[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7305-7314]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




REVOLUTIONARY WAR AND WAR OF 1812 BATTLEFIELD PROTECTION ACT--MOTION TO 
                                PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 146, which the 
clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A motion to proceed to the bill H.R. 146, to establish a 
     battlefield acquisition grant program for the acquisition and 
     protection of nationally significant battlefields and 
     associated sites of the Revolutionary War and the War of 
     1812, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, earlier this year, the Senate passed 
S. 22, which is the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act, a collection 
of over 160 bills primarily from the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources. After a week of debate, the Senate passed S. 22 by a vote of 
73 to 21. That vote occurred on January 15.
  Unfortunately, the House of Representatives has not yet passed S. 22. 
In an effort to facilitate consideration of this package of bills in 
the other body, it is my hope that we will be able to attach the 
omnibus lands package to another bill that has already passed the House 
of Representatives and send it back where, hopefully, it can be quickly 
approved.
  As the first step of this process this afternoon, the Senate will 
vote on whether to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 146, 
which is the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection 
Act. If cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed to that bill, and 
once we are on that bill, it is my intention to offer a substitute 
amendment that will essentially substitute the text of S. 22 as passed 
by the Senate.
  In addition to making a few technical corrections to the previously 
passed bill text, the amendment incorporates one change that was not in 
the underlying Senate bill when it was previously passed.
  Following Senate passage of S. 22, I understand that some Members in 
the House of Representatives expressed concern that the portion of the 
bill pertaining to Wild and Scenic Rivers and National Trails and 
National Heritage Areas might somehow be construed to limit access for 
authorized hunting, fishing, and trapping activities. While I am 
confident the Senate bill in no way restricts those activities, in an 
attempt to make this completely clear, the substitute amendment I will 
propose to offer, if we are able to do that, adds a provision in title 
V which covers Wild and Scenic Rivers and National Trails language 
designations. The new language states that:

       Nothing in this title shall be construed as affecting 
     access for recreational activities otherwise allowed by law 
     or regulation, including hunting, fishing, or trapping.

  Furthermore:

       Nothing in this title shall be construed as affecting the 
     authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the several 
     States to manage, control or regulate fish and resident 
     wildlife under State law or regulations, including the 
     regulation of hunting, fishing, and trapping.

  The amendment adds similar language in title VIII, which is the title 
designating National Heritage Areas. I would like to thank Senator 
Murkowski, who is the ranking member on the Energy Committee with me in 
this Congress, and also Senator Crapo, for their assistance with this 
provision.
  With this clarification, I believe all interested parties now agree 
that the bill is clear that access for recreational hunting, fishing, 
and trapping is not affected by the river, trail, or heritage area 
designations.
  As we noted before, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act is 
collectively one of the most significant conservation bills to be 
considered by the Senate in this past decade. It will result in the 
addition of over 2 million new acres of the National Wilderness 
Preservation System. It will designate three new units to the National 
Park System, and it enlarges the boundaries of several existing parks. 
It creates a new national monument and three new national conservation 
areas. It adds over 1,000 new miles to the National Wild and Scenic 
Rivers System and over 2,800 miles of new trails that will be part of 
the National Trails System. It establishes in law the Bureau of Land 
Management's National Landscape Conservation System that protects over 
1.2 million acres of the Wyoming Range.
  In addition, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act authorizes 
numerous land exchanges and conveyances to help local communities 
throughout the West. It includes the Forest Landscape Restoration Act, 
which will help undertake collaborative landscape-scale restoration 
projects to help reduce both future fire risk and fire-associated 
costs. It incorporates over 30 bills which will help address critical 
water resource needs at both the national and local level. It 
authorizes several studies to help communities better understand their 
local water supplies and the best way to meet future water needs, and 
it includes several authorizations for local and regional water 
projects that enhance water use efficiencies, address water 
infrastructure needs, and help provide sustainable water supplies to 
rural communities.
  Finally, the bill will ratify three important water settlements--
settlements in California, Nevada, and New Mexico. These settlements 
will resolve literally decades of litigation between the affected 
States, Indian tribes, agricultural and municipal water users, and 
environmental interests.
  The previous vote on S. 22 was 73 Senators voting to pass the bill--
evidence of the strong bipartisan support for this package. Invoking 
cloture this afternoon on the motion to proceed to H.R. 146 is the 
first step necessary to move the Omnibus Public Land Management Act 
toward enactment into law.
  In closing, I would like to, of course, thank our majority leader, 
Senator Reid, for his continued commitment to pass this bill. I urge my 
colleagues to

[[Page 7306]]

support invoking cloture on the motion to proceed when we have that 
vote at 5:30 today.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                  aig

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, every time I see you sitting 
in the presiding chair, I can't help but think how proud your uncle, 
the late senior Senator from Florida and the late former Governor of 
Florida, Lawten Chiles--your uncle, since your mom was Lawton's 
sister--how proud he would be and what an enormously wonderful 
contribution and addition you are to the Senate. Thank you for the 
recognition.
  It is with a heavy heart that I have to speak on this continuing saga 
of Wall Street, the continuing saga that the executives of big 
corporations in this country--and I am not talking about all 
corporations but a limited number of corporations with high-flying 
executives who, in the midst of us trying to work out this economic 
devastation we are in, do not understand that what they do and what 
they say, whether it is reality, has perception to it. As a result, 
they have angered a lot of people.
  A lot of that anger, that disbelief, that ``oh my'' moment comes when 
you hear about what we heard over the weekend about AIG, American 
Insurance Group, one of the largest insurance companies in the world, 
which got into trouble. Last fall, we were presented with what in 
effect became an $85 billion bailout. I will never forget, as the new 
Secretary of the Treasury was coming through the confirmation process 
and the members of the Finance Committee had a chance to talk to him, I 
asked him: Why did we let Lehman Brothers go down and yet we propped up 
AIG? The answer was that AIG was too big, the hole was too big, that it 
would have had too many ramifications across the global marketplace to 
let it go down, whereas contrasted with Lehman Brothers, the financial 
hole was too big that it just simply could not be repaired.
  Originally, they were talking about $40 or $50 billion to bail out 
AIG. Then it became $85 billion. If we had known that $85 billion, when 
we first agreed to let this happen last fall, if we had known that was 
going to go in taxpayer money to upwards of $170 billion, and if we had 
known that money was going to prop up other financial institutions to 
which they had an economic obligation, many of those financial 
institutions across the world, would we have done it? Well, I doubt we 
would have because $85 billion was big enough, but now closing in on 
$170 billion of taxpayer money, I don't think we would have agreed to 
that. I sure don't think we would have agreed if we knew that money was 
going to--now get this--almost $13 billion to Goldman Sachs; to a 
French financial company almost $12 billion, Societe Generale; almost 
$12 billion--all of this taxpayer money--to Deutsche Bank of Germany; 
$8.5 billion to Barclays; Merrill Lynch, which eventually bit the dust, 
$6.8 billion; Bank of America, which is in deep trouble right now, $5.2 
billion, in deep trouble because they acquired Merrill Lynch; UBS, $5 
billion--the list goes on through DNP, HSBC, Citigroup, Calyon, 
Dresdner Kleinwort, Wachovia, ING, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of 
Montreal.
  That is American taxpayers' hard-earned money that was going to pay 
off those insurance policies called credit default swaps that were a 
kind of guarantee, a derivative that if they made a wrong bet, they 
would be protected by that insurance company. And lo and behold, that 
insurance company, the full weight and credit and finances of the 
United States Government--re: the American taxpayer--is going in, you 
can't say it with any other word, to bail out these companies.
  Would we, the Senate, had we known $170 billion was going to bail out 
AIG, and of that money what I just listed was going to these 
corporations around the globe, half of which are foreign corporations? 
I don't think we would.
  Is it any wonder people are upset? Is it any wonder the President of 
the United States has just had a press conference today saying he wants 
the Secretary of the Treasury to go back to find out what they can do 
to stop those bonuses from being paid or to get them back if they have 
already been paid? And, oh, by the way, why did AIG, last fall, when it 
made all of these payments, refuse to identify the individual financial 
institutions it was giving the money to? It all the more adds insult to 
injury. No wonder people are so mad and upset.
  Now, I just came from a townhall meeting in Ocoee, FL. It is little 
town west of Orlando. A lot of the towns' city councils, mayors in that 
region of west Orange County--the Chamber of Commerce--all came today. 
I can tell you, this was on their mind. But they want to know something 
more. They want to know what has happened to old-fashioned right and 
wrong? What has happened to old-fashioned ethics?
  When this Senator went to high school, we did not have ethics 
classes. It now seems we have to teach ethics classes, not only in our 
elementary and secondary schools, but all the way in our universities 
now. What is it that has gotten our leadership so askew they cannot get 
beyond their own blinders to see what they are doing and how it is 
affecting everybody else?
  Now, it is no--I was going to say it is no secret, but it is not a 
secret, it is just a fact that I have had the privilege of being a 
public servant virtually all of my adult life. When I was a kid growing 
up, that was one of the highest callings for a person. I am starting to 
see some of that rekindled in young people now. But, my goodness, when 
they hear about all of this stuff--banks and bankers are public 
servants. They are entrusted with the people's money, to use it and 
invest it wisely, and then to be accountable for what happens to it. We 
elected officials are not the only public servants. There are public 
servants in every walk of life. If you are a teacher, if you are a 
doctor, a nurse--whatever your field--you are a public servant, and you 
owe a responsibility and accountability to the society and the country 
that has given you the opportunities you have. That seems to be going 
out of control.
  We read another story a couple days ago. Bank of America bit off 
something they could not chew, which was Merrill Lynch. They said they 
were duped. Merrill Lynch gave a whole bunch of bonuses. The CEO of 
Bank of America, which bought Merrill Lynch, said he told them not to, 
and yet they did anyway. Well, since when did the captain of the ship 
not control the ship?
  And, oh, by the way, are the CEOs of these institutions that are 
receiving taxpayer money not reading the papers? Did they not hear 
about the backlash as to the three executives of the Detroit Big Three 
automakers when they came to testify for a bailout of Federal taxpayer 
money, and they all came in their private jets? There was so much scorn 
and derision. They could have, of course, gotten on one of the three 
jets. They seemed to learn the lessons, so the next time they came to 
Congress asking for a bailout again, they drove their own vehicles.
  Well, what happened to the CEO of Bank of America, who has taken $45 
billion of taxpayer money? Of course, he is a busy man and very 
talented, but he flies his Gulfstream V for a meeting in New York. It 
is perception. And that perception--I am not jumping on just him, I am 
trying to get people to understand, when you are dealing with the 
public's wheel, the public's business--and that certainly includes 
taxpayer money--then you have to be responsible and accountable. It 
seems somehow this goes over people's head.
  Well, we all make mistakes. Certainly this Senator has made mistakes. 
One of the things about the American people is, they are a forgiving 
people. If

[[Page 7307]]

someone, when they make a mistake, will admit it, people are very 
willing to give a person a second chance.
  When you keep names secret, when you take billions and tens of 
billions of dollars of Federal taxpayer money, when you are insensitive 
to the perception of the high-flying style of life you are living, the 
American public is not very forgiving. That is what has happened over 
the weekend. That is what happened in that townhall meeting of mine 
today in Ocoee, FL.
  That is another reason the President has again stood up and spoken 
out and said: We are going to stop this. Why do we want to stop it? 
Because we all seek the same goal; that is, the resuscitation of our 
economy, to get the banks lending again so dollars can go out to 
businesses and small businesses, so they can employ people and reverse 
the soaring unemployment rate. That is the goal: to get America back to 
work, to get America moving forward again economically.
  It is my hope I do not have to have the kind of townhall meeting 
where people are upset as they were today and as they were over the 
weekend in the meetings.


                          Space Shuttle Launch

  There was one good thing I did attend over the weekend. I saw 
Government dollars at work, as the space shuttle soared into the night 
sky at Cape Canaveral at the Kennedy Space Center. That was one of the 
most beautiful launches I have ever seen. It was right on time. Of 
course, it had had its delays, but that is part of the space program, 
making sure when you get down to T minus zero and those solid rocket 
boosters light off, you have it right.
  Indeed, NASA had it right, and they gave a little lift to the 
American people last night with that display of power: almost 7 million 
pounds of thrust, straight up, and then arching over into a low Earth 
orbit.
  Those astronauts now will go out and take another big section of the 
truss, attach it to the Space Station, and then install the final solar 
arrays so that the International Space Station will be up and powered 
with the electricity it needs for all of the scientific experimentation 
that is going to be done on the International Space Station, which has 
been designated a national laboratory of the United States.
  That was a moment of joy in an otherwise time of difficult economic 
circumstances.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Kyl and I be permitted to engage in a colloquy for 20 minutes, and that 
I be informed when we have 2 minutes left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam President.


                        President Obama's Budget

  Madam President, President Obama's budget raises taxes by $1.4 
trillion over 10 years. It is the largest tax increase in history, 
right in the middle of a recession--a recession we all hope we can get 
out of soon.
  I have with me today on the Senate floor my colleague Senator Jon 
Kyl, a member of the Finance Committee, who is, in our party, at least, 
and certainly within the entire Senate, one of the experts on taxation 
and jobs and progrowth Government policies.
  I say to Senator Kyl, I was looking through the history books a 
little bit this weekend. I noticed President Hoover, in 1932, raised 
taxes. He, in the Revenue Act of 1932, raised taxes across the board 
and raised the top tax rate from 25 percent to 63 percent. That was at 
a time when the unemployment rate was about 23 percent in this country. 
The effects of the 1932 tax increase were income tax revenues went down 
and the Federal deficit went up and unemployment stayed up all the way 
to 1940, when it was still 15 percent.
  But President Kennedy, of course a Democratic President, came along 
after a little bit of a sluggish period of time, and he cut taxes in a 
variety of ways and tax revenues went up. President Reagan came in a 
few years later, after a difficult time in the late 1970s, which I 
remember very well, and he reduced taxes and tax revenues went up.
  So I wonder what the lessons in history are. If we are in the middle 
of a recession and people are struggling for jobs--and in the Hoover 
and Kennedy and Reagan administrations we learned that tax increases 
often reduce revenues and impose costs--what is the lesson in history 
for the Obama budget?
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I would say to my friend from Tennessee, of 
course, he knows the answer, having been a great student of history 
himself. If anyone would like to get one of the definitive works on 
this, it is a book called ``The Forgotten Man.'' The author is Amity 
Shlaes. It is very well written. One of the key points it makes is 
precisely the historical point that my colleague from Tennessee makes; 
namely, that about the time the United States began to come out of the 
Depression, President Roosevelt's view was it was time to try to 
balance the budget and as a result--as Hoover had tried to do when he 
increased taxes and the economy tanked, which is exactly what happened 
again. So we didn't just have one Great Depression; we had a period of 
time when our country was in depression, it started to get out of the 
depression, and then went back into depression until World War II, 
largely because of this increase in taxes. The combination of the 
Smoot-Hawley tariffs--which are an increase in taxes of a different 
kind--and the income tax rates plunged the country back into the 
Depression.
  If I could respond to the point about President Kennedy, he did 
exactly the opposite. We were in the doldrums, and he proposed, after 
he was elected in 1960, that we actually reduce the capital gains tax. 
Now, I remember this because I was taking a course in economics at the 
University of Arizona at the time and I wrote a paper on this. I went 
home, I believe it was over the Christmas recess, and I talked to my 
father about it. I said: President Kennedy is a Democrat, I am a 
Republican, but I think he is doing the right thing. My father said: He 
is doing the right thing. I remember writing that in the paper and my 
professor was kind of scratching his head because he looked at it in a 
more political way. Yet if you look at it in a purely economic point of 
view, when the economy is not doing so well, the last thing you want to 
do is to raise tax rates. In fact, you can do a lot of good by reducing 
taxes, which is what Kennedy did, and it had a very profound and 
positive impact. Those are the lessons history teaches.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I believe there is another lesson, too, if we look 
back 40 years to October of 1969. It sounds very good to say we are 
going to tax the rich people. There are just a few of them; they are 
not you. We are going to take their money. You will be all right. That 
is exactly what happened in 1969. That was the last time we had a 
millionaires tax--that is what they called it--because they found 155 
people who had paid no income taxes, so they passed the millionaires 
tax. We have another name for it today; it is called the alternative 
minimum tax. This year, if Congress did not act, it would have taxed 28 
million Americans. It started out to catch 155 rich Americans and now 
could catch 28 million, including a lot of the middle class.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I would say to my colleague that is exactly 
right. That is one of the reasons why in this so-called stimulus 
package, a 1-year relief from the alternative minimum tax was included 
because we knew that the net was now casting so wide it would 
incorporate 20-plus million people into the category of millionaires--
people who made $50,000; $60,000; $70,000. The problem was the rates 
were never indexed for inflation, so what only caught millionaires at 
one time is now catching decidedly middle-class taxpayers.
  The same thing could easily be done with the proposals that the 
administration has in the budget--a budget which, as we discussed last 
week, spends too

[[Page 7308]]

much, taxes too much, and it borrows too much. We think we ought to 
spend less, tax less, and borrow less, which is one of the reasons we 
think the tax portions of the Obama budget are wrong.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. One of the tax portions has to do with what Senator 
Gregg, the Senator from New Hampshire, who is our ranking Republican on 
the Budget Committee, calls the national sales tax on electricity, a 
tax that would be a so-called cap-and-trade system tax.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, that is exactly right.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. It doesn't just get rich people.
  Mr. KYL. No. Madam President, this is the so-called mandatory cap-
and-trade system that is included within the budget under which the 
Government would set how much businesses could produce in the way of 
carbon by their activity, and then, of course, they would pass the 
costs of this limitation onto their customers. Now, that only applies 
to people who either directly use energy, such as electricity or 
gasoline or you buy something that has been made with energy. I think 
that covers just about everybody.
  The point is, it will take, from every American family, at least $800 
a year, which is the amount of the so-called tax cut the President--I 
have forgotten what he calls that in the budget.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I think he calls it the Making Work 
Pay credit.
  Mr. KYL. That is correct, the Make Work Pay Act, which is actually 
nothing more than a spending program in the guise of a tax cut. But 
whatever that gives back to people, it only covers what has been taken 
from them in this energy tax, and, in fact, that is just the beginning. 
The energy tax, by all accounts, will explode to a far greater burden 
on every family than an initial burden of 800 bucks.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, it is not entirely clear how much a 
cap-and-trade system on the entire economy will raise. The President 
estimates in his budget $646 billion over 10 years. Some observers 
think that is low; that it might be $60, $80, $100, $120 billion or 
even more over 10 years. The cap-and-trade system--the way of limiting 
the use of carbon in the economy--is the subject of a very important 
debate we should be having in the Senate. For the whole 6 years I have 
been in the Senate, I have recommended a cap-and-trade system just for 
powerplants, not for the whole economy. I see the distinguished Senator 
from New Mexico on the floor who is chairman of the Energy Committee. 
He has had his own bill there. But our point would be in the middle of 
a recession, you don't put on top of the American people a new tax on 
electric bills and gasoline purchases.
  Just in December of last year, 10 percent of customers for Nashville 
Electric Service said they couldn't pay their electric bills, even with 
TVA's relatively low rates. So whatever the views are on cap-and-
trade--and there are many views even within our conference: Our 
Presidential nominee, John McCain, supported cap-and-trade, and I 
support a limited one but not in the middle of a recession--the way to 
deal with a recession is not more taxes.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, if I could also talk about some of the 
other effects of this. The problem with this kind of an energy tax is 
that when people use less energy, obviously they buy less, they travel 
less, and all of this curtails economic activity. It has been estimated 
the gross domestic product of the United States would be roughly 1 
percent lower at the end of 2014 and 2.6 percent lower by 2030, just by 
having to pay this tax. As economic activity would slow, employers 
wouldn't need to hire as many workers. In fact, it is estimated that 
employers would create 850,000 fewer jobs by 2014 and 3 million fewer 
jobs by 2030. The effect on household income would be dramatic. It 
would reduce, on average, household income adjusted for inflation by 
$1,000 in 2014 and $4,000 by 2030. Of course, it is also a problem 
because not everyone will bear the same burden, and it is a very 
regressive tax, given the fact that people at a lower economic income 
level have to pay a higher percentage of their family income for energy 
than do higher income folks.
  So for a lot of different reasons, this is a very bad idea, and as my 
colleague from Tennessee points out, it is a terrible idea in the 
middle of a recession.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Our responsibility as the minority party is often to 
hold the administration accountable, to point out the other side of 
things, and to oppose things we think are wrong. Our responsibility 
also is to say what we are for. This week during the debate and over 
the next couple weeks you will hear Republicans offering different 
ideas for a clean energy agenda, one that begins with conservation, on 
which most of us agree. You will hear ideas including building 100 new 
nuclear powerplants, that is carbon free. You will hear ideas about 
finding more natural gas, that is low carbon and using plug-in electric 
cars, which we can plug in at night and we wouldn't have to build any 
more powerplants. So we could move toward more American energy, as 
clean as possible and as fast as possible, but what we want to 
remember--and this doesn't seem to be remembered in the budget--is to 
do so at as low a cost as possible because people are hurting today 
because of unemployment and high costs and a lack of jobs.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, let me turn to a slightly different aspect 
of this same problem. It is not just the energy tax in this budget that 
we are concerned about; it is also a variety of tax policies that will 
clearly and dramatically impact business--again, not what you want to 
do at a time of a recession. For example, it heavily taxes American 
corporations that have operations overseas. Now, we want to compete 
overseas. We don't want to just have American businesses here in 
America. Anybody who would go overseas to do business would be heavily 
taxed here. That will have a dramatic impact on our exports, which have 
been a big part of our economy and on our gross domestic product in 
general.
  Another thing it does at this time, which is dead wrong, is to 
indirectly impose a much higher cost on obtaining a mortgage because it 
limits the amount of mortgage interest deduction. One of the things 
that has enabled millions and millions of Americans to own their own 
home is because we have favorable tax treatment. They can take the 
mortgage interest deduction as a deduction from their Federal income 
taxes. So why would we limit the amount of deduction for your home 
mortgage, especially at this time when we are trying to encourage more 
people to buy homes and we don't want banks to end up with more bad 
loans on their books.
  Then, in addition, there are other tax rates that are allowed to 
increase rather than to continue where they are, and these are the 
rates on the income tax for the top two marginal rate categories. These 
are exactly the people who are reporting small business income. We know 
small businesses create up to 80 percent of the jobs in the economy, so 
there again, directly imposing a greater burden on the people who run 
and operate the small businesses in this country; precisely the group 
who needs to have more income in order to hire more people so we don't 
have as many unemployed.
  In all these ways, the budget is going to directly negatively impact 
our economic situation at exactly the wrong time.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Well, the Senator from Arizona brings up a very good 
point, which is the limitation on deductions people might take. Now, 
again, that sounds pretty good because one may say: Well, that applies 
just to someone with a lot of money, but let's think about this for a 
minute. That means charitable deductions in the United States would not 
receive the same sort of treatment under President Obama's plan that 
they do today. So we take a college such as Maryville College in my 
hometown, which is a small Presbyterian college that doesn't have a 
very large endowment; a faith-based college. It is having a tough time 
in the economy anyway. Then we come along and we say to people to whom 
it might turn for charitable contributions: Sorry, we are going to take 
away

[[Page 7309]]

the incentive that Americans have to make charitable contributions to 
the colleges, to the Boy Scouts, to the Girl Scouts, to the pro-life 
groups, to the pro-choice groups, to all sorts of associations in 
America that are having a hard time raising money for charitable 
activities, and we are going to make it that much harder.
  This country leads the world in terms of charitable contributions. 
Typically, about 2 percent of our income goes to charitable 
contributions. No other country in the world has that sort of tradition 
of giving, and in the middle of a recession we would limit charitable 
contributions to nonprofit organizations who are already struggling.
  Madam President, we have been asking the question: Why would someone 
who is interested in seeing an economic recovery propose these kinds of 
tax policies--to limit charitable deductions, limit the deduction on 
home mortgages, punish American companies doing business overseas, and 
put a mandatory energy tax on the American people?
  All of these are policies that don't seem to make any sense. As my 
colleague pointed out in the very beginning, they run opposite to the 
lessons we have learned historically. Why would this be done? It turns 
out that a very interesting op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last 
Thursday, March 12, may have the answer. It was written by Daniel 
Henninger. It is called ``The Obama Rosetta Stone.'' It is said that 
the Rosetta Stone is where you go to get the answer to the great 
mystery of life. The Rosetta Stone in the Obama budget Mr. Henninger 
finds is on page 5 of the budget. This, I think, provides the clue to 
why all of these negative policies are being introduced into the budget 
at this time.
  Let me quote from page 5 of the Federal budget. He is referring to 
the amount of income the top 1 percent of earners in our country makes:

       While middle-class families have been playing by the rules, 
     living up to their responsibilities as neighbors and 
     citizens, those at the commanding heights of our economy have 
     not.
       Prudent investments in education, clean energy, health care 
     and infrastructure were sacrificed for huge tax cuts for the 
     wealthy and well-connected.
       There's nothing wrong with making money, but there is 
     something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted 
     so far in the favor of so few. . . .It's a legacy of 
     irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change it.

  I think what Mr. Henninger has found in the Obama budget is the 
rationale for these paradoxical tax provisions. It is not a matter of 
helping families or supporting small businesses to create more jobs or 
helping the economy grow out of the recession; rather, this is all 
being done to redistribute the wealth in the country because it is 
alleged that the people at the top end of our economy are making more 
money than they should.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators have 2 minutes.
  Mr. KYL. The Senator from Tennessee can close after I finish my 
point.
  The point is, this is not the purpose of tax policy. The purpose of 
tax policy should be to raise the amount of money we need, and need 
legitimately, to run the Federal Government, and do so as fairly as 
possible.
  As they point out here, while the top 1 percent of earners in our 
country has earned 22 percent of the income, they pay 40 percent of the 
Federal taxes. The people who would get the brunt of the tax--those 
making above $200,000--pay 60 percent of the Federal income taxes in 
America. One wonders why a group that pays 60 percent of the taxes 
already and only comprises 2 percent of our population is being 
unfairly treated. As a result of the Bush tax policy, they are actually 
paying a higher percentage of income taxes than they did before the 
Bush tax cuts went into effect. I think maybe that is the answer to the 
question. If so, it is very distressing.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator. I ask unanimous consent for 30 
seconds to conclude.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, before his conclusion, I ask unanimous 
consent to have the op-ed I referred to be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 12, 2009]

                        The Obama Rosetta Stone

                         (By Daniel Henninger)

       Barack Obama has written two famous, widely read books of 
     autobiography--``Dreams from My Father'' and ``The Audacity 
     of Hope.'' Let me introduce his third, a book that will touch 
     everyone's life: ``A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing 
     America's Promise. The President's Budget and Fiscal 
     Preview'' (Government Printing Office, 141 pages, $26; free 
     on the Web). This is the U.S. budget for laymen, and it's a 
     must read.
       Turn immediately to page 11. There sits a chart called 
     Figure 9. This is the Rosetta Stone to the presidential mind 
     of Barack Obama. Memorize Figure 9, and you will never be 
     confused. Not happy, perhaps, but not confused.
       One finds many charts in a federal budget, most attributed 
     to such deep mines of data as the Census Bureau or the Bureau 
     of Labor Statistics. The one on page 11 is attributed to 
     ``Piketty and Saez.''
       Either you know instantly what ``Piketty and Saez'' means, 
     or you don't. If you do, you spent the past two years working 
     to get Barack Obama into the White House. If you don't, their 
     posse has a six-week head start on you.
       Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, French economists, are 
     rock stars of the intellectual left. Their specialty is 
     ``earnings inequality'' and ``wealth concentration.''
       Messrs. Piketty and Saez have produced the most politically 
     potent squiggle along an axis since Arthur Laffer drew his 
     famous curve on a napkin in the mid-1970s. Laffer's was an 
     economic argument for lowering tax rates for everyone. 
     Piketty-Saez is a moral argument for raising taxes on the 
     rich.
       As described in Mr. Obama's budget, these two economists 
     have shown that by the end of 2004, the top 1% of taxpayers 
     ``took home'' more than 22% of total national income. This 
     trend, Fig. 9 notes, began during the Reagan presidency, 
     skyrocketed through the Clinton years, dipped after George 
     Bush beat Al Gore, then marched upward. Widening its own 
     definition of money-grubbers, the budget says the top 10% of 
     households ``held'' 70% of total wealth.
       Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute criticized the Piketty-
     Saez study on these pages in October 2007. Whatever its 
     merits, their ``Top 1%'' chart has become a totemic obsession 
     in progressive policy circles.
       Turn to page five of Mr. Obama's federal budget, and one 
     may read these commentaries on the top 1% datum:
       ``While middle-class families have been playing by the 
     rules, living up to their responsibilities as neighbors and 
     citizens, those at commanding heights of our economy have 
     not.''
       ``Prudent investments in education, clean energy, health 
     care and infrastructure were sacrificed for huge tax cuts for 
     the wealthy and well-connected.''
       ``There's nothing wrong with making money, but there is 
     something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted 
     so far in the favor of so few. . . . It's a legacy of 
     irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change it.''
       Mr. Obama made clear in the campaign his intention to raise 
     taxes on this income class by letting the Bush tax cuts 
     expire. What is becoming clearer as his presidency unfolds is 
     that something deeper is underway here than merely using 
     higher taxes to fund his policy goals in health, education 
     and energy.
       The ``top 1%'' isn't just going to pay for these policies. 
     Many of them would assent to that. The rancorous language 
     used to describe these taxpayers makes it clear that as a 
     matter of public policy they will be made to ``pay for'' the 
     fact of their weaith--no matter how many of them worked 
     honestly and honorably to produce it. No Democratic president 
     in 60 years has been this explicit.
       Complaints have emerged recently, on the right and left, 
     that the $787 billion stimulus bill will produce less growth 
     and jobs than planned because too much of it goes to social 
     programs and transfer payments, or ``weak'' Keynesian 
     stimulus. The administration's Romer-Bernstein study on the 
     stimulus estimated by the end of next year it would increase 
     jobs by 3.6 million and GDP by 3.7%.
       One of the first technical examinations of the Romer-
     Bernstein projections has been released by Hoover Institution 
     economists John Cogan and John Taylor, and German economists 
     Tobias Cwik and Volker Wieland. They conclude that the growth 
     and jobs stimulus will be only one-sixth what the 
     administration predicts. In part, this is because people 
     anticipate that the spending burst will have to be financed 
     by higher taxes and so will spend less than anticipated.
       New York's Mike Bloomberg, mayor of an economically damaged 
     city, has noted the pointlessness of raising taxes on the 
     rich when their wealth is plummeting, or of eliminating the 
     charitable deduction for people who have less to give anyway.
       True but irrelevant. Mayor Bloomberg should read the Obama 
     budget chapter, ``Inheriting a Legacy of Misplaced 
     Priorities.''

[[Page 7310]]

     The economy as most people understand it was a second-order 
     concern of the stimulus strategy. The primary goal is a 
     massive re-flowing of ``wealth'' from the top toward the 
     bottom, to stop the moral failure they see in the budget's 
     ``Top One Percent of Earners'' chart.
       The White House says its goal is simple ``fairness.'' That 
     may be, as they understand fairness. But Figure 9 makes it 
     clear that for the top earners, there will be blood. This 
     presidency is going to be an act of retribution. In the words 
     of the third book from Mr. Obama, ``It is our duty to change 
     it.''

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, I hope all of us in the Chamber 
understand that people are hurting, and we want to see jobs and see the 
economy moving again. I think our point is that the lessons of history 
show that raising taxes doesn't help create new jobs. Now is not the 
time to change inequities in the Tax Code. Now is the time to create 
new jobs and for people to have more money in their pockets.
  We would like to join with the President in focusing attention on 
fixing the banks and getting credit flowing again in the same way 
President Eisenhower did when he said: I will go to Korea and 
concentrate my attention on this job until it is honorably done.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. 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. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to proceed as in morning business for no more than 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Halabja Anniversary

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, it was exactly 21 years ago today 
that Saddam Hussein perpetrated one of modern history's most barbaric 
crimes. On the morning of March 16, 1988, the Iraqi Air Force dropped 
chemical weapons on Halabja, a Kurdish city in northeastern Iraq. Over 
the course of 3 days, tens of thousands of victims were exposed to 
mustard gas--which burns, mutates DNA, and causes malformations and 
cancer--as well as sarin gas--which can kill, paralyze, and cause 
lasting neurological damage--among other deadly chemical agents. Over 
the course of 3 days of bombing, it is believed that at least 5,000 
civilians were murdered in Halabja.
  The attack on Halabja was not the only instance in which the former 
Iraqi regime committed mass murder with chemical weapons. On the 
contrary, it was just one event in a large-scale campaign against the 
Iraqi Kurds called the Anfal, led by Saddam and his henchman, Ali 
Hassal Al Majid, also known as ``chemical Ali.''
  For 18 months between 1987 and 1988, it is estimated that Saddam's 
forces destroyed several thousand Iraqi Kurdish villages and murdered 
approximately 100,000 Iraqi Kurds, the majority of them unarmed 
civilians. At least 40 chemical weapon attacks have been documented--
the first time in human history that a government has used weapons of 
mass destruction against its own citizens.
  In her Pulitzer prize-winning book, ``A Problem From Hell,'' Samantha 
Power describes the assault on Halabja. It is a chilling account. The 
chemical weapons were dropped from aircraft that flew low over the 
city. In Samantha Power's words:

       Many families tumbled into primitive air raid shelters they 
     had built outside their homes. When the gases seeped through 
     the cracks, they poured out into the streets in a panic.
       There, they found friends and family members frozen in time 
     like a modern version of Pompeii. Slumped a few yards behind 
     a baby carriage, caught permanently holding the hand of a 
     loved one or shielding a child from the poisoned air, or 
     calmly collapsed behind a car steering wheel. Not everyone 
     who was exposed died instantly. Some of those who inhaled the 
     chemicals continued to stumble around town, blinded by the 
     gas, giggling uncontrollably, or, because their nerves were 
     malfunctioning, buckling at the knees.

  On the anniversary of this horrific attack on Halabja, I urge my 
colleagues to pause and reflect on the lessons it teaches us.
  What happened in Halabja should remind us that there is, 
unfortunately, such a thing as evil in the world, and that we in the 
United States not only protect our security but uphold our most 
cherished humanitarian values when we fight against it.
  Halabja should also remind us that there are leaders in the world 
whose conduct is unconstrained by the most basic rules of humanity, 
whose only interest is their own power, and who are willing to do 
anything necessary--no matter how unspeakable or cruel--to perpetuate 
their power.
  Halabja should remind us of the extraordinary danger posed by rogue 
states that possess weapons of mass destruction, and why we and our 
allies must be prepared to take extraordinary measures to prevent the 
world's most dangerous regimes from getting the world's most dangerous 
armaments.
  Finally, Halabja should also remind us that despite the many mistakes 
and missteps the Bush administration made in the course of the war in 
Iraq, all who value human rights should be deeply grateful that Saddam 
Hussein and his terrible regime are gone and now consigned to the 
dustbin of history. If anyone doubts the world is a better, safer place 
with Saddam gone, they need only look to the history of what happened 
on this day 21 years ago in Halabja.
  Two decades ago, the Kurdish-inhabited regions of Iraq were decimated 
and depopulated by one of the 20th century's most vicious and 
tyrannical despots. Fortunately, the story does not end there. Today, 
thanks in no small part to the protection provided by the United 
States, the Kurds of Iraq have rebuilt and their region is flourishing. 
The great Kurdish cities of Erbil, Sulaymaniyah, and Dohuk are the 
safest in Iraq today, and they are booming economically. The Kurdish 
people have emerged from the yoke of tyranny to become some of 
America's best and most loyal allies anywhere in the world.
  The leaders of the Kurdistan Regional Government still face 
challenges. They need to pursue further political reform and economic 
liberalization. They must fight corruption, and they must continue to 
work with the democratically elected Government in Baghdad to ensure 
that disputes over contested territory in northern Iraq, including in 
the city of Kirkuk, are resolved peacefully and not through violence. 
And I am confident they will.
  Indeed, in a remarkable--I would say miraculous--turn of history, 21 
years after the atrocity of Halabja, the Kurds of Iraq have at least 
assumed their rightful role in shaping the future of the great country 
of which they are a part. Today, the Kurds of Iraq enjoy the same 
rights and privileges as every other Iraqi citizen, and their 
representatives sit in a democratically elected Parliament in Baghdad.
  Perhaps in the most miraculous of all turn of events and one of the 
great historical justices of our time, Saddam Hussein, that evil tyrant 
who ordered the mass murders of tens of thousands of Kurds, has been 
replaced as President of Iraq by a great Kurdish Iraqi patriot, a 
freedom fighter and a great friend of the United States, Jalal 
Talabani. That is something the survivors of Halabja 21 years ago could 
never possibly have imagined.
  As we pause to remember the victims of Halabja today, we should also 
give thanks to the extraordinary progress that has been achieved since 
that terrible day 21 years ago--progress that has been made possible 
through the courage and sacrifice of Kurds, Iraqis, and Americans 
alike.
  I yield the floor, and 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. COBURN. 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. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the 
pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, the American people should pay very 
close

[[Page 7311]]

attention this week. We are going to have on the floor what the 
majority leader calls a ``noncontroversial'' bill; a noncontroversial 
bill, in that we are going to take 3 million acres and deem it 
untouchable for further energy for this country; noncontroversial in 
that we are going to spend--in mandatory spending yearly from now on 
out--$900 million a year on things you will never see the benefit of; 
noncontroversial in terms of taking specific areas with known, proven 
oil and gas reserves--300 million by the Department of the Interior's 
estimation in one field alone--to the tune of 300 million barrels of 
oil and 13 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Yet it is 
noncontroversial.
  The other thing we should be aware of is that throughout this omnibus 
lands bill there are 150 different individual bills, 50 of which never 
had a hearing in the House--they were voted on in the Senate in 
committee but most had never had a hearing--and we are going to step 
all over private property rights in this Nation. We are not going to do 
it directly, we are going to do it through laws that we refer to in 
this omnibus package that allows the bureaucracy--the faceless 
bureaucracy--to now utilize portions of preexisting acts to take land 
by eminent domain.
  You are going to hear: Well, that is a small portion. It is 
specifically prevented in certain portions of the bill. They do say 
that. But they do not obviate the law. In this omnibus bill are 70 or 
80 bills that I would happily pass, because I don't think they have a 
profound negative impact on our future. But there are 70 or 80 of the 
bills which I think have a profound negative impact on the future, and 
I readily admit to trying to stop this bill in the past. I will put 
forward that I will do everything in my power as an individual Senator 
to, if not stop it, slow it down so that the American people will 
actually know every aspect of everything that is in this bill.
  This bill is over 2,000 pages. There has never been one amendment. 
There has never been one amendment allowed on the Senate floor to alter 
this bill. So I look forward to a debate. I look forward to an open 
amendment process that does not allow veto by the other side of what we 
want to try to amend and when we want to try to amend it. But I pledge 
to use every parliamentary tactic I have at my disposal to defend the 
right to amend this bill.
  Some may say: Well, you have a lost cause. Why don't you give it up, 
Senator Coburn, and let them have it. They are going to win. The reason 
we shouldn't let them win on this--although there are good things in 
this bill--is because we are setting a precedent with a very weak 
foundation underneath us for our future energy needs. Recently, in the 
last 6 weeks, we had a Federal judge in Utah abandon and prohibit 
energy exploration because it was close to a wilderness area. We have 
had the Department of the Interior rescind energy exploration permits 
that were duly granted under a full and proper process because it was 
not environmentally acceptable.
  What is not acceptable is to deny the fact that even if we get to a 
totally green energy source, it is going to take us 20 years to do it. 
What is not acceptable is to continue to send our hard-earned dollars 
out of this country when in fact we could provide that same energy 
without sending those dollars out of this country and increase our own 
economic base and freedom and prosperity.
  I look forward to the debate. I plan on voting no on the motion to 
proceed, and I plan on using every tool I can to delay and obstruct 
this piece of legislation because it is not in the best long-term 
interest of our country.
  A bill that is 150 bills or 160 bills comes to the floor with many 
people as proponents. The question Americans ought to ask their Senator 
is: Even though you get something for us, is this a good deal for us? 
Is this something with which we want to bless the other 149 bills 
throughout this mega, omnibus lands bill? Do you get something that is 
good for the country as a whole, that is good for the country in the 
long term, that benefits the next two generations; do we do so in a way 
that is prudent, efficient, effective, and manageable? The answer to 
that question is no. It is no today, it is going to be no tomorrow, and 
it will be no after we have done this and look back on it 10 years from 
now.
  We live in a make-believe world where we think we can have our cake 
and eat it too. We can't. The fact is we are tremendously reliant on 
carbon sources of energy. We need to quit abandoning our own sources 
until we can be carbon free. This bill takes us a long way toward 
taking off multiple areas of both potential and proven reserves of 
natural gas, geothermal, and oil which we should be utilizing for our 
own benefit and our own future.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise today to speak in favor of 
cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 146, which is the 
Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act. This is 
being used as a vehicle for the omnibus public lands package.
  I think it is probably safe to say that none of us had hoped to be 
voting on this package here in the Senate again, but it has become 
clear that despite procedural obstacles this package has broad 
bipartisan support on both sides of the Hill and should become law, and 
that is why we are back yet again.
  Although each individual bill in this package is not the kind of 
thing that perhaps makes national headlines, as a whole it is important 
enough to justify the time this body has committed to it, and I 
appreciate the majority leader bringing this back, and I appreciate the 
cooperation of my chairman, Senator Bingaman, as we work to advance the 
very important provisions that are contained in this omnibus public 
lands package.
  In the case of the Energy Committee, this package, along with a 
similar package that was passed by the Senate last spring, represents 
almost 2 years' worth of hearings, negotiations, and business meetings 
on the many facets of these public lands issues. This package contains 
over 160 public lands bills, the vast majority of which went through 
the regular committee process and then sat individually on the Senate 
calendar at the end of last session.
  Now, clearly, when you have a package that is comprised of this many 
bills--160 different public lands bills--it does a great deal; it 
covers a great many things. It covers the full range of the committee's 
public lands jurisdiction, whether it be from small boundary 
adjustments and land exchanges to large wilderness designations. There 
will be some who will suggest that the sheer number of bills that is 
contained in this package is a bad thing and that somehow or other this 
is new; it is unprecedented. But for those of us who come from western 
States, which contain large amounts of public lands--and in my State of 
Alaska about 1 percent of our lands are privately held, everything else 
is Federal, or State, or part of the native claims settlements--public 
land is an important aspect of how we operate within our respective 
States. We understand that legislation, such as that contained in this 
package, is necessary to the day-to-day functioning of the western 
economy.
  I said during the first debate of this bill when it was before the 
Senate that in the West simple real estate transactions that are taken 
for granted in the East often literally take an act of Congress. And 
that is what we are here doing today. It is taking an act of Congress. 
This bill protects some of our natural landscape and historical 
treasures.
  Now, there are some who oppose such protections, claiming that we are 
threatening access to our Nation's resources. But I do not believe that 
this is an either/or situation. We as a nation can maximize the 
development of our domestic energy and mineral resources while at the 
same time protecting our Nation's other natural

[[Page 7312]]

treasures and wilderness. In fact, the Department of the Interior and 
the U.S. Forest Service have certified in testimony, in response to 
questions, that none of the wilderness proposed in this legislation 
will negatively impact on the availability of oil, gas, or national 
energy corridors.
  There is one section I should mention that does restrict oil and gas 
development in Wyoming, but as my colleague from Wyoming has mentioned, 
it is fully supported by their State delegation and their Governor. 
Almost all of the lands in this bill are already federally managed 
lands, most to be designated as wilderness, are either within the 
Federal parks or have been managed with restrictions, such as 
wilderness study areas or roadless areas. So in that case a designation 
as Federal wilderness does not further restrict use beyond what has 
been in place for quite some time.
  On the other hand, this bill actually transfers 23,226 acres of 
Federal lands to private and State sectors through conveyance, 
exchange, or sale. The bill does authorize the expenditure of funds, 
but each of those is dependent on future appropriations that depend on 
the oversight provided by the appropriations committees and the 
Presidential budget request.
  I think it is fair to say that this process is not my preferred 
method for passing legislation--putting multiple measures in an omnibus 
bill--but I believe that overall this package will improve our Nation's 
management of its public lands and its parks and will be a long-term 
benefit for our Nation. Therefore, I respectfully request my fellow 
Members support the passage of this omnibus legislation.
  With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               The Budget

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I wish to briefly begin discussion in 
the Senate about the President's budget that has been submitted to the 
Congress. We have had hearings under Chairman Conrad, Kent Conrad. His 
committee has had excellent hearings. We have had some good 
discussions. We have had some important witnesses, and we have been 
talking about some very important matters.
  I wish to say now that I think the American people and the Members of 
the Senate need to get focused on the fact that the budget is not a 
good budget. The budget proposed by the President presents 
unsustainable spending, tax increases, and debt. It is just that way. 
It is right here in the book and the numbers cannot be changed. People 
can talk and spin any way they would like to, but if you look at these 
numbers, it is a chilling proposal for America that cannot be 
sustained.
  One of the things the President promised, I think in his State of the 
Union and in his budget, was that we would have an honest budget and 
there would not be gimmicks in it. There have been, over the years, 
quite a number of times when Republicans and Democrats have put 
gimmicks into the budget. I would say I do not think this one is any 
better than the past. In fact, I think it is probably worse, maybe 
considerably worse. The budget, entitled ``A New Era of Responsibility, 
Renewing America's Promise,'' says on page 43, the conclusion of the 
introductory summary:

       The budget itself does not use budget gimmicks or 
     accounting sleights of hand to hide our plans or the status 
     of our economy. It is forthright in the challenges we face 
     and the sacrifices we must make.

  I do not think that is a fair statement of some of the things in 
here. We will be talking about some of the concerns as we go on. 
Fundamentally, the budget, as proposed, presents an overly rosy 
economic forecast. In fact, the numbers do not correspond with the best 
numbers we have on the economy from the Blue Chip indicator. That is 
the top 51 economists in the country. It is considered the gold 
standard of economic forecasting that we should have used or been close 
to. The consensus view of the Blue Chip economists--why is this 
important? It is important because if you are projecting an overly 
healthy economy, you are projecting more revenue into the Treasury than 
you are actually going to receive. That is the big deal.
  In a budget you assume certain things. If it assumes a level of 
growth that is too high or a level of unemployment that is lower than 
we can reasonably expect, then it provides the Government, for the 
purposes of a budget, the right to assume more income than we are going 
to have. The budget predicts our economic growth is going to only 
decline this year by 1.2 percent. That is what the budget has. It has 
these assumptions in it. That is how they reach the numbers they reach. 
According to the President's speeches, of course, we are facing one of 
the greatest economic crises in our Nation's history and things are not 
good at all. So I would say that is not a very honest evaluation.
  The Blue Chip forecast shows that the economy will decline this year 
by 2.6 percent, more than twice that. That is hardly a depression, 
thank goodness. I like to see that number. It is not as bad as a lot of 
people have been predicting, 2.6, but it is way more negative than the 
President's budget.
  Of the 51 economists who contributed to this forecast, only three 
said growth would decline less than 2 percent and not a single one said 
growth would only decline 1.2 percent. The closest that one came to 1.2 
percent was one economist who predicted 1.4 percent, but the average 
was 2.6 percent and some, of course, higher than that. I do not think 
it is responsible. I think it is a gimmick or a misrepresentation to 
predict this economy will only contract by 1.2 percent in this year.
  Let's look at unemployment. The administration forecasts it will only 
rise to 8.1 percent. That is in the budget. It says next year it has it 
coming down to 7.9 percent. That means more people are working, more 
people are paying taxes, we have less food stamps and less welfare and 
less unemployment insurance. It impacts how much money we are actually 
going to have to spend. So they are projecting 8.1 percent, which will 
be the peak of unemployment and that next year it will be lower, 7.9.
  In the early 1980s, when President Reagan and one of President 
Obama's advisers, Paul Volcker--who was then head of the Federal 
Reserve--broke the back of 15 percent inflation, but it put us in a 
severe recession, unemployment hit 10.9 percent. We survived that 
without a $800 billion stimulus bill, every penny of it going to the 
debt. But at any rate, they are predicting 8.1 percent on that.
  What are these economists saying, the consensus? They project 9.2 
percent this year and 8.8 percent next year--not 7.9. That makes a big 
difference. This is a big difference. It matters as to whether we can 
reach the goal the President has stated of reducing the deficit in half 
by 2013. That is not a significant commitment, frankly. It, in itself, 
is a gimmick, and I will explain that too. Using the Blue Chip 
forecast, the deficit is going to be $53 billion higher next year for 
fiscal year 2010 and about $150 billion higher in 2013.
  We will have opportunities as we go forward. We will have budget 
hearings this week, I think some more, and a markup in the Budget 
Committee next week. I think we have a good committee. Chairman Conrad 
is asking some tough questions. He is not rubberstamping the 
administration's ideas, and I am proud of that because we are going to 
have to take some tough decisions.
  Let me share, fundamentally, where we are in spending. After 9/11, 
the budget deficit was $412 billion. That was one of the largest 
deficits we ever had. It fell in fiscal year 2007-2008 to $161 billion. 
Last year, ending September of last year, that would be the 2008 
budget--the previous one was 2007 at $171--we came in at $455 billion.
  In 2004, a $412 billion deficit; the $455 billion deficit last year 
represented the highest deficits in our Nation's history.

[[Page 7313]]

President Bush was roundly criticized for those and a good bit of that 
criticism was deserved, in my opinion.
  Now that we have pumped another $800 billion into the economy this 
year on top of the Wall Street bailout, that $700 billion; on top of 
the $200 billion that the Congressional Budget Office has scored that 
we pumped into Freddie and Fannie, those mortgage holding companies, we 
will total, hold your hat, this year when September 30 concludes, of 
this year, the estimate is projected to be $1.8 trillion--not $455 
billion but $1,800 billion.
  They scored in that, I have to say, $200 billion, about $200 billion 
from the Wall Street bailout, $200 billion for Freddie and Fannie, one-
time expenditures. But they didn't score all the stimulus package. In 
fact, they have a portion of it scored as being spent this fiscal year 
and a portion of it the next and some the third year. Next year's 
fiscal situation, according to our own Congressional Budget Office, is 
that the deficit will be $1.1 trillion.
  I just wish to say to my colleagues and to those who might be 
listening outside this Chamber, it is not very hard to cut a budget 
deficit of $1.8 trillion in half; $1.8 trillion is almost four times 
the highest budget in the history of the Republic--unless perhaps 
during World War II we reached that deficit, I don't know. But 
certainly nothing has approached it in the last 30 or 40 years.
  We are not doing well. Also, I have to tell you that the budget is a 
10-year budget. All of us know that in the outyears it is hard to 
predict what is going to happen. I will just say, however, that 
President Obama's 10-year budget projects that the deficit in the 10th 
year--you would think if we cut the annual deficit, the annual 
shortfall, if we cut it in half in 4 years, we would keep cutting it. 
He is projecting some $500 billion in 2013, and that is certainly 
conceivable, if we do not continue spending. If we keep spending at the 
same level we have today, we would be well below $500 billion, Lord 
willing and things continue the way we project them to continue.
  But I will say in the 10th year under the budget, they are projecting 
$712 billion in deficits. The lowest deficit they are projecting over 
the entire 10 years exceeds $500 billion. As Senator Gregg said at the 
hearing with Secretary Geithner in the Budget Committee last week, that 
is not sustainable. I am just going to tell you, that is not 
sustainable. I think we all, as a nation, have to ask ourselves: Should 
we go forward with a budget that is composed of more taxes, more 
spending, and more debt?
  I am worried about it. I know a lot of Members are worried about it. 
We believe, as a lot of people do, that we have to spend some money 
right now to help start this economy. I am prepared to support some of 
that too. But I think we have gone overboard. But regardless, if it was 
ended after 2 years, if there were the kind of projections in the 
future that show these programs to end and this excessive spending of 
today would not continue, that is one thing. But if we present a budget 
and ask this Congress to pass it, that calls for, over 10 years, each 
year having the highest deficits--higher than any deficits we have ever 
had before, ending up with a $712 or $720 billion deficit 20 years from 
now, I don't think we can support that.
  It is time for a national discussion. As the President said, we need 
to talk about an honest evaluation of the challenges we face. And we 
face some tough challenges. But I have to tell you I am hoping CBO and 
the Blue Chip guys and the President are correct. I am hoping 
unemployment will not hit 10 percent.
  I am hoping next year will be a better year. History tells us that is 
probably going to be the case. We have certainly had the Federal 
Reserve take some very aggressive action, most of it probably wise and 
needed.
  We needed some stimulus from the Government. We certainly got that 
and more. It absolutely should give us some boost in the short run, 
although the Congressional Budget Office said the $800 billion stimulus 
bill over 10 years would result in less growth of the economy over 10 
years than if no bill at all was passed. But it will help us some in 
the short run. I am sure that is true. So we are going to hope this 
economy will come back. If we contain spending, if we watch the debt we 
are creating, we could end up with a lot better projection than this 
without a lot of pain because a big part of this debt increase is based 
on an increase of sizeable proportions in spending, more than we can 
sustain.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the introduction of S. 598 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.''
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the clerk will report 
the motion to invoke cloture.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 27, H.R. 146, the Revolutionary War 
     and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act.
         Harry Reid, Patty Murray, Benjamin L. Cardin, Kay R. 
           Hagan, Byron L. Dorgan, Richard Durbin, Carl Levin, 
           Jeanne Shaheen, John F. Kerry, Frank R. Lautenberg, 
           Jeff Bingaman, Roland W. Burris, Robert Menendez, Amy 
           Klobuchar, Jim Webb, Jack Reed, Bill Nelson.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 146, the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 
Battlefield Protection Act, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez), 
the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), and the Senator from Georgia 
(Mr. Chambliss).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 73, nays 21, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 99 Leg.]

                                YEAS--73

     Akaka
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--21

     Alexander
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     McCain
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Chambliss
     Johanns
     Kennedy
     Martinez
     Vitter
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 73, the nays are 
21. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

[[Page 7314]]


  Mr. DURBIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. STABENOW. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. KAUFMAN and Mr. ISAKSON pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 605 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements 
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. KAUFMAN. 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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              AIG BONUSES

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the recent decision by 
AIG to pay out $165 million in bonuses. In a year when Main Street has 
suffered dearly, it is disappointing to see that the culture of greed 
on Wall Street continues to prevail.
  Every American ought to be outraged. Every person who has ever paid 
taxes ought to be outraged by AIG's decision to pay out such bonuses.
  I returned from Wyoming this morning, and in the airport and on the 
plane, this is the topic people are talking about--taxpayers who are 
expecting value for their hard-earned taxpayer dollars, people who are 
asking about accountability, and people who are asking about oversight, 
saying: What in the world is going on back there in New York and in 
Washington?
  While I understand that AIG has contractual obligations to fulfill, 
they also have an obligation to the American taxpayer, who now holds 
nearly 80 percent of the ownership of AIG stock.
  To date, AIG has received nearly $175 billion in taxpayer assistance. 
Similar to any publicly traded company, AIG must be accountable to 
shareholders, and the shareholders here are the American people.
  This money was intended to serve as a liferaft to keep the company 
afloat. It was never intended to reward AIG employees for the trouble 
they have caused for our economy.
  It is insulting to all taxpayers to see that their hard-earned money 
is being spent to save a company that doesn't appear to be willing to 
make the necessary sacrifices to save itself.
  Unfortunately, the same irresponsible behavior that got AIG into this 
mess appears likely to keep them there. They say it is a contract, but 
if the American public owns 80 percent of the stock, the American 
taxpayers are the owners. Therefore, I say, show us these contracts 
that allow for this sort of retention bonus. The American public, the 
taxpayers, have a right to expect to see each and every one of these 
contracts.
  You may say: Why is it the Treasury didn't demand that these 
contracts be renegotiated when we sent that first pile of money to AIG 
last year, the $85 billion? The people of America get it, and now they 
say: Who is watching this? There has been a response letter written 
from the AIG CEO--the chairman and CEO--talking about this contractual 
agreement, this decision to pay these kinds of bonuses. He talks about 
his commitment to the future. He says: AIG hereby commits to use best 
efforts to reduce expected 2009 retention payments by at least--listen 
to this--30 percent. They are going to use their best efforts, so 2009 
bonus payments are reduced by at least 30 percent.
  Are we still talking about $100 million in bonus payments for a 
company we continue to bail out? Any American taxpayer who reads that 
has to be offended by this approach to say we are going to pay bonuses 
again in 2009.
  He goes on to say in his letter that they cannot attract and retain 
the best and the brightest talent to lead and to staff the AIG business 
if the employees believe their compensation is subject to continued and 
arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury. Arbitrary? Continued? Bring 
it out there and let the owners of the company--the American people--
make that decision. The American public will say they want 
accountability, oversight, and they want value for their taxpayer 
dollars. It is not what the American taxpayers are getting today from 
AIG.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________