[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9400-9420]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                                  2009

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed 
to the House message to accompany S. Con. Res. 70, the concurrent 
budget resolution; that the motion to disagree to the House amendment 
be agreed to, the motion to agree to the request of the House for a 
conference be agreed to; and the motion to request the Chair to appoint 
conferees be agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the following 
message:

                            S. Con. Res. 70

       Resolved, That the House insist upon its amendment to the 
     resolution (S. Con. Res. 70) entitled ``Concurrent resolution 
     setting forth the congressional budget for the United States 
     Government for fiscal year 2009 and including the appropriate 
     budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 and 2010 through 
     2013'', and ask a conference with the Senate on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon.
       Ordered, That Mr. Spratt, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Edwards, Mr. 
     Ryan of Wisconsin, and Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, be the 
     managers of the conference on the part of the House.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I now ask we enter into 1-hour time 
agreement, equally divided, on an amendment that will be on or in 
respect to potential tax increases in the conference agreement.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. I will just say it will be a motion to instruct.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire. [Mr. Gregg] moves that the 
     conferees on the part of the Senate on the disagreeing votes 
     of the two Houses on the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 
     70 (the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     2009) be instructed to reject the revenue levels in both the 
     Senate-passed and the House-passed budget resolutions, both 
     of which assume the largest tax increase in history, and 
     include revenue levels consistent with extension of the 
     tax.rates currently in place.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this motion to instruct is necessary 
because the budget, as it left the Senate and it is represented, has 
been agreed to between the House and Senate Democratic leadership and 
membership, with no Republican input other than the courtesy of telling 
us what they have agreed to, has in it the largest tax increase in the 
history of the world--the history of the world, not just the history of 
the United States. It is a $1.2 trillion tax increase. It means that 
all Americans' taxes will go up significantly as a result of this tax 
increase. Mr. President, 7.8 million people today who do not pay taxes 
will find that they are paying taxes. These are low- and moderate-
income Americans who are not liable to pay taxes because their income 
has them in a level where there is no tax event, but under this budget 
resolution, which assumes the termination of the tax policies that were 
put in place in 2001 and 2003, those 7.8 million people will be 
returned to the tax rolls and will have to pay taxes.
  Families of four, earning $50,000--a husband, a wife and two 
children--in 2011, under this bill, would see their taxes go up $2,300. 
A single mom raising two kids--which is the toughest job in America, in 
my opinion--earning $30,000 a year, that mother would see her taxes go 
up by $1,100. That is a lot of food, a lot of clothing, and a lot of 
better lifestyle that will be lost to that family.
  A family of four earning $110,000 would see their taxes--that would 
be, for example, a mother who is teaching or a father who is teaching 
and a mother who is a police officer, one making $50,000 and one 
making, say, $60,000--that family with two children could see their 
taxes go up $4,300 under this bill.
  Small businesses--which are defined by the Democratic Party as the 
rich, will pay more taxes. In fact right now in the House of 
Representatives they are debating a bill which they claim taxes the 
rich, which it turns out are small businesses who file as individuals--
75 percent of all individual returns with income above $300,000 include 
business income, and 83 percent of all individual returns with income 
above $1 million include business income. They will be subject to the 
high-end tax which the Democratic Party is proposing in the House. 
Meanwhile, small businesses, who pay 54 percent of all individual 
income taxes--those small businesses, 27 million in total, will see 
their tax bill go up by $4,100 under this budget resolution. That could 
easily put a lot of those small businesses out of business, that type 
of a tax hike. A lot of these businesses work at the margin. Even 
though they may have high income, they are still spending a lot of that 
in order to maintain their business.
  Elderly couples with incomes of $40,000, if the Democratic budget 
goes forward, an elderly taxpayer, someone over 65 with $40,000 of 
income, will see their taxes go up $2,200. That is a lot of money for 
somebody who is probably on a fixed income and does not have too many 
ways to increase their income and are trying to make fixed costs, which 
they also cannot reduce. To be hit with a $2,200 tax bill in 2011 is a 
pretty stiff penalty to pay so the party in power, the Democratic 
Party, can spend their money on some program they deem more appropriate 
than allowing that individual to keep their money in their pocket. 
Eighteen million seniors will see taxes go up under this bill as the 
tax policies of 2001 and 2003 are repealed and taxes are increased.
  There was an argument made on the other side of the aisle that we are 
not going to do that, we are going to collect this money from 
uncollected taxes. That argument has no viability any longer. They made 
that argument last year, and the amount of money which was collected 
from uncollected taxes went up a minuscule amount, so that argument has 
no credibility. There is an argument made, primarily by Senator Obama 
in his campaign for the Presidency, that all these new programs and all 
this cost will be paid for by taxing the wealthiest Americans--only the 
wealthiest Americans; that the other tax breaks will be left in place.
  This budget does not assume that. This budget does not assume that at 
all. This budget assumes the full repeal of all the tax rates as they 
were put in place in 2001 and 2003. In addition, it assumes the full 
repeal of the capital gains rate, full repeal of the dividend rate--
which, by the way, taxes on capital gains and dividends are paid 
disproportionately by senior citizens. They are the ones who sell their 
homes

[[Page 9401]]

and end up with capital gains, they are the ones who have fixed incomes 
usually tied to dividends from their pensions.
  So that argument that this proposal is just going to tax the 
wealthiest of Americans does not fly, on the basis of the language of 
the Democratic budget. The Democratic budget says they are going to 
repeal and raise, by $1.2 trillion, those taxes--taxes which all 
Americans will have to pay.
  Senator Obama says if he just taxes the wealthy, he can pay for all 
his new spending programs. Those new spending programs total up to well 
over $300 billion a year. He has proposed over 185 new programs. If you 
score just 143 of those programs he is proposing--his new or additional 
programs--it totals $300 billion in new spending. That is on top of the 
new spending already in this budget resolution. This budget radically 
expands spending. It is well over $200 billion in new discretionary 
spending over the 5-year period of this budget and of course you put 
the Obama ``spend-orama'' on top of that and you are up another $300 
billion. All of this is going to be paid for, allegedly, by just taxing 
the wealthy.
  You have to look at the language of the bill. That is not the way it 
is going to be paid for. As I outlined, it is going to be paid for by 
taxing working Americans, elderly Americans, single moms with families 
and individuals who run small businesses.
  In fact, if you took Senator Obama at face value, and what he is 
proposing, he is going to raise all of these taxes on the wealthy to 
pay for his $300 billion of new spending and the $200 billion in this 
bill. The $300 billion figure is an annual number, by the way.
  The maximum amount, if you were to return to the top rate in America, 
back to the rate during the Clinton years, which is what has been 
proposed by Senator Obama, the maximum amount that generates annually 
is $25 billion. The fact is, we will not get that much. These are 
wealthy people. They understand how to hire tax accountants and avoid 
taxes when taxes become disproportionate, and they view them as 
something that should be avoided rather than paid.
  The great advantage we have from the tax cuts which were put in place 
by President Bush and which caused this economy to expand and caused 
Federal revenues to grow in the most aggressive way in our recent 
history, was that tax laws have reached fair levels.
  Take, for example, the capital gains tax which, under this bill, 
under this budget, will be doubled. The capital gains tax today, 
because it is at a reasonable rate, 15 percent, is generating huge 
increases in Federal revenues.
  In fact, CBO estimated when the capital gains rate went to 15 
percent, it would generate about $100 billion less than what it has 
actually generated over the last 3 years. And why did we obtain an 
additional $100 billion in tax revenue as a result of having a lower 
capital gains rate? For two reasons: One, because the capital gains 
rate was fair so people were investing in activity that was taxable, 
and they were not trying to avoid taxes by investing in nontaxable 
activity; and, two, because when you set a fair capital gains rate, 
what you do is incentivize people to go out, recognize their capital 
gains--in other words, sell the asset which they obtained gain in, and 
then take that new money they have gotten and reinvest it in some other 
activity which also generates capital gains.
  Instead of having the capital gains event locked down, instead of 
having assets held simply because people do not want to pay taxes, and 
those assets may be nonproductive assets, thus not having productive 
use of those dollars, a reasonable capital gains rate, which is what we 
now have in this country, causes people to go out and invest and act in 
the most efficient way with the money they have.
  As a result, not only do they generate more taxes to the Federal 
Government, $100 billion more than was estimated, but they also, at the 
same time, create more jobs. Because those dollars are used more 
efficiently, there is more entrepreneurship, there is more risk taking, 
and more people are willing to go out and take the risks to create a 
job because they know they are going to have a chance to get an 
adequate return, and their efforts will not be taxed away.
  But this budget rejects all of that. This budget rejects that whole 
concept. It says: Let's go back to the period where we taxed people at 
extremely high rates. And why? Why do they tax people at extremely high 
rates? Is it to reduce the deficit? No, the deficit goes up 
dramatically under this bill.
  Does it reduce the national debt? No, the national debt goes up 
dramatically under this bill. The reason they want your tax dollars is 
because they want to spend your tax dollars. There is a genuine 
philosophy on the other side of the aisle that says they know how to 
spend your money better than you do. You, the working American, you, 
the small business man or woman, you, the single mother, they know 
better how to spend your money than you know how to spend your money. 
Thus, they want to raise your taxes in order to reprogram it in some 
sort of program that they deem to be of a better social purpose than 
allowing the person who earned that income to keep their money in their 
pocket so they can make decisions which benefit them and their family 
with those dollars.
  That is the philosophical difference that divides us and could not be 
shown in a more stark way than in this budget as it left the Senate and 
which will be conferenced, because this budget repealed almost all the 
constructive tax policy that was pro-growth oriented in the President's 
proposals of 2001 and 2003, and as a result it drives this massive 
increase in the tax burden on the American people.
  This is not a tax on the wealthy. This is a tax on the middle class 
because it is middle-class America who will have to pay for the $1.2 
trillion tax increase. To review the numbers, 7.8 million people who do 
not pay taxes today will have to pay them under this bill; 27 million 
people who run small businesses will see their taxes go up by $4,100; 
43 million working Americans who have children will see their taxes go 
up by $2,300; and senior citizens, 18 million senior citizens, will see 
their taxes go up by $2,200.
  Obviously, we have a deep philosophical difference with the majority 
on this point. And that is why we are suggesting an instruction which 
says we should not proceed down the path of having the world's largest 
tax increase. Let's at least tell our conferees: Do not do that to the 
American people. Keep the tax laws at a level that is fair and is 
responsible.
  By ``responsible'' I mean the tax laws, as they presently are 
structured today, are returning more revenue to the Federal Government 
from our income tax than we have ever had in our history. And even as a 
percentage of the gross national product, they are returning more 
revenues to the Federal Government than has been the historical 
average. Mr. President, 18.7 percent of gross national product today is 
being collected in tax revenue. Historically, it was only 18.2 percent. 
So these tax laws have not reduced Federal revenue, they have actually 
increased Federal revenue, as I pointed out when I discussed the 
capital gains rates.
  We should not be putting in place a tax burden on working Americans 
which is going to be counter to the idea of creating jobs, creating 
economic incentives, and giving and allowing people to keep in their 
pockets money which they have earned and which they know better how to 
spend than we as a government know how to spend.
  I reserve the remainder of my time. I look forward to continuing this 
discussion as we proceed through the afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) The Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I have enjoyed listening to my 
colleagues describe this budget resolution. But it has nothing 
whatsoever to do with the budget resolution we have produced. It is a 
wonderful speech. It is the same speech they give every year no matter 
what the budget resolution says. But it absolutely has no attachment to 
what we have presented.
  I hear this talk about the biggest tax increase ever in the world 
history. He

[[Page 9402]]

said the same thing last year. And you know what happened. We have cut 
taxes. In fact, I have that chart too. It is very interesting because 
he gave precisely the same speech last year. It may have been exactly 
the same speech.
  And what has happened with this Democratic-controlled Congress? Well, 
here are the tax cuts we have enacted, $194 billion. After they said we 
were going to have the biggest tax increase in the history of the world 
last year, we have cut taxes by $194 billion, with $7 billion of 
revenue raised through loophole closers that have been enacted, 
loophole closers that, frankly, many of them supported to advance the 
legislation that was important to us all. But that is the record.
  After the speech, the identical speech, virtually the identical 
speech he gave last year, that we were going to have the biggest tax 
increase in the history of the world--what is the record? We have cut 
taxes by $194 billion, overwhelmingly on the middle class.
  Now, let's look at this budget resolution. The green line is the 
revenue that is in our resolution. The red line is the President's. 
That is a very small difference, as you can see, a very small 
difference between the two. In fact, here is the difference: $15.6 
trillion of revenue in our resolution, $15.2 trillion of revenue in the 
President's proposed budget. That is a difference of 2.6 percent. So I 
do not know what he is talking about when he is talking about the 
biggest tax increase in the history of the world. That has nothing 
whatever to do with our resolution.
  In fact, our resolution has substantial tax relief. The Baucus 
amendment adopted on the Senate floor with bipartisan support extended 
the middle-class tax relief by providing for marriage penalty relief, 
by providing for extension of the child tax credit, by extending the 
10-percent bracket.
  We also provided alternative minimum tax relief to prevent 26 million 
people from being caught up in the alternative minimum tax, almost an 
eightfold increase from the number affected now. We have taken 
effective action to prevent that from happening. We have estate tax 
reform that will provide that only two-tenths of 1 percent of estates 
will face any taxes.
  We provide for energy and education tax cuts. We provide for property 
tax relief, and we provide for extension of the popular tax extenders. 
All of that is done in this bill. Now, there is a difference in 
revenue, as I indicated, a very modest 2.6 percent between what is in 
our budget resolution and what the President called for.
  Well, where are we going to get that revenue if we are not going to 
have a tax increase? Well, the first thing we do is go after the tax 
gap which is now estimated at $345 billion a year. That is the 
difference between what is paid and what is owed, $345 billion a year.
  If we got 20 percent of that amount alone we could meet our numbers 
with no tax increase. But that is not the only place we can look 
because, as I have shown before on the floor of the Senate, this 
building down in the Cayman Islands called Ugland House, this little 
modest, five-story building is the home to 12,748 companies.
  Now, I have said this is the most efficient building in the world. 
Think of that. That little building down in the Cayman Islands, and 
12,748 companies claim they are doing business out of that little 
building. Of course, the only business they are doing in this building 
is monkey business because what they are doing is claiming they are 
doing business there in order to engage in tax avoidance. That is the 
business they are engaged in in Ugland House.
  Now, if anybody doubts it, here is a recent story from the Boston 
Globe from March 6 of this year: Shell companies in Cayman Islands 
allow Kellogg, Brown and Root to avoid Medicare and Social Security 
taxes in the United States. What they have done down there this is the 
Nation's top Iraq war contractor until last year, a subsidiary of 
Halliburton, is to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in 
Federal Medicare and Social Security taxes by hiring workers through 
shell companies based in this tropical tax haven.
  Now, what we are saying is, let's shut down this kind of scam. How 
much is there? Well, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said 
there is $100 billion a year that is being lost to the U.S. Treasury in 
tax scams being run in these offshore tax evasion schemes. So if you 
have $345 billion a year in the tax gap, money that is owed that is not 
being paid, and the vast majority of us pay what we owe, it is 
outrageous that some are getting away without paying what they owe. And 
our argument on our side is that we ought to go after those folks who 
are not paying what they owe and are cheating all the rest of us.
  On our side we say: Let's shut down these offshore tax havens that 
are costing us another $100 billion a year, these tax scams that are 
cheating all of the rest of us. You add those two together, that is 
$445 billion a year.
  Again, now we need less than 20 percent of that in order to 
completely close this revenue gap.
  But it doesn't end there, because I have shown this chart on the 
floor of the Senate too. This is a picture of a sewer system in Europe. 
What does a sewer system have to do with the budget of the United 
States? We have companies in America buying European sewer systems to 
write them off on their books to reduce their taxes here. Then they 
lease the sewer systems back to the European cities that built them in 
the first place. Is that unbelievable? Our friends on the other side 
don't want to do anything about that. They don't want to shut that 
down. They think that is OK. We don't. We think that should be shut 
down. This is another tens of billions of dollars a year in these types 
of tax scams.
  We have things we have done to try to shut down some of these 
operations. We have put these in bills that the President has 
threatened to veto. This is almost hard to believe, but this is what 
has been going on. We proposed shutting down these scams. One of the 
things we propose is codifying economic substance, prohibiting 
transactions with no economic rationale done solely to evade taxes. We 
proposed shutting down schemes to lease foreign subway and sewer 
systems and depreciate their assets on the books of the United States 
to avoid taxes here. We have proposed ending deferral of offshore 
compensation by hedge fund managers trying to avoid taxation in this 
country. One of those people, by the way, earned over $1 billion last 
year alone. And there is not just one; there are many of them who 
earned over a billion dollars a year last year. Then they cook up a 
scheme where they move their money offshore to avoid paying taxes in 
this country and stick all the rest of us with the bill. We have said 
no, let's shut that down. The President has threatened to veto that.
  We have talked about expanding broker information reporting to 
prevent this evasion and taxing people who leave this country and give 
up their citizenship to evade taxes they owe here. As unbelievable as 
it may sound, we have people who give up their U.S. citizenship, go to 
one of these tax havens and say: We don't owe any taxes in America 
because we don't live there anymore. We are no longer a citizen of that 
country. We are now down in the Cayman Islands or another one of these 
tax havens.
  In fact, I went on the Internet. It is amazing to go on, put in 
``offshore tax havens.'' Punch that in and then do a search. You will 
get over 1 million hits. One of my favorites is ``live offshore in a 
luxury yacht, never pay taxes again.'' This is the kind of scam that is 
going on. We say shut it down. If we only got back 15 percent of the 
money in the tax gap--not 50 percent, 15 percent--if we got back 15 
percent of this tax gap, of these abusive tax shelters, we could meet 
our numbers with no tax increase. Remember, in our resolution, we have 
hundreds of billions of dollars of tax reduction on middle-income 
people, because we have extended all the middle-class tax cuts. That is 
what this resolution does. The other side doesn't want to do that. What 
they want to do is make sure to protect the wealthiest among us. They 
want to protect those who are engaged in these scams. I don't know why 
they want to. I don't get it. But that, apparently, is their position. 
They are going to have to defend it.

[[Page 9403]]

  As I have indicated, there is no assumed tax increase in this budget 
resolution--none. There are substantial tax reductions, hundreds of 
billions of tax reductions.
  I will end as I began. Last year the Senator on the opposing side 
gave the same speech, that our budget resolution had the biggest tax 
increases in the history of the world. Here is the record. Now we can 
look back and we can see what happened. Did Democrats increase taxes? 
No. Democrats cut taxes by $194 billion. In fact, people all across the 
country are getting checks from the Federal Government right now that 
represent those tax reductions enacted and, by the way, enacted on a 
bipartisan basis. The President signed the bill. So people know they 
got a tax reduction from Democrats when we have been in control of 
Congress this year, because they are getting the checks in the mailbox 
right now.
  After the Senator asserted last year we were going to have the 
biggest tax increase in the history of the world, it didn't happen. 
There wasn't any tax increase. Instead, there were tax reductions.
  There is no tax increase in this budget resolution either. None. None 
is assumed. We don't need any to meet the revenue numbers which are 
only 2.6 percent more than the President's revenue numbers. In fact, we 
have substantial middle-class tax relief. The middle-class tax relief 
that is in this package is right here. We extend the middle-class tax 
provisions that provide marriage penalty relief. We extend the 
important child tax credit. We extend the 10-percent bracket that 
provides such good relief to middle-income people. We have provided for 
relief from the alternative minimum tax. We have provided for estate 
tax reform. We have provided energy and education tax cuts, property 
tax relief, and the popular tax extenders. All of that tax relief is in 
this package.
  I hope our colleagues will reject the assertion that is in the 
Senator's motion because it bears absolutely no relationship to the 
budget resolution before us.
  I yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask unanimous 
consent that the time be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL. Madam President, 2 years ago, Democrats campaigned on 
tax relief for middle-class families. They called for fiscal restraint 
and lowering the national debt. But as we have seen over the last year, 
our good friends are more concerned with increasing taxation, 
increasing regulation, and increasing litigation. The budget they 
unveiled this year is the latest example.
  If we were to follow this budget, it would go a long way toward 
turning us into a country like France, at a time when even the French, 
as we all know, are trying to pull back and trying to get out of the 
ditch into which they have put themselves.
  This budget lifts the curtain on what they have in store for 
America's already overburdened taxpayers. Instead of lowering taxes on 
America's working families and small businesses, this budget contains 
the largest tax hike in U.S. history.
  It is not just the rich who would see their tax bills increase by an 
average of $2,300 a year; it is taxpayers making as little as $31,850, 
and couples earning $63,700. These are families the Democrats are 
calling rich and on whom they want to raise taxes.
  Under this budget, every American would see his or her share of the 
national debt rise by $6,440 as a result of dramatically higher 
spending requests.
  At a time when American families are tightening their belts and 
checking their own spending habits, Washington should be doing the 
same. Yet they are proposing the opposite. At a time of serious 
economic concern, they want to grow the Federal budget to over $1 
trillion in nonemergency spending.
  We have heard a lot of talk over the last few months from the other 
side about how middle-class families are struggling to make ends meet. 
We even worked together to pass a stimulus package that puts money back 
in the wallets of middle-class families. But now our good friends on 
the other side want to take that money back--and then some--to fund 
their irresponsible spending hikes.
  Let's be clear about what this budget is: It is the Democrats' way of 
saying yes to the failed tax-and-spend policies of the past. American 
families cannot afford this budget, American job creators cannot afford 
this budget, and neither can our economy.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Well, Madam President, it is the same song, second verse. 
Again, it is words. It is no wonder our friends on the other side have 
lost three congressional elections in a row because they keep chanting 
the same mantra that has no relationship to reality. These are the 
exact same speeches they gave last year: biggest tax increase in the 
history of the world.
  Now we can come and we can check the record. We do not have to guess; 
we do not have to suppose; we do not have to engage in make-believe. We 
can look at the record. Here it is: Democrats lowered taxes by $194 
billion. If you are listening, you do not have to wonder if that is 
true. All you have to do is go to your mailbox because all across 
America people are getting checks from the United States that represent 
the tax cuts Democrats in Congress passed. So this is not a question; 
this is a matter of fact. Democrats cut taxes $194 billion. Those are 
not my numbers. Those are the numbers from the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  All of this talk about big tax increases is just talk. It has no 
relationship to this budget and no relationship to last year's budget. 
It has no relationship to this year's budget.
  I present the factual record. It is as clear as it can be. We lowered 
taxes $194 billion in the year under the budget resolution we passed 
last year.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the 
time be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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 now suggest we yield back the time 
remaining on this motion and that we turn to the motion to instruct by 
Senator Kyl. So I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I will not object. So let's go forward 
with that, and then I will seek recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask that we enter into a unanimous 
consent agreement on the Kyl motion--there will also be a side by 
side--that we do an hour on the two, equally divided.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, to my knowledge we have not seen the side 
by side.
  Mr. CONRAD. Oh, they are typing up the comprehensive agreement. So 
shall we----
  Mr. GREGG. Why don't we proceed with Senator Kyl, and after we see 
your side by side, we can talk about time agreements because we already 
have an hour.
  Mr. CONRAD. Let's proceed on the basis that we will make a good-faith 
attempt that we try to do this in an hour. Is that OK?
  Mr. GREGG. That is fine with me.

[[Page 9404]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you, Madam President. I am going to take a couple of 
minutes to lay this motion down and then leave the floor. I will come 
back. Senator Grassley will be here in about a half an hour. I know he 
wants to speak to this motion. So the total time consumed should not be 
more than that, but exactly when we will do the time I am not precisely 
sure.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, if I can say, maybe we can work things 
out. We will try to be flexible and work in people as they come. We 
will do our best effort to get it done in an hour.


                           Motion To Instruct

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I have a motion at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] moves that the conferees 
     on the part of the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 70 (the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009) be 
     instructed to reject the House amendment that assumes $110 
     billion in tax increases as a result of having to offset the 
     extension of tax policies that expired at the end of 2007 and 
     will expire at the end of 2008 (including the AMT patch, the 
     research and experimentation tax credit, the State and local 
     sales tax deduction, the combat pay earned income tax credit, 
     education tax credits, and the alternative energy tax 
     credits) and insist that the final conference report include 
     in the recommended levels and amounts in Title I reductions 
     in revenues commensurate with extending these tax policies 
     without offsetting tax increases.

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, let me simply describe in about 90 seconds 
what this motion does, and then I will come back and make the 
presentation for it in a moment. This motion would instruct the House 
and Senate budget conferees to assume a 1-year extension of the 
alternative minimum tax so-called patch, in other words, that the 
filers who have not had to pay that would not have to pay it in the 
future for another year.
  Also, it assumes an extension of the tax extenders, as we call them. 
Those are the provisions of the Tax Code that have already expired, 
things such as the R&D tax credit; plus those that expire at the end of 
this year, things such as the various energy tax credits; and some 
international tax credits that have always been the subject of our 
extender policy.
  These tax extenders and the AMT, alternative minimum tax, fix would 
not have to be offset by raising taxes on others. That is the key point 
of this motion, that we extend the relief we have given to filers--
about 26 million filers this year--from the alternative minimum tax, 
and extend the various so-called tax extender provisions that are 
traditionally extended here, and that in neither case would we be 
raising taxes in order to pay for them.
  Madam President, I will reserve discussing this further until some of 
the other speakers are here to make the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I will offer a side-by-side amendment 
that seeks to achieve the same goal. This is one place where we have an 
agreement. None of us want to see the alternative minimum tax imposed 
on the American people. That would involve 26 million people, up from 
4.2 million now. All of us want the so-called tax extenders to be 
extended. It would involve the research and development tax credit and 
others.
  We would add this additional caveat: We ask that every effort be made 
to offset the cost of these policies by closing the tax gap, shutting 
down abusive tax shelters, and addressing these offshore tax havens 
that are turning out to be so abusive. We think that is better policy.
  We absolutely agree that the alternative minimum tax should not be 
expanded. We absolutely agree that the so-called tax extenders, such 
things as the research and experimentation tax credit, the deduction 
for State and local taxes, the deduction for classroom expenses, the 
deduction for qualified education expenses, the incentive for the 
charitable IRA rollover, the combat pay earned-income tax credit, and 
various energy tax incentives, be extended. But we believe that rather 
than just putting that on the charge card and adding to the debt--
meaning that we go out with a tin cup and borrow more money from the 
Chinese and the Japanese--we pay for it by going after these abusive 
tax shelters, going after these tax scams, these offshore tax havens, 
and do it without raising taxes. So I hope my colleagues will support 
that as a general principle and an instruction to the conference 
committee.
  With that, I note the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent 
that the time be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The journal 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 am going to extend my remarks.
  I think many people in the country hear the phrase ``AMT'' and they 
wonder: What is that? It is the alternative minimum tax. It was 
established decades ago because they found there were people making 
$200,000 a year who weren't paying any taxes. To address that, they 
created the so-called alternative minimum tax.
  The problem with it is that it was never indexed for inflation. The 
result is that now, instead of affecting just a few people, it is 
affecting millions of people. In fact, the estimates are that if we 
don't do anything about this, it will increase from 4 million people in 
2007 to 26 million people in 2008.
  In this budget resolution we say: No, no, don't let that happen. 
Don't increase taxes on 26 million American families. Don't do that.
  In this instruction to the conferees, we say: Yes, absolutely, don't 
allow the alternative minimum tax to grow like a cancer. Instead, let's 
take care of that. Let's remove it as an option, and let's try to pay 
for it by closing down these abusive tax shelters, these offshore tax 
havens, and closing the tax gap.
  Our friends on the other side have a different approach. They just 
want to put it on the charge card. The problem with that is if you 
eliminate the alternative minimum tax without paying for it, it adds 
$1.7 trillion to the debt. That is trillion with a ``t.'' Where do we 
get the money? Well, we borrow it.
  We have been doing a lot of borrowing under this President. This is 
his record. He is building a wall of debt that is almost unprecedented 
in the history of the finances of this country. When he came in at the 
end of his first year, the debt was $5.8 trillion. At the end of his 
tenure, it will be $10.4 trillion. In the 8 years he is responsible 
for, the debt will have risen to $10.4 trillion. In fact, he will have 
nearly doubled the debt of the country.
  More alarming is where we are getting it from because increasingly we 
are getting this money by borrowing from Japan and China. We even owe 
Korea money. This chart shows it. This chart shows that it took 42 
Presidents 224 years to run up $1 trillion of U.S. debt held abroad; $1 
trillion of foreign-held debt--foreign-held U.S. debt. It took 224 
years to run up $1 trillion of foreign-held debt and all these 
Presidents, 42 of them. This President tops them all. He increased 
foreign holdings of our debt by $1.51 trillion so far, and counting. He 
has dug a very deep hole.
  We have proposed a series of reforms.
  I held up just moments ago a picture of a French sewer system and 
asked the question: What does this have to do with the U.S. budget? 
Well, it turns out it has quite a bit to do with the U.S. budget 
because we now find companies in this country--wealthy individuals 
buying European sewer systems, not because they are in the sewer 
business but because they want to avoid taxes in this country. How do 
the two have any relationship? Well, here is how it works: They buy a 
European sewer system, they put it on their books here, they depreciate 
it for tax purposes here, reducing their tax bill, and they lease the 
sewer system back to the European cities that built them in the first 
place. What a scam.

[[Page 9405]]

  I just held up a picture of this little five-story building. Here it 
is. This little building down in the Cayman Islands is home to 12,748 
companies. What a remarkable building this is. That little five-story 
building is supposedly the corporate headquarters of 12,748 companies. 
Now, are they all really doing business out of that little building 
down in the Cayman Islands? No, of course not. They are not doing 
business down there. They have a postal drop down there in order to 
claim that it is their headquarters for tax purposes. Why would they do 
that? Because the Cayman Islands doesn't have any taxes. So what they 
do is they have a subsidiary of this company that sells to another 
subsidiary that is wholly owned, and they sell at cost to subsidiary 
No. 2. Then they sell from subsidiary No. 2 to subsidiary No. 3 that is 
down in the Cayman Islands. They sell to them at cost. Then the 
subsidiary in the Cayman Islands sells to another subsidiary over in 
Germany or France and shows a big profit in the Cayman Islands where 
there are no taxes. That is an outrage. The vast majority of us pay 
what we owe. We have some who don't, and they are getting away with it 
with these scams. We say shut it down.
  Let's not go borrow more from China and Japan and dig the hole deeper 
the way the President wants us to do. That is what our budget 
resolution says. That is what my amendment says. Yes, absolutely, don't 
let the alternative minimum tax be expanded from 4.2 million people in 
this country to 26 million. Don't let that happen. Yes, extend the 
research and experimentation credit. Yes, extend the sales tax 
deduction. Yes, provide for these other important tax incentives, 
especially the energy tax incentives. But instead of borrowing the 
money, instead of just going back hat in hand to China and Japan and 
asking them for more money, let's shut down these offshore tax havens, 
these abusive tax shelters and this tax gap where we have people who 
owe money but aren't paying it. Let's go after them instead of going 
over to China and being dependent on the kindness of strangers to 
finance our country.
  We are headed for a cliff here because under this administration the 
debt has skyrocketed before the baby boomers ever retire. I have shown 
the chart that shows what has happened to the debt. The debt has gone 
up like a scalded cat.
  Here is what has happened to the debt under this President and these 
policies: up, up, and away. He has nearly doubled the federal debt. He 
has more than doubled the foreign holdings of our debt. In fact, the 
increase in foreign-held debt under this President is now 150 percent 
of the amount accumulated by all previous Presidents combined over 224 
years. As a result, we now owe the Chinese hundreds of billions of 
dollars. We owe the Japanese even more. We even owe Korea now over $40 
billion. Enough is enough. Enough is enough. Let's quit digging the 
hole deeper. Yes, absolutely, let's provide middle-class tax relief. 
That is in this budget.
  As I have said before, with all the talk from the other side about 
the biggest tax increase in the history of the world, here is the 
record. Democrats had been in charge for 1 year and we have provided 
$194 billion of tax relief, and you don't have to wonder if that is 
true. Just go home and check your mailbox. You are receiving a check 
passed by this Congress, signed by the President--a stimulus package--
with $150 billion in that package alone. But we have taken other steps 
to provide other tax relief as well, including not allowing, last year, 
the alternative minimum tax to be expanded, and we are not going to let 
the alternative minimum tax be expanded this year either. That is a 
fact. That is the record. It is not rhetoric, it is a fact.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called 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. Perhaps, I would ask the ranking member, could we just 
agree that whenever we go into a quorum call, we equally divide the 
time?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that we adopt that as a rule, 
that any time we go into a quorum call, we equally divide the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I would ask the Senator from South Carolina, would it be 
acceptable--I understand it is with Senator Boxer who has a matching 
motion to yours--to have 30 minutes equally divided?
  Mr. DeMINT. Yes.
  Mr. GREGG. On both motions?
  Mr. DeMINT. I just have one. Thirty minutes equally divided?
  Mr. CONRAD. On the two.
  Mr. DeMINT. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. That would help very much. I appreciate the Senator's 
courtesy.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we have 30 minutes 
equally divided on the DeMint and the Boxer motions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I send a motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] moves that the 
     conferees on the part of the Senate on the disagreeing votes 
     of the two Houses on the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 
     70 (the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     2009) be instructed to insist that if the final conference 
     report includes section 304 of S. Con. Res. 70, the deficit 
     neutral reserve fund to invest in clean energy, preserve the 
     environment and provide for certain settlements, as passed by 
     the Senate, that such section shall include an additional 
     requirement that legislation providing for new mandates on 
     greenhouse gas emissions that would harm the United States 
     economy or result in a loss of jobs should not be enacted 
     unless similar mandates are enacted by China and India.

  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I want to take a few moments to explain 
this motion. I hope we can all agree on it. If there is one thing that 
we hear from both sides when we are talking about trade around the 
world, and trade agreements, it is there needs to be a level playing 
field; that trade needs to be fair; that the terms should be the same 
on both sides.
  This motion to instruct the conferees addresses that one issue. It 
would prevent Congress from passing any law with new mandates on 
greenhouse gas emissions that would harm the U.S. economy or result in 
job loss unless both China and India had the same mandates--in other 
words, if we had a level playing field. It is not going to help the 
environment in the United States or the world if we pass mandates that 
raise the cost of doing business in our country, particularly those 
companies that are energy intensive, especially manufacturing, if we 
create mandates that do not exist in India or China. Our companies will 
simply relocate to other countries, taking American jobs with them.
  The point of this motion is to put in front of all of the conferees 
the idea that it is important for us to reduce greenhouse emissions, to 
reduce CO2 emissions all over the world. But it is also 
important for us to keep in mind that if we do something that is 
isolated to the United States, that hurts our economy and costs us 
jobs. It makes no sense if we don't require the major industrial 
countries, such as China and India, to do the same.
  So we have seen over the last 15 years that CO2 emissions 
in the United States have actually grown less than

[[Page 9406]]

the economy has grown. So our productivity is increasing, and our use 
per capita, as far as CO2, is actually declining. We see at 
the same time a 100-percent increase in emissions from China and India. 
Anybody who watched the prelude to the Olympics in China can see the 
results of that in the air.
  So I ask my colleagues--particularly the conferees--to support the 
idea that we will not do anything that puts new emissions standards on 
our companies in this country, if we know it is going to hurt the 
economy or jobs, and that we need to insist the same standards apply in 
China and India.
  With that, I will yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I rise to speak against the DeMint 
motion and in favor of the Boxer motion, which takes on the issue of 
global warming in a way that is consistent with the information and the 
facts that we have today.
  The DeMint motion is a throwback to 10, 11 years ago when everybody 
around here, including myself, was saying we better watch out and not 
do anything about global warming until the undeveloped world acts. We 
better sit back and do nothing. You know what. We cannot do that 
anymore. This is a time of change. This is a time where we have to 
challenge the status quo. This is a time when we need to stand up as 
the leading country in the world and say that we can fight global 
warming, and we can win this fight. As a matter of fact, if we approach 
it with hope, not fear, we are going to create tens of thousands, 
hundreds of thousands of new jobs. We are going to get our people off 
of fossil fuel, not having to worry about gas prices anymore, and we 
will create new technologies that will spur us on to an economic 
renaissance.
  But what happens with the DeMint motion, he gives China and India a 
veto power over what we should be doing. Imagine sitting back and 
saying we are not going to do anything about human rights until China 
acts. We are not going to do anything about a better educational system 
until India acts.
  Why would we give up our chance to take the mantle of leadership and 
finally grab hold of this issue, and do it in a way that makes us quite 
strong in the global marketplace? So when you look at the DeMint 
motion, it is very similar to what passed in the last century, if you 
will, more than 10 years ago. That is why I think my friend's party is 
in so much trouble--because they fight against change, they fight for 
the status quo, they fear change, and this is a time of change.
  I didn't ask for this moment during the budget debate. I don't think 
this is the right place to debate a cap-and-trade system because we 
will be tackling this subject matter soon enough. It is not going to be 
easy. Change isn't easy. But this is positive change, where America 
says we will lead. We know from the Pentagon, and we know from our 
intelligence officials that if we do nothing, we become less secure in 
the world because global warming, we know, will have an impact on 
drought, floods, cyclones--all of the things we are already seeing--if 
we do nothing because we have given over our chance to act to India and 
China, and our people will suffer.
  Yesterday, the Bush administration declared that the polar bear is a 
threatened species because the polar bears' habitat is shrinking away. 
The permafrost and the ice that the polar bear stands on to hunt is 
literally melting out from under them. Now, for the Bush administration 
to declare that is extraordinary. They said it is because of global 
warming, and that in 30, 40 years we will not have any more polar 
bears. That is one example.
  Scientists tell us 50 percent of God's species could be gone. For 
those of us who happen to believe there is a spirituality to this 
world--and I do--it is our destiny to save the planet. It is not our 
destiny to support the DeMint motion, which leaves it up to China and 
India.
  We have a better way. We say in our substitute that no legislation 
should pass mandates on greenhouse gas emissions until it effectively 
addresses imports from China and India and other nations that have no 
similar emissions programs. We agree that no bill should pass unless it 
addresses the imports from these nations. So that is our alternative--
not to say stop the world, I want to get off; not to say that America 
will be missing in action in the biggest domestic challenge of our 
time, but to grab hold of that challenge and make sure we do it in a 
way that is fair to our industry, fair to our workers, fair to our 
consumers, fair to our manufacturers. And when those imports come in at 
our ports, if those countries seeking entry into our country do not 
have equivalent programs, then they will have to get the allowances at 
the border in order to bring those goods into the country.
  That is the way we are going to handle this problem. So, once again, 
I say to my colleagues, we are going to have a debate on global warming 
very soon, thanks to Senator Reid putting it on the schedule for June 
2.
  When we are told by the leading scientists of the world that if 
global warming is left unchecked, our planet will become inhospitable 
to us as human beings, to our children, to our grandchildren, and that 
there will be vectors around that we cannot combat, there will be 
amoebas in our water, bacteria that have never been there before; there 
will be storms, cyclones, droughts, and floods--extreme weather 
conditions; when we see that the habitat for beautiful animals--God's 
creatures, such as the polar bear--is already being impacted now as we 
speak, for us to say we will do nothing until China acts--I don't want 
China dictating what I do in this country. I don't want India dictating 
what I do in this country. I want to make sure that we handle this 
issue right and that we are not disadvantaged because they may not act. 
That is what our alternative does.
  I hope we will have a good vote on that alternative and reject the 
status quo--the throwback position of Senator DeMint.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I appreciate the comments by my 
colleague from California. Certainly, it should be our highest priority 
as a nation to continue to remove CO2 emissions throughout 
our country. We don't need to wait for any other country to act, only 
our own.
  We do need to recognize that if we put such a burden on our 
industries in America, they will move production to China, and they 
will do their polluting somewhere else rather than here. If that is 
what our legislation does, then we do nothing for the environment, and 
the only thing we do for our country is send jobs overseas. We need to 
be smarter in how we deal with this matter.
  The side-by-side motion by my colleague from California would add 
insult to injury. She wants to leave us open to lose jobs in America by 
putting mandates on our companies that hurt our economy and cost us 
jobs. Then she wants to add taxes on products that are coming from 
other countries that don't abide by our mandates so that products cost 
more for the people who live here, many of whom would not have jobs.
  We cannot solve our environmental problems with this kind of 
convoluted logic. The motion I have put forward simply says if--and 
only if--a mandate is known to hurt our economy and costs our jobs, 
then we need to figure out a different way to deal with it than to put 
a mandate on a U.S. company in competition with businesses that don't 
have the same mandate in other countries we trade with.
  It is only common sense, and it doesn't make sense, again, to send 
jobs overseas and then try to add taxes to products that we buy from 
around the world. I encourage my colleagues to think this through. Let 
me provide a

[[Page 9407]]

few more facts about what we are trying to do.
  We need to work to reduce greenhouse gases, and there are many things 
we can do that do not hurt our economy and don't drive jobs out of our 
country. In fact, if we look at it closely, good economics is usually 
good for the environment. We see that if we move with all compassion 
but just knee-jerk reactions, we end up with programs, such as an 
ethanol mandate, that do not help the environment, raise the price of 
food, and hurt people all over the world. I am afraid that same type of 
thinking is going on right now.
  It is a laudable goal, one with which I agree, that we should 
continue to work in all reasonable ways to reduce CO2 
emissions in our country.
  One recent study from the University of California found that China 
passed the United States in carbon emissions in 2006 and is now the 
largest pollution-producing country in the world. This has just been in 
a few short years, and they are growing much faster than we are.
  We do need to keep in mind that carbon in the air that comes from 
China does as much to hurt the worldwide environment, if, in fact, it 
does affect global warming--it doesn't matter if it is coming from the 
United States or China. If we ignore what other countries are doing, we 
do it at our own peril.
  My motion is very similar to bipartisan agreements that we had in the 
Congress when discussing the Kyoto agreement. It makes no sense to bind 
our own companies with expensive mandates if we do not have cooperation 
from countries in other parts of the world. We simply move our 
production and our jobs somewhere else. So we need to be logical about 
it.
  I mentioned before, according to a World Bank study, both China and 
India have increased CO2 emissions by nearly 100 percent 
from 1990 to 2004, while the United States emissions in that same 
period only increased by 25 percent, which is less than the growth of 
our economy during that period.
  This emissions scheme we have talked about would export American 
manufacturing jobs to China and India. With the solution that is being 
presented by my colleague from California, she is basically saying: OK, 
let's hurt the economy and lose jobs in this country, but we can make 
up for it by raising prices of goods that come to us from China and 
India. That is not going to help anyone in this country, and it is not 
going to do anything to reduce emissions in the world. It is playing 
musical chairs with American jobs and basically encouraging the 
environment to be spoiled in other parts of the world.
  In order to truly address greenhouse gas emissions, it is imperative 
that China, India, and other countries that are emitting need to work 
together. So if we take this on simply as one country, we will hurt 
ourselves, we would not help the environment and we will send jobs 
overseas and actually encourage pollution, magnified, in effect, by not 
acting in a way that tries to seek cooperation around the world.
  I certainly encourage my colleagues to respond to the need to reduce 
CO2 emissions and to look at ways we are doing it already 
that actually create jobs and don't take them from our country. But 
let's not solve the problem by making it worse and shipping our jobs 
and pollution overseas and expect to do any good with our legislation.
  Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the 
floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 5 minutes 57 
seconds. The Senator from South Carolina has 6 minutes 51 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, will you let me know when I have used up 
5 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so advise.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I say to my colleagues that Senator 
DeMint's motion is a back-to-the-future position. Again, it is why his 
party is in so much trouble. It is not looking ahead with hope; it is 
looking ahead with fear. It is giving veto power to countries that we 
should not be following. We should not be following the environmental 
policies of China. You can barely breathe over there. Yet they are 
going to have the same until they decide to act and we sit here and do 
nothing about one of the greatest challenges to face our generation.
  I cannot look into the eyes of my grandchildren and tell them: Sorry, 
I am giving over my proxy to China, I am giving over my proxy to India, 
and I can't do anything about it.
  I don't know exactly what my colleague is talking about. He is 
telling me what I support, and he has no right to do that. He has no 
right to say I support higher taxes on consumers because I don't. He 
has no right to say I want to give away jobs. I have more support from 
working men and women in my State than probably almost anyone in this 
body. I take second to none in that category of fighting for the 
environment and fighting for jobs.
  Actually, if my friend knew a little bit more about what we are 
talking about, he would understand that the bill we are going to come 
up with has one of the biggest tax cuts in history in it--let me repeat 
that, one of the biggest tax cuts in history in it--which is going to 
ease the pain and ease the burden on consumers and on our people and 
help them pay for high prices of gasoline.
  My bill has cuts in carbon of 2 percent a year that we think is 
doable, and our bill is deficit neutral. It is, as my friend should 
know, a very bipartisan bill--Boxer, a Democrat; Lieberman, an 
Independent; Warner, a Republican, and it has bipartisan support.
  For someone to stand up and say the purpose of that bill is to hurt 
consumers, hurt America, hurt jobs, then they have not read the bill or 
they are giving a political speech. You can put lipstick on a pig, but 
it is still a pig.
  I look at my friend's motion as a sad one. It is a position of 
surrender. It takes us back to the nineties, when we didn't know what 
we now know about global warming. It takes us back to the nineties, 
when we feared taking on that challenge. But our time has come. The 
time for change is here. It is time, once and for all, to stand up and 
say we are not going to depend on foreign oil anymore, we are going to 
make sure we have technology developed in this country that will get us 
away from foreign oil and away from the countries that hold such a vise 
around our neck. That is why Senator Warner is on this bill, that is 
why Senator Lieberman is on this bill, that is why I am on this bill, 
and many other colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  So for my colleague to bring this issue up on the budget resolution 
is unbelievable because he has not even seen the bill. To stand up and 
say that what I want to do and what those of us who want to act against 
global warming will do is bad for our country is quite the opposite.
  In Great Britain, over the last 10 years, they have reduced carbon 
emissions by 15 percent. Their GDP rose by 45 percent, and 500,000 jobs 
were created that are green-collar jobs.
  You can stand in the corner and shiver and shake and say: Please, 
China, please act so we can act. You can say: Oh, India, please act so 
we can act. Or you can stand up like an American and say: We lead.
  This vote is an important vote because what I say in my side-by-side 
motion is we will not support legislation that does not address the 
issue of imports from countries such as China and India that have no 
emissions program.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Madam President, I have a motion to instruct at the desk. I wish to 
make that clear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] moves that the 
     conferees on the part of the Senate on the disagreeing votes 
     of the two Houses on the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 
     70, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     2009, be instructed that--
       no legislation providing for new mandates on greenhouse gas 
     emissions should be enacted until it effectively addresses 
     imports from China, India, and other nations that have no 
     similar emissions programs.


[[Page 9408]]

  Mrs. BOXER. I didn't want to forget to offer the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I reserve the remainder of my time. I look forward to a 
good vote on the Boxer motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask to take 10 minutes off the Kyl 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I believe we should adopt Senator 
Kyl's motion to instruct the budget conferees. First of all, I wish to 
comment on the status of the alternative minimum tax. There is some 
good news regarding the need to do a patch to protect over 20 million 
families. The Democratic leadership in this body recognized the 
importance of halting the effect of this tax on these families and 
provided room in the budget for a patch for this year.
  I commend my friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, for that 
improvement of the budget resolution over previous years. I do so again 
and note that the Kyl instruction is consistent with the chairman's 
position in that regard.
  The bad news is, we are halfway through the year and the patch has 
not been done. The reason is that Blue Dog Democrats in the other body 
will not supply the votes for an un-offset patch in the House of 
Representatives.
  By the way, the only Blue Dog answer to deficit reduction is to raise 
taxes. We have seen it on the AMT, and we have seen it on spending 
legislation. We are seeing now the GI benefit provisions in the war 
supplemental bill. Why they think of only raising taxes and not of 
where to cut spending levels to offset the need to spend someplace else 
I don't understand. They never seem to propose spending cuts as a 
remedy. I think it is fair for me to say they never do. They only ask 
for higher taxes.
  I hope people in this body will start to pay attention to this issue. 
The Blue Dogs' bark is deficit reduction, but their bite is always more 
taxes.
  In addition to the AMT patch, both bodies need to deal with several 
expired provisions of tax law. We need to focus on this problem and get 
legislation ready.
  Earlier today, the House began work on an extenders bill. It is 
offset with tax increases. I urge them to send the bill to the Senate 
so Chairman Baucus and I will have a vehicle to deal with this pressing 
problem. We need to act ahead of time. We need to act before the IRS 
forms are finalized. We cannot go through another filing season fiasco, 
such as waiting until December last year when it finally got passed, 
and the IRS had a lot of extra work after the forms had already gone 
out. Let's not create big problems for our taxpayers and the Internal 
Revenue Service.
  Senator Kyl's motion then is very important to assure us of the 
quickest route to complete action on AMT and extenders. The quickest 
route is the same route as last year: Drop the offset demand.
  Folks on the other side happen to be complaining all the time that 
offsets are essential. I would like to make it clear that the policy 
issues behind offsets are one thing. We ought to ask ourselves the same 
question on any tax policy proposal, whether it raises revenue or loses 
revenue. The question should be: Does a tax legislative proposal make 
tax policy sense? It ought to be decided on the basis of policy. That 
is the bottom line.
  On the matters of tax policy, Senator Kyl's motion to instruct, the 
answer is very evident. On the AMT patch and extenders, the answer is 
overwhelmingly clear. The answer is ``yes'' on the motion to instruct. 
The policy call is a slam dunk. It is backed up by the politics; that 
is, supermajority votes for an AMT patch and extenders in the House and 
Senate that are very difficult to get.
  We have to divorce the merits of the current law provisions from the 
offset question. Offsets should be judged on their merits. An AMT patch 
and extenders should be judged on their merits. Why should we seek 
divorce of the two, some might ask. Here is the reason.
  Right now, we have a budget process, including pay-go, that is biased 
toward higher taxes and, of course, higher spending. As evidence, take 
a look at expiring spending provisions. According to the CBO, they 
total $1.3 trillion--a whole $1.3 trillion. That is double a permanent 
AMT patch score. That spending is not subject to pay-go. It, unlike 
expiring tax provisions, is included in the baseline; hence, it is home 
free. Just like the record tax increases built into this budget, so too 
is a record spending increase.
  I have not even talked about appropriations increases. That 
additional above-baseline spending is included as permanent, once 
passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, through you, I ask the Senator if he 
would yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent agreement we have 
worked out?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I think it would be helpful to the overall process that 
we do this.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following motions to instruct conferees be the only motions, except the 
pending motions, with no amendment in order to the motions, and that 
would be the Conrad AMT and the Kyl AMT amendments, with 60 minutes 
equally divided, with the time already consumed being applied to the 60 
minutes; that there be a Democratic nuclear energy reserve fund 
amendment and a Republican nuclear energy reserve fund amendment and 
the two amendments be limited to 30 minutes equally divided; that there 
be a Democratic OCS amendment and a Vitter OCS amendment, with 30 
minutes equally divided.
  We have already had initial debate on the Boxer China-India and the 
DeMint China-India amendment with 30 minutes equally divided, and we 
will apply all time already consumed to that 30-minute limit.
  Finally, a Gregg or Republican $1 trillion cap on discretionary 
spending amendment with 30 minutes equally divided; that points of 
order be waived; that upon the use of debate time on each motion, it be 
set aside and the motions to be voted in the order listed; that there 
be 2 minutes prior to each vote, and then after the first vote, the 
vote time be limited to 10 minutes each; that upon the use of all time, 
the Senate proceed to vote in relation to each motion; that there be 60 
minutes of general debate time available to the chair and the ranking 
member.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I would note that obviously the 
amendment that has already been debated in the time consumed, the Gregg 
amendment, would be the first amendment to be voted on and these other 
amendments voted on in the order indicated, or we will do it as 
offered. I guess we can do it as offered, if that would accommodate the 
Senator from California, because we did the Boxer-DeMint amendment 
offered earlier. We will do it as offered.
  I thank the Senator from Iowa for his courtesy.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Would you give me 1 more minute added to what I had?
  Mr. CONRAD. Absolutely, an additional minute. Always, anytime, to the 
Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I have been given 1 additional minute, 
so I have 5 minutes left at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The bottom line is that it is about time we start 
treating spending and taxes the same, under pay-go. So the Kyl motion 
to instruct treats expiring tax relief the same as expiring spending. 
That reason alone, aside from the merits of the AMT patch and 
extenders, should be enough to get the support from all of us on the 
Kyl motion to instruct.
  The bottom line is that pay-go has a bias toward tax increases and 
increased spending. We ought to have the same rules apply to the 
expenditure side as

[[Page 9409]]

to the tax side. Presently, they do not. But this would make it 
possible for that to be the case.
  The chairman of the Budget Committee continues to say he is going to 
bring in all this money from shutting down abusive tax shelters, which 
I also favor. Some examples are cross-border leases of foreign sewer 
systems, which he mentioned, or shutting down tax havens, which he 
mentioned. I would support him in every one of those efforts.
  But Congress has done a great deal already, shutting down abusive 
leasing deals. We did that in 2004. The Senate has tried to shut off 
tax benefits from older deals, but the House Democrats have rejected 
closing those loopholes. So I do not see how the distinguished chairman 
can count on this revenue even though he keeps saying this is the 
answer to all of our offset problems--in other words, getting enough 
new revenue to offset tax cuts someplace else.
  The chairman also continues to say we can get $100 billion per year 
from shutting down offshore tax havens, according to the Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations. The fact is, there are no legislative 
proposals out there that the Joint Tax Committee has scored to bring in 
anywhere close to the $100 billion we are led by the other side, by the 
majority, to believe we are going to be able to do.
  The 12,748 companies the chairman says are in the Ugland House in the 
Cayman Islands are not claiming to be doing business there. It is 
simply their registered address, just like an address in Nevada or 
Delaware is a registered address of many more thousands of companies. 
Does the chairman have a picture of an office building in Wilmington, 
DE, or Reno, NV? I assume the chairman is just as willing to go after 
onshore tax evasion facilities by State corporate law as offshore tax 
evasion, and he would want to do so in a way that does not put our 
information exchange network at risk.
  The chairman knows that it is the Joint Committee on Taxation that 
provides Congress with revenue scores, not the Permanent Subcommittee 
on Investigations. Anything that would raise the kind of money assumed 
in this budget would involve a significant change in tax policy, which 
is the last thing the chairman says he wants to do.
  Again, I do not see how the distinguished chairman can count on all 
this revenue without assuming substantial tax increases when the Joint 
Committee on Taxation, the ``god'' of assuming revenue coming in under 
tax law changes--if that ``god'' cannot score it.
  I yield the floor.
  Madam 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. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I had earlier filed and Senator Grassley 
had spoken on a motion to instruct conferees. An alternative has been 
presented by Senator Conrad. I wish to discuss both of them, this 
motion to instruct conferees on the alternative minimum tax, and the 
so-called tax extenders.
  Each year Congress is required to fix the AMT because without such a 
fix--around here it is called a patch--but without such a fix, it would 
apply to, last year 22 million people, this year 26 million people. It 
was never intended to apply to those people.
  It was originated about 20 years ago because there were a couple 
hundred millionaires who were not paying taxes because of all of their 
credits, deductions, offsets, and so on. People in Congress thought 
that was not right, so we said: Well, no matter what, even if you have 
enough other tax shelters to eliminate your tax liability, we are going 
to make you pay an alternative minimum tax, no matter what. But it was 
not indexed for inflation, so now everyone is going to have to be 
paying it. Each year Congress says: Well, we did not intend that, so we 
will fix it so you do not have to pay it this year.
  The question is not whether we are going to relieve taxpayers from 
that--we will--but whether the rules of the Democratic majority that it 
has to be paid for will, in fact, be implemented so that we have to 
raise taxes in order to save taxes, save people from having to pay 
taxes. Obviously it does not make any sense to say to taxpayers: You 
should have not to pay the alternative minimum tax, but under the 
Democratic rules we have to raise your taxes so that the Government 
does not lose any money from us relieving you of that tax liability. 
That does not make any sense.
  So each year we waive that requirement. All we are saying here is we 
need to do that again this year. I understand the pay-go requirement is 
part of the Democratic rule around here. It has not been applied in the 
past for a very good reason: It makes no sense, and it should not be 
applied here either.
  We never intended that this tax apply to 26 million taxpayers, we 
never intended to collect the revenue, we are not going to collect the 
revenue. So why do we have to make the Government whole for revenue 
that we never intended to give it in the first place, especially since 
it means raising taxes on people in order to ``pay for the reduction in 
revenues to the Treasury''? That is what this resolution is about.
  The other half of it is to instruct the conferees that we need to 
also extend the so-called extenders. Now, that is shorthand around here 
for a variety of tax provisions which provide various credits and other 
relief to taxpayers such as the research and development tax credit. 
But we only do that a year at a time, so every year about this time we 
have to start talking about passing the extenders package. We are going 
to do it; there is not going to be any debate about it. The 
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee made the point earlier 
that agrees with us that this needs to be done; it is a question of how 
we do it.
  What we are doing is saying here, today, we need to do it in the 
following way: Pass it as we did last year. You do not have to raise 
taxes somewhere else in order to ``pay for it.''
  This is not a case that make any sense for us. If you are going to 
give tax relief, why would you raise taxes to have to pay for it? We 
are not counting on any revenue. Every year we do it this way. So why 
the charade that somehow we have to raise taxes to pay for something we 
never intended to collect revenue from in the first place?
  That is what this resolution does. Let's strip away the pretense here 
that somehow or other we are going to pay for it. ``Pay for'' are not 
the right words anyway. That starts from the presumption that the 
Government owns all of this money, and that if we ever decide to give 
the taxpayers a break so they do not have to pay for it all, the 
Government gets to make up the revenue some other way.
  How does the Government make up revenue? It taxes people. That is the 
only way the Government makes revenue. So the assumption is, well, the 
Government deserves all of this money, and if we ever say we are not 
going to collect some of it because we want people to keep more of it, 
then we have to make that up some other way, obviously by raising 
taxes.
  I would rather start from the other premise, which is that the money 
belongs to the people and especially in times of economic downturn it 
is important that they be able to use, in the way that they deem most 
beneficial, the income they have earned, and that when we say we are 
going to relieve them of the alternative minimum tax liability, for 
example, we are doing that for a reason, and we do not need to start 
from the premise that it is the Government's money and somehow we have 
to keep the Government whole and give the Government money by raising 
taxes even though they were never going to collect this AMT revenue in 
the first place.
  This must sound like a strange debate to the American people. But 
that is what the rule the Democratic majority has in place would 
require. That is what the budget would require. All we are saying is, 
since we are going to be passing a budget, let's instruct the conferees 
on the budget here that is not

[[Page 9410]]

what we are going to do here. We are going to do it as we have in the 
past, as we did last year. We are going to pass the AMT relief, we are 
going to pass the extenders, and, no, we are not going to raise taxes 
on someone in order to pay for them.
  Now, what is the alternative that the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee comes up with? It is the identical motion I have, with one 
other provision. It is this addition:

       And that we should insist that every effort should be 
     made--

  That is a sure sign for: We are not really going to do anything about 
this, but we at least want to make it sound good--

     to offset the cost of these policies by closing the tax gap, 
     shutting down abusive tax shelters, addressing offshore tax 
     havens without raising taxes.

  Well, I am glad we have the ``without raising taxes'' in there, 
because none of us wants to raise taxes. But this reminds me of the 
candidates, and we have all seen them out on the stump: Yes, we have a 
huge Federal budget deficit, but I want to spend more money. The way we 
are going to pay for it is we are going to end waste, fraud, and abuse 
in Government. That is a sure sign for a politician who has not figured 
out how to get the money in any other way. Everyone is going to end 
waste, fraud, and abuse. You know, I used that phrase in a sort of 
facetious way, but actually I think it is in here.
  Shutting down abusive tax shelters. There we are. Abuse. Waste, 
fraud, and abuse. Addressing offshore tax havens. The reality is, the 
Finance Committee on which we sit comes up with offsets to offset true 
tax policy whenever we can, and we have wrung out our Tax Code for 
every last dollar we can find that involves waste, fraud, and abuse.
  There are not any abusive tax shelters out there. If they are out 
there, we have not found them or we would sure enough have gotten the 
money from them. The same thing about offshore tax havens. We have 
gotten about $60 or $70 billion from these, and there is no more to 
get. If there is, we would have gotten it by now.
  Then there is the tax gap. The tax gap is this: Not everyone pays all 
of the income taxes the IRS thinks they owe, and the problem is we do 
not know exactly who has not paid. But the estimates are that if most 
businesses in an industry pay $100, and some only pay $80, the 
assumption is that maybe those that only pay $80 probably ought to be 
paying more. We cannot figure it out, but we think the money would be 
there if we had a better way to account for it.
  We have held hearings, and the experts basically say: There is not 
much more you can get. You probably would have to pay more to find it 
than it is worth to collect.
  We did do one thing, though. We actually subcontracted out to some 
tax collectors. If they can go out and find some and they can bring it 
back, they get a little piece of the action. It would help us because 
they would collect some of these revenues.
  The only thing from the other side is, well, let's eliminate that 
policy. We are not going to send these guys out to try find where these 
taxes are. So if they intended to collect the revenue or to end or 
minimize the tax gap, they would not be sponsoring the legislation to 
fire all of the people we hired to go out there and find the revenue.
  The bottom line is, this is a nice sounding phrase, but it is like 
the person that goes out and says: I am going to end waste, fraud, and 
abuse. That is how I am going to pay for all of the new spending I am 
recommending.
  I urge my colleagues to support the motion I have filed, the motion 
that Senator Grassley spoke to, and to reject the motion of the 
chairman of the Budget Committee which, at the end of the day, 
recognizes the reality. We are going to do the AMT patch. We are going 
to do the tax extenders. We are not going to pay for them. So let's 
don't pretend like we have to find revenue from someplace else in order 
to make this happen.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and inquire how much remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KYL. How much remains on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The other side has 16 minutes.
  Mr. KYL. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I am not speaking on Senator Kyl's 
motion. He has reserved his time. I am going to ask to set aside his 
motion and send another motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] moves that the 
     conferees on the part of the Senate on the disagreeing votes 
     of the two Houses on the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 
     70 (the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     2009) be instructed to insist that the final conference 
     report includes a level for 2009 budget authority not to 
     exceed $1 trillion for non-emergency discretionary 
     appropriations.

  Mr. GREGG. As I understand the order, we have pending the motion to 
instruct that I offered, the motion to instruct which Senator Kyl 
offered, the motion to instruct which Senator Conrad offered relative 
to the motion of Senator Kyl, the motion to instruct which Senator 
DeMint offered, the motion to instruct which Senator Boxer offered in 
relationship to Senator DeMint's motion, and this motion; is that 
correct? Is there anything else pending right now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is one correction; otherwise, you are 
correct. The Conrad motion is not pending.
  Mr. GREGG. The Conrad motion relative to the Kyl motion has not been 
sent to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. Relative to the unanimous consent agreement, other than 
the motion I have just sent to the desk, which is a trillion-dollar 
spending cap, we would still have available to be sent to the desk the 
motion relative to nuclear energy reserve and the motion relative to 
offshore drilling, with the side by sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair. I believe all the motions that are 
pending, to the extent they still have time remaining on those motions 
pursuant to the unanimous consent request, that time is reserved; is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. So right now I will address the trillion-dollar spending 
one and have that come off that time which is, I believe, 30 minutes 
equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. What this instruction says is, we should not be spending 
$1 trillion on discretionary accounts around here. This budget for the 
first time, the Democratic budget, because of its increases last year 
on top of the increases in this budget, has hit the trillion-dollar 
mark. That should be a fairly big red flag, that we are now going to 
spend $1 trillion in discretionary spending. I have trouble 
comprehending what a trillion dollars is. I suspect almost everybody 
does. But if you take all the taxes paid since we began as a republic, 
I believe it totals something like $42 trillion. That would be over 200 
years. So this one budget is going to spend a fairly significant amount 
of what has been raised in taxes since our country began. It is a big 
number, $1 trillion. It seems to me we ought to sort of maybe draw a 
line here, take a breath, and say: Let's stop. Let's think about what 
we are doing. Let's see if rather than spending this huge amount of 
money, we can't save a little money.
  Last year the Democratic budget, and then the Democratic 
appropriations bills, increased spending by $22 billion. That was what 
they proposed. It is not just a 1-year event when you raise spending 
around here by $22 billion. That compounds over 5 years. It is $22 
billion plus $22 billion plus interest, plus $22 billion. It adds up. 
In fact, a 5-year number is probably closer to $220 billion, $250 
billion, when you spend $22 billion in 1 year or increase spending by 
that much. So it is a lot of money.

[[Page 9411]]

Last year they increased spending by $22 billion on nondefense 
discretionary spending. This year it is not absolutely clear, because 
it hasn't actually been disclosed to us, but we know it is going to be 
well over $20 billion on nondefense discretionary spending again.
  That is why the Democratic budget takes us over $1 trillion; $1.9 
trillion, I believe, will be spent under this budget on discretionary 
spending. As I said, it is time for a timeout. That is what this motion 
to instruct says. It says: Let's go back and rethink this effort. Can't 
we somewhere in that trillion dollars find enough savings to get us 
back under $1 trillion? Shouldn't we certainly be saying we are not 
going to push the American taxpayer over the trillion-dollar number; 
rather, we will make a little extra effort to try to reduce spending in 
this account if we want to increase spending in that account, rather 
than constantly add on to the spending?
  This Democratic budget has absolutely no programmatic savings in it. 
The President suggested some programmatic savings. I believe his 
programmatic savings added up to about $15 billion. None of those was 
accepted and none of those was put in this budget. None of those are 
assumed. In fact, all it does is add to spending and add to programs. 
It is hard to believe that in a trillion-dollar budget, we couldn't 
find a mere 1 percent or 2 percent of savings by reducing programs 
which have either outserved their usefulness or which, in the order of 
priorities, we simply can't afford, and we should make difficult 
decisions of maybe not increasing them as much as proposed or maybe 
even reducing them. In most instances, we are talking about slowing the 
rate of increase. We are not actually talking about reducing.
  This is a red-flag motion. It says: Let's pause. Let's think about 
this. Do we want to blow through the trillion-dollar mark on the 
discretionary side of the ledger without having made some effort to try 
to save some money around here, to reallocate money, to set priorities, 
and to do what is affordable? I don't think we do. That is why we are 
calling on the conferees to take some action to bring this number back 
under $1 trillion. That means they have to save $9 billion, $10 
billion. That is 1 percent. They ought to be able to do that. I know it 
is a lot of money, $10 billion, but on a trillion-dollar budget, it 
certainly ought to be a doable event. It does seem to me the American 
people deserve that type of effort. We could all earn our pay around 
here, a number of times over, if we were to save the American people 
$10 billion or $20 billion and allow them to keep that money so they 
can spend it and make their lives better rather than have the 
Government spend it for them.
  That is what this motion does. It instructs the conferees to bring 
this budget back under the trillion-dollar level in the discretionary 
side.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time 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. GREGG. 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. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending motion and send to the desk a motion on behalf of Senator 
Graham dealing with nuclear power.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. Graham, 
     moves that the conferees on the part of the Senate on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the concurrent 
     resolution S. Con. Res. 70 (the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2009) be instructed to insist on the 
     inclusion in the final conference report section 311 of S. 
     Con. Res. 70, the deficit neutral reserve fund to improve 
     energy efficiency and production, as passed by the Senate, 
     and that such section include an additional requirement that 
     the legislation also encourages the removal of existing 
     barriers to building new zero-emission nuclear power plants 
     in the United States.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I note that the Senator from Louisiana is 
on the Senate floor. I had planned to offer this motion on behalf of 
Senator Graham in order to move the process along. He is in accordance 
with that as he is in a meeting he could not get out of, a briefing on 
security. I will reserve the remainder of the time on the motion so 
Senator Vitter can be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Madam President.
  I thank the distinguished ranking member for the courtesy.


                           Motion To Instruct

  Madam President, I have a motion I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] moves that the 
     conferees on the part of the Senate on the disagreeing votes 
     of the two Houses on the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 
     70 (the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     2009) be instructed to insist that the conference report 
     include a reserve fund that requires the Chairman of the 
     Senate Budget Committee to adjust budget aggregates and the 
     allocation of the Energy Committee, if the Senate considers 
     legislation that allows a Governor, with the concurrence of 
     the State legislature to petition for increased energy 
     exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf and that allows 
     for revenue sharing for such producing States on new areas of 
     production and new leases made available, if the average 
     price of regular gasoline in the United States reaches $5 per 
     gallon.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, if I could briefly explain this motion, 
it attempts to, again, get us to deal directly with the enormously 
important issue, the real crisis that consumers across America face; 
that is, the high and escalating cost of energy, including gasoline at 
the pump.
  This will finally suggest to the American people that we get it, that 
we understand their plight, that we feel their pain, if you will, to 
use an often used phrase, and we are actually going to do something 
about it. We are going to act.
  This motion to instruct the conferees would show the Senate is 
serious about increasing energy supplies and doing that to decrease 
gasoline prices.
  The motion is very simple. It would instruct the budget conferees to 
include a reserve fund for future legislation that we would be 
expressing an intention to pass. That legislation would allow a 
Governor, with the concurrence of his or her State legislature, to 
petition for increased energy exploration on the Outer Continental 
Shelf off of that State.
  It would also allow for revenue sharing coming from such exploration 
and production, to give producing States a fair share on new areas of 
production and new leases made available.
  Specifically, I would suggest that we follow the precedent and the 
policy we set a few years ago. As we opened new areas of the gulf, we 
said the producing States will have a fair share, will finally get 
revenue sharing--37.5 percent of the revenue from that new production.
  Finally, this would only happen if the price of regular gasoline in 
the United States reaches $5 a gallon at the pump.
  The American people are wondering right now if we understand what 
their daily lives are all about because as gasoline prices at the pump 
are high, and higher the next day, and much higher the next month, we 
seem to want to do absolutely nothing about it.
  This Congress, under Democratic leadership, came into power in 
January of 2007. As that happened, the Democratic leadership of this 
new Congress was very clear that an absolute top priority was to deal 
with sky-high energy prices.
  At the time fuel prices were about $2.33 a gallon at the pump. Well, 
if that was sky high then, I do not know what adjective to use for 
today because since that time, from January 2007 to today,

[[Page 9412]]

we have gone from $2.33 a gallon at the pump to about $3.72 a gallon--a 
61-percent increase. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any real 
end in sight.
  Now, the American people get this because they live it. They go to 
the gas pump weekly. They live it. They see that bill for filling up 
their tank go higher and higher. They have to wonder if we get it 
because we talk a lot on the Senate floor, we debate a lot, but what 
have we done? In my opinion, very, little on this crucial challenge--
even crisis--facing the American people.
  When I look at this issue, I go back to economics 101: supply and 
demand. Price is set by the intersection of demand and supply. So you 
can try to stabilize or lower prices in two ways: You can try to 
decrease demand; you can try to increase supply.
  I think our energy situation is so dire, so challenging, the 
escalating prices are so great, the pace of escalation is so 
staggering, that we need to take action on both sides of the equation. 
We need to do everything possible on both sides of the equation.
  We need to lessen demand or at least mitigate increasing demand from 
other countries worldwide, such as China and India. We cannot control 
what they do. Their demand is increasing enormously. But at least we 
can try to mitigate that with demand reductions in our own economy. I 
support those measures: greater efficiency, greater conservation, 
moving to alternative forms of fuel and energy. That is all absolutely 
crucial. We need to do that. We have done a little of it; we need to do 
more.
  But as we do that, we cannot ignore the supply side of the equation. 
We need to address both sides at the same time. We need to do 
everything reasonable we can on both sides of the equation at the same 
time.
  That brings us to supply. For far too long, Congress has absolutely 
ignored the supply side of the equation, has absolutely refused to do 
anything to increase supply in this country--by increased exploration 
and drilling on our Outer Continental Shelf or in Alaska or anywhere 
else.
  I do not know how long we are going to wait. What does the price have 
to get to before we hear the American people and before we finally act 
more on the demand side, yes, and more on the supply side?
  Again, my motion to instruct would address this challenge head on. It 
would say, if the price at the pump gets to $5 a gallon--we are not 
there yet. We are below $4, but if it gets to $5 a gallon, is that high 
enough to get us to act, to get us to do something, to get us to, yes, 
address demand but also address supply?
  I think the American people think that is plenty high enough to get 
us to act. If we push past that point, then under my motion to 
instruct, we would support a reserve fund for legislation to allow 
exploration and production off our coasts on the Outer Continental 
Shelf.
  But, again, I want to emphasize there would be two important rules we 
would have to follow with this increased exploration and production. 
No. 1, the host State coast we are talking about would have to want 
that activity to happen. That Governor and that State legislature would 
both have to say: Yes, we believe this is good for the country; we 
believe this is good for the State; we want this activity to happen.
  Secondly, when the activity does happen, that host State would get a 
fair share of the revenue, would get the same share as we set for the 
host States in the gulf when we opened new areas of the gulf a couple 
years ago: 37.5 percent. That host State could then use that revenue 
for its priorities: education, K-12, higher education, highways, 
environmental cleanup, beach restoration.
  In the case of my State, Louisiana, it is perfectly clear what our 
priority for that money is. We have already passed not only legislation 
but State constitutional amendments regarding how we are going to use 
that money. It is to address the crisis that is happening on our coast, 
to battle coastal erosion, to enhance coastal restoration, to build 
hurricane protection, and to build hurricane evacuation routes.
  To me, that is a very commonsense consensus approach. The price of 
gasoline has been rising astronomically. As I said, from the start of 
this Democratically led Congress, it has already risen 61 percent. The 
Democratic leadership of this Congress began in January 2007 saying 
this is a top priority. Yet little to nothing has happened, as that 
price has risen 61 percent.
  Are we finally going to hear the pleas of the American people? Are we 
finally going to act on all sorts of fronts to try to stabilize and 
bring down these prices? This is a sensible solution on the supply side 
that can have a real impact.
  Let me reiterate. We need to do everything conceivable, both on the 
demand side and the supply side, because our challenge is that great. I 
support demand side measures. I supported increased efficiency 
standards. I supported the measure we passed a couple days ago 
temporarily ceasing filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So we 
decrease demand in that very modest way. We need to do more in terms of 
fuel efficiency, conservation, and new forms of fuel and energy.
  But as we address much more aggressively the demand side of the 
equation, we cannot ignore the supply side. We need to increase supply, 
particularly domestic supply, at the same time. We have enormous 
reserves in this country off our coasts, as well as in Alaska, as well 
as places on shore to do that. What we have not mustered so far is the 
political will and the votes in Congress to allow our people and our 
industry to do it.
  My motion would say $5 a gallon--if we get there, we sure as heck 
need to act. We sure as heck need to do all of those sensible things on 
the supply side, just as we should on the demand side.
  I urge all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to support 
this sensible measure. The leadership of this new Congress has been 
talking about energy prices since the Congress came in in January 2007. 
The only thing that talk has done is be concurrent with the rise in 
prices at the pump of 61 percent, from about $2.33 a gallon to $3.73 a 
gallon.
  Talk is not good enough. The American people deserve action. They 
deserve action on the demand side, much more aggressive action than we 
have taken to date. They sure as heck also deserve action on the supply 
side to increase our domestic supply, which can have a major impact on 
price at the pump.
  I urge my colleagues to support this sensible motion in that regard.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I believe there is time in opposition to 
this motion?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. WHITEHOUSE). The Senator is correct.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I wish to claim about 10 minutes of that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, here we go again. Yet again my friends 
on the other side of the aisle are trying to sell the American people a 
bill of goods to try to convince them that drilling along our shores 
will do something to lower gas prices. Opening our shores to drilling 
was a bad idea in June of last year when we voted down an amendment to 
the Energy bill--very similar--it was a bad idea when this body voted 
it down in March of this year on an amendment to the budget resolution, 
and it was a bad idea when we voted this idea down by well over 14 
votes 2 days ago on an amendment to the flood insurance bill.
  Ending a bipartisan, 26-year moratoria on oil drilling on the Outer 
Continental Shelf will do nothing but jeopardize our precious natural 
resources. The Energy Information Administration projects that even if 
we opened the entire Outer Continental Shelf to drilling off the east 
coast, off the west coast, and opened the entire eastern Gulf of 
Mexico, nothing would happen to gas prices--nothing. Why?
  First, because production wouldn't begin until the year 2017. The 
infrastructure to drill for oil is not just a

[[Page 9413]]

large oil platform but a network of hundreds of miles of pipelines that 
transport oil from the platform on to the land and then on to the 
refineries. This kind of infrastructure simply does not exist on the 
east coast and in only limited exceptions on the west coast.
  The second reason why opening all our shores to oil drilling will not 
lower gas prices is because by the time full production actually ramped 
up in 2030, drilling off all of the coasts full tilt--full tilt--would 
only result in a whopping 3-percent increase in domestic production. 
Even in 2030, as our continent is rung all the way around by oil 
platforms, all of this new supply would be eaten up by a 7-percent 
increase in domestic demand. So the Energy Information Administration 
predicts: ``Any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be 
insignificant.''
  The fact is that over 80 percent of the resources in the Outer 
Continental Shelf are already open for exploration. Since 2001, the 
Bush administration has issued over 100 new leases. Many of these 
leases are in the eastern gulf where the oil industry already has much 
of the infrastructure necessary to go into production. Yet only 12 of 
these new wells have been drilled. The industry is only developing a 
small fraction of the area already open for drilling. So why isn't 
ExxonMobil pumping some of its profits into developing some of these 
areas? If companies are not interested in developing the large fields 
already in the Gulf of Mexico, why is it so critical to open 
environmentally sensitive areas to more drilling?
  My home State of New Jersey and the New Jersey shore is a priceless 
treasure that my home State will protect at any cost. The shore also 
generates tens of billions of dollars in revenues each year and 
supports almost half a million jobs. If we open the east coast to 
drilling, we jeopardize a tourism and fishing economy worth tens of 
billions of dollars in exchange for a cumulative total of only a half 
year's supply of oil--a half year's supply of oil--jeopardizing, 
however, tens of billions of dollars. The people of New Jersey cannot 
afford the risk that will take place to our wildlife, to our economy 
and, in fact, I believe, the people up and down the coast as well.
  Florida beaches generate billions of dollars each year. In South 
Carolina, Myrtle Beach alone brought in more than $3 billion in 
revenue. Do we want oil washing up into the pristine Cape Hatteras 
National Seashore? What about Virginia Beach? And can Maryland's famous 
blue crab survive yet another environmental assault?
  The bottom line is this proposal will do nothing to lower gas prices, 
but it will jeopardize coastal economies all along both coasts.
  Now to simply say: Well, it is up to an individual State, that 
doesn't work. The ocean doesn't have neat little boxes which it is 
divided into. So the reality is that the ability to open the Outer 
Continental Shelf in one location threatens, if there is an accident, 
the beaches along the shoreline along that same region. This isn't 
about making it one versus another; this is a continuity.
  There are other things we can do about gas prices. Hopefully the 
President will soon sign into law the Democratic proposal that passed 
Congress overwhelmingly to suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve through December of 2008. When the people of this country are 
suffering from paying $4 a gallon for gas and when gas prices are 
pushing up the cost of food, and the price of oil has broken $125 a 
barrel, it makes no sense to be buying at this high level and then 
putting that oil in the ground when we are already 97 percent of where 
we need to be for the Nation's security, burying this precious 
commodity when we need it the most. Hopefully the President will sign 
this important measure and we can truly begin to help gas prices go 
back down and offer some relief.
  But it begs even a bigger question, and that is breaking our 
dependency on foreign oil, seeking renewable sources, and finding new 
automobiles which we drive in our country; moving on to mass transit, 
having greater conservation--these are all of the elements that are 
necessary. It is also about ending speculation in the marketplace. Why 
is it that when we have testimony before House and Senate committees 
that says the price of oil should be somewhere between $50 and $70 a 
barrel between demand and supply that we are looking at $125? Let's go 
after the speculators. Let's go through a regulatory process that 
ensures this one market that is so critical ultimately has the 
regulation necessary.
  Finally, we can't drill our way out of oil addiction. We can't drill 
our way out of oil addiction. We must promote sustainable alternative 
fuels and incentivize people to buy more efficient cars, raise the fuel 
economy standards and--something we don't do well in the United 
States--help commercialize technologies that allow us to run our cars, 
for example, on electricity. General Motors plans to introduce a plug-
in hybrid in 2010 and Nissan announced it will start selling an 
electric car that same year. Once we get this type of technology right, 
our constituents will be able to run their cars much more cheaply. Some 
studies project electricity will be the equivalent of 60 cents per 
gallon of gasoline. That as a fuel source for the future is just around 
the corner. We understand that. We want to incentivize it and move it 
in the right direction.
  On the other side, if all you want to do is create more addiction to 
the oil, find another vein in which to pop into and go ahead and drill 
even when all that is already open is not being drilled. It is the 
wrong policy. We have defeated three times in the Senate over the last 
year or so such provisions. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Vitter 
motion to instruct and make sure we keep this bipartisan, 26-year 
moratoria intact.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the time that may be 
left in opposition, and I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The journal 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.


                           Motion to Instruct

  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I understand the Kyl motion regarding 
the alternative minimum tax is already pending, so I ask that my motion 
on the alternative minimum tax, which is at the desk, also be called up 
and be made pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] moves that the 
     managers on the part of the Senate at the conference on the 
     disagreeing votes of the two houses on the House amendment to 
     the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 70 (setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2009 and including the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 through 2013) be 
     instructed to--
       (A) insist that the revenue levels in the resolution 
     include the cost of providing relief from the Alternative 
     Minimum Tax in 2008, so that the number of taxpayers affected 
     by the AMT does not increase and thereby more than 20 million 
     middle-class families would be protected from paying higher 
     taxes;
       (B) insist on the Senate position of providing for the 
     extension of expiring and expired tax relief that has been 
     routinely extended in past years, including tax relief such 
     as the research and experimentation tax credit, the deduction 
     for state and local sales taxes, the deduction for classroom 
     expenses, the deduction for qualified education expenses, the 
     incentive for the charitable IRA rollover, the combat pay 
     earned income tax credit, and various energy tax incentives; 
     and
       (C) insist that every effort should be made to offset the 
     cost of these policies by closing the tax gap, shutting down 
     abusive tax shelters, addressing offshore tax havens, and 
     without raising taxes.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
sequence with respect to the pending motions be as follows: the Gregg 
amendment, the Conrad AMT amendment, the Kyl AMT amendment, the Boxer 
China-India amendment, the DeMint China-India amendment--those are both 
with respect to energy provisions--the Vitter OCS amendment, the

[[Page 9414]]

Graham energy nuclear reserve fund, and the Gregg discretionary 
spending cap, with the remaining provisions of the previous order in 
effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be no 
further motions to be brought forward.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from North Dakota?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there objection to the request of the Senator from New Hampshire?
  Mr. CONRAD. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wish now to turn to the Gregg amendment 
that was previously offered with respect to a $1 trillion cap.
  Let me indicate that the spending in the budget resolution that has 
gone to the conference committee takes spending down as a share of GDP 
each and every year from 20.8 percent of GDP in 2008 and 2009, every 
year stepping it down until we get to 19.1 percent of GDP in 2012 and 
2013. I might add, we balance the budget in 2012 and 2013 under the 
budget.
  The comparison of the spending under the resolution and the 
President's budget is depicted by these lines: The green line is the 
budget resolution spending line; the President's is the red line. You 
can see almost no difference. That is because there is almost no 
difference between the spending in the President's budget and the 
spending in the Senate budget resolution. In fact, here are the 
differences: The Senate budget resolution has $3.08 trillion of 
spending over the period of the 5 years. The President has $3.84 
trillion of spending over the period.
  What are the differences? Let me indicate as a percentage, that is a 
1-percent difference--1 percent. Why do we have 1 percent more than the 
President? Well, because first we rejected his Medicare cuts. That is 
45 percent of the difference. Forty-three percent of the difference is 
we rejected his cuts to law enforcement. We rejected his cut to 
veterans. We rejected his cuts to transportation. My goodness. We just 
had a bridge collapse in Minnesota, 35W. Can you imagine the horror? 
You are driving home and the bridge collapses. We don't think it is 
wise to be cutting transportation funding when we are not maintaining 
the roads and bridges we have now, much less dealing with the gridlock 
that exists around the country as well. So we have rejected those cuts 
by the President.
  We specifically rejected his proposal to cut the COPS program, not by 
10 percent and not by 20 percent. The President proposed cutting the 
COPS program 100 percent. What is the COPS program? That is a program 
that has put 100,000 police officers on the street in this country. In 
my State, it has put over 200 officers on the street. I just held a 
hearing with every part of law enforcement represented: the police 
chiefs, the sheriffs, the States' attorneys--open testimony. They said 
it was absolutely beyond their understanding why the President would 
propose cutting the COPS program 100 percent, but he did.
  He proposed cutting weatherization assistance 100 percent. Why would 
you cut weatherization assistance when that is designed to reduce fuel 
bills when oil is $120 a barrel? He says cut weatherization assistance 
100 percent.
  He says cut first responder grants 78 percent. I just held a hearing 
that involved all of the first responders in my State: The fire chiefs, 
the police chiefs, and all of the others, including the EMS personnel, 
emergency medical services. I asked them: Do they think it makes any 
sense to cut the first responder grants 78 percent? They unanimously 
said absolutely not. What are we going to do in terms of 
interoperability of communications if we are not upgrading those 
systems? One of the things we learned on that fateful day, September 
11, was that the failure to have interoperable communications created a 
fiasco at the Pentagon when all the emergency responders were going 
there to try to help and they couldn't communicate with each other. 
That is what these grants are for, to provide interoperable 
communications, to provide the training to respond to disasters, both 
natural and manmade. The President says cut it 78 percent. The 
President said cut community development funds 24 percent. He said cut 
clean water grants 21 percent. He said cut low-income home energy 
assistance--the very popular LIHEAP program--which is already 
underfunded, another 15 percent. We said, no, that doesn't make any 
sense; yet we produced a budget that balances. It balances in the 
fourth year--not by much, but it does balance, according to CBO. We 
stay in balance in the fifth year, unlike the President's budget. The 
President balanced in the fourth year but went right back out of 
balance in the fifth.
  He has an addiction to debt unlike anything I have ever seen. This 
President has almost doubled the national debt in just 7 years. He has 
more than doubled foreign holdings of our debt in that period. We owe 
the Chinese hundreds of billions, we owe the Japanese hundreds of 
billions, and we even owe Mexico. This President's legacy is one of 
debt.
  In this budget, we bring down the debt as a share of GDP in each and 
every year, according to the scoring of the budget resolution, from 
69.6 percent down to 66 percent. That is not as much progress as I 
would like to make.
  Senator Gregg and I have a separate proposal to deal with the long-
term entitlement problems and those challenges, to deal with that in a 
bipartisan special task force that would have the power to come back 
with a recommendation that would get a vote in the Congress of the 
United States if a supermajority of the members of the task force, who 
are completely bipartisan, would agree on the plan.
  Mr. President, I am proud of this budget resolution. I think this 
trillion-dollar cap on discretionary spending is a pure political 
gambit.
  Let me add one other thing. If this cap were imposed, part of what is 
included in that spending is spending on our national defense. So that 
would put defense under the gun and put it at risk of additional cuts. 
I am a little surprised that the Republicans are proposing that. I 
don't think this is the time to be making cuts in national defense, but 
that would be in the pot and be subject to cuts under their proposal. I 
hope we reject that approach.
  With that, I think we are very close to being ready to go to votes.
  I see my colleague, the Senator from Florida, here.
  I wonder if the Parliamentarian could advise us on the time remaining 
on the Conrad-Kyl AMT amendment and the Gregg $1 trillion cap. How much 
time is left on those two?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the Kyl AMT amendment, Senator Kyl has 7 
minutes and Senator Conrad has 16 minutes. On the Conrad AMT amendment, 
there is 16 minutes remaining, equally divided.
  Mr. CONRAD. No, there is not. That is not correct. That was part of a 
unanimous consent agreement. There was 16 minutes for Kyl and Conrad 
combined, and all time consumed was credited against that 60 minutes. 
So there is virtually no time. I think we will just yield back all time 
on that motion.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I think we will yield back all time on the 
Kyl-Conrad motion.
  Mr. CONRAD. Senator Nelson may want to speak on OCS. How much time is 
left on that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Vitter has 3 minutes. The majority has 
7 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield 7 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GREGG. I would like to retain 2 minutes to respond to my spending 
a trillion dollars.
  Mr. CONRAD. I will retain 2 minutes on that too. So we each will 
retain 2 minutes on that amendment and yield back all other time, 
except for the 7 minutes on OCS.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 4 minutes be 
equally divided between Senator Conrad and myself when we get to the 
Kyl-Conrad AMT amendment.

[[Page 9415]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, here we go again. The oil 
companies are trying to have it exactly the way they have had it in the 
past. They have developed an amendment that is very seductive by saying 
that you can have offshore drilling with the concurrence of the State 
if gasoline reaches $5 a gallon. What they have not told you is that if 
the price of gas goes up to $5 a gallon, of which the oil companies are 
making money hand over fist, they are going to utilize that to 
perpetuate the myth that they need to drill off the coast of a State 
like Florida, when, in fact, what they have not told you is that the 
oil companies already have under lease, which has not been drilled, 33 
million acres offshore. The oil companies also have another 31 million 
acres onshore that have not been drilled. And the myth that they 
perpetuate, now using the fright of $5-a-gallon gas, is that we have to 
have more supply and therefore we have to go offshore. This is the 
seductive red herring of this amendment which was offered by a Senator 
whose State, Louisiana, has a big oil industry that drills off of 
Louisiana, where, in fact, there are deposits of oil. But when you get 
to a State such as Florida, there have been several dry holes, and the 
geology shows very little oil, plus we have the adverse interests.
  Now, why do we have to keep going through this drill over and over? 
It is because the oil companies are insatiable. Do we not remember what 
we did just a year and a half ago, where the oil interests wanted to 
drill toward Tampa, FL, 2 million acres? We worked out a compromise--
which wasn't 2 million acres, it was 8.3 million acres--but we kept it 
further to the south, away from the military training and testing area, 
where you cannot put oil rigs on the surface of the water, where we 
have our largest training and testing area in the world for our U.S. 
military. That is where we are training pilots for the F-22, where we 
train all of the pilots for the new Joint Strike Fighter being 
developed. That is where we are testing some of the most sophisticated 
weapons. That is because we have the area that is restricted airspace. 
As you are shooting that live ordnance and you are testing in your 
research and development of weapons systems, you cannot have oil rigs 
down there on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. We etched that into 
law.
  But here we go again. Having gone through this and having the oil 
industry have 33 million acres that is already available for lease but 
has not been drilled, they want to make an exception and are using the 
scare of this $4 gas--maybe going to $5 gas--in order to do that. That 
is wrong, and we ought to put a stop to it.
  Here is the greatest wrong it perpetuates. What it does is it keeps 
us in the same old mindset where we stay married to oil. The emphasis 
is drill, drill, drill to solve the problem, as evidenced by $5 gas, 
when, in fact, that is not going to solve our problem. What is going to 
solve our problem is using our technology to go to alternative fuels. 
What is going to solve our problem is to go to renewables. What is 
going to solve our problem is going to be to have a new President of 
the United States who says he is going to commit to making the United 
States independent of foreign oil, of which we now import 60 percent 
for our daily consumption from places such as Nigeria, Venezuela, and 
the Persian Gulf.
  So what we have to do is change the mindset of the old way of doing 
things, which this amendment by the Senator from Louisiana is 
suggestive of; that is, to go to the alternative fuels, to go to a 
serious research and development program for a new engine on down the 
line, to encourage the increase of miles per gallon. In Japan, they are 
driving cars that get 50 miles per gallon. In Europe, they are driving 
cars, on a fleet average, that are getting in the area of 40 miles per 
gallon. Why can't the United States--if we had the political will--
change our way of doing things as oil guzzlers through our consumption 
in our personal vehicles? We can if we have the political will.
  Mr. VITTER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I appreciate the Senator from Louisiana asking 
me to yield. But I have a lot on my mind, and the Senator has already 
had his 15 minutes, so this Senator is going to complete his thoughts.
  So here we go again. The emphasis is drill, drill, drill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Well, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized. The 
Senator has 3 minutes.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, if I can briefly respond on my own time--
and I invite a conversation or colloquy with the distinguished Senator 
from Florida--I hope the distinguished Senator realizes that in this 
proposal, in order for any offshore drilling to take place, both the 
Governor and the State legislature of the host State have to say, yes, 
we want it. That is an absolute requirement under this proposal. The 
distinguished Senator from Florida knows Florida politics far better 
than I, but based on everything I know, that is not going to happen in 
Florida, including under Republican Governors and Republican 
legislatures, anytime soon. So I don't understand why he considers this 
a threat to the State of Florida, because they are in absolute control 
of their own destiny under the details of my motion. If the Senator has 
a response to that simple fact, I would love to hear it and engage in a 
discussion.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I am 
very grateful to him for giving me this opportunity. When it comes to 
the defense interests of the United States, I think it would be folly 
to allow a State legislature to impose their will with regard to the 
defense interests. This Senator has already given the example of the 
largest testing and training area in the world for the U.S. military, 
which is the Gulf of Mexico off of Florida, which we have prohibited in 
law from being drilled.
  Let's take, for example, the Atlantic coast of Florida. Thirty years 
ago, this Senator had to oppose the Secretary of the Interior James 
Watt from drilling off the east coast. The only way this Senator was 
able to beat him then was because it finally dawned on the 
administration that we were launching from the Cape Canaveral Air Force 
station from west to east and launching from the Kennedy Space Center 
from west to east, therefore dropping the solid rocket boosters into 
the Atlantic Ocean along with the first stages of the expendable 
booster rocket out of the Air Force station, and that, in fact, we 
cannot have oil rigs down there.
  So a State legislature might well not understand and be able to 
impose its will on the security interests of the U.S. Government.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, if I can reclaim my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute since I 
seemed to cede all my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time is reserved 
to the manager. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. I will allow the Senator an additional minute if the 
Senator in opposition will be given an additional minute as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. I thank the Chair.
  Quite honestly, I am not sure I understood that response. My simple 
point was that Florida under my motion is in control of its own 
destiny, and if Florida doesn't want drilling, the Governor and the 
State legislature, Florida doesn't get drilling.
  There is a little bit of caveat to that. I think the Cubans are going 
to drill off Florida if we do nothing. That is moving forward anyway. 
Or the Chinese through Cuba. But otherwise, Florida doesn't get 
drilling.
  My other response is, here we are caught in a stale debate again. It 
isn't either/or. It isn't oil and gas or alternative fuels. Our energy 
picture is so challenging it clearly has to be both. We need a future 
of new fuels and new technology. We also need to get to that future in 
the short and medium term.

[[Page 9416]]

We need to do both things on the demand and the supply side. Let's 
start acting for the good of the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I say to my friend, the Senator 
from Louisiana, perhaps since he is from the gulf coast, he does not 
understand that all the way up the Atlantic seaboard, there are areas 
with restricted airspace where live fire training is done. A State 
legislature would not necessarily be attuned to the security interests 
of the U.S. Government.
  If a State legislature were at the beck and call of a particular 
lobby--in this case the oil industry--wanting to drill, it would be at 
cross-purposes with the security interests in many of those regions off 
Florida, off Georgia, off the Carolinas, off Virginia, and further up 
the seaboard and, therefore, would have a veto over the U.S. 
Government.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Under the previous order, there is now 4 minutes equally divided.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we turn to two 
other items that need to be taken up prior to the time limit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Motions to Instruct

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send two motions to the desk dealing with 
budget enforcement. I ask they be reported in seriatim.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motions.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] moves that the 
     conferees on the part of the Senate on the disagreeing votes 
     of the two Houses on the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 
     70 (the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     2009) be instructed to insist on the inclusion in the final 
     conference report the point of order against the 
     consideration of a budget resolution in the Senate that does 
     not contain a section regarding gross federal debt disclosure 
     as contained in section 223 of the concurrent resolution as 
     passed by the Senate, and further, that the conferees be 
     instructed to include a debt disclosure section in the final 
     conference report that itemizes the overall debt increase and 
     the per person debt increase assumed by the final conference 
     report.
       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] moves that the 
     conferees on the part of the Senate on the disagreeing votes 
     of the two Houses on the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 
     70 (the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 
     2009) be instructed to insist that the final conference 
     report include the individual points of order that empowers 
     the Senate to prevent future budget resolutions from raiding 
     Social Security; enforces transparency during Senate 
     consideration of the congressional budget by requiring 
     disclosure of the gross federal debt held by the nation; 
     strengthens the integrity of the reconciliation process; and 
     provides an additional tool to thwart any net increase in 
     deficits in the long term (four ten-year periods after 2018), 
     as contained in sections 226, 223/224, 202 and 201, 
     respectively, of the concurrent resolution as passed by the 
     Senate.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, these are two motions, one of which says 
that under the rules of the budget, there will be a disclosure of the 
debt owed by the United States in a manner that is comprehensible.
  Right now the budget is a very hard, very complex document to read 
for those of us who are involved in it, but it is extremely difficult 
to glean what actually is the debt and how the debt relates to the 
overall budget. The first motion says that will be made clearer for the 
purpose of transparency.
  The second motion has four elements. The first one is a point of 
order that says the budget resolution, which will be live, does not put 
us on a path to a balanced budget over a 5-year period. The second one 
is a point of order against a reconciliation bill which spends more 
than 20 percent of what it saves. The third is a point of order against 
a budget resolution that does not provide a debt disclosure statement, 
such as the first motion included. And fourth is a long-term deficit 
point of order that should prohibit any deficit increases outside the 
budget window.
  I talked about these with the chairman. The chairman seems amenable 
to accepting these motions. I hope they can be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the first motion I like very much, the 
debt disclosure. I think that would be a very useful item for Members 
of Congress and for the people of the country. So I readily accept 
motion No. 1. Can we accept that motion by a voice vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, on debt disclosure.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on the second motion, we have no objection 
on this side to adopting that motion by unanimous consent.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the second 
motion be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague very much. I 
thank Senator Gregg. We have had an interesting day. Senator Gregg, we 
can see by his head with that nasty bruise, is bloodied but unbowed.
  Mr. GREGG. That came from the farm bill.
  Mr. CONRAD. He said he got hit by a farmer with a lamb chop or 
asparagus, I don't know which.
  Mr. GREGG. It must have been asparagus.
  Mr. CONRAD. I think we are ready to proceed to vote.
  Mr. GREGG. We are. I suggest we have 2 minutes equally divided before 
each vote to explain what we are voting on for our colleagues.
  Mr. CONRAD. I think that is fair.
  Mr. GREGG. And after the first vote, the votes be 10 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I think we would be well advised as well. We advise 
colleagues, after the first vote, there will be 10 minutes. We will 
have eight votes. Typically, that will take us 3 hours. If Members will 
come and stay here, we can conceivably get done in 2\1/2\ hours. It is 
up to the Members whether we are able to do that.
  With that, I go to my colleague for an explanation of the first 
motion.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, it being my motion, I am sure the chairman 
would like to go first.
  Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to go first. The Senator is talking about 
this being the biggest tax increase in history. That is the same speech 
he gave last year. We can now check the record and see what actually 
happened and, lo and behold, there was not the biggest tax increase 
ever. In fact, there was no tax increase. In fact, there were tax cuts. 
The Democrats in both Houses of Congress cut taxes by $194 billion.
  In this legislation before us, we have no tax increases. We have 
additional tax reductions. Included in this resolution are the middle-
class tax cuts, the marriage penalty relief, the child tax credit, the 
10-percent bracket, further alternative minimum tax relief, estate tax 
reform, energy and education, property tax relief, and extenders.
  The difference in revenue, which is only 2.6 percent between our bill 
and the President's, can completely be met by closing down these 
offshore tax havens, abusive tax shelters, and aggressively going after 
the tax gap, the difference between what some owe and what they are 
failing to pay.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, there is a tax increase in this resolution. 
If there isn't, then the budget doesn't make any sense because it 
assumes $1.2 trillion of new revenues in order to reach its targets, 
and that means 78 million taxpayers who don't pay taxes today are going 
to end up paying taxes under this budget.
  It means a working family of four with $50,000 income will end up 
with a $2,300 tax bill increase in 2011. It means a single mom with two 
kids earning $30,000 will have a $1,000 tax increase in 2011. It means 
that 18 million senior citizens will have their taxes increased by over 
$2,000, and that 27 million small businesses will have their taxes 
increased by over $4,000 in the year 2011.
  The simple fact is this budget assumes massive tax increases, the 
largest tax increase in the history of the world. I hope people will 
oppose that.

[[Page 9417]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is now 
on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton) 
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Corker), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Are there any other 
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 131 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                                NAYS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Alexander
     Clinton
     Corker
     McCain
     Obama
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is about to 
explain what is going to happen in the next few minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, two of our colleagues and a third, 
counting me, have very graciously agreed to take voice votes to shorten 
this process. Now we will turn to Senator Kyl for an explanation of his 
motion.
  Mr. KYL. Both the chairman of the committee and I have resolutions 
that are almost identical. They both call for us to extend the so-
called patch for the alternative minimum tax which otherwise would 
affect about 26 million taxpayers this year; to extend the so-called 
tax extenders package that has tax provisions like the R&D tax credit 
in it for another year, and to do so without raising taxes.
  The addition on the Conrad motion is to use our best efforts to shut 
down abusive tax shelters, address offshore tax havens, and to close 
the tax gap.
  Since I assume we are all for ending any waste, fraud, and abuse, I 
cannot disagree. I would be pleased to take votes on both of these 
motions by voice vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kyl for his willingness to 
do this on a voice vote. He has described the amendments well. I see no 
purpose in further discussion.
  I ask for a voice vote on the Conrad and Kyl motions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion 
offered by the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, on the AMT.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion 
offered by the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, on the AMT.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from South 
Carolina, Mr. Graham, has a motion on nuclear energy. The Senator from 
South Carolina has also graciously agreed to take it on a voice vote.
  Would the Senator like to take 30 seconds to explain the motion?
  Mr. GRAHAM. No.
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from South Carolina continues to rise in the 
judgment of his colleagues.
  Can we then go to a voice vote on the Graham motion?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion 
offered by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, on nuclear 
energy.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, that takes us to the Boxer motion on cap 
and trade. We have 2 minutes equally divided. These are motions that 
will require votes, the Boxer and DeMint motions.
  If the Senator from California would take time to explain her motion.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, colleagues, I hope you pay attention to 
this because there are two motions that deal with global warming. The 
first one is the Boxer motion, and what it says is, we should not enact 
any global warming legislation until we address the issue of goods 
imported from nations such as India and China, countries that do not 
have their own global warming program. So we protect our people and yet 
we allow global warming legislation to proceed.
  Senator DeMint's motion is a back-to-the-future motion. He basically 
says we can do nothing--nothing--until India and China act. This is 
wrong. We should not be held hostage to the actions of China and India 
or any other nation when it comes to our own country, when it comes to 
an issue which is so serious that even the administration, that has 
been kind of dragging on this, yesterday found that global warming is 
threatening a beautiful species called the polar bear.
  We do not want to be held hostage to India and China. Vote aye on the 
Boxer motion, and no on the DeMint motion.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, my motion has been mischaracterized, I am 
afraid. I am opposed to the Boxer motion because it would clearly, from 
the language, add tariffs or some kind of penalties to imports from 
around the world, unless emissions standards in other countries match 
ours, I guess, exactly.
  This would add to the cost of products that are purchased by 
Americans. My motion is one that tries to keep jobs in this country. 
Unfortunately, my colleague is suggesting, I am afraid, as many have 
over the years, that we have two false choices. We either have a good 
economy or we have a good environment. Those are not the choices.
  In fact, my motion would allow us to continue to develop nuclear 
generation, which is good for the environment and the economy, or 
hydrogen cars or electric cars or hybrid cars. Most of what we can do 
is good for the environment and improves the economy. My motion simply 
says: We cannot pass legislation unless other countries go along, 
otherwise we are exporting jobs and pollution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is agreeing to the motion of the 
Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.
  Mr. CONRAD. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton) 
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Corker), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

[[Page 9418]]

  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 132 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Alexander
     Clinton
     Corker
     McCain
     Obama
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes equally divided prior to a vote on the motion to instruct 
offered by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, during the last vote, some of my 
Republican and Democratic colleagues asked me if it didn't make sense 
to vote for both these motions. Both understand we need to be careful 
in mandates that hurt our economy and jobs, unless we recognize what 
other countries are doing when they are polluting.
  My motion focuses on here at home. I want to make sure folks 
understand what it is about.
  Most of the things we can do to improve our environment and to stop 
CO2 emissions can actually improve our economy. We know, as 
we try to build dozens, if not hundreds, of nuclear plants, it will 
create new jobs all over the country and improve our economy, just as 
Europe has done. Solar panels and wind, as well as hybrid cars and 
hydrogen fuel--all of these things are good for the economy and energy. 
My motion--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DeMINT. Could I get another minute?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Chair.
  My motion does not affect any of the attempts to reduce 
CO2 emissions except when we know it is hurting the economy 
and hurting jobs. In that case, we cannot move ahead with penalties and 
mandates unless China and India--the two largest polluting countries--
have similar emissions standards. So it is just a ``hold on,'' let's 
not hurt our economy and ourselves. There are many ways we can reduce 
CO2 emissions without hurting jobs in this country.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this motion.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much additional time did Senator 
DeMint get?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator had an additional \1/2\ minute.
  Mrs. BOXER. Then, Mr. President, I would ask for the same amount of 
time, equally divided, between myself and Senator Warner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the request of the Senator?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have the 
same amount of time Senator DeMint had, divided equally between myself 
and Senator Warner.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to 1 minute being equally 
divided between Senator Boxer and Senator Warner?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. If the Presiding Officer will tell me when I have used 
half the time so I can stop.
  Colleagues, this is a very important vote. We already voted to level 
the playing field for America in that last vote so that countries 
cannot take advantage of us. But I have to say, this motion would hold 
this Nation hostage to China and India. Since when do we wait around 
for countries such as China to act on human rights issues, on economic 
issues, on environmental issues? That is not America.
  I believe this is a motion that looks to fear, not hope. This is the 
greatest country on Earth, and I do not think we should tell ourselves 
we can do nothing about a pressing issue until a foreign country acts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used half the time.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have been working with Senator Boxer and 
Senator Lieberman for almost 10 months on a bill with regard to global 
climate change. This week--perhaps tomorrow or the first of next week--
we will offer a managers' amendment which will address the important 
issues my colleague raises.
  I simply ask this Chamber to consider that when our bill comes up 
there will be ample opportunity to address your issues and that we have 
a provision in the managers' amendment giving the President of the 
United States the chance to proceed to correct the very things the 
Senator seeks to be corrected with his motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from South 
Carolina, Mr. DeMint.
  Mrs. BOXER. 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 New York (Mrs. Clinton) 
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Corker), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 34, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 133 Leg.]

                                YEAS--34

     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--61

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter

[[Page 9419]]


     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Tester
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Alexander
     Clinton
     Corker
     McCain
     Obama

  The motion was rejected.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to the vote on the motion to instruct by the Senator from Louisiana.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this motion is very straightforward. It 
creates a reserve fund in support of the following bill, a bill that 
would say: If the price at the pump, the price of gasoline reaches $5 a 
gallon--if it reaches $5 a gallon--then we are going to allow 
exploration and production off our coasts in the Outer Continental 
Shelf, but only if two conditions are met. No. 1, the host State wants 
it; the Governor and the State legislature of the host State say yes, 
we want that activity; and No. 2, the host State gets a fair revenue 
share of 37.5 percent which is the policy and the precedent we set 
about 2 years ago.
  It would also ensure that nothing in this bill would disrupt military 
training, military activity off the coast, and that also a host State 
could decide to do natural gas only.
  We can't drill our way out of this energy problem, but increased 
domestic supply is part of the solution. We need a new energy future, 
but we also need to get to that future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, what the Senator didn't say is 
that this puts a State's veto power over the U.S. Government as to its 
security arrangements in restricted areas off the coast which you never 
want to put at stake.
  What the Senator also didn't tell you is there are already 31 million 
acres offshore that are ready for lease that have not been drilled.
  I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the Senate has on three different 
occasions over the last year defeated similar efforts to end the 26-
year bipartisan moratoria on the Outer Continental Shelf. This is 
another attempt to get at it. Even the Energy Information 
Administration projects that if we opened the entire east and west 
coasts, we wouldn't achieve anything because it would take up to 2017 
to ramp up and 2030 to actually achieve results.
  So this isn't about gas prices; this is about tapping into another 
vein of oil, continuing our addiction, and putting our shores at risk.
  I urge my colleagues, particularly from coastal States, to oppose it.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be a cosponsor 
of the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be a cosponsor 
of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from 
Louisiana, Mr. Vitter.
  Mr. GREGG. 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.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton) 
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Corker), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 134 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Wicker

                                NAYS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Alexander
     Clinton
     Corker
     McCain
     Obama
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. REID. 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. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for all Senators, I have been talking this 
afternoon with Senators Kennedy, Enzi, Gregg, and McConnell, of course. 
We believe it would be in the best interests of the Senate to vitiate 
the cloture vote in the morning. Senator Kennedy and Enzi have agreed 
to continue working on the firefighters bill. Yesterday, it was 
interrupted by the farm bill, and the Graham amendment was an 
interruption.
  As I have said on a number of occasions, there is not more of a 
gentleman in the Senate than Mike Enzi. He felt aggrieved--that is my 
word, not his--and he needs more time on this. Again, I have talked to 
him and Senator Kennedy. They believe they can get from here to there 
and work out something so that we can wind up completing the bill.
  I have asked the managers to work together to see if they can reach 
agreement on the process that will permit the Senate to complete action 
on the bill in a timely way.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote be withdrawn 
with respect to H.R. 980.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, let me further say that when these two good 
Senators come back to me with that process, I will confer with the 
Republican leader, and then I will make a decision when to return to 
this. I favor this a lot. I think it is a great piece of legislation. I 
hope we can complete it.
  We should continue the bipartisan approach we have had up to this 
time on that legislation. I appreciate the understanding of the Senate 
in allowing us to approach this in a different way. This is not unique. 
We have done it on other occasions. For a lot of reasons, cloture would 
not be invoked tomorrow. I think people favor this legislation and they 
would vote for cloture if there is more of an opportunity to work on 
amendments. I appreciate the cooperation of everybody.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, if I may add, I think the majority 
leader has made a wise decision, after consultation with both sides. 
Cloture would not have been invoked tomorrow. Senators Kennedy and Enzi 
can work out an orderly process. I think it is an approach that I 
applaud and recommend.

[[Page 9420]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wish to personally thank the two 
leaders and Senator Enzi. This is important legislation involving 
national security. I am grateful for the opportunity to work with my 
friend and colleague, Senator Enzi, to try to make recommendations here 
in the Senate. I know there are diverse views on this issue. We will 
try to work out an orderly procedure so that Members will be able to 
get their views out and considered in the Senate and do it in a timely 
way.
  Again, I thank the two leaders and the Senator from Wyoming as well 
for his cooperation, as always.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.


               UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--S.J. RES. 28

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, upon 
disposition of the House message on S. Con. Res. 70, the Senate proceed 
to the consideration of Calendar No. 731, S.J. Res. 28, a joint 
resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the FCC with respect to 
broadcast media ownership, the statutory time be reduced to 2 minutes 
equally divided and controlled between Senators Dorgan and Stevens or 
their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the 
Senate proceed to vote on passage of the joint resolution; provided 
further that all remaining provisions of the statute remain in effect. 
I further ask that all statements relating to the matter be printed in 
the Record prior to the vote on this important piece of legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Finally, as I understand, we have one more rollcall vote we 
are going to have now. There will be no votes tomorrow. This will be 
the last vote until Tuesday morning, unless someone has an objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to vote on a motion offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. 
Gregg, on discretionary spending.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, under the budget resolution, spending goes 
down each and every year as a share of domestic product, 20.8 percent 
down to 19.1 percent
  The Senator opposite seeks to make those reductions more steep and 
embrace the President's proposal which would eliminate the COPS 
Program--not just cut it but eliminate it, a program that puts 100,000 
police on the street--cut the Weatherization Assistance Program 100 
percent at a time of $120 oil; cut the first responder grants--police, 
fire, emergency medical 78 percent; cut community development 24 
percent; cut clean water 21 percent; cut LIHEAP 15 percent.
  More than that, because of the way this amendment has been written, 
this would put defense in the pool to be cut. If you want to do that, 
vote for the Senator's motion. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have no charts. I simply have a number: 
$1 trillion. We should draw the line somewhere around here. We should 
say to the American people: It is time that we exercise fiscal 
discipline. Let's do it at $1 trillion. That means that in this budget, 
you only have to reduce it 1 percent to get back underneath that 
number.
  We don't have to look to the President to do that. We can't, amongst 
ourselves, come up with $10 billion of savings on a $1 trillion budget? 
If we can't, we should all go home.
  Vote to draw the line at $1 trillion. Vote for the American taxpayer.
  Mr. President, I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg.
  Mr. GREGG. 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 New York (Mrs. Clinton) 
and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Corker), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 135 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wicker

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Alexander
     Clinton
     Corker
     McCain
     Obama

  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair appoints. 
Mr. Conrad, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Gregg, and Mr. Domenici 
conferees on the part of the Senate.

                          ____________________