agriculture and 
forestry to participate voluntarily. It focuses on jobs, protecting 
manufacturing, protecting consumers, and it lays out a positive 
approach rather than just saying no to reconciliation, which is a 
policy I agree with. We need to have a positive, balanced approach, and 
this motion does that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Stabenow motion 
to instruct. She is correct that it imposes limitations on climate 
change legislation as adopted during the budget resolution, with one 
very important deletion, and that is one that consumers care about the 
most, which prevents consumers from having to pay higher gasoline 
prices and electricity rates.
  If the Senate adopts this motion, it will undermine an amendment I 
offered to the Senate budget resolution, which passed 89 to 8 in the 
Senate, which prevents consumers from having to deal with higher gas 
and electricity rates as a result of climate change legislation. That 
is an important protection. It is something the conferees need to keep 
in the budget resolution.
  I hope the Senate will vote to defeat the Stabenow motion to instruct 
because it does undermine what we did in the budget resolution with 
respect to the protections afforded to consumers when it comes to 
higher gas and electricity prices. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), and the 
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 163 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan

[[Page S4654]]


     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Wyden

                                NAYS--37

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Kennedy
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Voinovich
     Whitehouse
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote in relation to the Johanns motion to instruct.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, Members of the Senate, I rise this 
evening for the express purpose of asking for your support for a motion 
that is very straightforward. We have already voted on this in an 
amendment I submitted during the budget process.
  The motion basically says that we will not use the reconciliation 
process to pass cap-and-trade legislation. The last time this issue was 
before this body, we had 67 Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, 
who spoke very loudly and clearly opposing budget reconciliation to 
pass cap-and-trade legislation. I ask that we do that again. I ask that 
we do that again to indicate very clearly that we do not want to use 
the reconciliation process for cap-and-trade.
  I conclude my remarks by saying thank you for your thoughtful 
approach to this, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wish to point out to colleagues that 
there is no reconciliation instruction on the budget resolution that we 
are sending to conference from the Senate. In the House, the Speaker 
and the rest of the leadership has indicated there is no intention and 
no provision for reconciliation to be used for cap and trade or for 
climate change.
  With that, we are prepared to vote.
  Mr. President, we have an agreement on 10-minute votes for all 
remaining votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), and the 
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 66, nays 28, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 164 Leg.]

                                YEAS--66

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Risch
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Wicker

                                NAYS--28

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cardin
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Kennedy
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Voinovich
     Whitehouse
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote in relation to the Gregg motion to instruct. The Senator from 
New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this motion is fairly simple but very 
important. Since our country began in 1789, we have been adding debt to 
the American people. All this says is that all the debt that has been 
run up, from 1789 to 2009, through January 20, 2009, that that total 
debt should not be exceeded during the term of this budget. It seems 
like a fairly reasonable request. If we do not follow it, we are going 
to end up passing on a debt to our children that they cannot support. I 
hope people will support this limitation on the addition of debt to our 
Nation and to our children.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire has 
offered an amendment to the conference report that we not double the 
debt from the time President Obama took office through the end of 2019. 
Our budget does not go through 2019. It would not double the debt 
through 2014. The debt when President Obama took office was about $10 
trillion. So this amendment is not necessary. I urge a no vote.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, with my additional time, I would simply 
note if that is the position the majority takes, then everybody should 
vote for it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), and the 
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Ms. Roberts) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 165 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--54

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Kennedy
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Voinovich
     Whitehouse
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote in relation to the Sessions motion to instruct.

[[Page S4655]]

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this motion would instruct that the 
budget be altered so that there would be level funding for 2 years 
during the time that we are now spending an additional $800 billion in 
the economy as part of the stimulus package.
  We ought to be able to keep the baseline budget level for 2 years, 
and then finish out the 5-year budget at 1 percent growth. We have 
doubled the national debt through this budget--we will do so in 5 
years--and triple it in 10.
  Interest on the debt today is $170 billion over the President's 10-
year budget. At the 10th year, it would be $800 billion in interest 
alone, dwarfing our education budget of $100 billion, dwarfing the 
highway budget of $140 billion.
  This is the right approach to show some discipline on the baseline 
budget at a time we are surging the discretionary spending through the 
stimulus package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment that is before us will 
freeze spending, nondefense and nonveterans funding, for 2 years and 
limit the growth of nondefense and nonveterans funding to 1 percent 
annually for fiscal 2012, 2013, and 2014.
  Now, I would remind all of us, we are in an economic crisis in this 
country. The investments we make in this budget that is before us are 
important for education, for health care, for energy, and for the other 
priorities that on which this country has asked us to move forward.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion before us so that we 
can have the flexibility to deal with these critical issues before us 
today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Sessions 
motion.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), and the 
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Roberts) and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 166 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Risch
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Kennedy
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Whitehouse
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I believe the next motion in order is the Ensign motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  There are 2 minutes equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
the Ensign motion.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, this is my motion that says let's not 
raise taxes, whether they are direct or indirect taxes, on anybody 
making less than $250,000. It was agreed to unanimously when the 
amendment was considered by the full Senate, 98 to 0. Unfortunately, it 
was said that it would be stripped out. We went through a whole 
parliamentary mess to understand that this amendment would not bring 
the bill down. I am hoping the managers who take this bill to 
conference keep this amendment in conference, so we don't raise the 
taxes on any family making less than $250,000 a year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada is correct. This 
amendment passed on the budget 98 to nothing. The Democrats are happy 
to support it. It is 8:25 at night. I suggest we take it on a voice 
vote.
  Mr. ENSIGN. That is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Ensign 
motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. SANDERS. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on 
the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote in relation to the Cornyn motion to instruct.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my motion instructs conferees to retain my 
amendment, which passed by a strong bipartisan majority of 82 Senators 
who voted in favor, which says don't raise taxes on small businesses. 
We all know that is the principal job creator in the economy. It passed 
82 to 16. My hope is we have a similar if not better vote on this 
motion to instruct.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this is on an amendment many of us 
supported. We are happy to take it on a voice vote. If not, I will be 
supporting the motion, if the Senator insists on a vote this evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Cornyn 
motion.
  The yeas and nays were ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 9, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 167 Leg.]

                                YEAS--84

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Webb
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--9

     Bingaman
     Brown
     Byrd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Kerry
     Voinovich
     Warner

[[Page S4656]]



                             NOT VOTING--6

     Kennedy
     Landrieu
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Whitehouse
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote in relation to the Alexander motion to instruct.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, can we have order in the Chamber.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we need order because Senator Alexander is 
next, and if he would be so gracious as to accept a voice vote on his 
motion, we would take his motion. It is a good motion. We support it.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, thank you very 
much. I accept that.
  All the motion does is instruct the conferees to do what the Senate 
has already unanimously agreed to do to preserve the competitive 
student loan system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the motion, 
the question is on agreeing to the Alexander motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, next, I believe, is the motion of the 
Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote in relation to the Coburn motion to instruct.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. This is fulfilling a 
campaign promise of Barack Obama. He said he wanted us to go through 
the budget line by line to eliminate wasteful programs, eliminate 
duplicative programs. We accepted this earlier. This is a vote to say 
we are going to do that. We are going to hold up our end of the 
bargain, as the President is going to hold up his end of the bargain, 
and we are going to go through and find some of this $300 billion worth 
of waste.
  With that, I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, would the Senator accept a voice vote on 
his motion because we would be prepared to support him?
  Mr. COBURN. I will accept a voice vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator is very gracious.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the motion, 
the question is on agreeing to the Coburn motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wish to make a note for the record there 
was no ``no'' voiced on the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me indicate, because of the good 
nature and the graciousness of the Senator, this is an amendment that 
we will try to preserve in conference.


                                byrd rule

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from North Dakota, is it 
true that when a reconciliation bill comes to the floor, it must meet 
the requirements of the Byrd rule or be subject to a 60-vote point of 
order?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes
  Mr. LEVIN. Is it true that a provision in a reconciliation bill is 
subject to a Byrd rule point of order if it produces a change in 
outlays or revenues that is merely incidental to the non-budgetary, 
i.e., policy, components of a provision?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes
  Mr. Levin. Is it true that every provision of a reconciliation bill 
is subject to the Byrd rule; and any provision that does not meet all 
of the requirements of that rule, would be subject to a 60-vote point 
of order?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided prior to a vote in relation to the DeMint motion to instruct.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Senator DeMint is next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, my motion simply codifies some promises 
during the last campaign focusing on health care as part of this 
budget. My motion would create a 60-vote point of order for any 
legislation that takes away a person's right to pick their own doctor, 
to choose their own plan, or to keep the health plan they already have. 
These are promises the President made, that no health care reform would 
take away those rights, and my motion is to insist that the budget 
conference report include that.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I support this amendment. I think it is 
entirely reasonable in what it outlines. We all want patients to be 
able to choose their doctors. We want to make certain if people are 
happy with the health care plan they are in, that they are able to stay 
in that plan.
  I would ask the Senator from South Carolina, would he consider 
accepting a voice vote--a strong voice vote--in favor of his amendment?
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I appreciate the offer very much, but 
knowing that the chairman probably doesn't see my nature as good as 
Senator Coburn's, I suspect it might not stay in, in conference. I 
would like a rollcall vote, but I thank the Senator from North Dakota 
very much for his offer.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would note for the Record that the 
Senator from South Carolina is smiling.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the DeMint motion to.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 14, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 168 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--14

     Bingaman
     Brown
     Burris
     Cardin
     Durbin
     Harkin
     Kerry
     Levin
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Sanders
     Stabenow
     Udall (NM)
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Kennedy
     Landrieu
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Whitehouse
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is now 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to the 
Vitter motion to instruct.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, in our original Senate debate on the 
budget, we passed by unanimous consent language that is in section 
202(a) that we would not raise taxes on domestic energy production.
  That language says that our budget legislation ``would not increase 
the cost of producing energy from domestic sources, including oil and 
gas from the Outer Continental Shelf or other areas; it would not 
increase the cost of energy for American families; it would not 
increase the cost of energy for domestic manufacturers, farmers, 
fishermen or other domestic industries; and it would

[[Page S4657]]

not enhance foreign competitiveness against U.S. businesses.''
  This motion to instruct would say we need to keep that mandate in the 
final version of the budget. This is important because, unfortunately, 
the President has proposed tax increases in all those areas, and all 
those significant increases in domestic energy production are part of 
his budget proposal.
  It would be tremendously wrongheaded and would hurt Americans to 
increase taxes on energy, particularly now in the midst of a deep 
recession. I ask all my colleagues to support this motion to instruct, 
and I respectfully ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have been conferring off and on during the 
day with my distinguished Republican counterpart. I think this is where 
we are.
  Monday, at about 5:30, we will have a vote on cloture on the 
underlying financial fraud legislation. We will determine what time 
Tuesday morning we will vote on final passage of that bill, if cloture 
is invoked. Again, we will vote Monday night at about 5:30 on cloture, 
and sometime Tuesday morning we will vote on final passage.
  At this stage, we have a tentative agreement to have 6 to 8 hours of 
debate on Sebelius, and we would have passage of that by a 60-vote 
margin on her sometime late Tuesday.
  Following that, we are trying to work something out on Mr. 
Strickland, who is one of the secretaries for Ken Salazar. I talked to 
Senator Bunning. We are trying to get him some information to which he 
is entitled. If we can get that information, we will get that done very 
quickly. If we cannot, then Senator Bunning has agreed to a reasonable 
period of time--and Senator McConnell and I will determine what that 
is--to have a debate and a 60-vote margin on his approval.
  Hopefully, if the conference is completed on the budget, we would go 
to that sometime Wednesday, with a statutory 10 hours on it.
  That is where we are. It has been a difficult time. I am sorry to 
have everyone concerned about the Saturday cloture vote, but that is 
how things work.
  I say to my friend Dr. Coburn, he is a thorn in my side, but he is a 
real gentleman, as I have said before. I think this is going to work 
out very well for everybody. We all have a lot of things already 
scheduled the next few days. Having the Saturday vote would do a lot of 
damage to a lot of plans--these are not vacation plans, but whatever 
plans people have in their home States. I hope that answers everybody's 
questions.
  I have not said this often enough. I remind everyone that all the 
press is interested in is seeing Senator McConnell and me jostle. We 
jostle very little. We have an understanding as to what is good for 
this body, and sometimes our views of what is good for this body are 
different but not very much. I express my appreciation to him for all 
the work we have been able to get done this week, which has been very 
difficult, and to work this out for a Monday vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we still have pending the motion of Mr. 
Vitter, the Senator from Louisiana. That was an amendment that was 
taken by unanimous consent or voice vote during the budget resolution. 
It is now here as a motion to instruct. Obviously, we are going to have 
a rollcall vote on it. We asked the Senator to withhold. He has asked 
to have a rollcall vote, which is absolutely his right. Senators will 
vote their judgment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Vitter 
motion.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), the Senator 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Whitehouse) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 169 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Risch
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Wicker

                                NAYS--30

     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Tester
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Kennedy
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Whitehouse
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all statutory time 
is yielded back, and the Chair appoints the following conferees on the 
part of the Senate: Mr. Conrad, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Gregg.

                          ____________________