[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9388-9442]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                                  2010

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 13, which the clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2010, revising the appropriate budgetary levels 
     for fiscal year 2009, and setting forth the appropriate 
     budgetary levels for fiscal years 2011 through 2014.

  Pending:

       Johanns amendment No. 735, to prohibit the use of 
     reconciliation in the Senate for climate change legislation 
     involving a cap-and-trade system.
       Lieberman amendment No. 763, to protect the American people 
     from potential spillover violence from Mexico by providing 
     $550 million in additional funding for the Department of 
     Homeland Security and the Department of Justice and 
     supporting the administration's efforts to combat drug, gun, 
     and cash smuggling by the cartels, by providing $260 million 
     for Customs and Border Protection to hire, train, equip, and 
     deploy additional officers and canines and conduct exit 
     inspections for weapons and cash; $130 million for 
     Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hire, train, equip, 
     and deploy additional investigators; $50 million to Alcohol, 
     Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to hire, train, equip, and 
     deploy additional agents and inspectors; $20 million for the 
     Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center; $10 million for the 
     Office of International Affairs and the Management 
     Directorate at DHS for oversight of the Merida Initiative; 
     $30 million for Operation Stonegarden; $10 million to the 
     Office of National Drug Control Policy for the High Intensity 
     Drug Trafficking Areas Program, to support state and local 
     law enforcement participation in the HIDTA Program along the 
     southern border; $20 million to DHS for tactical radio 
     communications; and $20 million for upgrading the Traveler 
     Enforcement Communications System.
       Alexander amendment No. 747, to create runaway debt point 
     of order against consideration of a budget resolution that 
     projects the ratio of public debt to GDP for any fiscal year 
     in excess of 90 percent to ensure the continued viability of 
     the U.S. dollar and prevent doubling or tripling the debt 
     burden on future generations.
       Sessions amendment No. 772, to restore the budget 
     discipline of the Federal Government by freezing nondefense 
     discretionary spending for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, and 
     limiting the growth of nondefense discretionary spending to 1 
     percent annually for fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, in the ongoing debate about the fiscal 
condition of the country, we have heard once again the finger pointed 
at President Obama. President Obama did not create this economic 
collapse. He has only been President about 3 months--less than 3 
months. This is not his concoction, nor are the deficits and debt piled 
up by the previous administration his responsibility.
  President Obama inherited a colossal mess--a debt that was doubled 
during the previous administration, foreign holdings of U.S. debt that 
were tripled during the previous administration, and an economic 
collapse unparalleled since the Great Depression. In addition to that, 
he inherited two wars.
  President Obama is striving mightily to get us moving back in the 
right direction. His budget, especially the first 5 years of his 
budget, which emphasizes reducing our dependence on foreign energy, a 
focus on excellence in education, fundamental health care reform, all 
the while cutting the deficit by more than half and extending the 
middle-class tax cuts from 2001 and 2003, has exactly the right 
priorities for the country.
  When I hear criticism of President Obama, I must say it is badly 
misplaced. Our friends on the other side who complain about the fiscal 
condition of the United States should look in the mirror because they 
were there as silent sentinels when the previous administration stacked 
up this record debt, these record deficits, and plunged this country 
into a deep economic decline. That is their responsibility. President 
Obama is in on the cleanup crew, and a remarkable job he is doing.
  We now are prepared to enter into an order for the next several 
amendments: Senator Casey to be recognized for 10 minutes; then Senator 
Gregg or his designee for 1 minute; Senator Ensign for an amendment, 15 
minutes on his side, 15 minutes for the chairman of the Budget 
Committee or his designee; then we will go to an amendment by Senator 
Kerry, who is seeking 15 minutes and will reserve just 1 minute in 
opposition or to comment. Is that OK with the Senator from New 
Hampshire?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I think we are prepared to move forward on those three at 
this point.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we still have to work on this, but I would 
like to be recognized to offer an amendment after Senator Kerry 
completes his amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. It will be our intention--we need to work out times and 
have a chance to look at the amendment--that Senator Gregg would go 
after that. Our intention is to have a tranche of votes at 2:30 this 
afternoon. So far, that would involve a vote on the Alexander amendment 
offered yesterday, the Lieberman-Collins amendment offered yesterday, 
the Sessions amendment offered yesterday, and then, of course, the 
pending amendments--Casey, Ensign, Kerry, a potential for Johanns, and 
a side-by-side from yesterday. We still have that to resolve. And 
potentially Senator Gregg as well.
  With that, Senator Casey is up.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

[[Page 9389]]




                           Amendment No. 783

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise for two purposes: the first on an 
amendment, and then I want to speak on the budget as well.
  First, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the pending amendment and 
call up amendment No. 783, the Casey amendment on funding the Long-Term 
Stability/Housing for Victims Program under the Violence Against Women 
Act.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Casey] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 783.

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the 
reading of the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To establish a reserve fund to fully fund the Long-Term 
                 Stability/Housing for Victims Program)

       At the end of title II, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO FULLY FUND THE 
                   LONG-TERM STABILITY/HOUSING FOR VICTIMS 
                   PROGRAM.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other levels and limits in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports that would fully fund the 
     Long-Term Stability/Housing for Victims Program under the 
     Violence Against Women Act which builds collaborations 
     between domestic violence service providers and housing 
     providers and developers to leverage existing resources and 
     create housing solutions that meet victims' need for long-
     term housing at the authorized level, by the amounts provided 
     in that legislation for those purposes, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2019.

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, earlier this month I had the honor of 
chairing the advisory board and participating in the release of a 
report by the National Center on Family Homelessness that focused on 
the increasing number of children that are homeless in our country.
  The report is titled ``America's Youngest Outcasts''--a very 
appropriate title and a heartbreakingly accurate one.
  There are many very harmful consequences of homelessness for 
children. But first I want to emphasize the nexus between domestic 
violence and homelessness--and the reason why I am offering this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, this budget amendment creates a deficit-neutral 
reserve fund for the Long-Term Stability/Housing for Victims Program, 
which is authorized under the Violence Against Women Act, and I am 
offering this amendment because I wanted to highlight two very serious 
problems in this country. First of all, the relationship between 
domestic violence and homelessness and the obvious impact that both of 
these issues have on women and children in America; and in particular 
the high number of women and children who are fleeing abusive 
situations who then become homeless.
  This program, under the Violence Against Women Act, will help 
substantially to improve the lives of women and children in America who 
become both victims of domestic violence and then become victims 
because they are homeless as a result of that.
  I want to defer further review of that for now because I want to move 
to the second part of my remarks which focus on the budget, and in 
particular the issue of health care.
  As we know from the budget offered by President Obama, these are his 
priorities in that budget: First of all, the creation of jobs, the 
focus on health care--which I will speak of in a moment--energy 
independence, and education. Two items not on that list are deficit 
reduction, to cut the deficit in half over the next couple of years, 
and, secondly, tax cuts--over $800 billion in tax cuts set forth in the 
resolution that we are considering before the Senate.
  At this point I will go to a second chart that very simply puts forth 
a headline from the Reading Eagle newspaper in Reading, PA, dated 
February 9 of this year: ``Tilden Township Woman Tends To Baby Born 
Hours After Her Husband's Death,'' and then there is a very brief 
introduction:

       Just after noon on Thursday, Trisha Urban's husband, Andrew 
     D. Urban, died. Less than nine hours later, she gave birth to 
     their first child, Cora Catherine.

  Andrew Urban was just 30 years old, Mr. President. It is hard to 
describe the situation Trisha Urban was facing that day. Literally, at 
the same time she was watching her husband die, she was being rushed to 
the hospital to have their first child.
  Let me read one excerpt from a letter she sent to me. Here is how her 
first paragraph concludes:

       Two ambulances were in my driveway. As the paramedics were 
     assessing the health of my baby and me, the paramedic from 
     the other ambulance told me that my husband could not be 
     revived.

  She goes on to say in the letter:

       Because of preexisting conditions, neither my husband's 
     health issues nor my pregnancy would be covered under private 
     insurance. I worked four part-time jobs and was not eligible 
     for health benefits.

  Later in the letter she talks about the insurance company dropping 
the coverage for her family.

       We were left with close to $100,000 worth of medical bills. 
     Concerned with the upcoming financial responsibility of the 
     birth of our daughter and the burden of current medical 
     expenses, my husband missed his last doctor's appointment 
     less than 1 month ago.

  And, of course, we know what happened next--her husband died and her 
baby was born.
  Those words and this story tell us all we need to know about the 
challenge of health care--the challenge that is presented to the 
Senate, the Congress, and the country. We cannot fail to do something 
about this issue this year; not 2010, not 2011, or down the road. We 
have to address this issue this year. I am glad the President has made 
this a priority, and I am glad that Chairman Conrad has as well.
  I want to read Chairman Conrad's words, the chairman of our Budget 
Committee, when he talked about not just the importance of health care 
but the connection between health care and fiscal responsibility in our 
budget. When he was releasing the budget resolution, Chairman Conrad 
said, in part:

       Reforming our Nation's health care system is essential to 
     ensuring our long-term fiscal stability and economic 
     strength, in addition to the well-being of our citizenry. 
     Soaring health care costs are the biggest source of the 
     projected explosion in Federal debt in our long-term budget 
     outlook. Rapidly rising health care costs make it harder for 
     our businesses to compete globally, while putting a 
     tremendous strain on family budgets.

  That is the challenge we have from a fiscal point of view if we don't 
do anything about health care. But let's talk about costs and 
families--rising costs and struggling families.
  This chart is very simple. The orange line, of course, is the rise in 
health insurance premiums from 1999 to 2008, a very dramatic and 
unambiguous upward spike. The two lower lines, the light blue and the 
red, depict workers' earnings, which have been, at best, near flat in 
that time period. Then overall inflation is at about the same level, so 
a 34-percent increase in wages at the same time health care premiums 
are up 119 percent.
  Going to the next chart, the insurance status of Americans under the 
age of 65, you can see from that number we have 86 million Americans, 
according to a recent report, who at some period of time in 2007 and 
2008 had no health insurance. I might add those 86 million people, most 
of them, almost 70 percent of them, didn't have health care for at 
least 6 months.
  Finally, we go to the employment status of people in Pennsylvania--
those who are uninsured. As you can see from this chart, more than 
three-quarters of the people in Pennsylvania who are uninsured are 
employed. So we are talking about working families not having health 
insurance. That won't come as news to people across the country.
  This really, when you get down to it, is not about these charts or 
numbers. In the end, it is about people. It is about Trisha Urban and 
her family and the horror they faced when her husband, the father of 
her child, died at the very moment of birth of that child,

[[Page 9390]]

but it is also the horror of people who face a health insurance crisis 
that is literally, in some cases, about life and death and about 
whether they will survive.
  Just consider this: Consider the costs we are talking about in terms 
of the causes of death. The leading cause of death for Americans 
between the ages of 55 and 64 are, No. 1, heart disease; No. 2, cancer; 
but No. 3, in that age category, no insurance--the cause of death, not 
just a problem, not just a crisis, but literally the third leading 
cause of death in that age category. So that is what we are talking 
about.
  Finally, when we consider the challenges that families face, this is 
also about a lot of small businesses. I am noting that in Pennsylvania 
we have a strong tradition of making sure we support our small 
businesses. One of the companies our office worked with is Bingaman & 
Son Lumber Company. They have been in business 40 years, with 250 
people employed, and they prided themselves on covering 80 percent of 
their employees' medical and prescription drug costs. In December, 
Bingaman & Son Lumber was notified that due to high medical bills the 
company would have to increase their premiums by 37 percent.
  We were able to work with them to provide some relief. But, again, 
this points to the crisis in families but also the crisis in small 
businesses--a 37-percent increase in their premiums.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to highlight President Obama's 
principles for health care reform. They are very simple, and I will go 
through them quickly. We know what they are: protecting families' 
financial health, just as we spoke of today; making health care 
affordable; aiming for universality, or covering everyone, which has to 
be our objective; portability of coverage, so in the case of the Urban 
family moving or changing jobs, it would not lead to a problem with 
health insurance which could have been prevented; guaranteed choice; 
investment in prevention and wellness, and we know the importance of 
that; improving patient safety and quality care; and, finally, 
maintaining long-term fiscal sustainability, or stability, as our 
chairman has made a major priority of the budget resolution.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I would ask that we stay focused on 
this issue, not just in this budget resolution but well beyond the 
debate on the budget. And I want to come back to Trisha Urban. At the 
end of her letter to me, she said the following:

       I am a working class American and do not have the money or 
     the insight to legally fight the insurance company. I will 
     probably lose my home, my car, and everything we worked so 
     hard to accumulate in our life will be gone in an instant. I 
     am willing to pay the price of losing everything.

  So, Mr. President, as I conclude, I would ask all of us in the Senate 
who are debating this budget and wondering what is going to happen on 
the issue of health care this question: What price will we be willing 
to pay to make sure health care reform becomes a reality? The first 
step in that goal is passing a budget resolution which makes health 
care a priority.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 804

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 804, an amendment to 
protect middle-income taxpayers from tax increases.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there any objection?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 804.

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

  (Purpose: To protect middle-income taxpayers from tax increases by 
 providing a point of order against legislation that increase taxes on 
them, including taxes that arise, directly or indirectly, from Federal 
      revenues derived from climate change or similar legislation)

       On page 68, after line 4, insert the following:

     SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT RAISES TAXES 
                   ON MIDDLE-INCOME TAXPAYERS.

       (a) In General.--After a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget is agreed to, it shall not be in order in the Senate 
     to consider any bill, resolution, amendment between Houses, 
     motion, or conference report that--
       (1) would cause revenues to be more than the level of 
     revenues set forth for that first fiscal year or for the 
     total of that fiscal year and the ensuing fiscal years in the 
     applicable resolution for which allocations are provided 
     under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     and
       (2) includes a Federal tax increase which would have 
     widespread applicability on middle-income taxpayers.
       (b) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (1) Middle-income taxpayers.--The term ``middle-income 
     taxpayers'' means single individuals with $200,000 or less in 
     adjusted gross income (as defined in section 62 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986) and married couples filing 
     jointly with $250,000 or less in adjusted gross income (as so 
     defined).
       (2) Widespread applicability.--The term ``widespread 
     applicability'' includes the definition with respect to 
     individual income taxpayers in section 4022 (b)(1) of the 
     Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 
     1998.
       (3) Federal tax increase.--The term ``Federal tax 
     increase'' means--
       (A) any amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     that, directly or indirectly, increases the amount of Federal 
     tax; or
       (B) any legislation that the Congressional Budget Office 
     would score as an increase in Federal revenues.
       (c) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--
       (1) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the 
     Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 
     point of order raised under this section.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, through the Chair to the distinguished 
Senator from Nevada, would he yield for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. ENSIGN. I will, without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Absolutely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I apologize to the Senator. We thought we had entered a 
unanimous consent request. It was taken as more of a statement of times 
rather than a unanimous consent request. We need to get that fixed; 
otherwise, we could have a long delay here.
  Mr. President, I ask consent the Ensign amendment we are on now--I 
ask unanimous consent Senator Ensign have 15 minutes and it be 15 
minutes for the chairman of the Budget Committee or his designee; then 
we would go to the Kerry amendment, 15 minutes for Senator Kerry, 5 
minutes for time in opposition; then the Cornyn amendment, 15 minutes 
for Senator Cornyn, 15 minutes for the chairman of the committee or his 
designee; then the Lincoln amendment on National Guard, 10 minutes for 
Senator Lincoln and 5 minutes in opposition; then we would go to the 
Gregg amendment, 15 minutes for Senator Gregg and 15 minutes for the 
chairman of the committee or his designee. I ask unanimous consent that 
we agree to that order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without 
objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, if I tried to imagine the worst policy we 
could pursue during this time of economic duress, when jobs are being 
shed from the economy, the worst policy would be to raise taxes on 
individuals and businesses.
  Every single day, we are buried in the news of our economic turmoil. 
Thousands more are laid off, home foreclosures are reaching new highs, 
property values are dipping to new lows, more businesses are shutting 
their doors, and Americans are struggling to pay for life's essentials. 
Therefore, what we should be discussing is

[[Page 9391]]

extending tax relief for individuals and families, and even going 
further to encourage savings and investment that generates jobs and 
security.
  Framed within this context, President Obama has promised not to raise 
taxes on individuals making up to $200,000 and for families who make up 
to $250,000. In his address to Congress, he said:

       But let me [be] perfectly clear, . . . if your family earns 
     less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes 
     increased a single dime. I repeat, not one single dime.

  That was the quote from the President of the United States. The 
President did not say I will not raise income taxes one single dime. He 
said ``taxes,'' period. He did not define direct, indirect--he said 
``not one single dime will be raised in taxes.''
  That promise does not go far enough, in my view because, as we have 
discussed, many middle-income families could be hit by increased energy 
costs and other potential tax increases under this budget resolution. 
Still, the promise was made by the President and by other Democrats 
that those who make up to $250,000 will not have their taxes raised, 
``not one single dime.'' I will be frank with my Democratic colleagues 
when I say that many people doubt they will live up to this promise. 
Many people making less than $250,000 fear tax increases on them in the 
immediate future.
  I believe we need to take action on this budget resolution that locks 
in place a commitment that Congress will not raise taxes on middle-
income families. My amendment ensures that Congress and the President 
will keep this promise not to raise taxes on individuals making 
$200,000 a year or families making $250,000. If they decide to violate 
this promise, then they will be held accountable.
  To achieve this objective, my amendment would create a new budget 
point of order against any legislation that would raise taxes on 
middle-income taxpayers, those individuals making less than $200,000, 
and families making less than $250,000. If the Democrats mean what they 
say about not raising taxes on families making up to $250,000, then 
they should embrace my amendment as a way of accomplishing it.
  I define tax increase broadly because I think families were promised 
``no tax increases'' and they don't care whether those tax increases 
come directly or indirectly. My amendment would protect taxpayers 
against indirect tax hikes yet to be forced upon the public.
  Under the budget proposals, Americans, even those married couples 
with incomes under $250,000 and singles under $200,000, would see 
higher electricity, gas, heating oil, and other energy prices. 
Americans would also see higher prices for other goods and services 
that are themselves affected by higher energy costs.
  This is the Trojan horse--the national sales tax on energy. This is 
the indirect tax on people making less than $250,000 a year. A recent 
MIT study, which modeled a national energy tax regime similar to 
President Obama's budget proposal, estimated that annual revenues as 
high as $366 billion would come to the Federal Government. This equals 
tax increases of over $3,100 per household per year in the United 
States. Higher energy costs under a national energy tax is not 
speculation. Candidate Obama acknowledged his plan would lead to higher 
energy prices. He said last year:

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

  The OMB Director, the President's OMB Director, Director Orszag, said 
in prepared testimony that ``[u]nder a cap-and-trade program, firms 
would not ultimately bear most of the cost of the allowances but 
instead would pass them along to their customers in the form of higher 
prices . . . [T]he price increases would be essential to the success of 
a cap-and-trade program.''
  That was a direct quote from President Obama's OMB Director, 
admitting that these higher prices are going to get passed on to the 
American consumer. If you are raising cap-and-trade taxes, and that is 
not an indirect tax, I don't know what is. More than anything else in 
this budget, an energy tax poses perhaps the greatest risk to our 
economy and to middle income livelihoods. In addition, this amendment 
would also protect taxpayers against tax hikes yet to be developed by 
those who want to expand the role of the Federal Government.
  Now is the time to protect middle-income Americans who are at risk 
from direct and indirect taxes. This amendment would be a good first 
step in locking the budget into a direction in which middle-income 
families are protected. Then we should work toward providing new tax 
relief instead of raising taxes. With the economy in such bad state, we 
should all be able to agree not to raise taxes. I urge all Members of 
this body to support this important amendment.
  In conclusion, the energy tax that has been proposed, this cap-and-
trade system, this national sales tax on energy. We did a hearing on 
this the other night. What people do not realize is that not only do 
the electricity rates skyrocket as the President said, but gasoline and 
diesel prices go up significantly. That means transportation costs on 
your food go up significantly. That means you have to raise the price 
of food.
  We had the fertilizer companies testifying before our committee. I 
didn't know that much about fertilizer before the testimony in front of 
the committee. It is amazing what a world commodity fertilizer is. The 
energy tax is going to destroy jobs in the fertilizer industry, but it 
will also raise prices of fertilizers in the United States. Guess what, 
to grow food you need fertilizer. If you pay more for fertilizer, you 
are going to pay more for food. That cost either has to be borne by 
hard-working farmers and their families or it is going to be borne by 
the consumer at the end.
  The worst part of all this is that a national energy tax is the most 
regressive form of taxation there is because it hits those in the low- 
and middle-income categories much more severely as a percentage of 
their income than it does people at the top.
  My amendment is critical for the President to keep his word on not 
raising taxes on individuals making up to $200,000 a year or families 
making up to $250,000 a year. My amendment will ensure that the 
President keeps not only his campaign pledge, but also what he pledged 
in his first address to Congress and to the American people when he 
took office after Inauguration Day.
  I urge adoption of my amendment by all the Senators in this body. 
Let's move forward and protect middle-class, middle-income taxpayers in 
America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, if I could get the attention of my 
colleague, I would be willing to take the amendment on a voice vote--
oh, I am sorry. I have been advised that because of the way the 
amendment is structured, it gives specific instructions to the Finance 
Committee that we cannot do so in a budget resolution or the whole 
budget resolution is no longer privileged. We went through this last 
year, you may recall, with the Cornyn amendment. The same thing applies 
here.
  I will be required to raise the defense of germaneness against the 
amendment. Let me say this, I support the amendment. I think it is the 
right signal to send. But the Parliamentarian has advised us that if I 
do not raise the defense of germaneness against the amendment, then the 
entire privileged nature of the budget resolution is at risk. I hope 
the Senator understands. It has nothing to do with the message the 
Senator is trying to send. What it has to do with is, as I understand 
it, the specific instructions to the Finance Committee that are 
contained in this amendment. That is beyond the power of the Budget 
Committee. We don't have the authority to tell the committees of 
jurisdictions with specificity what they are to do with the allocations 
they are given. The power of the Budget Committee is to tell the 
committees what numbers they have to hit. We don't have the ability to 
tell them how to do it.
  It is just like appropriators. We tell them how much money they have 
to

[[Page 9392]]

spend. We do not have the authority to tell them how to spend it.
  If I were able to make a parliamentary inquiry?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
  Mr. CONRAD. Has the Parliamentarian had a chance to review the Ensign 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Is this amendment defective in the way that I have 
described; that is, is it too prescriptive in terms of its language 
with respect to the Finance Committee and therefore would it put at 
risk the privileged status of the budget resolution itself?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. Let me inquire further. If I fail to raise the defense of 
germaneness against this amendment, that would put the budget 
resolution's privileged status at risk?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the amendment were to be adopted, it would 
put the privileged status at risk.
  Mr. CONRAD. So if I raise the defense of germaneness and I were to 
lose, that would put the privileged status of the budget resolution at 
risk?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator restate his inquiry.
  Mr. CONRAD. Excuse me?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator restate his inquiry.
  Mr. CONRAD. If I were to raise a point of order that the amendment is 
not germane for the reason we have discussed, and I were to lose that 
point of order, would the resolution be at risk in terms of its 
privileged status?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would.
  Mr. GREGG. Only if it passes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, it would only be at risk if it passes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the amendment were adopted, it would be at 
risk.
  Mr. CONRAD. So let's be very clear. If I raise--first of all, I have 
to raise a point of order or the privileged status of the resolution is 
at risk; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. If I lose the point of order, the privileged status of 
the resolution is at risk?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. Well, only if it is adopted.
  Mr. CONRAD. Wait. I have the floor.
  I would ask the Senator from Nevada if it would not be possible for 
us to work together on alternative language that would capture the 
intent of the Senator from Nevada but that would not put the budget 
resolution at risk.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I would say to the Senator from North Dakota, we have 
worked on language with the Parliamentarian, trying to overcome this 
problem the Chairman is raising. The bottom line is, the intent of what 
we are trying to do is to make sure taxes are not raised on people 
making up to $250,000 a year.
  From what we understand from the Parliamentarian, there was not 
language we could draft that would fit the conforming factor with the 
budget resolution. So we were going to have to have a vote on waiving 
the germaneness.
  Mr. CONRAD. Well the problem is, if the Senator proceeds, I am 
required to raise the point of order. If I fail to do so, the entire 
privileged status of the budget resolution is at risk. If I raise it 
and I lose, the privileged status of the budget resolution is at risk.
  This, in effect--I do not think this is the Senator's intention, to 
threaten the entire budget resolution.
  Mr. GREGG. Would the Senator yield on this point? If I might inquire 
of the Chair, ``at risk'' does not mean the resolution has necessarily 
gone over the level of being--of losing its privileged status?
  This is, by the Chair's definition, a corrosive amendment. There 
would have to be a series of corrosive amendments to meet the point 
where the bill loses its status as privileged. One single amendment 
that is corrosive does not necessarily mean the bill has lost its 
privileged status. It simply means it is moving in the direction of 
being at risk of losing its privileged status; is that true?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct with respect to this 
stage of the proceedings on this matter.
  Mr. GREGG. So it is possible this amendment could pass. If passed, it 
would be--could be deemed corrosive but would not be deemed fatal to 
the privileged status of the bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. During this initial phase of consideration of 
the resolution, that is correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, further parliamentary inquiry: So let's 
review because at least this Senator is getting a mixed message. Let's 
revisit this. If I fail to raise a point of order against the Ensign 
amendment, that threatens the privileged status of the resolution; is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The adoption of the Ensign amendment would 
have a corrosive effect on the privilege of the resolution on the floor 
at this time. It would have a fatal effect if the language were to be 
retained in the conference report.
  Mr. CONRAD. So let's revisit this once again. If I did not raise the 
point of order, in fact, supported the Ensign amendment, and it passed, 
as long as it did not come back from conference committee, the 
privileged status of the budget resolution would be preserved?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this time, it would be corrosive. The 
cumulative effect of the adoption of such amendments could prove fatal.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if I might inquire. But the amendment 
itself is not fatal?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not if it is adopted to the resolution at this 
phase.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish to try and clarify that now because 
this has gone back and forth. What I understood you to say is--I wish 
to have this clear--if it passes now, it has a corrosive effect, but if 
it does not come back--if it comes back from conference committee, it 
would be fatal?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KERRY. If it does not come back from the conference committee, 
then the corrosive--whatever effect--is eliminated?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. All right. I think it is clear to all of us. I hope that 
is clear. Let me make one further parliamentary inquiry because I wish 
to make certain: If I fail to raise the point of order at this point 
against Senator Ensign's amendment, that has a corrosive effect, 
potentially corrosive effect, but it is not fatal?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. It would only be fatal if it came back from conference 
committee?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. I wish to indicate it would be my intention to support 
the Ensign amendment. We will have a vote later on it. I would not 
oppose it. But I wish to make clear to my colleagues this exchange. 
Senator Ensign needs to know, I cannot bring this amendment back from 
conference because that would be fatal to the privileged status of the 
budget resolution. The Senator needs to offer this amendment knowing 
that full well.
  I also wish to say to others who might have similarly crafted 
amendments, and I would ask the Parliamentarian at this time: If there 
were a series of amendments such as this one that were adopted here but 
did come back from the conference committee, would just the fact that a 
series of amendments such as this were adopted be potentially fatal to 
the privileged status of the budget resolution, even if they did not 
come back from conference committee?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is impossible to predict the ultimate 
corrosive effect. But there is a theoretical possibility it could 
exist.
  Mr. CONRAD. It is not theoretical in the sense that we have another 
amendment coming very soon after this one that is the same. The Cornyn 
amendment, as I understand, has exactly the same flaw. So we are going 
to have to go through this exercise again.

[[Page 9393]]


  Mr. ENSIGN. Another parliamentary inquiry: It is true that when you 
say ``fatal,'' that just requires 60 votes instead of 51 votes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If a measure loses its privileged status, when 
it is considered, it is fully debatable and could require 60 votes to 
invoke cloture.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Further parliamentary inquiry: That would indicate, if 
they had 60 votes, they could pass the budget resolution even with this 
amendment in it? So it actually is not fatal, it requires a higher 
level of support from the Senate to pass it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is fatal to the privileged status.
  Mr. ENSIGN. But it does not kill the bill? The bill still could be 
passed with 60 votes, passing the other hurdles that are in the way; is 
that not correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, what is very clear is it is fatal to the 
privileged status of the budget resolution. Requiring 60 votes on a 
budget resolution, that is fatal. Let's be clear. We all know what this 
means.
  I would ask to make a further parliamentary inquiry: Does it make a 
difference whether I offer the point of order against the Ensign 
amendment to the risk of the budget resolution, even if it does not 
come back in conference?
  Am I clear? Let me restate this. If the Ensign amendment does not 
come back from conference committee, does the fact that I raise a point 
of order make a difference?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not if this does not come back from the 
conference committee.
  Mr. CONRAD. Well, I wish to say this to Senator Ensign straight from 
the shoulder. I intend to support the amendment. I ask other colleagues 
to support the amendment because it is clear to me it will not be fatal 
to the privileged status of the budget resolution if it does not come 
back from conference committee.
  But let me say this to the Senator very clearly: There is no way it 
is coming back from conference committee. I am not going to put the 
entire budget resolution at risk for that.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, one last comment. We clearly established 
that even if it was in the budget resolution, coming back from 
conference it would require 60 votes at that point if somebody raised 
the question of its privileged status. If that was the case, it would 
require 60 votes, and there it would require bipartisan participation.
  I guess bipartisanship around here means it is fatal.
  Mr. CONRAD. Well, I would say this. Let's deal with the reality. The 
reality is, I do not remember a budget resolution around here that has 
gotten 60 votes. So to make the privileged status fatal, to be fatal to 
the privileged status is to be fatal to a budget resolution. That is 
the reality.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, as an aside, I think it is important to 
note the chairman has said this will not come back from the conference 
committee, which is interesting and informative. I think it is fair 
that he has said that. It reflects the influence the chairman has on 
the conference committee.
  Therefore, I presume, since the chairman has said, relative to 
reconciliation, it should not occur in the Senate on the issue of 
health care or the carbon tax, national sales tax, that the chairman 
will use the same influence to assure us we will not see those matters 
come out of the conference committee.
  In addition, I wish to ask a parliamentary inquiry: I understand 
there is a wall, not a wall of debt--although that also is involved in 
this bill--but there is a wall being built of corrosive activity, 
potentially, with a series of amendments that might be adopted on the 
floor that the Parliamentarian deems to be corrosive. At some point, 
there is the theoretical possibility, as the Chair has said, that you 
might even bring the budget resolution's privilege into issue on the 
floor.
  I guess my question is: Why, if this is just one element of that 
wall, on the resolution as it reaches the floor, would it be definitive 
relative to the conference report?
  In other words, why doesn't there have to be a series of amendments 
that are corrosive in order to make the conference report privilege 
fatal? Why would one amendment make the conference report fatal if it 
does not make the budget on the floor fatal, if the Chair understands 
the question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The conferees would have the opportunity, upon 
reflection, to remove corrosive matter from the conference report.
  Mr. GREGG. I think my question was, to make it more succinct, if this 
were the only corrosive matter in the conference report and since it 
was not fatal to the budget resolution as a single corrosive matter on 
the floor, why would it be fatal to the conference report? Why isn't 
the conference report something that is subject to the same test of 
corrosiveness as the budget resolution is on the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The conferees would have the ability to 
reflect on the appropriateness of the matters sent to them.
  Mr. GREGG. So is the Chair saying that it is possible--more than 
theoretical but possible--that this amendment in the conference report 
would not be fatal to the conference report's privilege but would 
simply be corrosive of that privilege and that the conference report 
could retain its privilege with this amendment in it, that that is a 
possibility?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A very remote possibility.
  Mr. GREGG. But not theoretical?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Is there any possibility that the resolution could be 
challenged prior to going to conference on the basis of its privilege 
and that it could lose its privilege prior to going to conference?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Only on the accumulative effect of corrosive 
amendments.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his confidence in 
my ability to influence the outcome of the conference committee. I 
don't think it may extend as far as he may wish or as far as I might 
wish.
  On a matter such as this, I don't see that there is any option. Many 
of us support the intent of the amendment of the Senator from Nevada. 
Unfortunately, it is drafted in a way that the Parliamentarian has 
described to us clearly. If it comes back from conference committee, in 
all likelihood that is fatal to the privileged status of the budget 
resolution. That is not a risk we can afford to take as conferees. I am 
confident the conferees will not permit that. At the same time, I don't 
want people voting against the amendment of the Senator on a 
technicality that then is misrepresented as their position on the 
underlying position contained in this amendment.
  With that, we have used as much time as we need on this amendment. 
Senator Kerry is next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 732

  Mr. KERRY. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  That was one of the more intriguing half hours we have spent in the 
Senate in a long time. I might add, it is sort of interesting that we 
are haggling about an amendment which raises one of those great red 
herrings on the subject of global climate change and cap and trade 
because we already have a cap-and-trade system in America. It is not an 
automatic tax increase. It is not going to, if properly structured, 
result in a tax increase. We like to tilt against goblins around here 
sometimes. This is one of those amendments that do that in a very 
political way.
  I ask that amendment No. 732 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself, 
     Mr. Lugar, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kaufman, 
     Mr. Menendez, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Brown, Mr. 
     Sanders, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Casey, and Mr. Corker, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 732.


[[Page 9394]]

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

 (Purpose: To restore full funding for the President's request for the 
  international affairs budget, in support of development programs in 
Pakistan and Afghanistan, nuclear nonproliferation, foreign assistance, 
  fighting global AIDS, promoting sustainable development, and other 
                        efforts, with an offset)

       On page 10, line 20, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 10, line 21, increase the amount by $1,896,000,000.
       On page 10, line 25, increase the amount by $1,104,000,000.
       On page 11, line 4, increase the amount by $476,000,000.
       On page 11, line 8, increase the amount by $272,000,000.
       On page 11, line 12, increase the amount by $116,000,000.
       On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $1,896,000,000.
       On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $1,104,000,000.
       On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $476,000,000.
       On page 28, line 11, decrease the amount by $272,000,000.
       On page 28, line 15, decrease the amount by $116,000,000.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, over the first 9 years of this new century, 
we have learned a lot about national security. We learned the hard way 
in 2001. Since then, with two wars, one in Afghanistan and one in 
Pakistan, and also with the global economic crisis we face today, we 
understand the degree to which in a globalized world our problems are 
interconnected. Ultimately, our security is interconnected. We are 
currently endangered by weak states and failed states as well as by 
strong states because those weak and failed states become places where 
terrorism can flourish. We are endangered also by diseases that know no 
borders, by climate change half a world away. We are endangered when we 
allow chaos and crisis to create conditions for ideologies of radical 
hatred and violence to take root.
  It is clear to all Members, who are, all of them, no matter what 
committee on which they serve, forced to think hard about how to 
protect our country, that it requires a lot more than just a strong 
military in order to provide that protection. It requires, above all, 
in this new world in which we live, a strengthened commitment to 
diplomacy and to development. To put this as simply and as bluntly as 
possible, that is why passing a robust foreign affairs budget is a 
matter not only of America's world leadership but also of our practical 
national security at home.
  I call to the attention of my colleagues the words of Secretary of 
Defense Bob Gates spoken almost a year and a half ago in Kansas where 
he gave a speech while serving as President Bush's Secretary of 
Defense. What he said there is the following:

       What is clear to me is that there is a need for a dramatic 
     increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national 
     security--diplomacy, strategic communication, foreign 
     assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and 
     development.

  The other day, I was told the story of our National Security Adviser, 
former Marine Commandant Jim Jones, who was commenting how we have 
powerful, enormous ships off the shores of Lebanon, but Hezbollah is 
building schools and building homes and winning the hearts and minds of 
people in that divided and volatile country by doing so. In effect, he 
described a situation where, as powerful as our military is, we are not 
able to win the contest for ideas at the center of security issues 
today.
  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, our former colleague, testified 
in her confirmation the following:

       The relatively small but important amount of money we do 
     spend on foreign aid is in the best interests of the American 
     people and promotes our national security and advances our 
     interests and reflects our values.

  When our soldiers and generals join our top diplomats in demanding 
increased civilian capacity and increased civilian funding, even in the 
midst of this economic crisis, that is when you know there is not only 
a growing consensus, there is a sense of urgency behind the 
strengthening of our civilian mission.
  We just had an elaborate, long period where I think three studies 
were commissioned by President Bush, and then President Obama 
recommissioned another evaluation of what is happening in Afghanistan 
and Pakistan. It is clear that we cannot achieve our objectives unless 
we have the kind of robust budget in the foreign affairs account 
President Obama asked for. Regrettably, that is not what the budget 
resolution currently calls for, even when we add the supplemental 
budgets to it. It falls about $4 billion short from the $53.8 billion 
the President asked for.
  I believe that returning diplomacy and development to their rightful 
place is not going to be achieved by talking about it. It is going to 
take money to drive civilian foreign policy. If it keeps us safer, and 
it is the consensus of our military and our diplomats that it does 
that, then that is money well spent. Full funding of the President's 
international affairs budget is a vital step toward greater civilian 
capacity.
  I urge colleagues to support this amendment. Senator Lugar, Senators 
Leahy, Voinovich, Durbin, Kaufman, Menendez, Dodd, Feinstein, Brown, 
Sanders, Lieberman, Casey, and Corker have all joined together to 
cosponsor this amendment. We ask for the approval of the Senate to add 
$4 billion worth of funding to the President's fiscal year 2010 
international affairs budget request for the function 150 account. 
There is an offset. The offset that would pay for this transfer would 
come from the function 920 account.
  The reality is that we are just not doing enough today to invest in 
the vital components of both diplomacy and development. I was recently 
in the Middle East, in Egypt and Jordan and in the West Bank and Israel 
and Syria, Lebanon. I saw firsthand the degree to which people we 
support in many ways are struggling to push back against enormous 
spending by Iran and other actors who seek to destabilize the region. 
If the United States talks about democracy and doesn't support people 
in the same way the people trying to disrupt it do, we lose our 
credibility and, more importantly, we walk away from people who are 
literally putting their lives on the line to live up to the standards 
we have set and the beliefs we have espoused so powerfully.
  It is extraordinary to me that the funding for the Department of 
Defense today, with all of these restraints we see on its ability to 
achieve our goals, as powerful as we know it is and as much as we 
admire the sacrifices and the extraordinary capability of our modern 
military--the fact is, we spent over half a trillion dollars on it. 
Then in 2008, the Army added about 7,000 soldiers to the total. I 
supported that. I believed we needed to do that to relieve pressure on 
the current deployments. But 7,000 soldiers is more people than serve 
in the entire Foreign Service every year all the time. The fact is, 
1,100 Foreign Service officers could be hired for the cost of a single 
C-17 military cargo plane, and $4 billion, which is what we are looking 
for here, is less than 2 percent of what the Government has given to 
AIG over the course of the last year and a half.
  This is a vital context to put this discussion into. We have to 
decide around here what is really important to us. What really makes a 
difference to the security and safety of the American people? The 
President requested $53.8 billion in this year to fund next year's 
budget. That is an increase of 8 percent over last year's funding level 
of 49.8.
  Why is this so important? Well, first of all, let me put this in 
context, if I can. The total request of the President for this entire 
context of America's security comes to about 1.4 percent of our whole 
budget. In fact, if you break out the entire national security budget, 
which is our defense, homeland security, all the components of 
security, you are only talking about 6.8 percent of the entire national 
security budget of our country for some of the most important things 
that prevent people from becoming terrorists or from being able to 
engage in their terrorist acts with impunity.

[[Page 9395]]

  Some people try to assert that the President's request has increased 
41 percent from last year's total of $38 billion. Let me say very 
clearly, right now, that is not accurate. The figure of $38 billion 
does not include last year's supplemental appropriations. And those 
supplemental appropriations raised the total to about $50 billion.
  What President Obama did was break the practice of past Presidents of 
sending in a phony half budget or a three-quarter budget and then we do 
the rest of it through the supplementals. He decided the American 
people ought to see it as it is, they ought to know what we are doing, 
we ought to make the request we need. So he put in the request for the 
$53 billion because that is, in fact, reflecting what we actually spent 
last year, plus what we need to do for Afghanistan and Pakistan in this 
year. This is a more straightforward way of doing business, frankly. 
Rather than hiding the amount of money or massaging the spending 
figures by tucking extra spending into the supplemental bills, 
President Obama has been up front and open, and he has put it into one 
bill and says: Here is what I need. That is why my colleague, the 
chairman of the Budget Committee, who labors unbelievably hard under 
these difficult circumstances to make all this work--and I respect him 
enormously in those efforts--has praised President Obama's approach in 
this openness.
  So the real question is sort of, What is this $4 billion going to get 
us? What is the difference it is going to make? First of all, we have a 
vital new package the President announced yesterday that Senator Lugar 
and I will be introducing in a few days to provide additional 
assistance for Pakistan and Afghanistan. The $4 billion is going to 
help build civilian capacity and put our diplomats back on the front 
lines of American foreign policy. It will provide lifesaving treatment 
for people with HIV/AIDS and continue the program that was perhaps the 
single most successful program of the Bush administration, which is the 
PEPFAR efforts in Africa. This $4 billion will help make people all 
over the world safer and in the process help keep America safer.
  Ultimately, these kinds of efforts are the key to the strategy in 
Afghanistan. Our on-the-ground ability to be able to win, hold, and 
build is the whole strategy to be able to win people back over to us 
and prevent the Taliban from supplanting or filling the vacuum that 
currently exists.
  We need to reverse years of neglect in those two countries. Pakistan 
has nuclear weapons. We just saw the other day an attack on police 
recruits in the heart of Pakistan itself--not out in the Fatah or in 
Baluchistan or the areas we know are harder to control. So we see that 
insurgency with a message clearly sent that they can act with impunity. 
So it is critical for the United States to step up and show President 
Zardari and the Government of Pakistan, who are courageously trying to 
forge forward with their youthful democracy, that, in fact, we are 
supportive and we are there to help them.
  I ask my colleagues to imagine a nation as populous as Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and North Korea combined, a nation with a full arsenal of 
nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles capable of delivering them 
anywhere in a 1,000-kilometer range. Imagine a nation with a population 
that is overwhelmingly moderate, overwhelmingly committed to democracy 
and the rule of law, but deeply suspicious of its leadership and of 
America's friendship. Imagine a nation in which Osama bin Laden and the 
leadership of al-Qaida have found sanctuary for the past 7 years--a 
haven from which they and their confederates have plotted and carried 
out attacks on their host country, on neighboring countries, and on 
sites around the globe. That nation can serve as a keystone for a new, 
cooperative relationship between the Western and Muslim worlds, or, if 
we do not do our job, it could become an epicenter for radicalism and 
violence on a cataclysmic scale.
  So I believe we are at a critical crossroads, and we need a bold new 
strategy for Pakistan. Our current path has not brought success, and 
tinkering around the margins is absolutely guaranteed to fail. That is 
why President Obama has called on Congress to pass the Enhanced 
Partnership With Pakistan Act that Senator Lugar and I will introduce 
very soon that authorizes up to $1.5 billion annually in order to help 
shape this new relationship with Pakistan.
  We also might mention again the importance of standing up with 
respect to Iran. When you look back at what happened in the war with 
Israel and Lebanon, the southern part of the country of Lebanon was 
significantly damaged. Iran, using its surrogate Hezbollah, immediately 
painted flags on the houses--their flags, Hezbollah flags--and 
essentially asserted: Don't worry, we are here, and we are going to 
rebuild this.
  So last year both parties came together. We had 73 votes to pull 
together, in addition to the budget, to provide $48 billion over 5 
years. Today, it is imperative that we fund these programs, and I ask 
my colleagues for their support for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, when the Senator approached me about this 
yesterday, I told him I would strongly oppose this amendment. I told 
him that because this has been hard to put together, and we have tried 
to have an equal sharing of sacrifice between all of the spending 
elements of a budget. We have tried to do it with respect to domestic 
spending, defense spending. We have tried to do it with mandatory 
spending. And international is a component of the discretionary side of 
the budget, so we thought it would only be fair that they be asked to 
make a contribution.
  When I told the Senator yesterday that I would strongly resist this 
amendment, I did not know, I was not aware, he had an offset for that 
amendment, and that does alter the situation. That makes it more 
palatable because we maintain the same bottom line.
  But it does concern me that we are upsetting the balance of what I 
think is a fair distribution of the pain of the cutbacks we have had to 
make. I want to be very clear about that. I am concerned that other 
parts of the budget are being asked to take reductions from the 
President's request and now international will not. So I want to say I 
find that troubling.
  I understand absolutely the substance of the argument the Senator is 
making, and he is right to make it. He is chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee. But I do hope colleagues think carefully about 
kind of the equity of the burden here--the equity of the burden.
  The second thing I want to say with respect to this amendment is that 
it uses a 920 offset. We came out of the committee with about $7 
billion in savings in 920. That is general overhead of all of the 
agencies; in other words, it is across the board, goes to their travel 
accounts, goes to their overhead accounts. Could we take somewhat more 
in 920? Yes, but not much more.
  We came out of the committee at $7 billion. I have always tried to 
stay at about $10 billion in 920. This would take us to $11 billion. So 
I am troubled by that as well.
  With that said, I do not intend to oppose this amendment, but I do 
find it troubling on those two grounds: One, it does affect the 
fairness of the distribution of the pain, if you will, of the cutbacks 
we have had to make; and No. 2, it adds to the section 920 offsets in a 
way that, to me, takes it a little past the realm of what is 
reasonable. But with that said, I do not intend to oppose this 
amendment or ask colleagues to vote against it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, Senator Cornyn is next. Senator Cornyn has another one 
of these corrosive amendments. I told Senator Cornyn, this is the third 
year he has offered a corrosive amendment, that he is very much in 
danger of being dubbed ``Corrosive Cornyn.'' I hope he takes that with 
the good humor it was intended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

[[Page 9396]]


  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the new moniker the 
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee is trying to confer on 
me, but I would say it is not warranted for a number of reasons. The 
chairman has a great sense of humor, which I appreciate sometimes and 
not as much on other occasions.


                           Amendment No. 806

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment and to call up my amendment No. 806 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 806.

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

        (Purpose: To protect small businesses from higher taxes)

       At the end of subtitle A of title III, insert the 
     following:

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

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

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my colleagues, when they listen to what my 
amendment does, are going to experience a sense of deja vu. As the 
chairman says, we have been here before. As a matter of fact, 2 years 
ago, when I offered this amendment, which would create a budget point 
of order requiring 60 votes for any legislation that would raise taxes 
on small businesses--a couple years ago--we got 63 votes for that 
amendment, including these Democrats, as shown on this chart, folks on 
the other side of the aisle, making this a truly bipartisan proposal. 
Two years ago, when we had the same amendment offered, we had a little 
bit different group, but 58 Senators, representing a bipartisan 
majority of the Senate, believed it was a correct move to limit this 
Congress's ability to raise taxes on small businesses.
  I know the chairman has raised this issue of corrosive but not fatal 
to the privileged status of the budget resolution, and I have some 
answers. We have corresponded with the Parliamentarian, and he has been 
good to give us some guidance, and I think there is a pathway for us to 
move forward for the conference committee to consider this amendment 
and to perhaps modify it in the conference and yet sustain its 
viability as a budget point of order for a tax increase on small 
businesses.
  Why are we focusing on small businesses? Well, almost 400,000 small 
businesses in Texas, my State, employ about 4 million people. Frankly, 
as the chief job-creation engine of our country, small businesses 
disproportionately add to the job creation in our country, and I think 
it would do nothing but destroy or certainly impair their ability to 
continue to create jobs in this country by raising taxes on small 
businesses. So I think it is appropriate, before we do, that we have an 
extra hurdle--at least 60 votes--to waive any budget point of order to 
make us consider the seriousness of our decision and also the 
ramifications of any tax increase on small businesses.
  Last month, I visited Tyler, TX. That is in East Texas, a midsized 
city of over 100,000 people, where I had the chance to sit down and 
visit with local business leaders, community leaders, about how the 
economy is going, unemployment rates--the things we could do here in 
Washington to perhaps make those businesses' job-creation capability a 
little easier. I met with Don Thedford, who 30 years ago opened a 
business called Don's TV and Appliance. He did that 30 years ago with 
just one other employee; in other words, there were just two of them. 
Today, Don's business has 50 employees who sell and service appliances 
and electronics.
  Don was able to grow his business early in this decade in part 
because of the tax relief we passed in 2001 and 2003. Since 2000, Don 
has hired eight additional workers to install and deliver appliances, 
seven more service technicians, six more clerical workers, four more 
sales people, and two more in management. So this is the kind of job 
creation we love to see: 30 years ago, two people; now 50 people 
working productively in this small business. Don has also added a new 
retirement plan for all of his employees, in addition to the health 
benefits he has offered to his employees for years.
  As have many small businesses in this recession, he has seen his 
sales fall off. Of course, when families aren't buying and selling as 
many homes, there is less demand for appliances and electronics. Higher 
taxes would force Don, as well as other small businesses, to lay off 
some employees he has hired and scale back on some of the benefits he 
has offered, including health care.
  We know more than half of the small businesses with 20 or more 
employees will get hit with a tax increase under President Obama's 
budget proposal. We also know, as I indicated earlier, small businesses 
create a majority of the net new jobs we have seen over the past 
decade, and two-thirds of those jobs were created by businesses similar 
to those that are now threatened by a proposed tax increase. Given the 
administration's stated goal and, indeed, our stated goal--I don't know 
any Member of the Senate who doesn't come to the floor and say we need 
to help our employers create and certainly, at least, retain the jobs 
they have in this down cycle--I am left wondering why anyone would 
oppose this budget point of order that would make it harder to raise 
taxes on small businesses because I know we all appreciate, intuitively 
and otherwise, that raising taxes on small businesses would be 
counterproductive to our ultimate goal of job creation.
  I have said this every time I have offered this amendment--and now it 
is the third time--that this point of order is an insurance policy when 
Congress decides to look at the pocketbook of small business owners 
such as Don for more money instead of looking for ways to eliminate 
waste and fraud and abuse in Government programs. We know the Office of 
Management and Budget has reviewed more than 1,000 Government programs 
and found 20 percent of them to be nonperforming. Why don't we look for 
ways to save money by eliminating that waste and nonperforming programs 
as opposed to raising taxes on the chief job creators in our economy? 
Raising taxes before we eliminate wasteful spending or fix the ones 
that are broken is the wrong signal to our No. 1 job creators.
  I share the chairman's concern, of course, about the debt. In fact, I 
offered an amendment in the Budget Committee that would have reduced it 
by more than $55 billion but, unfortunately, it was defeated by a 
party-line vote. But with concerns that families and small businesses 
have about the economy, now is not the time to increase taxes.
  As former Chief Justice John Marshall noted, ``The power to tax is 
the power to destroy.'' We should not use this power to destroy small 
businesses such as Don's.
  For this reason, I ask my colleagues once again to sign on to this 
amendment and to join me in voting with the same sort of bipartisan 
support that we have enjoyed the past two times this amendment has been 
offered and pass it as a statement of this body that we are going to be 
extra careful and take extra precautions and look for alternatives 
before we end up raising taxes on small businesses because that would 
be exactly the wrong prescription for what ails this economy.
  Finally, let me say I know the concerns the Budget chairman, the bill 
manager, has on the privileged nature

[[Page 9397]]

of this budget resolution. But I suggest to him that this is something 
that if the amendment is passed, he can take up, and the conference 
committee can take up and modify the amendment while retaining its 
essential core principles and eliminate the concerns the 
Parliamentarian has voiced about this being corrosive, if not fatal, to 
the privileged nature of the budget resolution.
  So it is my hope, when we have an opportunity to vote on this, that 
we will get a strong bipartisan statement out of the Senate that we are 
not going to raise taxes on small businesses without at least the 
deliberation required and the overwhelming vote of 60 Senators to do so 
because it would be exactly the wrong thing to do in this economic 
downturn.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this amendment creates the same issue the 
previous amendment created, the Ensign amendment, and that is because 
it is overly prescriptive in terms of the Finance Committee, it puts at 
risk the privileged status of the budget resolution. So I wish to make 
a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state the inquiry.
  Mr. CONRAD. Parliamentary inquiry: If this amendment were adopted but 
not brought back from conference committee, would the privileged status 
of the budget resolution remain intact?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. I thank the Parliamentarian.
  Mr. President, we have Senator Lincoln who will be on her way 
momentarily, and I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 775

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I will soon call up amendment No. 775, 
which is one of the amendments I filed on the budget.
  This is a simple amendment. It is to ask that we make an investment 
that would reflect our Nation's commitment to the men and women serving 
in our Nation's Selected Reserve.
  The amendment I offer with Senators Crapo and Klobuchar would create 
room in the budget to ``enhance future GI Bill benefits for members of 
the National Guard and Reserve by ensuring those benefits keep pace 
with the national average cost of tuition.''
  Since its inception in 1984, the Selected Reserve GI bill has served 
as an important tool for recruiting young men and women into the 
National Guard and Reserves. Those who initially join for 6 years are 
automatically entitled to these benefits and the current monthly rate 
of $329 for full-time study and training.
  Unfortunately, however, Selected Reserve GI bill benefit rates are 
simply not reflective of the critical role guardsmen and reservists 
play in today's military. Since September 11, 2001, these benefits have 
increased an average of less than 3 percent each year.
  As so many people know, the Guard, Reserve, and Selected Reserve are 
doing a tremendous duty now that is much different than what it was 
pre-
9/11.
  They have also not kept pace with the Active-Duty GI bill benefit 
increases--plunging in value from the historic benchmark of 48 percent 
of the Active-Duty GI bill to just 25 percent today.
  By failing to make an appropriate investment in the men and women of 
our National Guard and Reserves, this trend sends a very poor message 
that the Reserve component is being devalued.
  Given the current economic climate, it is imperative we make a 
greater investment in these fabulous men and women who serve us from 
each of our States in the Guard and Reserves. The rising price of 
higher education, increases in the interest rates on student loans, and 
the limited earnings ability of those with only high school credentials 
make educational benefits a primary means of investing in our future. 
During tough economic times, they may also face increased competition 
for financial aid dollars as our colleges and universities see more 
applicants.
  As we know, an increasingly competitive job market encourages more 
high school graduates to pursue higher education rather than risk 
finding stable employment. At the same time, more working adults are 
going back to school to gain additional skills to make them more 
marketable. We want to encourage our Guard and Reserves, and we want to 
encourage our Selected Reservists to take advantage of educational 
opportunities to further their positions in the Guard and Reserves but 
also to be able to further their positions in business and in industry 
and where they are going to be working in our communities.
  Last year, Congress made a tremendous investment in our men and women 
in uniform by passing a 21st century GI bill that greatly expanded GI 
bill benefits and made college more affordable for servicemembers and 
veterans.
  Senators Webb, Akaka, and others deserve our gratitude for their 
tremendous leadership on that issue.
  For Active-Duty servicemembers and Reservists called to Active Duty 
for more than 90 days, these benefits will be absolutely critical.
  My State of Arkansas has recently welcomed home over 3,000 National 
Guardsmen from a 1-year tour in Iraq. For many of them, it was their 
second tour in just 3 years. I am proud we will be providing them with 
education benefits that are more commensurate with their increased 
service to our great Nation.
  One of the provisions of the newly enhanced GI bill will tie the 
Active-Duty GI bill rate to the national average cost of tuition.
  My amendment would simply create budget room to do the same thing for 
the Selected Reserve GI bill. Therefore, when the national average cost 
of tuition increases, Selected Reserve GI bill rates would increase by 
the same percentage, making sure they keep up as we move forward, as 
opposed to continually falling behind in their percentage rate toward 
educational benefits for the Selected Reserve.
  This required increase is very modest. Yet it would send a powerful 
message to the men and women serving in our Nation's Selected Reserve.
  Our military simply could not function without them--particularly in 
today's world. While those who are activated and sent overseas deserve 
our utmost respect and gratitude, we must also not forget the thousands 
of men and women at armories and bases all across our States who serve 
a critical role in making sure other members of their units are 
qualified and ready to deploy.
  They are the police officers, the doctors, the schoolteachers, the 
mayors, and the neighborhood pharmacists in communities across our 
Nation.
  Providing enhanced Selected Service GI bill benefits makes an 
investment in these men and women who are not only holding up the 
economies in our local small communities across the States in this 
great Nation, but they are also willing to serve in a military fashion 
that is much needed to back up those men and women who are deployed. It 
also enhances the GI bill to more effectively serve as a recruitment 
and retention tool for our Armed Forces.
  Ultimately, it enhances our Nation's competitiveness through the 
development of a more highly educated and productive workforce.
  As the daughter of a Korean war veteran, who was an infantryman, I 
was taught from an early age about the sacrifices our troops have to 
make to keep our Nation free. I have been grateful all my life, and 
continue to be, as my colleagues are, for the service of so many of our 
brave men and women, particularly from Arkansas and certainly across 
the Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is the least we 
can do for those to whom we owe so much and to reassure future 
generations that a

[[Page 9398]]

grateful nation will provide for them should they devote themselves to 
serving our Nation in uniform.
  I appreciate the time I have had today to bring up this amendment. I 
look forward to being able to talk on other amendments when the time is 
available.
  Mr. President, at this point, under the previous order, I ask 
unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside in order to 
call up my amendment No. 775.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln] on behalf of 
     herself, Mr. Crapo, and Ms. Klobuchar, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 775.

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

    (Purpose: To enhance future GI Bill benefits for members of the 
 National Guard and Reserve by ensuring those benefits keep pace with 
                 the national average cost of tuition)

       On page 41, line 24, insert after ``Indemnity 
     Compensation,'' the following: ``enhance servicemember 
     education benefits for members of the National Guard and 
     Reserve by ensuring those benefits keep pace with the 
     national average cost of tuition,''.

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for her amendment. It 
is a very well-thought-out amendment. We appreciate her raising it and 
it will be in order.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Arkansas has a 
second amendment. It is not formally in the queue, but she is free to 
talk about it at this time. I am happy to yield her time to do that--to 
talk about it at this time but not call it up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the chairman of the 
Budget Committee and the ranking member, Senator Gregg, for being so 
thoughtful in this debate. I continue to especially compliment the 
chairman on coming up with an incredible balance in the budget, having 
worked so hard to reflect what so many of us want to see and the 
President's priorities. I think he has has done a remarkable job 
focusing on the priorities that many of us and the President feel are 
very important to focus on now and to do it with such a fiscally 
responsible as well as a very balanced approach. I think he has reached 
a tremendous balance. I applaud him and his staff and all those who 
have worked on this budget. I do believe they have come up with a good, 
sound proposal, something that reflects so much of what we want to see 
happening in this great country.
  I rise to support an amendment that I will be offering, which is 
filed, but I will bring it up later. It will be offered on behalf of 
approximately 500,000 foster children across our Nation, and the 
foster, kinship, and adoptive parents who play such a crucial role in 
their lives.
  My amendment would create room in the budget for making improvements 
to our child welfare system and specifically for additional efforts to 
recruit and retain more foster families.
  I am so grateful to be joined in this effort by Senator Collins from 
Maine and Senator Landrieu from Louisiana, who have long been 
tremendous advocates on behalf of our Nation's foster children.
  As we all know, our States face ongoing challenges in recruiting and 
retaining families to care for children in our foster care system. 
Tragically, while the number of children coming into the system has 
increased in recent years, the number of foster families has steadily 
decreased. All anybody has to do is look at the economy around us. 
Working families are struggling. Unfortunately, those hard-working 
families, who are the diligent, giving souls who open their homes to 
foster children to embrace and love them and to give them a home, are 
struggling as much, if not more than, anybody else, and their ability 
to open their hearts and homes is being restricted by this economy.
  With nearly 25 percent of families leaving the system each year, we 
simply cannot sustain these losses. In my State of Arkansas, we are 
grateful for our 1,200 foster families, but we desperately need more to 
cover the number of children in need.
  Given the current economic climate, many of these parents, most of 
whom are low- to middle-income families, have experienced tremendous 
difficulties maintaining employment and providing for their families. 
That makes them even more hesitant to take on the additional 
responsibilities of caring for a foster child. This problem will only 
exacerbate unless we do something to stem the tide.
  My amendment would allow for initiatives, such as the grant program 
provided under the Resource Family Recruitment and Retention Act, a 
bipartisan bill I have introduced with six of my Senate colleagues.
  Specifically, this grant program would provide States more 
opportunities to develop innovative methods of education and support 
for resource families.
  Among other demonstration projects, it would also allow States to 
establish peer-to-peer support and mentoring groups; programs to 
provide foster families with reliable and accessible respite care to 
help them avoid burnout. We are seeing, as they put more and more of 
their resources and energies and more and more of their hearts and 
souls into wanting to reach out to foster children and bring them into 
their homes, a tremendous amount of burnout. We also want to train them 
to care for children with special needs, which is, again, a growing 
need among foster children.
  As lawmakers, it is our role to honor the critical role that foster 
families play in the lives of foster youth and provide them with the 
services and the support they need. Foster children seek nothing more 
than a safe, loving, and permanent home, and resource families often 
help address this need. By strengthening efforts to recruit and retain 
these families, we also enhance our best tool to recruit other families 
and retain prospective adoptive resources.
  As Members of this body, we have an obligation to do right by those 
we represent each and every day. We also have a moral obligation to do 
everything we can on behalf of the most vulnerable in our society.
  For the over 500,000 children who are in foster care today, and many 
more who are headed into the foster care system, the many thousands of 
families who have provided them with the love and support they 
desperately need, it is the least we can do.
  I call on my colleagues to join me in this effort to make sure we 
recognize that in these difficult economic times, we have multitudes of 
good American families, hard-working families who want to do what is 
right, who want to reach out and help these children who need a loving 
home. We need to provide the help in order for them to do that.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, we 
would be amenable to taking both of the Senator's amendments by 
unanimous consent if she is amenable to that.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Absolutely. How grateful.
  Mr. GREGG. Has the Senator called up her second amendment? I suggest 
she call it up.


                           Amendment No. 774

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I believe under the previous order I 
need to also ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside in order to call up my second amendment, which is amendment No. 
774.

[[Page 9399]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln], for herself, Ms. 
     Collins, and Ms. Landrieu, proposes an amendment numbered 
     774.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide a deficit-neutral reserve fund for improving child 
                                welfare)

       At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR IMPROVING CHILD 
                   WELFARE.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this 
     resolution by the amounts provided by one or more bills, 
     joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports 
     that would make improvements to child welfare programs, 
     including strengthening the recruitment and retention of 
     foster families, or make improvements to the child support 
     enforcement program, by the amounts provided in that 
     legislation for that purpose, provided that such legislation 
     would not increase the deficit over either the period of the 
     total of fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the 
     total of fiscal years 2009 through 2019.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two 
amendments recently called up by the Senator from Arkansas be agreed 
to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The amendments are agreed to.
  The amendments (Nos. 774 and 775) were agreed to.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. I thank our colleague, the ranking 
member, as well.
  In terms of the unanimous consent agreement, the next amendment is 
the Gregg amendment?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Gregg amendment; that is 
correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. Senator Gregg.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, just to clarify the procedure, as I 
understand it, we will go to my amendment which deals with a task force 
on how we deal with entitlement reform, tax reform, and the amendment 
after that will be Senator Kyl's amendment on health care rationing. 
Then I think we take a break. I am not sure about that, but I believe 
there will be a break. Then there will be a series of votes on the 
pending amendments. After the votes--this is not in the form of a 
request; it is a statement of where we are--we will be going to Senator 
McCain, who has an amendment. From there we still have not decided.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I note that we also have a Shaheen 
amendment after the Kyl amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Correct.
  Mr. GREGG. Should we lock that in? Can I get the chairman's 
attention? Can we lock in that order?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, why doesn't the Senator proceed.


                           Amendment No. 835

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask the clerk to report my amendment. I 
ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. GREGG], for himself, 
     Mr. McConnell, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Martinez, 
     Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 
     835.

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

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to address our 
                   Nations long term fiscal problems)

       On page 49, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ADDRESS OUR NATIONS 
                   LONG TERM FISCAL PROBLEMS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports that would 
     authorize the creation of a bipartisan task force to examine 
     the long term fiscal imbalances facing our Nation and directs 
     the bipartisan task force to report, with the majority 
     approval of each participating party, legislative 
     recommendations to address those imbalances, and provides 
     legislative fast track procedures to ensure a vote on the 
     legislative recommendations, by the amount provided in that 
     legislation for those purposes, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2019.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this is actually a pretty significant 
amendment. In fact, it is a very significant amendment if we are able 
to follow through on its purposes. It is something the chairman and I 
have worked on a great deal for a number of years. I believe, and I 
think I speak correctly that the chairman believes, our problems in 
this Nation relative to the cost of the Government in the years to 
come, especially as we move into the full retirement of the baby boom 
population, are extraordinary; that we are facing massive amounts of 
expenditures to support the baby boom generation in retirement.
  As we know, the baby boom generation essentially doubles from 35 
million to 70 million. The cost of the entitlement programs that 
support that generation and others simply overwhelm the ability of the 
Government to pay those programs and forces us into a situation where 
the debt of the Government will overwhelm our children.
  The discussion on this issue has been broad and extensive in our 
Nation, carried forward in large part by a number of citizen groups 
which are totally dedicated to trying to address constructive action in 
this area, especially the Peterson Group, which is headed by the former 
Comptroller General, David Walker.
  This amendment is an attempt to start addressing that issue sooner 
rather than later through a task force procedure. But it is not your 
typical task force. We have all seen commissions and task forces. In 
fact, on these specific issues--Medicare reform, Social Security 
reform, and tax reform--we have seen a lot of task forces. This is a 
little different--substantially very different.
  Essentially, what this does is create a task force which is 
bipartisan so there can be no question about everybody being at the 
table and everybody having a fair hearing of their views, which 
involves the players who are involved in the decision process--Members 
of Congress and members of the administration.
  The idea is to set up a procedure where that task force reaches 
agreements, hopefully, on issues such as reforming Social Security, so 
we continue to deliver high-quality Social Security benefits to our 
retirees, reforming Medicare along the same lines so people continue to 
get high-quality Medicare and health care who are retired, reforming 
our tax laws so we basically have the opportunity to make sure we have 
a tax law that works for the Nation and produces the revenues we need.
  It moves down the road, coming forward with policy in all those areas 
so those programs, specifically the entitlement side--Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid--become either solvent over their actuarial life 
or move dramatically down the road toward solvency.
  The problem we have is those three programs alone--Social Security, 
Medicare, and Medicaid--presently have an unfunded liability of $60 
trillion over their actuarial life. Mr. President, $60 trillion is a 
massive amount. The goal is to try to reduce that unfunded liability in 
a constructive way that allows the benefits to still be robust and 
reasonable, while the cost is affordable to the younger generation that 
has to pay those benefits through their tax burden.
  The reason we have chosen this procedure is that we have concluded 
that if you put policy on the table initially, if you say, OK, we are 
going to change this element of Social Security or this element of 
Medicare or this element of tax law, there are constituencies in this 
city who immediately surround you and start shooting at you for a 
variety of reasons. Some genuinely disagree with the policy. Much of it 
is essentially the way Washington works.

[[Page 9400]]

There are a lot of constituency groups in the city that basically 
generate their revenues from the fact that they are able to create 
concern amongst the people who participate in their group. And as a 
result of our putting a policy on the table--somebody putting a policy 
on the table--they try to use that as a mechanism to generate concern 
and raise money for their organization.
  It has never worked. A lot of different people tried putting the 
policy on the table first. All that happens is everybody goes to their 
corners and starts shooting away. What we have concluded is we should 
have a procedure that drives the policy, and it is a procedure that 
leads to policy action.
  So this task force, which will be absolutely bipartisan in its 
makeup, would be required to report in a way that is absolutely 
bipartisan, which is what is critical, so their report would be seen 
and would be actually fair and bipartisan. We would have a series of 
initiatives, of policies, which would then come to the Congress and 
have to be voted on with supermajorities. It would have to be voted on 
what is known as fast track around here, where there is no way to avoid 
voting on it and where you cannot hide behind amendments. You actually 
have to vote up or down on the various policies proposed by this task 
force. Then, of course, it would go to the President. He would have the 
right to veto it if he did not like it, but it would get to the 
President because it would be a fast-track event. It would lead to 
action on these core issues that are really at the essence of our 
problems as a society relative to going forward and being fiscally 
sound as a nation and also being able to take care of people who are 
retired and make sure our children have a nation they can afford and a 
government they can afford. It is a pretty significant step if we were 
able to pursue this course.
  I congratulate the chairman for being a force on this issue for many 
years.
  That is basically the amendment, which essentially says we want to 
pursue that course of action. It, unfortunately, does not legally 
create this event because that type of an action would require 
legislation, and as those who follow the budget process know, the 
budget is not signed by the President. It is a resolution; it is not a 
bill. In order to execute on this, it would require an actual piece of 
legislation signed by the President. But this amendment makes a fairly 
definitive statement that this is the course of action we need to get 
about doing. We do need to get about doing it. We do need to.
  I think it is a positive statement on a very critical issue. If we 
were to do this, if we were to actually pursue this initiative on a 
task force as the chairman and I have talked about for a while, my 
goodness, we would be doing good work for the American people. We 
really would. We would be taking on what is so critical to making sure 
we pass on to our kids a better nation.
  I hope it will be supported. It has bipartisan support. My primary 
cosponsors are Senators Lieberman and Voinovich. I have been working 
with the chairman. Hopefully, he is reasonably comfortable with it. As 
we move down the road, hopefully we can accomplish this.
  Mr. President, I ask of my time--not at this point, but at some point 
down the road that is convenient to the chairman and myself in the 
debate--that 5 minutes be reserved for the Senator from Ohio, Mr. 
Voinovich, so he can speak on this matter.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is a painful moment for me because I 
subscribe to virtually every element of what Senator Gregg is 
proposing, with one exception. The exception is on page 2, this 
reference ``in this resolution for one or more bills, joint 
resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports that would 
authorize the creation of a bipartisan task force to examine the long 
term fiscal imbalances facing our Nation and directs the bipartisan 
task force to report, with the majority approval of each participating 
party. . . .''
  That is something to which I have not agreed, could not agree. I 
think that alters in a very significant way the dynamic.
  Senator Gregg and I embarked on this effort several years ago. At 
that point, with Republicans in control of the White House and 
Democrats in control of the House and the Senate, we agreed to a 
formulation that the majority in the House would get four Members, the 
minority three, the same in the Senate, four and three, and there be 
two representatives of the administration. That is 16 in total, and it 
would have been eight Democrats and eight Republicans.
  The problem that has happened since--and it would take 12 of the 16 
to report. That means you could have all the Democrats and half the 
Republicans or vice versa. You could have all the Republicans and half 
the Democrats, and with that number, you could bring the matter to the 
Senate for a vote.
  What has happened in the interval? Democrats have captured control of 
the White House, as well as increased the numbers in the House and the 
Senate. So now to have a requirement to have a majority approval of 
each participating party I think is unreasonable. I think it is 
unreasonable and is not in keeping with the formula to which we had 
originally agreed.
  Why is it unreasonable? Because Republicans don't have a majority in 
the House or the Senate and don't control the White House, yet all of a 
sudden it takes a majority of them to agree on a solution for our long-
term fiscal problems. That just gives disproportionate power to the 
minority, and a minority that is not only a minority in the House and 
the Senate but a party that does not control the White House either. So 
I could not support that. If that were not part of this, I would have a 
different view because then it would be very much in line with what we 
have talked about for several years.
  Let me go to the basic concept because the basic concept I do 
support, the basic concept being that we have to have some special 
process in order to address these long-term fiscal imbalances. You are 
never going to do it in a 5-year budget resolution. You can make a 
downpayment there and you can certainly get going in the right 
direction, which I think we do in this budget resolution, but Senator 
Gregg, when he says you have to have a process to get to a policy, I 
believe, is exactly right. I don't believe anybody who leads with a 
policy is going to get an answer here. I believe it is going to take a 
process to get there. But I think it has to be a process that 
recognizes the political reality of this moment in time. At this moment 
in time, Democrats are in control of the White House as well as the 
House and the Senate. So to put in a clause that the bipartisan task 
force, in order to report, has to have majority approval of each 
participating party simply goes beyond what I have agreed to in the 
past or what I could agree to now. So I would be constrained to object 
to the passage of this proposal as written.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would just note on this number--because 
the number is important--that I disagree with the logic here that the 
chairman has put forth because the purpose is bipartisanship. It is not 
that one party controls the Government or the other party controls the 
Government; the whole purpose here is to get bipartisanship so that the 
American people are confident that whatever this task force reports is 
fair because this task force is going to have very significant 
authority and extra legislative authority, and it is not going to work 
unless people are comfortable.
  Regrettably, under the format the chairman is talking about, you 
would only need two of the six Republicans. There would only be 6 of 
the 16 who would be Republicans, and only 2 would have to vote with the 
majority in order to report it, and that means that doesn't work. You 
don't end up with bipartisanship that way, I don't think. That is why a 
majority vote means you would have to have four of the six Republicans 
vote with it, and one presumes that is not going to be the problem. 
Hopefully, all 6 and all 10--all 16--

[[Page 9401]]

will be voting for whatever the proposal is.
  You can't create a situation where one side will be viewed as having 
the capacity to roll the other side within this task force. That is the 
opposite of the purpose of a task force. That is why we went to this 
proposal. In fact, the original concept was 16--8 and 8--back when the 
Democratic Party controlled the Congress and we controlled the 
administration, and with the 8 and 8 split, it took 4 members of either 
party--half of either party's membership on the task force--to vote for 
it. So that concept of having a commitment of the membership from both 
sides to the bill--at least the majority of both sides--is something we 
have actually had in the past.
  In any event, I would regret it if the chairman opposes this because 
I think it will undermine our ability to move forward. But I see 
Senator Kyl is here, and he has the next amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, just to review the history, because I 
don't agree with what was just described, in our original formulation 
it was 16, and 14 were Members of Congress, with the majority in the 
Senate getting 4 Members, the minority 3; the same in the House, the 
majority 4, the minority 3; two representatives of the administration, 
which was then the Bush administration. That meant 16 in total--8 
Democrats and 8 Republicans--and it would take 12 to issue a report, 12 
of the 16. That meant, at that time, that you could have all Democrats 
and half the Republicans or all the Republicans and half the Democrats.
  Now fast-forward to this year. In our negotiations, despite the fact 
that our previous formula, instead of producing an 8-8, would now 
produce 10-6 Democrats to Republicans because the Democrats have just 
won the White House and the White House was to have two 
representatives, I agreed to alter that and to go from 10-6 Democrats 
to Republicans to 9-6 Democrats to Republicans but still have 12 to 
report. That would still mean you would have to have at least half of 
the Republicans. If you had all the Democrats, you would still have to 
have half of the Republicans. That, to me, is absolutely in keeping 
with what we had agreed to previously, where there were 16, it would 
take 12 to report, and since there were 8 Democrats and 8 Republicans, 
you would have to have at least half the Republicans, or if you had all 
the Republicans, you would have to have at least half the Democrats.
  So I could not agree, and I just think, look, Democrats are never 
going to agree on a formulation, when they control the Senate, they 
control the House of Representatives, and they control the White House, 
Democrats are never going to agree that each party has to have a 
majority approval. I would never agree to that. I don't think it 
reflects the political reality that exists today. So I would 
reluctantly oppose it.
  Mr. President, I think we are now at the time that we could go to 
Senator Kyl.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the chairman, and I ask unanimous consent to lay 
aside the pending amendment for the purpose of offering an amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 793

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, at this time, I call up amendment No. 793, 
relating to comparative effectiveness research.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 793.

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

   (Purpose: To protect all patients by prohibiting the use of data 
 obtained from comparative effectiveness research to deny coverage of 
items or services under Federal health care programs and to ensure that 
    comparative effectiveness research accounts for advancements in 
    genomics and personalized medicine, the unique needs of health 
 disparity populations, and differences in the treatment response and 
                 the treatment preferences of patients)

       On page 31, line 9, insert ``does not curb growth in health 
     care spending by using data obtained from comparative 
     effectiveness research to deny coverage of items or services 
     under Federal health care programs, ensures that comparative 
     effectiveness research accounts for advancements in genomics 
     and personalized medicine, the unique needs of health 
     disparity populations, and differences in the treatment 
     response and the treatment preferences of patients, and'' 
     after legislation.

  Mr. KYL. Actually, Mr. President, the amendment is about as long as 
it took me to say that, but I will describe it nonetheless.
  I hope this amendment will receive very strong bipartisan support 
because the entire essence of it is to ensure that nothing we have done 
so far here will allow health care in the United States to be rationed 
by the Federal Government. There is a reason for the concern, and I 
would like to discuss it.
  First, of course, I would note that protecting the doctor-patient 
relationship and ensuring access to the highest quality medical care is 
fundamental to any health care reform effort. Comparative effectiveness 
research can be used to provide patients and doctors with information 
so that they may make informed health care decisions. For example, a 
study might compare a drug versus a surgery and determine that the drug 
is just as effective or even better at improving a patient's quality of 
life. But without appropriate safeguards, the Government may misuse 
comparative effectiveness research as a tool to ration or deny health 
care, and since private insurers tend to follow the Federal 
Government's lead, this has significant implications for all patients.
  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009--more commonly 
known as the stimulus bill--included $1.1 billion for comparative 
effectiveness research, and it created a national board called the 
Federal Coordinating Council to oversee that research. We all know the 
stimulus bill was written quickly and passed quickly and unfortunately, 
because of the phrasing there, we believe, could lead to unintended 
consequences. For example, nothing in the stimulus bill prevents the 
Government from using the $1.1 billion to compare the cost of health 
care treatments, even though the chairman of the Finance Committee 
tried to prevent that, nor would it prevent the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services from using the research to deny coverage of a health 
care treatment, or reject a one-size-fits-all approach to medicine, or 
protect advancements in genomics and personalized medicine, or require 
the Government to consider differences in patient treatment response or 
preferences, or account for the unique needs of health disparity 
populations--frequently minority populations.
  Some may say: Oh, we will never ration health care in America. Well, 
don't take my word; take the word of our former colleague, Tom Daschle, 
who wrote a book. In his book, ``Critical: What We Can Do About the 
Health Care Crisis,'' he recommends that the United States follow the 
lead of other countries and use this cost-based research--the very 
research funded by the stimulus bill--to limit patients' access to 
care. And here is what he acknowledges in his book:

       Doctors and patients might resent any encroachment on their 
     ability to choose certain treatments, even if they are 
     expensive or ineffective compared to alternatives.

  Well, you are darned right they might resent it. Think about this a 
moment: Do you want Washington bureaucrats, such as those who brought 
you the AIG mess, making your health care decisions for you and your 
family? The answer, of course, is no, no rationing of health care.
  Well, what is the real issue here? In February, the Wall Street 
Journal ran a story that chronicled patients' experiences with Canadian 
health care, which is a good comparison of what happens when government 
makes these kinds of decisions I am talking about. Let me share one of 
those stories:


[[Page 9402]]

       In March 2005, Shona Holmes began losing her vision and 
     experiencing headaches, anxiety attacks, extreme fatigue, and 
     weight gain. An MRI showed that she had a brain tumor. The 
     government told her that she would need to wait months before 
     she could see a specialist about the brain tumor. By June, 
     her vision had deteriorated so severely that she traveled to 
     the Mayo Clinic in Arizona. The doctors told her that she 
     needed immediate surgery to prevent permanent vision loss and 
     potentially death. But the Canadian Government's solution was 
     more doctors' appointments, more tests, more waiting time. 
     Left with very few options, Ms. Holmes traveled back to 
     Arizona and paid for her surgery out of her own pocket and 
     had the necessary surgery.

  In the British health care system, we have heard similar stories. 
They have an entity called NICE, which actually does the rationing, but 
it is not so nice. Take the word of the British Government Web site 
that describes the rationale for their rationing of health care:

       With the rapid advancements in modern medicine, most people 
     accept that no publicly funded health care system can 
     possibly pay for every new medical treatment which becomes 
     available. The enormous costs involved mean that choices have 
     to be made. It makes sense to focus on treatments that 
     improve the quality and/or length of someone's life and,--

  And I stress this part, Mr. President----

     at the same time, are an effective use of NHS resources.

  That is the national health care service resources. They go on:

       Each drug is considered on a case-by-case basis. Generally, 
     however, if a treatment costs more than 20,000 to 30,000 
     pounds--

  And that is an equivalent of 28,000 to 43,000 in U.S. dollars----

     per quality adjusted life year, then it would not be 
     considered cost effective.

  So in other words, the British Government, not physicians and 
patients, sets the rules and makes health care decisions. And the 
British formula, in U.S. dollars, is that an extra year of your life is 
estimated to be worth no more than $28,000 to $43,000. So if the 
treatment exceeds that, you are out of luck. The Government decides 
whether your treatment is an effective use of its resources and puts a 
price tag on what an extra year of your life is worth.
  This budget lays the foundation for doing precisely the same thing in 
the United States. Our view and the public's view is that the 
Government should not make these decisions. Only patients, in 
consultation with their physicians, should make these kinds of health 
care decisions about their lives.
  Those decisions should not be dictated by a formula based upon 
Government research.
  I would also just add this point. Cost-based research applied this 
way can be very shortsighted. It leads to a one-size-fits-all approach 
to medicine that standardizes care for diverse patients who may have 
the same medical condition, which is completely contradictory to the 
efforts of today's leading scientists. Scientists--for example those at 
TGen in my home State of Arizona--are exploring exciting advancements 
in genomics and personalized medicine; in other words, the right drug 
for the right patient at the right time.
  Personalized medicine will offer an entirely new approach to 
medicine, including more accurate assessments of disease risk, better 
predictions of response to treatment, and safe, more effective 
treatments. This research will lead to better health care for all 
patients and long-term savings in the cost of health care.
  Unfortunately, the stimulus bill was written in such a way that it 
does not incorporate targeting therapies, and it could stall 
innovation. I believe this is our opportunity to act to ensure that no 
Washington bureaucrat makes health care decisions for patients or 
undermines the sacred doctor-patient relationship. Already our own U.S. 
Government is taking steps toward this result.
  Last Thursday, the acting National Institutes of Health Director 
announced that the NIH may use the stimulus money to compare the cost 
of health care treatments. In fact, NIH released a list of research 
topic areas, many of which include a cost component. One of the topics 
is entitled ``Integrating Cost-Effectiveness Analysis into Clinical 
Research.'' Here is how the description reads. This should be chilling.

       [T]his initiative calls for the inclusion of rigorous cost-
     effectiveness analysis in the design and testing of new and 
     innovative interventions. . . . Cost-effectiveness research 
     will provide accurate and objective information to guide 
     future policies that support the allocation of health 
     resources for the treatment of acute and chronic diseases.

  The allocation of health resources is, of course, a euphemism for 
rationing. So this is not hypothetical. This is what our own Government 
proposes to do with this research. For some of the sickest patients 
suffering from chronic diseases, the Government wants to decide if 
their treatment is a good allocation of resources. It is clear that if 
Congress fails to protect patients, then comparative research will be 
used as a tool to ration care.
  For this reason I have offered this pro-patient amendment that would 
send a clear message to the administration and clarify the Senate's 
intent regarding the stimulus funding. My amendment States two 
principles: No. 1, the Federal Government shall not use the data 
obtained from comparative effectiveness research to deny coverage of a 
health care treatment under a Federal health care program--very 
simple--and, No. 2, the Federal Government shall ensure that such 
research accounts for advancements in genomics and personalized 
medicine, the unique needs of health disparity populations, and 
differences in the treatment response and treatment preferences of 
patients.
  We all agree with that. My amendment puts patients first. It is a 
nonpartisan issue. I do not know of anyone in this body who wants the 
Government to ration care or stifle innovation. I believe in the right 
of every American to choose the doctor, hospital, or health plan of 
their choice. No Washington bureaucrat should interfere with that right 
or substitute the Government's judgment for that of a physician.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in standing for patients--all of us 
in America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Kansas is 
recognized.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam President, I rise today as a cosponsor and in 
support of the amendment offered by my friend from Arizona, Senator 
Kyl. I thank the Senator for introducing the amendment on behalf of 
health care providers not only in Arizona and Kansas but all across the 
country, and, as a result, the patients they serve.
  I think we all know we have marching orders, if I can describe it 
that way, from the administration and from others to complete health 
care reform this year. But the President has been a little vague about 
what he envisions, stating that he will leave the details to the 
Congress, and the devil is, indeed, in those details. Senator Kyl has 
certainly pointed out one of the details that has to be fixed.
  Let me be clear. I am not opposed to health care reform. I don't know 
who would be opposed to health care reform. But we must beware of what 
lurks under the banner of reform. I do support, as do many others, a 
system of affordable, accessible health care for all Americans. But I 
do not support a system that replaces the judgment of your doctor with 
that of a government agency, as described so ably by Senator Kyl. For 
this reason I share the concern of the Senator regarding the 
implementation of something called comparative effectiveness research. 
I wish more of my colleagues were in the Chamber to listen to this--
listen to the description of what could happen in regards to something 
called comparative effectiveness research. The acronym for that, by the 
way, is CER.
  This gets in the woods of health care reform. Comparative 
effectiveness research, or CER, is simply research that compares the 
effectiveness of two or more health care services or treatments. CER is 
not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it has the potential to provide 
benefits to medical science and also, obviously, to patients. However, 
with CER policy--again, the devil is in the details. When discussing 
the details

[[Page 9403]]

of comparative effectiveness research, we need to focus on another 
term, ``least costly alternative.'' This is where comparative 
effectiveness research has the potential to have a huge and negative 
impact on patient and doctor choice.
  If comparative effectiveness research is used to deem two health care 
services or treatments to be interchangeable, then CMS, within the 
Department of Health and Human Services, will be able to invoke the 
least costly alternative to only reimburse the health care provider 
based on the cost of the cheapest treatment.
  One need not look any further than the Congressional Budget Office's 
Budget Options, Volume I, Health Care, written under the direction of 
OMB Director Orszag, to see that the use of least costly alternative 
authority to restrict doctors' decisions and ration health care is 
clearly on the table.
  Here is a good example. One of the CBO health care budget options 
discussed the savings that could be realized if CMS applied Medicare's 
least costly alternative policy to include something called 
viscosupplements. You use viscosupplements to treat a degenerative 
joint disease of the knees called osteoarthritis. A lot of Senators 
have knee problems--not only weak knees but sometimes knees that need a 
little help. So even though CBO recognizes that there may be 
justifiable reasons your doctor would choose to provide one 
viscosupplement over another to help your knees, this option would 
allow the Government to use least costly alternative authority to 
interfere with and restrict your doctors's decision. This is very 
dangerous territory.
  Rather than having to depend on the rigorous clinical trials 
conducted by the Food and Drug Administration, the CMS could use the 
much lower bar of comparative effectiveness research to declare that 
the two treatments are interchangeable and thus can be subject to the 
least costly alternative policy.
  This type of Government interference in the doctor-patient 
decisionmaking process ignores the very large and important differences 
that exist among people, among patients--I think that should be 
obvious--in favor of a one-size-fits-all health care solution that 
could and would lead to rationing of health care.
  Let this be a warning to all patients, all doctors, all hospitals, 
all nurses, all ambulance providers, all pharmacists, all home health 
care providers--all of the people who provide health care throughout 
America, rural and urban. You are on notice that this policy 
combination--comparative effectiveness research and least costly 
alternative--may be the Holy Grail of cost containment at the expense 
of patient care. That is what Senator Kyl's amendment gets at.
  My colleague's amendment prohibits the use of comparative 
effectiveness research to deny coverage of health care treatments under 
a Federal health program. It requires that comparative effectiveness 
research take into account the individuals and their treatment 
responses and their preferences, and it does protect doctor and patient 
sovereignty over health care decisions.
  For these reasons I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Kyl 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, when I hear the description of this 
amendment given by our colleagues on the other side, and then I read 
it--to me, there is a bit of a disconnect. I don't see comparative 
effectiveness. I have been involved in writing comparative 
effectiveness legislation with the chairman of the Finance Committee. I 
don't see that as having anything to do with rationing. I don't see 
that has having anything to do with rationing.
  Comparative effectiveness research is really to determine what works 
in health care. It helps ascertain what are the treatment regimes that 
are most effective at treating different disease states. It is the 
scientific process.
  It is exactly what happened in the revolution of modern medicine at 
Johns Hopkins back in the early 1900s, in the 19-teens, with respect to 
the application of the scientific method to medicine, to test what 
actually works because one of the things we know in medicine today is 
that we are using many strategies that simply are not effective--and 
that is in no one's interest. That is certainly not in the patient's 
interest. It is not in a hospital's interest or a clinic's interest.
  What comparative effectiveness research is designed to do, at least 
that which the chairman of the Finance Committee and I have been 
involved in, is to get the research done and then get the information 
in the hands of caregivers and patients so they can make a 
determination as to what is the best course for treatment. It has 
nothing to do with our efforts in rationing health care--nothing at 
all.
  The chairman of the Finance Committee is here, and I will yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, we in Congress this year are embarked on 
major efforts to enact health care reform. It is very much in the 
President's budget. President Obama very much wants to enact health 
care reform this year. There are provisions in the budget resolution to 
encourage us as a body, a Congress, to enact health care reform.
  The basic reason is because it is so needed. It is incredibly 
important that our Nation enact health care reform this year. I am not 
going to get into all the details and the various provisions that we 
must enact in order to get meaningful health care reform. By meaningful 
health care reform, I mean controlling costs. I remind my colleague, we 
in America spend about $2.5, $2.6 trillion on health care. That is this 
year. If we do not do anything, those costs are going to almost double 
in 6 to 8 years.
  We can't continue to spend what we do on health care. We spend almost 
twice as much as the next most expensive country. It is a huge cost of 
business. It is a very big cost to American business. American 
companies are becoming less competitive. Why? Because health care costs 
are too high; business costs are too high.
  In addition, look at our Medicare budget. It is going out of sight. 
If we do nothing, if we don't curb our underlying Medicare budget 
costs, our budget, along with Medicaid, will probably double in another 
8 or 9 or 10 years. That is unsustainable, to say nothing about 
individual costs to individual Americans, the personal costs, the 
family costs, the premium costs. We don't have a system in this 
country. We have a hodgepodge of lots of different functions--doctors, 
nurses, insurance companies, medical equipment suppliers, PMDs--
everything is part of the system, and they are all trying to help 
supply health care, but because it is so disjointed we have a nonsystem 
where costs are just rising exponentially. We also have a nonsystem 
where 46 million Americans don't have health insurance, and about 25 
million additional Americans are underinsured. It is ridiculous. This 
is the only industrialized country without health insurance. What we 
need is a solution which is uniquely an American solution.
  We are not Canada, we are not Great Britain, we are not France, we 
are not Sweden, we are the United States of America. By ``uniquely 
American,'' I mean it should be a combination of public and private. 
That $2.6 trillion we spend today is divided half in private and half 
in public. We must find a way to curb costs, to get coverage to 
Americans retaining that uniquely American approach of private and 
public coverage.
  We are working hard to try to find that solution. Part of the 
solution is reducing unnecessary costs and waste in our system. There 
is immense waste in the American health care system--immense waste. 
Basically, it is because of practice patterns, it is because of the way 
we reimburse on volume and quantity, not quality.
  We have to move much more toward reimbursement; that is, paying 
doctors and hospitals on the basis of quality, not volume, and concepts 
such as bundling and medical home and health IT, which is in the 
budget, so we have information technology assistance to

[[Page 9404]]

help, in several years, get to the point where we reduce health care 
cost.
  But another is, frankly, comparative effectiveness. We need to know 
the comparative effectiveness of drugs, procedures, medical equipment, 
et cetera, so we get the best, highest quality, and we, therefore, will 
probably know which ones will tend to cost more than others. Doctors 
can make choices, patients can make choices, and insurance companies 
can make choices as to which procedure, which drug makes more sense. 
Basically, it is up to the doctor to decide which way makes the most 
sense.
  Now, the effect of the Kyl amendment, as I understand, is, frankly, 
to say that you have to pay for a very costly procedure that somebody 
deems to be not only ineffective, it may be harmful, and you have to 
pay for it. That does not make sense. Rather, I think the Senator from 
Arizona agrees with me, we are trying to figure out a way to use 
comparative effectiveness to help doctors have more information, and 
hospitals more information, as to which works better, has higher 
quality, and works better when compared to something else.
  We are going to have to get into issues such as evidence-based 
medicine to help determine quality. Lots of concepts here that make a 
lot of sense. But I wished to say that whereas the intention--I 
somewhat understand the intention of the amendment, somewhat. I do not 
entirely understand the intention of the amendment.
  But the effect of the amendment is to say that a procedure--let me 
get this straight. The language does not curb growth in health care 
spending by using data obtained by comparative effectiveness. It says 
there can be a procedure determined to be totally ineffective or may be 
harmful, but it has to be used. The doctor has to use it. That does not 
make sense.
  I think it is a doctor's choice as to whether, by looking at the 
various procedures, what makes more sense compared to something else, 
using the data we provide by this process. But that is still a doctor's 
choice. That doctor, he or she, that doctor should decide which of 
these makes the most sense.
  Therefore, I think it makes much more sense, frankly, that this not 
be approved. It is not necessary. It kind of gets in the way.
  Senator Hatch and I and Senators Grassley and Enzi are introducing a 
comparative effectiveness amendment. It gets to what I think the 
Senator from Arizona wants us to move toward; that is, comparative 
effectiveness, where we look at comparative quality of procedures, 
which is what we are trying to do--not cost but quality.
  There was a big dustup in the stimulus debate about comparative 
effectiveness because somebody thought we were putting a cost-benefit 
analysis in it. We are not. We took that out. I must say to my friends, 
I went to the mat, frankly, to make sure cost was taken out. We took it 
out. It is just comparing quality.
  The bill I hope to introduce--working to get support from Senators 
Grassley, Hatch, and Enzi--would take cost out. It is just looking at 
quality. That is what we want to do. It is based on quality.
  I think the Senator from Arizona will be very happy with that bill we 
are going to be introducing because it gets at what I think the Senator 
wants: Let's compare quality, but let's not put the cost component into 
it because that would not be appropriate at this time.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, if I might, what we would like to do is 
get a unanimous consent agreement. Would Senator Baucus want more time 
on this matter?
  Mr. BAUCUS. No.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl have an 
additional minute, that Senator Coburn have an additional 5 minutes. 
That would take us to close to 1 o'clock. I ask Senator Isakson, how 
much time would he need to call up his amendment? One minute. Then we 
would go to Senator Isakson for 1 minute to call up his amendment. Then 
we would go to Senator Shaheen. Senator Shaheen would have 20 minutes 
equally divided. Then we will make a further determination at that 
point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. The chairman of the Finance Committee raised two points. I 
wish to make very clear that nothing in this amendment deals with the 
question of patient safety. For example, if FDA says a drug is not 
efficacious, then obviously you do not prescribe the drug. The doctor 
makes that decision. As the chairman said, it is the doctor's choice. 
That is precisely where we want to leave it.
  The other question was, though: It is not necessary, it will just get 
in the way, nobody is intending to do that.
  There are two responses to that. First of all, if nobody is intending 
to do it, then there is no problem in saying you cannot do it.
  But, secondly, they are intending to do it. Here is a direct 
quotation from the Acting Director of the NIH less than 1 week ago.
  Cost effectiveness research will provide accurate and objective 
information to guide future policies that support the allocation of 
health resources for the treatment of acute and chronic diseases.
  That is the purpose of it. It is not merely to decide what works, 
which is the good side of cost-effectiveness research, but to allocate 
health care resources. Allocating health care resources is another way 
of saying rationing of health care. If we all agree we do not want 
that, and we do not think anybody is going to try to do it, then what 
is the harm in having an amendment that says we are not going to do it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, as somebody who is still practicing 
medicine, I wish to tell you, we see comparative effectiveness every 
day. We cannot even get recertified unless we know comparative 
effectiveness.
  The NIH last year spent $267 million on comparative effectiveness 
research, not associated with cost but based on quality outcomes. What 
is in this bill is a short-term look to say who is going to cookie-
cutter cut a way to practice medicine that a bureaucrat will say is the 
best way, rather than what the science says.
  There is no question we have tons of waste. The biggest inhibition 
for anybody getting into the health care system today is cost. The 
chairman of the Finance Committee is right, there is tons of waste. The 
reason there is tons of waste is 61 percent of the health care in this 
country is controlled by the Government today.
  I can document it fully, each component of it, 61 percent. It is 
designed to create the mess we are in. If you want to change this 
system to where we get better value for the dollars we put into health 
care, let's create a clear, transparent, competitive market where you 
know quality and you know cost before you ever enter it. That is a goal 
we can all agree on.
  We should know what it costs, and we know what the quality parameters 
should be. What comparative effectiveness as outlined by the acting 
head of the NIH is, what is the cheapest treatment we can do to get it 
there? Not what is best for the patient in consideration of that 
patient's particular needs and what is the best thing the doctor could 
recommend.
  There are conflicts of interest. I do not deny that. Here is the No. 
1 thing that comparative effectiveness fails to remember: Everybody 
thinks we can take the science over here and we can fix everybody. 
Well, I have news for you. Medicine is 40 percent art. Since we will 
not pay for physicians and providers to take the time to listen to 
their patients, to actually know what is going on with them, we have 
created a system where we spend a ton of money that does not have 
anything to do with a better outcome for the patients.
  Two examples. Two patients in the last 4 years in my own practice, 
denied, under comparative effectiveness, MRIs; did not have a hard sign 
at all, had soft signs. Both of them had cancer of the brain. Both 
insurance companies and

[[Page 9405]]

Medicare denied that they needed an MRI because it did not match with 
the guidelines.
  That goes to show you that when you just use guidelines, you are not 
going to really care for the patients. The art of medicine has to be 
included. Comparative effectiveness never considers the art of 
medicine. That is 40 percent of taking care of people and giving them 
great health care and great outcomes. This amendment is a good 
amendment. The reason it should be there is we seek comparative 
effectiveness. You cannot get reboard certified unless you know 
comparative effectiveness, at every chance, at every corner, for every 
disease.
  Do we need more? Yes. But we are spending billions every year on 
comparative effectiveness research. We finished a 7-year study on the 
heart. You know what it told us after we spent $100 million on that 
study? We do not have the answer on which is the best. A double-blind, 
progressive, controlled study, and we do not have the answer. What 
makes us think some bureaucrats can take less research and come to a 
better conclusion than the best scientists in this country? What we are 
looking for is an answer in the wrong place.
  The way we fix health care in this country is to truly allow doctor 
and patient relationships that will take advantage of the scientific 
advances that are out there and do so in a transparent way, where you 
know quality and you know price.
  It is called performance for pay, rather than pay for performance. If 
you perform, you get paid more. If you do not perform, you do not. We 
apply market forces to everything we are doing, much less so since the 
new administration came in, but if we would apply that, we would have a 
tremendous advantage in terms of quality outcomes in this country.
  I support the amendment and yield back the remainder of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                           Amendment No. 762

  Mr. ISAKSON. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside and the clerk report amendment No. 762.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Isakson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 762.

  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 762) is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund for providing a 
nonrefundable Federal income tax credit for the purchase of a principal 
                   residence during a 1-year period)

       At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:

     SEC. --. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR PROVIDING A 
                   NONREFUNDABLE FEDERAL INCOME TAX CREDIT FOR THE 
                   PURCHASE OF A PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE DURING A 1-
                   YEAR PERIOD.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this 
     resolution by the amounts provided by a bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that 
     would provide a one-time nonrefundable Federal income tax 
     credit for the purchase of a principal residence during a 1-
     year period in the amount of the lesser of $15,000 or 10 
     percent of the purchase price of such residence, exclusive of 
     any other credit available for the purchase of a residence, 
     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2019.

  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I have 1 minute. I spoke last night at 
length about this amendment, so I will not take the Senate's time 
again. I know Senator Shaheen is about to offer her amendment.
  But this is an amendment that carves out a deficit-neutral reserve in 
the budget in order to fund a $15,000 tax credit for the purchase of a 
single-family home in America.
  That is an amendment the Senate passed, the House rejected but is a 
pending bill before the Senate. This would reserve that money in the 
account, so that if the bill is passed, it can be paid for, and it is a 
deficit-neutral amount.
  At an appropriate time, I will ask for the support of the Members.
  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. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 835

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise to support Senator Gregg's 
amendment to create a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the creation of 
a task force to address tax entitlement reform and reduce our Nation's 
long-term fiscal gap.
  The amendment would fund a vehicle to examine our tax and entitlement 
systems and present long-term solutions to place the Senate on a 
fiscally sustainable course and ensure the solvency of our entitlement 
programs for future generations.
  Senator Lieberman and I have introduced a very similar amendment, and 
I understand that Senator Lieberman is going to be willing to support 
this amendment. I am not going to go into detail. The chairman and the 
ranking member of the Budget Committee have laid out in very 
frightening terms where we are in terms of our deficits and our 
national debt.
  Frankly, I have been talking about this since I have come to the 
Senate in 1999. I said we have to do something about this growing debt 
that is blossoming. Now we are talking about the possibility of it 
doubling in the next 5 years. So we have to get at entitlements and tax 
reform.
  The thing that is encouraging to me is, there is legislation I am 
introducing in the Senate that has been introduced in the House. It is 
called the SAFE Commission. It is sponsored by 52 House Members, 26 
Republicans, 26 Democrats. It has the support of the Business 
Roundtable, the Heritage Foundation, the Concord Coalition, the 
Peterson Foundation. They have all voiced support.
  What we are trying to do with this amendment to the budget is to have 
an acknowledgement of the fact that money is set aside to fund a 
commission that will be set up.
  I am hoping my colleagues don't get involved in one of these, ``Well, 
I don't like the language of this,'' because we haven't gotten to the 
language yet. I am saying to my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle and on my side that we have to negotiate the kind of vehicle we 
are going to use. Two years ago, the vehicle we had had more 
Republicans than Democrats because we controlled the Presidency, the 
House, and the Senate. The new legislation coming out, that I will 
support, will have more Democrats because the Democrats have the 
Presidency and the Senate and the House. It does provide that in order 
to get something, it be fast-tracked. They spend, say, 6 months looking 
at it and come up with tax and entitlement reform. They send it on an 
expedited procedure to the House and Senate. Before they do that, they 
have to have 75 percent of the people supporting it, and you have to 
have at least two Republicans. That does bring in minority 
participation.
  What I am afraid of is that I have heard Senator Conrad say: I don't 
like the idea that it has to be even-steven. The main thing is, I would 
like the Senate to go on record that we will create a fund that will 
fund a commission that will finally get to the entitlement problem we 
have had now for a long time. The bottom line is, we have this 
avalanche that has hit us. We are in trouble. But at the same time, 
underlying that, we have the problem of this long-term national debt. 
Everybody is aware of the challenge.
  Recently, Premier Wen pointed out that he is concerned about what we 
are doing. Europe is concerned about what

[[Page 9406]]

we are doing. Canada is worried about it. They are saying: You folks 
haven't been willing to take on your entitlement and tax reform. What 
bothers me is that if we don't deal with this and our neighbors start 
to get leery of what we are doing, we could see interest rates 
skyrocket because everybody acknowledges that as long as we are getting 
money from China, Japan, and the OPEC nations, we will be able to 
borrow money at a cheap rate. But if they lose confidence that we have 
not been willing to stand and do what we are supposed to, that could 
change dramatically.
  I urge my colleagues to look at this not as we are drafting the 
legislation. What we are saying is, we acknowledge there is a problem 
that needs to be dealt with. Peter Orszag understands there is a 
problem. He was with this effort 2 years ago. Now he has been ``I am 
not sure how we want to do this.'' All I would like to do is to come in 
with a bipartisan commission that says: We are willing to tackle this. 
Give it to the administration and say: If you don't like it, what is 
better than what we have?
  We have to get going on this. We cannot keep putting it under the 
rug. We need to deal with it.
  I have a lot of other words to speak today, but I hope I get the 
message across to everyone that all we are basically doing is setting 
aside money to pay for a commission, the complexity of which and the 
rules of which are something we will have to try and come up with a 
compromise on. We have an amendment, Senator Lieberman and I, that is 
less restrictive than Senator Gregg's. Apparently, that language 
bothers Senator Conrad. All I know is, I would like us to go on record 
that we know there is a problem. We know we can't get it done in the 
regular order doing tax reform and entitlement reform. We need a 
commission to take it on as we did with Social Security. They took it 
on. We got together, came back with a recommendation, and got it done.
  I urge colleagues to look at the big picture and not get tied in with 
this is a Republican thing or a Democratic thing. It is a problem for 
America. It is a Republican and Democratic problem. It is America's 
problem. We have to do something about it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 776

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
the pending amendment, call up my amendment No. 776, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mrs. Shaheen], for herself, 
     Mr. Kaufman, and Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 
     776.

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

  (Purpose: To establish a reserve fund for monitoring of FHA-insured 
                                lending)

       At the end of title II, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MONITORING OF FHA-
                   INSURED LENDING.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports that would 
     increase the capacity of the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development to investigate 
     cases of mortgage fraud of Federal Housing Administration 
     loans, by the amounts provided in such legislation for those 
     purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase 
     the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2009 through 2019.

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Kaufman and Mikulski be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, my amendment is simple and 
straightforward. It would establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to 
monitor FHA-approved loans. The Federal Housing Administration, the 
FHA, plays an increasingly critical role in promoting home ownership 
during these tough economic times. The FHA insures one-third of all new 
mortgages. The number of FHA-approved lenders has doubled in the past 2 
years. However, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has not 
received additional resources to expand its efforts to investigate 
claims of fraud.
  Recent reports of a rise in borrowers who haven't made even one 
payment suggest that fraudulent activity has increased among FHA-backed 
loans. Should that activity continue to increase, FHA and its critical 
work could be put at risk. As we all know, in the runup to the subprime 
crisis, many fraudulent lenders pushed borrowers into mortgages and 
refinancings that they could not afford just to collect the commissions 
and fees. We need to make sure we prevent that activity from migrating 
to federally insured loans which would put taxpayers at risk for 
footing the bill of another bailout. This amendment addresses the need 
for HUD to properly investigate and remove fraudulent lenders from the 
program wherever appropriate. It creates a deficit-neutral reserve 
fund--a deficit-neutral fund--to increase the capacity of the inspector 
general of Housing and Urban Development to investigate cases of fraud 
of FHA loans.
  I am hopeful my colleagues will join in this effort and support my 
amendment. As we all know, at this critical time when we are trying to 
make sure there are stimulus funds available and that we are doing all 
we can in Government to support the ability of the private sector to 
respond to this economic decline we are in, we need to make sure we 
have the oversight capability to run programs as effectively and 
efficiently as possible. That is what this amendment would help 
accomplish.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 844

  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, in a few moments I am going to send an 
amendment to the desk. It is on its way over here right now. I would 
like to speak about it for a few minutes until it arrives, at which 
point I will ask to set aside the pending amendment and offer the 
amendment.
  The amendment I wish to offer is very critical. We debate budgets 
every year in Congress, and most of the years I have served here--I was 
elected in 1993 and served 6 years in the House, and now I am in my 
second term in the Senate--most of those years we have adopted a budget 
resolution. Some of those years we were not able to get the necessary 
votes to adopt one. But as we proceeded and moved forward in the 
deliberations of these budgets, I noted an interesting thing: Some 
years we would have a 10-year budget we looked at. We would have the 
year we were actually working on--and in this case, we are working on 
the 2010 budget--and then we would project out 9 more years and say: We 
expect, in the next 10 years following the year we are working on, to 
see the following budget numbers be honored with regard to defense 
spending or nondefense discretionary spending or the like. Sometimes we 
only look out 5 years.
  This year, the President submitted a budget that looked out 10 years. 
The Budget Committee, however, took that budget window and reduced it 
to 5 years. The reason I point this out is because as we talk about 
what the budget is going to do and what the fiscal impact of the 
decisions we are debating today is going to be, we always talk about 
whether the budget is going to get us on a glide path to balancing our 
Federal budget, what kinds of deficits are going to mount in the 
outyears, what kinds of tax increases or tax reductions are going to be 
accomplished

[[Page 9407]]

in the budget. Yet, if you look closely at these budget documents and 
if you look closely at this budget document, all the tough decisions 
are always in the outyears. I should not say that is always the case 
because I have to say that occasionally Congress has stepped up to the 
plate and has made some tough decisions. But it is not the commonplace 
occurrence.
  Let me give you an example. The amendment I am going to offer would 
cap the first 3 years of this proposed budget in terms of nondefense 
discretionary spending. In other words, it would say this budget 
proposes the following spending in nondefense discretionary categories 
for 2010, 2011, and 2012, and thereafter, and my amendment would say 
that the numbers that are proposed in this budget will be binding on 
Congress. In other words, if we adopt this budget, we will follow it. 
And I am only saying for 3 years. I am not even saying for the full 5-
year window the Budget Committee has put forward or for the full 10-
year window the President has put forward.
  Why is this so important? Sometimes I jokingly say that during the 
time I have served in Congress, I have never made it to year 2 of any 
budget because every time we do a budget--whether it is a 10-year 
budget or a 5-year budget--we always implement the first year of that 
budget and then next year, when we come back, we seem to forget about 
what the budget projections were and what our promises to the American 
public were, and we start all over again and we do another 5-year 
budget. And year 1 of the next 5-year budget does not even look like 
what year 2 of the last budget was.
  Let me give you an example. I was going to have some charts ready, 
but the opportunity to speak came before the charts got here. If I 
could show you those charts, I would show you that for the 2010 budget 
year we are working on today, if you had looked at what Congress said 
it was going to do this year 3 or 4 years ago, and then you looked at 
what Congress said it was going to do this year 2 years ago, and then 
you looked at what Congress said it was going to do this year 1 year 
ago, and then you looked at what Congress is proposing to do this year, 
they are not at all similar. As you might guess, the proposed spending 
in this year's budget for this year is far in excess of what the 
projections were in the previous budgets which we debated and voted on.
  Let me put it another way. This year, we are looking at a 5-year 
window. The increase in nondefense discretionary spending in the first 
year of this budget we are talking about is approximately 7.3 percent--
well over double the rate of the growth of the economy.
  Just as a note, last year, the budget that we adopted finally in the 
Omnibus appropriations bill increased nondefense discretionary spending 
by about 10 percent. So in just 2 years, we have seen nondefense 
discretionary spending increase by about 15 to 17 or maybe even more 
percent.
  Well, back to the budget. The proposed increase in nondefense 
discretionary spending for this year in this budget is about 7.3 
percent. But the promise is: OK, we have to spend that much this year, 
but we are going to be better in the outyears. So in the second year of 
this budget, the proposed increase is down, I believe, around 1 
percent. In the third year, I believe that proposed increase is about 
1.5 to 2 percent.
  But my point is, we are not going to get to those years. We never 
adopt the next year--the second year and the third year and the fourth 
year and the fifth year in these budgets we debate.
  So all my amendment will do is this: If we are telling the American 
public we have to increase our discretionary spending by 15 to 20 
percent over the last 2 years--7 percent alone in this budget year--but 
that we are going to be fiscally more conservative and responsible in 
the outyears, let's make that binding. Let's at least say for the next 
couple of years we have to follow the budget we are debating. All we 
would need to do in order to accomplish that is to put some caps on 
that nondefense discretionary spending as we move into it in the 
outyears.
  Every time we look at this, the spending goes up. If you look at the 
actual rate of growth in our budget, it is unsustainable. What we need 
to do is to be straightforward with the American people as we approach 
this. Anything else is just window dressing. All of the numbers we are 
talking about today and all of the projections we are talking about--
how we are going to try to bring the deficit under control or reduce 
the national debt--are simply window dressing if we do not make them 
binding, other than the first year of this budget. That is what will 
really be binding.
  I will say it again: The only thing that will really be binding in 
this budget, if we adopt this budget resolution, is the first year. 
This amendment would make, in the nondefense discretionary spending 
portion of the budget, the second and the third year numbers binding. 
By doing so, Congress would actually be setting some parameters for 
itself so we could have a firm confidence that as we move forward, we 
will be able to have the kind of deficit reduction and spending 
restraint we always talk about.
  Madam President, at this time, I send to the desk an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 844.

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

 (Purpose: to protect the fiscal discipline on discretionary spending 
     exercised by the reported budget resolution by extending the 
resolution's discretionary spending limits to exactly the same level as 
    already assumed in the resolution to make sure that debt is not 
  increased further than contemplated by this budget resolution as a 
    result of subsequent budget resolutions or appropriation bills)

       On page 50, line 12, strike ``and''.
       On page 50, insert after line 15:
       ``(3) for fiscal year 2011, $1,092,921,000 in new budget 
     authority;
       (4) for fiscal year 2012, $1,112,047,000 in new budget 
     authority; and''.
       On page 49, insert on line 12 after the word ``bill'':
       ``, concurrent resolution,''.

  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, as I have said, the amendment is very 
simple, and it really speaks for itself. It simply says that instead of 
debating numbers that do not mean anything, let's put some meaning and 
some authority behind the numbers we are debating. Let's not continue 
the game Congress continues to play year after year whereby we adopt a 
budget with no hard decisions in the first year, which is the only 
binding year, and all the tough decisions in the outyears are not 
binding and never reached. And let's say we are serious about it.
  I have even agreed in my amendment to accept the high numbers in the 
first year. I personally would prefer to have some restraint now in the 
first year of this budget, and instead of increasing spending in this 
Government by 7.3 percent, I would rather reduce it to the rate of the 
growth of the economy or below that, and let's start catching up a 
little bit with regard to the spending we are engaged in.
  Many people have said on this floor that this budget spends too much, 
it taxes too much, and it borrows too much. The most significant 
portion of all of that occurs in this first year. Let's get to some of 
the restraint that is promised in the second and third years by 
adopting this amendment, putting the caps on the nondefense 
discretionary spending categories, and make sure Congress, like the 
households and businesses across this Nation, tightens its belt and 
follows a budget.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, first of all, I wish to thank the 
Senator for his amendment and especially thank him for the contribution 
he makes on budget issues. He is a thoughtful and responsible Member. I 
thank him for his service.
  With respect to the amendment he has offered, we have a difference on

[[Page 9408]]

this issue, and the difference is this: What he said is exactly right 
in the sense that we have a budget which is really effective for 1 year 
because we have caps for 1 year. But more than that, we are going to be 
back doing another budget resolution next year, so, frankly, having 
outyear caps doesn't mean very much. What matters are the caps for this 
year, and the caps we have in this budget pertain to this year. The 
outyear caps he is referencing--we will have another budget next year, 
and we will deal with that next year.
  Unfortunately, what has happened in the past on these caps is people 
have found a way to game them, and especially in the outyears. How do 
they do that? They come up with all of these advanced funding schemes 
to get around the outyear caps. What else do they do? They label as 
``emergencies'' things that are really not. For example, we saw war 
funding in the third year of the war in Iraq and in the fourth year of 
the war in Iraq labeled as emergency by the previous administration as 
if we didn't know the war was still going on.
  So I say to our colleagues, the budget resolution before us has a cap 
for 2010, and the outyear caps, to me, are superfluous because we are 
going to have another budget resolution next year.
  I wish to also point out that the budget that is before us, in fact, 
has reduced the President's request on domestic spending by over $160 
billion, and $15 billion in this year alone.
  I say to my colleagues, anybody who doesn't understand the magnitude 
of those cuts, come and join me in my office, or come and join me at 
the meetings, such as the meeting I had yesterday with certain of my 
colleagues who were very upset because for the next 5 years, the 
average annual increase in non-defense discretionary spending is 2.5 
percent--2.5 percent. The Senator says, fairly, that you can have a 
budget that says that, but if it is not enforced by caps, it will be 
revised.
  The truth is, that is the case whether you have outyear caps or not. 
It is just the reality because we will be doing a budget next year, and 
more than that, because there is nothing quite so creative as the mind 
of man.
  I will tell my colleagues, in my 22 years on the Budget Committee, I 
have seen every conceivable dodge to get around caps. I think I have 
learned them all. I just hope very much that we get about the business 
of putting together a longer-term plan that deals with reforming the 
entitlements, reforming the tax structure, so we can get on a much more 
sustainable, long-term base.
  With that, could the Chair inform me how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has used 4 
minutes, and the Senator from Idaho has used 2 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. And how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 56 minutes remaining for the Senator 
from North Dakota and 58 minutes for the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, could I just have a couple of minutes 
before we move on to the next item?
  Mr. CONRAD. How much more time would the Senator like on this?
  Mr. CRAPO. Two or three minutes is all.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Idaho have an additional 3 minutes, that I have an additional 
minute on this matter, and then--what is the next order of business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no amendment to follow.
  Mr. CONRAD. OK. I think we have been trying to go back and forth. 
Senator Tester, I see, is here. How much time does the Senator seek?
  Mr. TESTER. Five or ten minutes. I will probably use 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. OK. Would it be OK if we ask for 7 minutes?
  Mr. TESTER. That is perfect.
  Mr. CONRAD. Seven minutes for the Senator from Montana, and then who 
is up next, Senator Bunning?
  Mr. BUNNING. I have about 15 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. And will the Senator want to offer an amendment?
  Mr. BUNNING. I am going to talk about two amendments, but I am going 
to wait to offer them through the vote-a-rama tomorrow.
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator deserves a special place. What a good example 
for other colleagues.
  So we go to Senator Bunning, then, for 15 minutes after Senator 
Tester. Is Senator Ensign seeking time?
  Mr. ENSIGN. I need about 10 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. We have Senator Reed coming at 1:45. He would be next for 
how long? Well, maybe we could allocate 10 minutes to Senator Reed, and 
then Senator Ensign, how much time?
  Mr. ENSIGN. I would need just 10 minutes. If I could just get my 
amendment pending then I could speak later in the day.
  Mr. CONRAD. We have not seen the amendment.
  Mr. ENSIGN. This is the Medicare prescription Part D, means testing 
amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. If we could then do Senator Ensign for 10 minutes.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Would you allow me to offer it to get it pending and then 
I can come back later?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes. Is that acceptable?
  Mr. ENSIGN. I am not going to speak now; I just wish to get it 
pending at this point.
  Mr. CONRAD. Well, they have another Senator coming. The problem is, 
we have now allocated time that is going to go way past what is in this 
consent agreement.
  If Senator Ensign just called up his amendment, would that be----
  Mr. ENSIGN. That is all I want to do.
  Mr. CONRAD. OK. Let's go then in the order we had. Senator Crapo had 
a couple of more minutes, and then I would take some time and then we 
would go back to Senator Tester and then to Senator Bunning.
  Mr. CRAPO. Should we let Senator Ensign go right now?
  Mr. CONRAD. If you would just call it up.


                           Amendment No. 805

  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to call up amendment No. 
805.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], for himself, Mrs. 
     Feinstein, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Enzi, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 805.

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

 (Purpose: To require certain higher-income beneficiaries enrolled in 
 the Medicare prescription drug benefit to pay higher premiums, as is 
 currently required for physicians' services and outpatient services, 
  and as proposed in the budget of the United States Government most 
                  recently submitted by the President)

       On page 4, line 15, decrease the amount by $303,420,000.
       On page 4, line 16, decrease the amount by $475,732,000.
       On page 4, line 17, decrease the amount by $599,908,000.
       On page 4, line 18, decrease the amount by $755,924,000.
       On page 4, line 24, decrease the amount by $303,420,000.
       On page 4, line 25, decrease the amount by $475,732,000.
       On page 5, line 1, decrease the amount by $599,908,000.
       On page 5, line 2, decrease the amount by $755,924,000.
       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $303,420,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $475,732,000.
       On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $599,908,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $755,924,000.
       On page 5, line 18, decrease the amount by $303,420,000.
       On page 5, line 19, decrease the amount by $779,152,000.
       On page 5, line 20, decrease the amount by $1,379,060,000.
       On page 5, line 21, decrease the amount by $2,134,984,000.
       On page 6, line 1, decrease the amount by $303,420,000.
       On page 6, line 2, decrease the amount by $779,152,000.

[[Page 9409]]

       On page 6, line 3, decrease the amount by $1,379,060,000.
       On page 6, line 4, decrease the amount by $2,134,984,000.
       On page 21, line 3, decrease the amount by $300,000,000.
       On page 21, line 4, decrease the amount by $300,000,000.
       On page 21, line 7, decrease the amount by $460,000,000.
       On page 21, line 8, decrease the amount by $460,000,000.
       On page 21, line 11, decrease the amount by $560,000,000.
       On page 21, line 12, decrease the amount by $560,000,000.
       On page 21, line 15, decrease the amount by $680,000,000.
       On page 21, line 16, decrease the amount by $680,000,000.
       On page 27, line 3, decrease the amount by $3,420,000.
       On page 27, line 4, decrease the amount by $3,420,000.
       On page 27, line 7, decrease the amount by $15,732,000.
       On page 27, line 8, decrease the amount by $15,732,000.
       On page 27, line 11, decrease the amount by $39,908,000.
       On page 27, line 12, decrease the amount by $39,908,000.
       On page 27, line 15, decrease the amount by $75,924,000.
       On page 27, line 16, decrease the amount by $75,924,000.

  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we return to 
the previous amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 844

  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I will be brief. I do appreciate Senator 
Conrad and the service he provides to us as the chairman of the Budget 
Committee. He makes some very good points. It is true that Congress can 
come back at any time and change the caps that we might put on today, 
but at least the Congress would have to debate that and would have to 
make a conscious decision that America could watch, and Congress would 
have to say to America: You know what. We are not going to do what we 
said we would do. If we don't put caps on this budget, then there is 
nothing the Congress has to do but adopt another budget resolution.
  By the way, I also appreciate the fact that some of the emergency 
spending and the other games that are used in Congress to get around 
caps are identified by the chairman as difficult problems. We need to 
have much less of that gamesmanship and much more following of the 
rules in our budget so that Americans can truly see how much is spent 
and how much is being taxed as we move into these budgets.
  I wish to give a couple of examples to show what I am talking about 
before I conclude. If we were to look at the fiscal year budget 
authority for 2009; that is, the budget year we have just finished with 
the Omnibus appropriations bill a few weeks back--in 2006, we said in 
2009 we were going to spend $409-plus billion. In 2007, we didn't get a 
budget report because we couldn't reach agreement on one. In 2008, we 
said that number was going to be $465 billion. In 2009, we actually 
said it was going to be about $480 billion--or $488 billion. The real 
number ended up being almost $800 billion.
  I realize there was some stimulus package money in there, some TARP 
spending, and so forth. The point is, it went up from the projection in 
2006 of $409 billion to a reality, even without the TARP and other 
dollars, of around $500 billion.
  What about this year we are talking about right now? The proposed 
budget for this year, I think, is around $525 million for nondefense 
discretionary spending. That is what we are debating on the floor 
today. Well, in 2006 when we debated the budget and set our 
projections, that number was around $409 billion; in 2008, $476 
billion; in 2009, $492 billion; now, as we move forward to the final 
projection, $525 billion.
  The point I make is that every year Congress says this is what we are 
going to spend in the outyears, and every time we come back to it we 
never follow those requirements. We should put caps on at least the 
first 2 outyears so that when Congress comes back to deliberate again, 
and when the President submits a budget to us next year, there are 
fiscal caps for nondefense discretionary spending requiring the 
restraint we are promising Americans we will someday get to.
  Congress has a pattern of spending more and more and more every year. 
As I have indicated, nondefense discretionary spending has gone up 15 
to 17 percent the last 2 years. The fact is, it is time for us to adopt 
this amendment and put caps on the first 3 years of this budget to 
force some fiscal restraint in Congress.
  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, just briefly, in a way, the Senator 
makes my point because none of us can foresee what happens 2 and 3 
years from now. That is why we do an annual budget resolution. The 
numbers he just cited--who knew we were going to fall off the edge and 
have a precipitous decline in the economy?
  So what really matters to me is to have a 1-year cap that is 
enforceable. We will be right back here with a budget resolution next 
year and can extend enforceable caps at that time.
  According to the order that has been entered into, I am happy to 
yield back my time and go to Senator Tester for 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I 
rise today to talk more globally about the budget. After 8 long years 
of failed Federal policies that have driven our economy into the ditch, 
the Senate this week is finally considering a budget that sets us on 
the right path--a path that will get us out of the ditch--with balanced 
priorities for the American people. It is about time.
  Last week, more than 5.5 million people filed for unemployment claims 
in this country. Unfortunately, that is a new record. Overall, the 
economy declined at an annual rate of 6.3 percent in the fourth quarter 
of last year, and experts say it is continuing to shrink. We are 
feeling the effects in Montana in the mining industry, wood products 
industry, and especially in the construction industry.
  In fact, every county in northwestern Montana is suffering from 
unemployment that is at 10 percent or worse. At last week's annual 
employment expo in Kalispell, MT, 4,000 Montanans showed up looking for 
a job. That is an increase of 1,500 from last year; nearly a 40-percent 
increase. Times are tough.
  Some DC politicians say: Don't worry about it; the recession is 
temporary. But let me tell my colleagues, for folks who have lost their 
jobs or who fear they will lose their jobs at any time, that kind of 
attitude is out of touch. We need action now, and this Congress is 
working with the President to provide that help.
  Earlier this year, we passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act, which I call the JOBS bill. The JOBS bill is creating and keeping 
millions of jobs, and it is pumping hundreds of millions of dollars 
into our State's economy to build roads, water systems, repair our 
schools, health care facilities, and energy projects. Throughout 
Montana and across rural America our infrastructure is worn out. This 
JOBS bill is a first step to rebuild our economy from the ground up by 
reinvesting in infrastructure and providing tax relief for hard-working 
Americans. This budget is the next step in that effort.
  For far too long in this town budget policies were set by folks whose 
ideology said ``deficits don't matter,'' as Vice President Cheney 
famously put it.
  That was nonsense then and it is nonsense now. Unfortunately, the 
legacy of that ideology is a national debt that doubled between 2001 
and 2007. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee, Kent Conrad. We 
are cutting those record Republican deficits in half in just 3 years. 
That cannot be the end of the story, but it is a good start.
  Once we get the economy up and running again, we are going to need 
tough fiscal discipline to pay off the piles of debt run up by the 
previous administration and its allies in Congress.
  Some DC politicians claim the budget mess left to us by the Bush 
administration is an excuse to do nothing on

[[Page 9410]]

urgent priorities such as energy, education, health care, and tax 
relief for middle-class families and Main Street small businesses. 
Continuing to accept those excuses would be the worst mistake we could 
possibly make.
  For example, we must take action on comprehensive plans to overhaul 
our energy policy to make America energy secure once and for all. Our 
national security depends on us getting that right. Energy security is 
national security. Ask the Eastern Europeans how it felt when the 
Russians cut off their natural gas supply in the middle of winter. We 
need to take aggressive action on energy policy. We cannot wait until 
gasoline prices push to $5 a gallon again. We must try to develop a 
broad-based energy policy, and we must act now.
  Instead of a balanced energy policy to ensure our security with 
renewables and conservation measures, some people want to see us 
drilling more in our untouched hunting and fishing habitat places, such 
as the Rocky Mountain Front. This makes no sense. There are places we 
should drill, and Rocky Mountain Front is not one of them.
  Montana has always been an energy resources-producing State, and we 
always will be. But we need to protect our outdoor heritage and invest 
in sustainable, renewable sources of energy such as biofuels, wind, 
solar, and geothermal power.
  This budget outline builds on the JOBS bill's investment in renewable 
energy, efficiency and conservation, low carbon coal technology, and 
modernizing the electrical grid.
  This budget also puts a priority on education. My life tells the 
story of the power of education and the opportunity it provides. For 
me, the grandson of dry land homesteaders, to be selected by my friends 
and neighbors in the State of Montana to serve them in the Senate, that 
is a story that is only possible because of my education. Smart 
investments in education generate economic growth and jobs. Education 
and training prepare our workers to compete in a global economy.
  This budget prioritizes education from early childhood initiatives, 
such as Head Start, all the way up to Pell grants to make college more 
affordable.
  Some on the other side also argue their budget deficits are an excuse 
not to reform health care in this country, but I believe we cannot 
afford to wait. We have to rebuild our health care system because it is 
broken. Too many Americans lack health care. Too many families live 
every day in fear that one illness could ruin them.
  This budget starts us down the road of allowing Congress and the 
President to work together to reform our Nation's health care system so 
our families can thrive.
  I know this budget process is always a partisan exercise, but it is 
my hope that when we start to work out the details of health care 
reform, we do it in a bipartisan manner. That is an issue that impacts 
every American family. So I hope we can work together to pass 
commonsense solutions.
  Again, I thank Senator Conrad and the Budget Committee for producing 
a budget that continues to support one of my highest priorities since 
coming to the Senate--honoring the service and commitment of our 
Nation's veterans and their families.
  This budget builds on bipartisan efforts in the last 2 years to boost 
funding to get the VA into working order. At long last, the quality of 
care at the VA is starting to improve. We have begun to bring some 
priority 8 veterans back into the system. This budget provides 
resources to continue those important steps.
  Finally, we need to pass this budget resolution to ensure middle-
class tax relief, so ordinary folks can get ahead and our Main Street 
small businesses can prosper.
  This budget resolution is our national mission statement. The mission 
of this Congress is to work with the President to get us out of the 
ditch and rebuild our economy from the ground up by cutting the 
Republican deficit in half and investing in important priorities, such 
as energy, education, health care, middle-class families, and small 
businesses.
  No budget is perfect, and I look forward to supporting amendments 
that can improve this one. But this is a responsible budget with 
balanced priorities. I urge the Senate to pass it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I rise to discuss the fiscal year 2010 
budget. I also plan to discuss two amendments--Nos. 817 and 818--which 
I would like to see considered.
  As a member of the Budget Committee, I spoke on this budget last week 
during the committee consideration. I was unable to support it then, 
and unless truly major changes are made on the Senate floor this week, 
I will not be able to support it as it comes up for a vote.
  Since the President first gave us a preview of his plan, we have 
heard a lot about this year's budget. I have found it to be very 
troubling. The budget proposed by the Obama administration is 
unworkable, and I think everyone knows that. It spends too much, taxes 
too much, and borrows too much.
  The numbers in the President's proposal were appalling to anyone who 
believes in any kind of fiscal restraint. It got even worse 2 weeks 
ago, when the Congressional Budget Office predicted the numbers used by 
the administration were far too optimistic. The President's proposal 
would double the publicly held national debt to more than $15 trillion. 
Annual spending would leap from $24,000 per household to about $32,000 
per household. This plan would also raise taxes by $1.4 trillion over 
10 years. The increase in debt is also staggering. The President's 
proposal would double the debt held by the public in 5 years and nearly 
triple it over 10 years.
  In fact, the proposal would create more debt than every previous 
President from George Washington to George W. Bush. With numbers such 
as that, it is not surprising that the authors of this budget 
resolution before us today had to make some changes.
  While I applaud the efforts of Chairman Conrad to attempt to rein in 
some of the worst aspects of the administration's budget proposal, it 
appears we may only have an ``Obama lite'' version before us. In fact, 
Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, tells us 
the two versions are 98 percent the same. The budget on the floor still 
has the same problems and, in some cases, new problems.
  President Obama promised a new era of transparency in Government. 
This is one reason why he submitted a 10-year budget proposal. However, 
the proposal before us is only a 5-year projection. Also, the 
President's budget assumed that Congress would continue to patch the 
alternative minimum tax, which digs deeper and deeper into the middle 
class each year. This budget assumes it will be fixed for only the 
first 3 years of this 5-year plan. Everyone here knows we are going to 
have to take care of those other 2 years, as we should. However, it 
looks like we still have more tax increase here.
  It defies logic that this budget targets tax hikes on the very people 
who are good at creating jobs. We know that 70 percent of all job 
growth in the United States--when we had it--came from small business. 
This budget penalizes the people who are responsible for two-thirds of 
the small business jobs. One of the most basic economic principles is 
that if you want less of an activity, you tax it more. Well, we must 
want less job creation.
  Maybe we only want to create jobs for Government bureaucrats who 
spend other people's money and our grandchildren's and children's 
money.
  As I have outlined, this budget has many other problems. It spends 
too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in supporting changes that would make this a responsible and 
fair piece of legislation.
  I also wish to take a few minutes to talk about the two amendments I 
will be introducing later in the marathon we have tomorrow. The first 
is especially important for many of our seniors because it deals with 
taxes on Social Security benefits. The amendment

[[Page 9411]]

I will be offering sets up a deficit-neutral reserve fund to repeal the 
1993 increase in the income tax on Social Security benefits. I brought 
this issue before the House and before this Chamber before. In fact, 
earlier this year on a stimulus bill, I offered an amendment to repeal 
this unfair tax for just 1 year. That amendment failed.
  With this amendment, I am taking a different tack and using a 
deficit-neutral reserve fund to repeal the 1993 Social Security tax 
increase completely. This should be familiar to the chairman of the 
Senate Budget Committee, since he offered a similar amendment using a 
deficit-neutral reserve fund during the budget consideration last year. 
I remind my colleagues that his amendment passed last year by a vote of 
53 yeas to 46 nays.
  When the Social Security program was created, benefits were not taxed 
at all. However, in 1983, Congress changed the rules of the game by 
passing legislation to taxing up to 50 percent of a senior's Social 
Security benefit if their income was over $25,000 for a single 
individual or $32,000 for a couple. In 1993, as I sat on the Ways and 
Means Committee at the time, Congress felt that taxing 50 percent of 
benefits wasn't good enough.
  That year, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, a bill that 
allows 85 percent of a senior's Social Security benefits to be taxed if 
their income was above $34,000 for a single taxpayer or $44,000 for a 
couple. The additional money this tax raises doesn't even go to help 
Social Security's solvency. It goes, instead, to the Medicare Part A 
Program. I opposed this tax increase then, and I oppose it today, 
because 14 million seniors are hit by an 85-percent tax on their Social 
Security benefits.
  On one hand, we tell seniors to plan and save for retirement; on the 
other hand, we tax them for doing just that. This amendment puts the 
Senate on record that this 85-percent tax tier would be eliminated, and 
the maximum amount of Social Security benefits that could be taxed 
would be 50 percent.
  If Congress passed legislation to do this, millions of seniors would 
be able to keep more of their Social Security benefits. I hope my 
colleagues can support this amendment when it comes up for 
consideration.
  I am offering another amendment to pave the way for relieving 
taxpayers who have suffered devastating capital losses during these 
troubled economic times. Many taxpayers have been forced to sell their 
homes, stocks or any kind of capital asset at a loss. Our constituents 
will be stunned to learn they can only deduct $3,000 of those losses 
from their adjusted gross income. The $3,000 limit was set in 1976, 
when tax writers seemed to be ignorant about the impact of inflation. 
That limit is ridiculous in today's dollars.
  My amendment creates a deficit-neutral reserve fund for increasing 
the capital loss deduction. If it helps struggling taxpayers, we have 
to do it because if we raised that deduction from $3,000 and adjusted 
it for inflation, it would be over what I propose--at $15,000, which 
you could deduct from your adjusted gross. Prominent economists have 
noted that by eliminating some of the downside risks of investing, 
increasing the capital loss deduction will stimulate investment and 
economic growth.
  This amendment is a winner for taxpayers and a winner for our economy 
at a time when they both need some wins.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The Senator from Rhode Island is 
recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of this budget resolution. 
I particularly commend Senator Conrad for his extraordinary work.
  Later, at the conclusion of my brief remarks, I will call up an 
amendment.
  We have a situation that is unprecedented in the history of the 
country--extraordinary economic challenges, extraordinary international 
challenges. This budget resolution is designed to and will, I believe, 
help get our economy moving again and serve as a catalyst for job 
creation and for long-term growth. It will also put this Nation on a 
sustainable path in a fiscal dimension. The budget resolution reflects 
a commitment to transparency and restores honesty and integrity to the 
process. The budget incorporates the cost of the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, which were notably neglected in past budgets. It enhances 
oversight of Government, including defense procurement spending, to 
root out waste, fraud, and abuse.
  We are in very challenging circumstances, both domestically and 
internationally, and this budget reflects and faces up to those 
challenges.
  Against these daunting challenges, the priorities reflected in the 
budget are clear: lower the tax burden on working men and women and 
small businesses, trim health care costs, invest in education, and 
reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
  For too long, these challenges have undermined our economic vitality, 
and they will continue to drive down progress unless we take essential 
steps, as reflected in this budget, to deal with them. These are 
reasonable and necessary provisions. They represent a way to grow our 
economy and put more money in the pockets of middle-class Americans.
  We are inheriting a weakened fiscal position based on the policies of 
the last 8 years, marked by an economic ideology that extended 
significant tax cuts to the very wealthiest, skewing these tax cuts so 
they benefitted a very few rather than ordinary Americans.
  The Obama administration inherited an economic mess, a $1.3 trillion 
budget deficit and a near doubling of the public debt, rising from $3.3 
trillion in 2001 to $5.8 trillion in 2008. This doubling of our debt 
occurred at a time of macroeconomic prosperity and strong productivity 
growth. Yet, for middle-class Americans who have been working harder 
and more innovatively, there is little or no job creation. In fact, 
family incomes fell $2,000 between 2000 and 2007. Simply put, most 
families saw their income fall by $2,000 in a period of economic boom 
and prosperity, and we have to reverse that. We have to make an economy 
that will provide the jobs and the growth of income that Americans 
depend upon to educate their children, provide for their health care 
needs, and to contribute to their community.
  This budget will provide that path of sustainable economic growth. It 
will do so by making investments to counter some of the downward spiral 
we have seen over the last several years.
  It will invest in tax reform. This budget provides tax cuts for 95 
percent of working Americans. It will close tax loopholes to ensure 
that we are all paying our fair share. It will eliminate some 
complicated, sophisticated tax shelters that benefit the wealthy but do 
not benefit working families.
  In addition, it will focus on health care reform, which is necessary 
not only for our position as citizens but also for our economic future. 
Despite technological innovation, despite technological advances in 
medicine, far too many of these basic services are out of reach of 
Americans. They are simply not affordable or accessible. This budget 
will set the parameters for significant health care reform.
  It will also begin to address the issue of global warming, which has 
huge implications internationally.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, if I can speak to the Senator through the 
Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island has the floor.
  Mr. REED. I gladly yield to the Senator.
  Mr. CONRAD. In addressing the Chair, first of all, I apologize to the 
Senator for interrupting. It is important that we get another unanimous 
consent agreement in effect at this moment.
  I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of Senator Reed's 
discussion, Senator Johanns be recognized for 12 minutes and that 
Senator Whitehouse then be recognized for 12 minutes. I make that 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is this for debate only?
  Mr. CONRAD. This is for debate only.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. Does Senator Johanns have an amendment to offer?

[[Page 9412]]


  Mr. JOHANNS. It is not an amendment but a motion. I can provide it to 
the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. If the Senator could discuss it but not formally offer it 
so we get it in the right place in the queue--would that be acceptable 
to the Senator?
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, that is acceptable.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to make sure the Senator's rights 
are protected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. We are going to get a vote on the Senator's amendment 
prior to the vote-arama?
  Mr. CONRAD. Absolutely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from North Dakota?
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reed be able to call 
up his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are doing some quick arithmetic. There is 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, can you remind me or let me know when 1 
minute remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so advise the Senator.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are dealing with a plethora of issues 
that are absolutely critical to the economic success of the country. I 
mentioned climate effects. I mentioned investment in reducing our 
carbon footprint. All of these have been outlined and provided for in 
this budget resolution.
  We are also going a long way to invest in the future of the country 
through education. I am pleased to see that this proposal includes a 
deficit-neutral reserve fund for higher education to allow for 
expanding student aid.
  I have worked with Senator Collins on an amendment to ensure that 
this reserve fund may be used for increased investments in the 
Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership or LEAP program which 
provides critical need-based grant aid and support services to low-
income students.
  This budget also provides for increased spending on Pell Grants, and 
as such, invests in our greatest resource, the talent and innovation 
and imagination of America. In that sense, I think this is a very 
strong step forward.
  The budget helps deal with the issues facing small business in terms 
of providing, for example, $880 million for the Small Business 
Administration. It is small businesses, indeed, that create the jobs. 
Too often in the past, we have talked the talk but not walked the walk. 
This budget provides real resources for the Small Business 
Administration.
  We have very difficult decisions to make, but we have made them 
before. I can recall being elected in 1990, beginning in 1991 with a 
huge deficit. Through the tough decisions we made here, a Democratic 
Congress following a Democratic Congress, we were able to not only turn 
the economy around but reduce the deficit. That is something we have to 
do going forward, and we must do that. I think this budget will 
position us to do that.
  We have a difficult series of choices before us. I believe this 
budget and the work of Senator Conrad have positioned us to respond to 
the crisis of the moment and positioned us to take opportunities of the 
future.


                           Amendment No. 836

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment and call up amendment No. 836, the Reed-Snowe LIHEAP 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself, Ms. 
     Snowe, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Whitehouse, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 836.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To increase funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assist 
                  (LIHEAP) by $1.9 billion in FY 2010)

       On page 21, line 24, increase the amount by $1,900,000,000.
       On page 21, line 25, increase the amount by $1,330,000,000.
       On page 22; line 4, increase the amount by $532,000,000.
       On page 22; line 8, increase the amount by $38,000,000.
       On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $1,900,000,000.
       On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $1,330,000,000.
       On page 28. line 3, decrease the amount by $532,000,000.
       On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $38,000,000.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, very briefly, this amendment would enhance 
and increase funding for the LIHEAP program. It is a program that is 
absolutely essential as we see energy prices begin to creep up again. 
When it hits again next winter, we will need these funds. When heating 
costs increase this summer in the Southwest and Southeast, we will need 
these funds.
  I am proud to join Senator Snowe in supporting this amendment. I urge 
my colleagues to support it when it comes up for a vote.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, under the consent agreement, I believe 
Senator Johanns is recognized for 12 minutes, followed by Senator 
Whitehouse. Then I understand Senator Graham would like to speak on the 
Johanns amendment for 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that after 
Senator Whitehouse, Senator Graham be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, just so we are clear on this procedure, I 
supplied a copy of my motion to the chairman of the Budget Committee. 
It is being reviewed. I would like the opportunity to speak on it now.
  I rise to discuss this motion which I firmly believe would bring a 
bit of fiscal responsibility back to Washington at a time where I fear 
spending restraint has gone out the door.
  The budget before us increases nondefense discretionary spending by 9 
percent. That translates into $42 billion over last year's levels. My 
motion would instruct the Budget Committee to take the budget 
resolution back to the committee and limit the overall increases to 
CBO's projected rate of inflation. The motion asks that we do this for 
each of the budget years. The motion would save $36 billion in 2010 and 
$194 billion over the 5-year budget window.
  I would like to point out that my motion does not attempt to dictate 
which programs are prioritized for funding or which are cut back. 
Instead, my motion ties the aggregate spending to the rate of 
inflation. It asks the Budget Committee to take a scalpel to the budget 
line by line, which is exactly what the President has promised to do. 
Government simply cannot be everything to everyone, and at some point, 
tough spending decisions do have to be made.
  Some may wonder why I chose to limit spending to the rate of 
inflation. The answer to that is very straightforward. If the average 
cost of goods and services for folks has increased by a certain 
percentage, I believe it makes common sense to require the Federal 
Government to spend within the same range. The American people cut back 
during tough economic times. Yet their Government is blatantly 
rejecting that commonsense principle. If you do not have enough money 
to pay for something, well, you shouldn't buy it. While most American 
families are planning to spend less this year compared to last year, 
isn't it eminently sensible that their Government increase spending no 
more than the rate of inflation?
  It is clear that this budget does not have enough revenue to pay for 
its price tag, $3.6 trillion, even though it levies a massive tax 
increase on hard-working Americans to the collective tune of $1.7 
trillion. Instead, the budget piles more debt on more debt, so much so 
that the debt per household for fiscal year 2010 would be $74,000. 
Considering that the average hourly wage in

[[Page 9413]]

my home State is about $17 an hour, it would take most Nebraskans about 
4,200 hours to earn that much money. That is an astronomical amount of 
debt.
  But why should people back home worry about the debt the Government 
continues to amass? Because debt becomes unsustainable. When this 
occurs, the interest consumes more and more of the revenue, leaving 
virtually no money left to fund programs. Then you find yourself 
borrowing more and more to offset the difference. It is not a 
productive dance--taking one step forward, two steps back, then one 
forward, three back, year after year, until pretty soon you are not on 
the dance floor, and if you are not careful, you are not even in the 
dancehall. We will be so indebted to our creditors, such as China, that 
we will be watching through the dancehall window as economic engines of 
other nations carry the world economy.
  Consider this sobering thought: If this budget passes, a few years 
from now we will be spending more on finance charges than on the entire 
defense budget. Put another way, our finance charges will be eight 
times the Nation's education budget. The budget before us is comparable 
to a family running up so much credit card debt that their finance 
charges are more than the house payment. We have lost our way.
  Gone are the days when $1 million was a significant amount of money 
to invest in a program. Some think it is a bargain if we just spend 
$100 million or even $1 billion. More and more commonplace are bills 
that actually spend $1 trillion. How did we get spending so out of 
control?
  It seems as if every time legislation is passed, we end up by just 
nonchalantly raising the debt limit. How long do you think our Nation 
can keep going down this course of unrestrained spending? Not very 
long.
  We have a country that lives on credit, and we are close to maxing it 
out. Then what? Well, I will tell you what. Our dollar will be worth 
nothing. No one will want to invest in the United States, and economic 
growth will stall. I shudder at the thought.
  I mentioned China a minute ago. They are the largest foreign holder 
of our debt. Why do we allow that to happen? I don't know about you, 
but we need something to change the course. This motion just simply 
takes a step back from bloated spending and a step forward to fiscal 
responsibility.
  Before I yield the floor, I would like to offer a few short and very 
straightforward comments about an amendment that I offered on Monday. 
It has not yet come up for a vote. I hope the delay means my colleagues 
are thinking long and hard because it is an amendment that stands for 
the Senate.
  It basically says: Don't use reconciliation for climate change 
legislation. First, climate change and energy are important enough that 
the Senate should deliberate these issues carefully. Haste leads to 
error and consequences. I remind my colleagues that budget 
reconciliation means far-reaching cap-and-trade legislation would only 
get 20 hours of debate. That is right. If the leadership keeps the 
Senate floor open all night long, a $250-per-month increase in energy 
bills could pass the Senate in just 1 day.
  Second, let's not permit the House to dictate how we do business in 
the Senate. I tried to suggest to my colleagues that the House budget 
is a Trojan horse meant to force the Senate's hand. Many of my 
colleagues understand and know exactly what the House leadership has in 
mind.
  I know the chairman of the Budget Committee has indicated he will 
resist. I applaud him for that. I thank the chairman. I note also that 
the chairman has been careful and thoughtful in his comments regarding 
the use of budget reconciliation. Again, I applaud that. I think my 
amendment just lays this issue before us and gives us the chance to 
stand for the Senate.
  I would like to emphasize one other point. I have tried to make clear 
that the merits of climate change are not at issue. This body will 
thoughtfully consider climate change given the chance. What is 
uncertain--and the issue before us--is whether we have an open, robust 
debate and the opportunity to share with our constituents the content 
of the legislation and the amendments we offer.
  I thank most Members on the other side of the aisle for their support 
and their reasoned approach. In fact, eight Members who are Democrats 
joined me in a letter to the leadership of the Budget Committee. My 
amendment directly addresses the concerns in that letter. In reality, 
the proposed solution in the letter is exactly what my amendment is 
doing.
  Additionally, a man I respect a great deal, another Democratic 
Senator, the junior Senator from North Dakota, also indicated his 
opposition in his own letter. My amendment addresses these concerns.
  The chairman of the Finance Committee has indicated that using 
reconciliation ``is not a good idea.'' I could not agree more. House 
Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee urge the use of 
``hearings, markup and regular order'' instead of budget 
reconciliation.
  I could quote on and on from Members on both sides who have stood 
with me on this issue and have expressed their concern long before I 
arrived. I thank them for protecting the integrity of the Senate 
process, and I offered that amendment in that bipartisan spirit.
  I yield the floor, and I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, under the order, Senator Whitehouse is 
next.
  If I could just say, Senator Whitehouse is a very valued member of 
the Senate Budget Committee. He brings a wealth of experience to the 
committee, especially on health care, and he has been extremely 
energized on the issue of the use of information technology to reduce 
cost and improve health care outcomes. He has also been very focused on 
health care reform and the significant opportunity that is for the 
country, and, of course, global climate change, protecting the planet, 
and being concerned about environmental values.
  We are very fortunate to have Senator Whitehouse as part of the 
committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman 
very much for those very kind and gracious remarks, and I am indeed 
here to discuss the budget, and particularly the health care aspects of 
the budget.
  This is the season. Here we go again, into the annual budget process, 
and as we have seen today on the Senate floor, our friends across the 
aisle are doing a great deal of complaining and not a great deal of 
contributing.
  Are their complaints sincere? Well, perhaps. I am sure some are 
sincere. But in evaluating them, we should bear this in mind: Under 
George Bush, the difference between the budget projections he inherited 
from President Clinton and the budget performance he left for President 
Obama was a negative nearly $9 trillion--a massive, reckless landslide 
of fair-weather debt.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Again, I apologize 
for interrupting.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Of course, I will yield.
  Mr. CONRAD. Just for a moment, for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Whitehouse 
is done, Senator Graham be recognized for 5 minutes and then Senator 
Enzi for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I apologize for this interruption, but I have to go to 
another committee to introduce someone who is up for a nomination. So I 
needed to do it at this moment to make certain there is a good flow.
  I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I understand perfectly, and I appreciate the 
chairman's diligence in ensuring a smooth flow of this important 
legislation.
  So we have this litany of complaints from the side that is 
responsible for the Bush debt of nearly $9 trillion. Now that President 
Obama has to dig out from under the Bush economic collapse, now that we 
are in a deep economic recession, now, in the one time

[[Page 9414]]

when Government spending and borrowing is justified to get us through 
the economic trough we are going through, we are treated to lectures 
about debt from our free-borrowing friends. The party of ``deficits 
don't matter'' wakes up to this concern just in time, coincidently, to 
thwart our new President.
  The grotesque folly of the Bush debt was that it addressed things 
such as lowering tax rates for America's billionaires, not the core 
American priorities we need to address, in a country that is failing to 
educate its children as well as international competitors do, a country 
whose energy policy hurts everyone except oil-producing nations and the 
oil and coal industry, and a country mired in a disastrous health care 
system. President Obama's budget addresses these priorities.
  Indeed, one of the highest priorities in our budget proposal for 
fiscal year 2010 is a badly needed and long-overdue reform of that 
broken and dysfunctional health care system. I have spoken on this 
subject in the Chamber many times because unless something is done 
soon, health care's massive costs will overwhelm us. Already, the 
system costs well over $2 trillion a year, and as our population ages, 
we face $35 trillion in unfunded Medicare liabilities, with not a 
nickel set aside against those liabilities.
  No one seriously now questions the need for fundamental health care 
reform, and it is time to come together to determine what that reform 
will look like and how we can get it done. That would be a productive 
thing to talk about with regard to this budget.
  An event last Thursday marked an important step forward on health 
care reform. The American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes 
Association, the American Heart Association, and Consumers Union came 
together to issue a joint statement on the vital importance of 
including health care delivery system reform as part of any 
comprehensive health care legislation that Congress should move this 
year. I was proud to join them at their announcement, together with 
Senator Schumer and Senator Rockefeller.
  These organizations represent tens of millions of Americans--
Americans living with chronic illness, with cancer, with diabetes, with 
heart disease, and millions more who are consumers of health care in 
this country. These organizations and their members understand the 
failures and the tragedies of our health care system. Separate and 
together, their voices are powerful, and I would like to share some of 
what they said.

       The number of uninsured Americans exceeds 45 million. 
     Health care costs are rising faster than incomes. We spend at 
     least twice as much per capita on health care as our major 
     trading partners, and we rank 37th in the World Health 
     Organization's evaluation of health systems worldwide. The 
     major chronic diseases--cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular 
     diseases, and stroke--account for three out of every four 
     deaths in the United States, and the estimated total direct 
     and indirect health care costs for these chronic diseases 
     exceeds $700 billion each year. Much of America's chronic 
     disease burden could be avoided through better coordination 
     of care and by applying known best practices to prevent the 
     onset and progression of these conditions at the primary, 
     secondary, and tertiary levels.
       While insurance coverage for all Americans is an important 
     goal, we must give equal weight in the health care reform 
     debate to changes that improve the quality of care, increase 
     and improve the delivery of preventive services, and ensure 
     that individuals always receive care that is safe, efficient, 
     and without unnecessary interventions, tests, and treatment. 
     To achieve these goals we must make structural changes: 
     Improve our health information technology infrastructure; 
     align financial incentives with evidence-based and cost-
     effective decision making; and develop a reliable process for 
     assessing the health value of new technologies.

  That is a part of the joint statement the American Cancer Society, 
the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, and 
Consumers Union issued last Thursday.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the full text of the joint statement I have just referred to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Also, on Thursday, Mr. President, Consumers Union 
presented new polling data about Americans' experiences with the health 
care delivery system that confirms the urgent need for delivery system 
reform. In the poll, 18 percent of respondents reported that either 
they or an immediate family member contracted an infection following a 
medical procedure, and more than 60 percent of those reported that the 
infection was severe or life-threatening. Mr. President, 13 percent of 
respondents have had their medical record misplaced, and 9 percent have 
received the wrong prescription from the pharmacist. Only half of 
adults--only half of adults--receive routine preventive medical tests, 
and for adults 35 years and younger, only 30 percent even visit a 
doctor for routine testing.
  At our event last week, these organizations emphasized the importance 
of preventive care. As is so often the case in our health care system, 
no data or information is as compelling as a personal story, and we 
were fortunate on Thursday to hear an extraordinary one.
  Gina Gavlak is a diabetes center and emergency department nurse and 
the vice chair of the American Diabetes Association's advocacy 
committee.
  Gina was diagnosed with diabetes at age 10, and has been living with 
the disease for the last 29 years. She has worn an insulin pump 24 
hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year for the past 12 years. 
Before using the pump, Gina took over 21,000 insulin injections, an 
average of 6 times a day.
  Gina has battled pre-existing condition rules and outrageously high 
insurance premiums, but her biggest battle has been the daily 
management of her disease. She has taken on this battle with 
extraordinary determination and diligence, and with exemplary results.
  Through extremely careful monitoring and management, she has had only 
two hospitalizations and one emergency department visit due to 
diabetes. She has never missed a day of work because of diabetes. She 
has had two uncomplicated pregnancies resulting in the birth of her two 
healthy children.
  Gina's story is both poignant and important. It shows the tremendous 
benefits that come from comprehensive management of chronic disease--
both in quality of life and in reduced cost of care. But not everyone 
has Gina's unique drive and commitment. Many patients will need an 
interactive, organized, and prevention-focused health care system to 
effectively manage their care.
  Unfortunately, this is not the health care system we have. The Cancer 
Society, the Diabetes Association, the Heart Association, and Consumers 
Union wrote:

       The promise of . . . delivery system reform measures to 
     lower costs is the most humane avenue to a financially 
     sustainable health care system . . .
       Although coverage for all Americans is a vital component of 
     this change--a simultaneous effort aimed at securing high-
     quality, cost-effective preventive care is equally important 
     . . . the time for comprehensive health care reform has 
     arrived and our organizations will work together to help 
     create a health care system capable of consistently 
     delivering the most effective, patient-centered care.
       These efforts will improve the quality of life and health 
     outcomes for millions of people who suffer from a chronic 
     disease, and lead to more efficient use of our nation's 
     health resources.

  The time has indeed come, not only for coverage reforms that will 
bring all Americans the security and stability that health insurance 
provides, but also for a fundamental overhaul of the way our delivery 
system provides care. That is a necessary investment this budget makes.
  We have to be smart about this. We know how bad the system is; we see 
its looming catastrophic costs; we must invest the time, the money and 
the effort to transition to a modern, safe, efficient and healing 
health care system.
  That is why this President's budget matters. That is why President 
Obama's budget is worth passing; it looks beyond the sorry politics of 
today and addresses the real problems Americans have to cope with day 
to day, in their regular lives.
  I ask unanimous consent that statements by Dr. Timothy J. Gardner and

[[Page 9415]]

Dan Smith, and a Consumer's Union Release be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             Congressional Briefing on Health System Reform

      (Prepared Remarks for Dr. Timothy J. Gardner, Mar. 26, 2009)

       I am pleased to be here today on behalf of the American 
     Heart Association to highlight the need for health system 
     reforms that will result in the high-quality, cost-effective 
     care that our patients deserve. The Heart Association is very 
     pleased to be joined at today's event by Senators Whitehouse, 
     Rockefeller and Schumer and to be collaborating on the 
     statement we're announcing today with the American Cancer 
     Society, the American Diabetes Association, and the Consumers 
     Union.
       Cardiovascular disease, including heart attack and stroke, 
     is the nation's leading cause of death and the most costly 
     disease. Cumulatively, the leading chronic diseases--heart 
     disease, stroke, cancer and diabetes--account for three out 
     of every four deaths in the U.S. and the estimated total cost 
     for these diseases exceeds $700 billion each year.
       The American Heart Association supports reforms that will 
     extend affordable coverage to all Americans. Equally 
     important, the Heart Association supports measures that will 
     improve the value of cardiovascular and other chronic disease 
     prevention and care. Delivery system changes that speed the 
     translation of new knowledge to practitioners and strategies 
     that improve care coordination are essential to reducing 
     mortality and morbidity from heart disease, stroke and other 
     chronic diseases and to improve the value of the care 
     provided.
       The reality is that in our country health care remains 
     largely fragmented and uncoordinated, and as a result, we 
     miss many opportunities to both improve the quality of care 
     that patients receive and prevent disease altogether.
       Unfortunately, a patient with chronic diseases like heart 
     disease, stroke, cancer or diabetes often serves as the 
     poster-child for these missed opportunities. As a heart 
     surgeon, I have witnessed many such examples--both in the 
     prevention and treatment of patients with cardiovascular 
     disease. I see conditions that could have been prevented or 
     caught at an earlier, more treatable stage if risk factors--
     such as hypertension or high cholesterol--had been identified 
     and treated appropriately. And I have seen problems that 
     could have been avoided if evidence-based guidelines were 
     followed.
       For example, we know that patients who develop a hospital-
     acquired infection after undergoing coronary artery bypass 
     surgery have worse outcomes and are twice as likely to be 
     readmitted to the hospital compared to those without an 
     infection. We also know that administering an antibiotic 
     before surgery reduces a patient's risk of a post-operative 
     infection 5-fold. And yet studies have shown that correct 
     antibiotic use preoperatively continues to be uneven, which 
     results in unnecessary complications and re-hospitalizations 
     for some patients.
       As a physician, I can also attest to the tremendous 
     challenge that doctors and other healthcare professionals 
     face in staying current on the latest evidence and 
     guidelines. As the Institute of Medicine said in its landmark 
     2001 report, Crossing the Quality Chasm, ``[Health care] 
     today is characterized by more to know, more to do, more to 
     manage, more to watch, and more people involved than ever 
     before.''
       The American Heart Association and other scientific 
     organizations have invested a great deal of time, effort, and 
     money developing evidence-based guidelines and science 
     statements to help healthcare professionals give their 
     patients the highest quality care possible. The Heart 
     Association's Get With The Guidelines quality improvement 
     programs, now being used in over 1600 hospitals around the 
     country, are translating many of our science-based Guidelines 
     into practical systems of care that reflect best practices. 
     Interdisciplinary health professional team training and 
     programs that promote the coordination of acute patient care 
     are helping our health providers manage increasingly complex 
     medical care. For example, the Heart Association launched its 
     Mission: Lifeline program, which seeks to decrease critical 
     time to treatment and increase adherence to evidence-based 
     therapies for patients with the deadliest type of heart 
     attack by establishing regional systems of care.
       During the briefing session, I shared some of the tools and 
     strategies developed by the American Heart Association that 
     can serve as models of what needs to be done to systemically 
     increase quality of care, with the added benefit of spending 
     healthcare dollars more effectively. By doing so, we will be 
     doing our part to ``bend the cost curve'' for cardiovascular 
     disease.
       We look forward to working with Senators Whitehouse, 
     Rockefeller, Schumer and others in Congress, as well as with 
     our partners in the chronic disease and consumer community, 
     to enact meaningful health reform that not only provides 
     health insurance coverage to all Americans but also makes 
     care more patient-centered, reliable, and efficient. Thank 
     you.
                                  ____


          Health Care Delivery System Reform Press Conference

             (Dan Smith, President, ACS CAN, Mar. 26, 2009)

       I want to thank you--Senator Whitehouse, Rockefeller and 
     Schumer for gathering us all here today to talk about the 
     importance of fixing the way we deliver health care in this 
     country. We are encouraged by the work that Congress is 
     already doing in this regard and we look forward to working 
     with you as you move forward.
       The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the 
     advocacy affiliate of the American Cancer Society is adding 
     its voice to this discussion because the quality of our 
     nation's health care system will affect our success in the 
     fight against cancer.
       Providing all Americans with access to high quality health 
     care will significantly reduce the rates of cancer incidence 
     and mortality and will measurably improve the quality of life 
     for all people with cancer.
       I am happy to be standing with my friends from The American 
     Heart Association, The American Diabetes Association, and 
     Consumers Union.
       Five years ago, the American Cancer Society, the American 
     Heart Association, and the American Diabetes Association 
     joined forces to create the Preventive Health Partnership.
       The Partnership's goal is to reduce the burden of chronic 
     disease by focusing health care policy on prevention. Our 
     organizations all agree that insurance reform by itself is 
     not sufficient. Real reform must include changes in the way 
     we deliver services to people.
       We believe all Americans should have access to adequate 
     health care coverage. But coverage is not enough. We must 
     also fundamentally transform the health care delivery system.
       That is why we must move from a system focused on episodic 
     treatment of disease to one that focuses much more heavily on 
     wellness, disease prevention and early detection.
       We must also:
       Increase the delivery of prevention services to detect and 
     mitigate the potential harm of serious diseases and 
     conditions;
       Enhance knowledge and awareness of how good outcomes can be 
     achieved; and
       Reward providers that utilize them.
       In fact, by applying proven prevention and early detection 
     strategies that we have available right now up to \2/3\ of 
     all cancers can be prevented.
       Investing in these strategies will improve the health of 
     our nation and slow the growth of health care spending.
       All four of our organizations are releasing a joint 
     statement today in support of health care delivery system 
     reform.
       We all agree that the signs and symptoms of our broken 
     health care system are numerous.
       We must address not only coverage and access, but 
     fundamental delivery system reform.
       We believe that the time for comprehensive health care 
     reform has arrived. Our organizations stand ready to help 
     create a health care system that delivers effective patient-
     centered care.
                                  ____


Consumer Reports Poll: More Americans Acquiring Medical Infections and 
                      Experiencing Medical Errors

       Washington D.C.--A new Consumer Reports poll finds that 18 
     percent of Americans say they or an immediate family member 
     have acquired a dangerous infection following a medical 
     procedure and more than one-third report that medical errors 
     are common in everyday medical procedures. The new poll, 
     which assessed people's experiences with the health care 
     system, also found that only half of adults participate in 
     routine preventive medical testing.
       ``Healthcare-acquired infections and medical errors can 
     devastate American families who are already struggling with 
     the cost of health care,'' said Consumers Union President Jim 
     Guest. ``These preventable errors and infections can cost 
     families hundreds--if not thousands--of extra dollars each 
     year, and add tens of billions of dollars to our national 
     health care costs. It is imperative that Congress pass health 
     care reform legislation that includes simple safety 
     provisions to help save lives and fix our broken health care 
     system.''
       The new poll was released in conjunction with a 
     Congressional briefing on health care delivery system reform 
     with the American Cancer Society, American Diabetes 
     Association and the American Heart Association. The poll was 
     performed March 12-16, 2009, and interviewed more than 2,000 
     adults on issues such as acquired infections, medical errors, 
     and preventive care.


                     Healthcare Acquired Infections

       The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports 
     that almost 100,000 people die each year from an infection 
     they contract while in the hospital. Data from the new poll 
     shows that the risks of medical infections continue to be 
     very real.
       Nearly one-in-five (18%) reported that they or an immediate 
     family member had acquired an infection owing to a hospital 
     stay or other medical procedure. More than 6 out of 10 
     reporting an infection told Consumer

[[Page 9416]]

     Reports the infection was severe or life-threatening.
       The risk of an infection increased 45 percent if a patient 
     spent the night in the hospital.
       Fifty-three percent of Americans polled said these 
     infections required additional out of pocket expenses to 
     treat the infection.
       Sixty-nine percent had to be admitted to a hospital or 
     extend their stay because of the infection.


               Errors in Diagnostic Testing and Treatment

       Many Americans told Consumer Reports they regularly 
     encounter errors in routine medical procedures like lab work, 
     CAT scans or blood testing.
       More than one-third of Americans polled believe it was very 
     common or somewhat common for an error to occur during a 
     diagnostic procedure.
       Thirteen percent have had their medical records lost or 
     misplaced.
       Twelve percent have had a diagnostic test that was not done 
     properly.
       Nine percent have been given the wrong medicine by a 
     pharmacist when they filled their doctor's prescription


                        Early Detection Testing

       Early detection testing is the key to fighting many common 
     illnesses. The new poll highlights the number of adults who 
     have not been screened for common diseases.
       While 94 percent of consumers felt it was important to have 
     routine tests for diseases, only 59 percent have discussed 
     testing with their doctors and only 55 percent have actually 
     undergone tests.
       This behavior increased sharply with age: Among those 65 
     years and older, 73 percent have visited their doctor for 
     routine testing, but among adults 35 years and younger, that 
     percentage drops to 30 percent.
       ``The findings of this poll clearly show that we need to 
     make fundamental improvements in the quality of care that is 
     delivered to American families,'' said Jim Guest. ``Consumers 
     are paying to fix bureaucratic errors and medical harm that 
     can easily be avoided. We need to make sure more Americans 
     have access to basic public information on hospitals quality 
     of care and disclosure of infection rates and medical 
     errors.''
     About the poll
       The Consumer Reports National Research Center conducted a 
     telephone survey of a nationally representative probability 
     sample of telephone households. A total of 2,005 interviews 
     were completed among adults ages 18+. The margin of error is 
     +/- 2.2% points at a 95% confidence level.

                               Exhibit 1

         American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, 
           American Heart Association, American Stroke 
           Association, Consumers Union.

         Joint Statement on Health Care Delivery System Reform

       Our health care system is in desperate need of reform. The 
     number of uninsured Americans exceeds 45 million; health care 
     costs are rising faster than incomes; health disparities 
     persist; and although we spend at least twice as much per 
     capita on health care as our major trading partners, we rank 
     37th in the World Health Organization's evaluation of health 
     systems worldwide. The signs and symptoms of a broken health 
     care system are numerous and unmistakable, and we must 
     address not only coverage and access, but fundamental 
     delivery system reform, to truly cure what ails us.
       The major chronic diseases--cancer, diabetes, 
     cardiovascular diseases, and stroke--account for three out of 
     every four deaths in the United States and the estimated 
     total direct and indirect health care costs for these chronic 
     disease areas exceed $700 billion each year. These staggering 
     human and economic costs will increase as our population ages 
     and as risk factors common to cancer, diabetes, and 
     cardiovascular disease rise in prevalence.
       For Americans who struggle with a chronic disease, failure 
     of the health care system to provide quality care throughout 
     the life stages compounds the problems of coverage and cost. 
     Much of America's chronic disease burden could be avoided 
     through better coordination of care, and by applying known 
     best practices to prevent the onset and progression of these 
     conditions, at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels.
       While insurance coverage for all Americans is an important 
     goal, we must give equal weight in the health care reform 
     debate to changes that improve the quality of care, increase 
     and improve the delivery of preventive services, and ensure 
     that individuals always receive care that is safe, efficient 
     and without unnecessary interventions, tests, and treatment. 
     To achieve these goals, we must make structural changes: 
     improve our health information technology infrastructure; 
     align financial incentives with evidence-based and cost-
     effective decision making; and develop a reliable process for 
     assessing the health value of new technologies.
       The promise of these delivery system reform measures to 
     lower costs is the most humane avenue to a financially 
     sustainable health care system.
       The American Cancer Society, the American Diabetes 
     Association, and the American Heart Association, joined by 
     Consumers Union, share a common objective: to reduce the toll 
     of chronic disease on individuals, families, and our nation. 
     Although coverage for all Americans is a vital component of 
     this change--a simultaneous effort aimed at securing high-
     quality, cost-effective preventive care is equally important.
       We believe that the time for comprehensive health care 
     reform has arrived and our organizations will work together 
     to help create a health care system capable of consistently 
     delivering the most effective, patient-centered care. These 
     efforts will improve the quality of life and health outcomes 
     for millions of people who suffer from a chronic disease, and 
     lead to more efficient use of our nation's health resources.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have been allocated 5 minutes. I ask the 
Chair to let me know when 1 minute is remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify the Senator. The 
Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today is April Fool's Day and the biggest 
prank I have seen so far is the one proponents of this budget are 
trying to pull on the American taxpayer.
  Proponents of this budget say the plan is transparent, but the 
authors knowingly hide a stunning explosion in long-term debt by 
conveniently dropping the last 5 years of their budget.
  Proponents of this budget say the plan cuts taxes for low- and 
middle-income families, but right there on page 32 is the blueprint for 
a plan that would raise taxes on anyone who drives a car or heats their 
home that probably includes almost everybody.
  Proponents of this budget will say that it cuts spending, but this 
plan adds nearly $5 trillion to the public debt in just 5 short years.
  Proponents of this budget say this plan is honest because for the 
first time it extends protections against the tenacious reach of the 
alternative minimum tax, but revenues from the AMT mysteriously 
reappear in 2013 and 2014.
  Proponents of this budget will say it contains no reconciliation 
instructions and preserves an important minority privilege. But this 
budget doesn't preclude reconciliation either, and my colleagues know 
that our brethren in the House of Representatives are banging on our 
Chamber doors with a budget that does include reconciliation--which is 
odd because they don't need it at their end at all. They have a Rules 
Committee that takes care of all that.
  Now I know folks back home in Wyoming are listening to me, scratching 
their heads and saying ``what the heck is reconciliation and why should 
I care?'' Let me sum it up this way: reconciliation is the on-ramp to a 
national energy tax. Reconciliation will make it impossible for me to 
protect your family from higher energy prices. Reconciliation will make 
it impossible for me to protect your community from cost-cutting 
layoffs. Reconciliation will make it impossible for me to make your 
voice heard here in Washington, DC.
  Reconciliation does not allow for a full and open debate. 
Reconciliation does not allow a thorough vetting and amendment process. 
Reconciliation's fast-track nature shuts out members of the minority 
party and will shut out many centrist Democrats too. Reconciliation is 
the declaration that any idea other than the majority party idea has no 
place at the drafting table--just as, so far, there has been no 
recognition of a Republican idea. I know all the ideas aren't great--
but not even one?
  As a former committee chairman and the co-author of many successful 
bipartisan bills, I know firsthand that ramming through reconciliation 
is not a successful model for good government, and it is certainly 
counter to the way Senator Kennedy and I work together on the HELP 
Committee. Senator Kennedy and I strive to work together in a 
bipartisan fashion to achieve legislation that both sides can support. 
Laws like the Pension Protection Act, the Head Start reauthorization, 
and the MINER Act were hundreds of pages in length but passed with 
little dissent in the Senate. The budget resolution we have adopt for 
the new fiscal year ought to follow a similar bipartisan

[[Page 9417]]

model, especially on issues like education and health care which are so 
important to the future of our Nation.
  Misusing the reconciliation process to get a health care bill is not 
the right approach and it conflicts with the new bipartisan spirit that 
President Obama has promised. A bill passed without work and agreement 
by both parties on the front end is more like a shotgun wedding than 
legislating.
  This budget includes a massive tax increase--$361 billion in explicit 
tax hikes and $1.3 trillion embedded in 27 different reserve funds. And 
despite the ``Robin Hood'' rhetoric of taxing just the ``rich,'' the 
tax increases contained in this budget will hit all Americans. No one 
is spared: This budget raises taxes on energy. If you drive a car or 
heat your home, your taxes will go up. That comes under cap and trade, 
and there is a clever little thing in here which is where they get the 
tax cut from. They are going to raise your taxes on all the energy you 
use, then they are going to give it back to you so you can pay for 
that. But it will not be an equal distribution based on what you are 
using.
  This budget raises taxes on senior citizens who are dependent on 
dividend and capital gains income for the retirement income.
  This budget raises taxes on charitable contributions at a time when 
we need charity the most.
  This budget reinstates the death tax, making it harder to keep the 
family ranch or family farm or family business in the family.
  This budget raises taxes on small business. More than half of all 
small businesses that employ between 20 and 500 employees will see 
their tax bills rise and jobs eliminated. Small business is the 
incubator for entrepreneurship and we should protect it and nurture it, 
not tax it. That is where the community donations come from.
  And most foolish of all, none of this ``new'' money will help reduce 
the deficit. Instead, this budget directs all new taxpayer money to the 
expansion of big Government--more Government programs we can't afford.
  I think a newspaper columnist, Diane Badget from Lovell, WY, said it 
best when she wrote how her mother would react to what is happening in 
Washington today. Diane wrote, ``Momma always said, `If you don't have 
enough money to buy a quart of milk you don't take someone else's hard-
earned cash and buy ice cream.' ''
  The budget we are debating this week certainly would put us on the 
hook for a lot of figurative ice cream all right--all kinds of flavors. 
This budget charts ominous new policy directions for healthcare, 
education and energy.
  I ask unanimous consent her entire article be printed in the Record 
at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See 
exhibit 2)
  Mr. ENZI. Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget, has argued that we need to fix health care in order to address 
our current economic crisis--a sentiment echoed by many in this 
Chamber. But this argument misses an important point. If we enact the 
wrong health care fix, our budget crisis will get even worse. Simply 
throwing more money at the problem--as this budget suggests--is not a 
solution.
  I am concerned about the direction of energy policy in this budget. 
This budget leaves open the possibility of putting in place a carbon 
cap-and-trade system which will lead to higher energy prices for 
families and small businesses. Enacting such a system is the equivalent 
of placing a national tax on energy usage. Raising energy prices at a 
time when families are struggling to make ends meet just doesn't make 
sense.
  I don't support Federal policies that will increase energy costs, 
even in good economic times, but it is especially troubling that the 
budget lays the framework for this national energy tax when 
unemployment is above 8 percent and rising.
  What we need to do now is prepare for the worst and hope for the 
best. That is the way to make a better future because in the end this 
budget isn't about numbers. It is about people. But this budget doesn't 
prepare us for the future. It robs from it.
  America, this budget taxes too much, spends too much and borrows too 
much. I am not fooled by this budget and I hope you are not either.

                               Exhibit 2

               [From the Lovell Chronicle, Mar. 26, 2009]

                          If Ma Was in Charge

                           (By Diane Badget)

       Gee, I wish my mom was in charge in Washington. Things 
     would be a lot different with her up there watching every 
     move. She had eyes in the back of her head and nothing got 
     past her radar.
       Ma would have taken one look at the stimulus package and 
     had a fit. ``You have one minute to explain to me what you 
     were thinking. Your time started yesterday.''
       She would have chewed out our president for spending so 
     many hours each day in front of TV cameras pushing his 
     inflated budget and stimulus package at the expense of 
     everything else. ``Barack,'' she would scold, ``you get out 
     of that TV set right now and let someone else have a turn. 
     For heaven's sake, you are a President now, not a candidate--
     start acting like it.''
       Boy, she would have let Congress have it! ``You kids have 
     until the count of three to stop that arguing and stomping 
     around. Don't make me come up there or you'll all be sorry!'' 
     There'd be a long pause and then she'd warn, ``I don't CARE 
     who started it--if I have to come up there I know who'll end 
     it!''
       If Ma asked a plain question she'd expect a plain answer, 
     and that would mean accepting responsibility for mistakes 
     immediately. I can hear her now: ``Don't you be blaming this 
     mess on each other. I know when someone is wetting on my leg 
     and telling me it's a rainstorm.''
       Ma didn't believe in complex ideas. Heck, I'm not even sure 
     she understood them. ``If you keep things simple,'' she'd be 
     telling the economists, ``you don't have so much to remember 
     and fix later.''
       I don't think the banking executives would get by 
     unscathed, either. ``Now, fellas, how much sense does it make 
     to bounce a check and then send the bank another check to 
     cover your overdraft? You know better than that! If you can't 
     learn how to handle money then we need to rethink your 
     allowances.''
       She would have rolled those incredible blue eyes and 
     questioned the experts. ``We have to jump start the banks, 
     jump start the auto industry, and jump start the economy? 
     Maybe it's time to stop jump starting and just replace the 
     stupid battery!''
       Throwing good money after bad was a pet peeve of hers, and 
     she'd flat let the politicians hear about it. ``Doggone it! 
     If you drop a one dollar bill in the john and are dumb enough 
     to throw a five dollar bill in after it to see what's gonna 
     happen, don't whine when someone else comes along and flushes 
     the toilet.''
       She wouldn't have cared that Congress has its own agenda 
     and that it has nothing to do with what she would think was 
     best. She'd hit the hallowed halls of the Capitol Building 
     yelling, ``As long as you are under MY roof you'll do as 
     you're told.''
       Ma didn't believe in politics. She never voted. With an air 
     of superiority I once made the mistake of telling her that if 
     she didn't vote she really shouldn't be complaining about the 
     people who got elected. I don't remember much after that.
       Senators and Representatives wouldn't stand a chance 
     against her common sense and strong moral fiber. She'd give 
     one of those guaranteed-to-have-you-regret-your-conception 
     looks and pull no punches. ``I don't care what the Speaker of 
     the House said to do. If she told you to jump off a cliff 
     would you do it?'' Um, no Ma, not with you at the bottom 
     ready to kick my behind when I landed.
       She definitely wouldn't be happy about the amount of money 
     being discussed. ``What in the heck is wrong with you? If you 
     don't have enough money to buy a quart of milk you don't take 
     someone else's hard earned cash and buy ice cream.'' And she 
     never would have understood the concept of deficit spending. 
     ``You be careful with that money. When it's gone, it's 
     gone.''
       If she'd known about the way health care reform would be 
     buried in the stimulus package she would I have come 
     uncorked. ``Alright, just for that little stunt I'm going to 
     sneak broccoli into everything you eat--and you'll eat it and 
     be grateful. There are thousands of starving Americans who 
     would be thrilled to have what you have.''
       She would have chewed them out for being wasteful and for 
     hoping that waste would somehow make things all better. 
     ``Garbage is garbage. No point in giving it a fancy name 
     because it won't change the smell.''
       She'd look at all the palms outstretched waiting for their 
     share of the bailout and just shake her head. ``I told you 
     what would happen if you got too big for your britches,'' 
     she'd lecture. ``You got yourselves into this mess, so now 
     you get yourselves out.''
       What Washington needs is a good dose of Ma. She'd get them 
     back on track. I think they've forgotten that you can't fill 
     up the bathtub unless you put the plug in the drain first.
       Good Grief! It's finally happened. I sound just like my 
     mother! Thank you, Lord.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.

[[Page 9418]]


  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, what is the order now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The current order is for the Senator from 
South Carolina to speak for 5 minutes, whom I do not see on the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Since he is not on the floor, I ask the way we would 
proceed is, Senator Barrasso wanted to speak in his stead--is that it--
for 5 minutes, followed by Senator Whitehouse, followed by me for 5 
minutes, if that is OK?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Wyoming is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 735

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Johanns 
climate change amendment, No. 735. Budget reconciliation was designed 
to facilitate passage of legislation to reduce the deficit with a 
simple majority. It was never meant to pass major policy initiatives 
such as cap and trade.
  I was pleased to sign a letter written by both Senator Byrd and 
Senator Johanns opposing the idea of using budget reconciliation to 
pass climate change. The letter has broad bipartisan support.
  Cap and trade would be one of the most dramatic expansions of 
Government in American history. It is a trillion-dollar climate bailout 
scheme. This weekend, Thomas Friedman stated in the New York Times that 
``we need a climate bailout along with our economic bailout.'' I tend 
to disagree.
  The American people, including my constituents in Wyoming, are very 
skeptical about any bailouts. So how important is climate change in the 
interest of the American people? The Pew Research Center did a poll and 
they showed that climate change ranked dead last with the public in 
terms of what was important to them. The American public is dealing 
with the reality of an economic meltdown. This is a real and immediate 
problem. Trillions of taxpayer dollars are being directed to stimulate 
the economy. Every step Congress takes to spend additional funds is 
being watched closely, as it should be, by the American public.
  We have passed numerous bailout bills over the past 6 months. We have 
just passed a $787 billion bailout for an economic plan intended to 
save or create millions of jobs. The American people deserve the 
opportunity to have any climate bailout go through the regular order.
  Frankly, the American people are demanding the opportunity to have a 
climate bailout go through regular order. Such legislation should not 
be enacted using procedures that limit debate and do not otherwise 
provide the kind of transparency the people of this country want and 
demand.
  I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support the Johanns 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Rhode Island is 
recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I want to respond very briefly before 
I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee on this question of reconciliation and climate change. 
One really has to have had their sense of irony surgically removed to 
keep a straight face on the Senate floor today as the party of 
reconciliation comes to the floor, over and over again, to complain 
about the use of reconciliation.
  The party of reconciliation is the Republican Party. They have used 
it 13 times. They used it for George Bush's tax cuts for billionaires. 
If you have bloody hands from reconciliation, the Republican Party has 
blood above the elbows from reconciliation. Yet they come to the floor, 
as innocent as lambs, to say: Oh, my gosh, what a terrible thing it 
would be if we used reconciliation for something important like 
protecting the planet from climate change as opposed to just something 
like, say, our favorite: tax cuts for billionaires.
  I think climate change is a little bit too serious for that quality 
of rhetoric and debate. If the Republican Party in the Senate is 
willing to stand and say that climate change is not real, then we can 
have that discussion. But the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from 
Idaho and Senators across the other side of the aisle have all had 
their health directors from their home States come to the Environment 
and Public Works Committee to say that climate change is real, and it 
is dangerous for the health of their constituents. I think it is 
incumbent on us to do something about it. I don't think it is helpful 
to call it a bailout or to call it a tax. You could unwind the most 
vigorous rhetoric you like, but it doesn't change the point that we 
have to do something about climate change.
  The fundamental fact that they are defending and the fundamental 
point that is lurking behind this rhetoric about bailout, rhetoric 
about a tax, is they want to continue to make it free for industry to 
pollute our atmosphere with carbon and greenhouse gases.
  Behind it all, that is the proposition for which opposition to cap 
and trade stands. If you are opposed to cap and trade, then what you 
are saying is, it should be free, it should continue to be free for 
industry to pollute our atmosphere and warm our planet and compromise 
the quality of lives of our children. And we, as a party, the 
Republicans are going to stand and defend that proposition.
  Well, of course, they cannot say that. So they instead talk about 
bailouts and taxes. But I very much hope we will look behind that 
screen, that we will treat this problem as a serious one, as it should 
be treated, and if we need to go to reconciliation to solve it, well, 
by gosh, this would be a far better use of it than the tax rates for 
billionaires that was the Republican's favorite use for reconciliation.
  I yield the floor to my distinguished Chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I hope America is watching this debate. I 
think Senator Whitehouse was very on point when he exposed what the 
Republicans are doing. We all know it is perfectly in order to utilize 
something called reconciliation, which is a way to get around a 
filibuster, and it is the way to govern with a majority.
  The fact is, as Senator Whitehouse has said, since 1980, 
reconciliation has been used 19 times, 16 times by my Republican 
friends who now come to the floor and say: Oh, my God, we should not 
use it for health care, we should not use it for climate change, we 
should not use it at all.
  They do not want to use it because they want to be able to obstruct 
progress. Now, the reason I hope America is watching this debate is 
because they will see the difference in the parties. If you listen to 
the Republicans, what are they saying?
  No. We are not going to do any health care reform of any meaning. We 
are not going to do education reform of any meaning. We say no--they 
say no--to global warming legislation. They say no to energy 
legislation. They are the party of nope, and I am in the party of hope. 
Here is where we stand. Same old politics.
  All they want is tax breaks for billionaires, tax breaks for 
millionaires. We saw where that led us, along with the war in Iraq, 
budget deficits as far as the eye could see, a recession that is as 
close as we have come to the Great Depression.
  Same old politics, same old policies that got us into this crisis in 
the first place. So every time they speak, I urge you, America, to 
listen. It is no. No. No. No. It is no to this new President who ran on 
fixing the education system. It is no to this President who ran on 
fixing the health care system. It is no to this President who ran on 
doing something about global warming. It is no. No. No. No on energy 
reform.
  This budget is so important to be passed because it is, in fact, 
brought to us by this new President who had a very strong debate with 
John McCain, who won a convincing victory, who is off now taking his 
first foreign trip. I hope that we can make that trip more pleasant for 
him by rallying around his priorities.
  Now, we are going to be facing a slew of amendments that try to 
undermine and undercut President Barack Obama and the priorities I 
talked about. We talked a little about reconciliation.

[[Page 9419]]

When people listen, they do not get what it means, so I will try and 
explain it. It is a way you can bring up a bill and avoid a filibuster. 
It is a way you can bring up a bill and pass it with majority votes 
instead of a supermajority vote.
  That is a very important option for us to have when we are dealing 
with very important issues. I think it is important to be stated right 
now, important to be stated right now, that in this Senate budget there 
are no reconciliation instructions regarding climate change. There are 
no reconciliation instructions.
  But the other side is not happy with that. They want to make sure we 
can vote on it. So Senator Johanns has a very simple and 
straightforward resolution that says: Reconciliation will not be used 
related to climate change. Senator Whitehouse and I have a side by side 
with that that says: Fine, we will not use it unless the Senate finds 
that the public health--I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Senator Whitehouse and I, and I think the Presiding 
Officer will be interested in this, have said: OK, we will not use 
reconciliation unless the Senate finds that the public health, the 
economy, and national security are jeopardized by inaction on global 
warming.
  What we are doing is saying: If we find that our people are in danger 
because of inaction on global warming, and if we find we are facing a 
filibuster from the Republicans on getting anything done, then we 
should be able to use reconciliation and get around a filibuster. That 
is what we are saying.
  Why did we put in here economy? It is very clear why we did that. 
Because we believe if we turn out to be the only Nation in the world, 
in the industrialized world, that is doing nothing, this could hurt us. 
Because other nations can say: Well, you know what. Until the United 
States acts, we are not going to have free trade with the United 
States. We can find ourselves isolated.
  We could learn that as a result of inaction, we are not creating the 
green jobs that we should create and that business wants to create. We 
should have that opportunity to come together and, with a majority 
vote, pass global warming legislation.
  We could find out from the FBI, the CIA, our Defense Department that 
tensions are growing around the world due to global warming. We already 
see in Darfur--and a lot of experts believe that is what has happened 
to the climate there and the fight over water there. We could learn 
that our national security has worsened because of climate change.
  We already know it is a major issue with the intelligence community. 
What Senator Whitehouse and I are saying in this side by side is, we 
will not use this procedure unless we find out there is an emergency. 
We hope colleagues will realize that to take a very legitimate tool off 
the table is wrong.
  The last point I wish to make is my colleagues on the Republican side 
keep intimating and saying that any bill on climate change will involve 
a tax. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are going to rebate 
funds to people. We are going to rebate funds to our families.
  We have turned our back on a tax. Although some of my Republican 
friends said they would rather see a carbon tax, I rejected it. I do 
not want a tax. I want to model climate change legislation after the 
acid rain legislation and set up a free market mechanism to put a price 
on carbon.
  So there is no tax. There is going to be a break for people. They are 
going to get rebates. Our States are going to get funded. So you can 
stand and call me a Republican. You can call me a Republican morning, 
noon, and night. I am not a Republican. I am a Democrat. You can call 
cap and trade a tax morning, noon, and night. It is not a tax. It is 
the opposite. It is an allowance.
  It is a permit. It is a way to cap the amount of carbon going into 
the air by requiring that people who pollute purchase the allowance to 
pollute. Those funds will be given out to the people of the United 
States of America as we transition to a clean energy future.
  I did not expect this budget debate would turn into a battle about 
climate change. But it has. I am here to say that I welcome this 
debate. I am very proud that over in the other body, in the House, they 
have begun their work on climate change. I look forward to seeing the 
progress that is made over there.
  In closing, I hope we will see support for the Whitehouse-Boxer 
alternative to the Johanns amendment. I hope, at the end of the day, we 
have support for President Obama's very first budget. The people in 
this country support our President. They support him over party lines. 
Those who are Independent support him.
  This is his first budget, folks, his first chance to show to the 
American people the priorities he laid out in his campaign and that are 
in this budget. Let's not forget it. If we support education and health 
care and action to clean up this environment, if we support deficit 
reduction--which is part of this package--then let us support this 
budget and let us defeat some of these nefarious amendments that are 
meant to undermine our new President and this budget.
  I yield back my remaining time and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Earlier, Senator Graham was in a unanimous consent 
agreement for 5 minutes. Other Senators were here at the time and took 
the time. It would be appropriate if we allowed Senator Graham 5 
minutes at this point. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Graham be 
allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the chairman for the courtesy.
  As we talk about different views of the budget, one thing I would 
like to comment upon to the people of North Dakota, I have been very 
struck and impressed by the way the people of North Dakota have come 
together with the flood. It looks like tough going there but a hearty 
group. We all wish them well. The two Senators from North Dakota 
represent their State well.
  The Johanns amendment is what I would like to talk about a bit. This 
idea to most people of a debate about reconciliation probably is mind-
numbing and not very interesting. But there is a process in the 
Congress where you can take legislation and basically put it on a fast 
track. It is subject to 50 votes.
  The Senate has served the country well. When you are in the majority, 
you don't appreciate the minority's role too much. But the one thing 
about the Senate, it changes hands fairly often.
  The AIG legislation in the House where there is going to be a 90-
percent tax on bonuses because people are upset--I can understand 
people being upset about AIG, but that wasn't the right response, 
creating a retroactive tax on a limited group of people because you are 
mad. The power to tax somebody is a pretty awesome power. It should be 
used in a constitutional and lawful way. Our friends in the House are 
up every 2 years, and sometimes they get carried away in the moment. I 
guess sometimes the Senate does as well.
  The whole idea of the Senate kind of cooling things down has served 
the country well. In that regard, to end debate you need 60 votes. If 
41 Senators are opposed to a piece of legislation, strongly enough to 
come to the floor every day and talk about it, that legislation doesn't 
go anywhere. I argue that is probably a good rule. There were times 
when we were in the majority that we didn't particularly like the rule. 
But if 41 Senators from one party or a bipartisan group believes that 
strongly, it is probably worth sitting down and thinking about.

[[Page 9420]]

  If you took climate change and health care, two very controversial, 
big-ticket items, and put them on the reconciliation track, you would 
basically be doing a lot of damage to the role of the Senate in a 
constitutional democracy.
  Senator Byrd, who is one of the smartest people to ever serve in the 
Senate about rules and parliamentary aspects of the Senate, said that 
to put climate change and health care reform in reconciliation is like 
``a freight train through Congress'' and is ``an outrage that must be 
resisted.''
  Senator Conrad said:

       I don't believe reconciliation was ever intended for this 
     purpose.

  I think both of them are right. Under the law, you cannot put Social 
Security into reconciliation because we know how controversial and 
difficult that is. I come here in support of the Johanns amendment that 
rejects that idea.
  Our majority leader said something a little bit disturbing. He said 
climate change cap-and-trade revenues could be used to pay for health 
care. If we put climate change in reconciliation, you have really 
abused the process and will create a bad climate for the Congress. 
There is a lot of bipartisan support not to go down that road to abuse 
reconciliation. From the climate change debate, there are some 
Democratic and Republican Senators who are opposed to 100 percent 
auction. We believe climate change is real but do not want to go down 
the road the administration has charted. I believe manmade emissions 
are heating up the planet. But if you take the revenue stream from the 
climate change bill to fund the Government, you will lose a lot of 
support for climate change. The money that is generated from a cap-and-
trade system should go back into the energy sector to allow people to 
comply with the cost of a cap-and-trade system. The Obama proposal, 
$3,000 per family, is a very expensive proposal. There is bipartisan 
support for climate change legislation with a mix of auctions and 
credits that could be done in a reasonable way.
  The idea of putting climate change or health care in reconciliation 
will bring the Congress to a halt. It would be everything opposite of 
what the President ran on in terms of bringing us together. There is a 
lot of Democratic push back for this idea. I applaud my Democratic 
colleagues who think it is a bad idea because it is.
  I do pledge to work on climate change. Health care will be tough. We 
will certainly try that. But there is bipartisan support for climate 
change legislation through the normal process. For those who disagree 
that it is a problem, they can have their say and we can get the votes 
necessary to put together a bipartisan climate change bill through the 
normal process.
  Senator Johanns from Nebraska has done the Senate a service by 
putting this amendment forward. I urge its adoption and yield the 
floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to indicate for all colleagues what 
is happening. We are about to go to a series of votes. It is not clear 
how many in total. I would say it is probably at least nine, perhaps 
more, rollcall votes. We are waiting for the unanimous consent 
agreement to be entered into.
  When we start this process, we are going to have 2 minutes equally 
divided before each amendment. We will start with the Lieberman-Collins 
amendment and then go to the Alexander amendment, then the Sessions 
amendment--at least this is the understanding at this point--then we 
will proceed until all of the amendments have been dispensed with. 
Then, once those are completed, the ranking member and I will work on 
another series of amendments to have in order.
  This evening, there will be an opportunity for Members to present 
their amendments. We have not yet decided if they would be able to call 
them up or just speak on them and then call them up tomorrow. This goes 
to the question of trying to make sure there is some fairness going 
back and forth between the two sides. We do not have a Sessions 
modification on which we are waiting.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask if we could bring up some amendments. They would be 
voted in the vote-arama, and I have no problem with that, not wanting a 
specific vote before that, but we could get them up and get them 
pending.
  Mr. CONRAD. We can't do that with amendments we have not yet seen.
  Mr. COBURN. Every one of them has been filed.
  Mr. CONRAD. We have 150 amendments that have been filed. Before we go 
to somebody to call up an amendment, we need to be able to see it 
because if we start the debate, we need, for the effective and 
efficient ordering of the debate, to be able to answer the amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent to speak on the budget until the 
time should come up for the UC and not to exceed 15 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I want to make certain that we have a chance to interrupt 
and go immediately to the votes.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, if we have a unanimous consent agreement, 
I will cease the discussion.
  Mr. CONRAD. All right.
  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Coburn be 
permitted to talk on the budget generally for up to 15 minutes, but if 
we have the unanimous consent request ready to go, that he be 
interrupted so we can get on to votes as quickly as possible because we 
are already 15 minutes behind schedule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I say to 
the chairman of the Budget Committee, I have no problem with this. I 
want to do two things. First, I want to make sure the Whitehouse-Boxer 
amendment is at the desk and would be considered in order when we have 
another tranche of votes later tonight. Is that done?
  Mr. CONRAD. That is in the unanimous consent request we are working 
on. We have not yet agreed to the whole package, but it is in the 
proposal to be agreed on next.
  Mrs. BOXER. OK. I would ask, if Senator Coburn does use the full 15 
minutes, I would like to have 5 minutes when he is done, if we are not 
voting. And if we are, obviously, I do not need the 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, first off, I thank the chairman for his 
graciousness.
  If you are sitting at home right now and you have a job and you see 
the tough times that are out there, or you are sitting at home and 
looking for a job, one of the things you are doing is you are starting 
to say: Here is what is coming in and here are the mandatory things 
that have to go out, and you are starting to prioritize.
  We have a budget before us that prioritizes two things. It 
prioritizes growing the Federal Government by a huge amount over the 
next 10 years. If you were running a business and you were at these 
times, the last thing you would do is go borrow money to expand a 
business into a market that is not growing. Yet we have before us the 
biggest budget in the history of the country--a budget that will, in 
fact, double the debt that is going to our kids over the next 5 years 
and triple it over the next 10 years. It does not fit what any of us 
would do with our own families' budgets or our own businesses' budgets.
  Why is it we are afraid to say that what we really need to do is live 
within our means? Instead, we are going to have a $1.7 trillion, maybe 
a $1.8 trillion, maybe even a $2 trillion deficit this year and 
something very close to that next year.
  Instead of cutting some of the $380 billion of documented waste, 
fraud, and abuse associated with the Federal Government, we are not 
looking at it at all. When President Obama ran for the office, he said 
one of the things he was going to do was a line-by-line item analysis 
of every Department, at every area, to make sure it was effective and 
efficient at accomplishing the task it was set out to do. We have not 
seen any of that, and there is none of that in this budget. If, in 
fact, we were to do

[[Page 9421]]

that, here is what we would find. We would find $50 billion worth of 
wasted money at the Pentagon. There is no effort to do that in this 
budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator, we are now 
prepared to go forward with the unanimous consent request to set up the 
votes, and if the Senator would permit us to do that, we could get an 
earlier start on the votes.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would be happy to. I would like to have 
1 minute to wind up the one point.
  Mr. CONRAD. Fair enough.
  Mr. COBURN. Thank you.
  We have $80 billion worth of fraud in Medicare. Yet we are going to 
talk about health care, but we are not going to fix the problem with 
Government-run health care and the fraud that is associated with it. We 
have $40 billion in Medicaid. There is no attachment to do that. So 
what we are doing is we are not trimming spending anywhere, we are 
going to raise taxes significantly, and we are going to grow the 
Federal Government in a time when we can least afford to grow it.
  The idea that we can have prosperity out of the Government instead of 
out of our own individual efforts is counterintuitive to everything 
this country stands for.
  With that, I will carry on my debate at a later time, and I thank the 
Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his 
courtesy. It is gracious of him, as is typically the case with the 
Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:20 p.m. today, the 
Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments listed below and 
that prior to each vote there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided 
and controlled in the usual form; that after the first vote in this 
sequence, the succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes each; that no 
intervening amendments or motions be in order during this vote sequence 
prior to a vote in relation to the amendments, except if a point of 
order is raised and a motion to waive the relevant point of order is 
made; that all time consumed during the votes be counted against the 
time remaining on the budget resolution; the order of the amendments is 
as follows: Lieberman-Collins No. 763, and that the purpose line be 
changed as noted at the desk; Alexander No. 747; Sessions No. 772, and 
that the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk; Casey No. 
783; Ensign No. 804; Kerry No. 732; Cornyn No. 806; Gregg No. 835; 
Isakson No. 762; Shaheen No. 776; Crapo No. 844; Reed No. 836; Johanns 
No. 735; and Whitehouse-Boxer as a side by side with the Johanns 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, 
traditionally--I think we ought to go back to the usual order on 
Whitehouse-Boxer. It being a second degree, it would go first.
  Mr. CONRAD. Well, that is the typical order. Let's take a quick 
pause, and we will check with the Senator.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. 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. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would refine my request to have the 
Whitehouse-Boxer amendment that is a side by side to Johanns be voted 
on first, and then Johanns amendment No. 735.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, how did we 
decide to deal with Senator Kyl's amendment?
  Mr. CONRAD. Senator Kyl's amendment is awaiting a side by side from 
Senator Baucus.
  Mr. KYL. That would be included within this list we have, however, 
with or without the side by side?
  Mr. CONRAD. I have not seen the side by side. Could we do this, could 
we begin on these?
  Mr. KYL. Of course.
  Mr. CONRAD. Then we will work diligently to come up with something 
that is acceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The purpose to amendment No. 763 was changed to read as follows:

   (Purpose: To protect the American people from potential spillover 
 violence from Mexico by providing $550 million in additional funding 
 for the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice 
 and supporting the Administration's efforts to combat drug, gun, and 
 cash smuggling by the cartels by providing: $260 million for Customs 
  and Border Protection to hire, train, equip, and deploy additional 
officers and canines and conduct exit inspections for weapons and cash; 
 $130 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hire, train, 
  equip and deploy additional investigators; $50 million to Al-cohol, 
  Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to hire, train, equip, and deploy 
 additional agents and inspectors; $20 million for the Human Smuggling 
  and Trafficking Center, $10 million for the Office of International 
  Affairs and the Management Directorate at DHS for oversight of the 
 Merida Initiative; $30 million for Operation Stonegarden; $10 million 
 to the Department of Justice for competitive grants to support local, 
 State, and Tribal law enforcement agencies located along the southern 
  border and in High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas to address drug-
   related criminal activity; $20 million to DHS for tactical radio 
communications; and $20 million for upgrading the Traveler Enforcement 
                         Communications System)

  The amendment (No. 772), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 4, line 14, decrease the amount by $33,165,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, decrease the amount by $36,815,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, decrease the amount by $42,696,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, decrease the amount by $47,420,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, decrease the amount by $53,806,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, decrease the amount by $22,465,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, decrease the amount by $36,115,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, decrease the amount by $40,846,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, decrease the amount by $46,570,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, decrease the amount by $52,956,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $22,465,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $36,115,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $40,846,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $46,570,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $52,956,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by $22,465,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, decrease the amount by $58,580,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, decrease the amount by $99,426,000,000.
       On page 5, line 20, decrease the amount by 
     $145,996,000,000.
       On page 5, line 21, decrease the amount by 
     $198,952,000,000.
       On page 5, line 25, decrease the amount by $22,465,000,000.
       On page 6, line 1, decrease the amount by $58,580,000,000.
       On page 6, line 2, decrease the amount by $99,426,000,000.
       On page 6, line 3, decrease the amount by $145,996,000,000.
       On page 6, line 4, decrease the amount by $198,952,000,000.
       On page 26, line 24, decrease the amount by $165,000,000.
       On page 26, line 25, decrease the amount by $165,000,000.
       On page 27, line 3, decrease the amount by $815,000,000.
       On page 27, line 4, decrease the amount by $815,000,000.
       On page 27, line 7, decrease the amount by $2,196,000,000.
       On page 27, line 8, decrease the amount by $2,196,000,000.
       On page 27, line 11, decrease the amount by $4,420,000,000.

[[Page 9422]]

       On page 27, line 12, decrease the amount by $4,420,000,000.
       On page 27, line 15, decrease the amount by $7,306,000,000.
       On page 27, line 16, decrease the amount by $7,306,000,000.
       On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by 
     $33,000,000,000.
       On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by 
     $22,300,000,000.
       On page 28, line 2, decrease the amount by $36,000,000,000.
       On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $35,300,000,000.
       On page 28, line 6, decrease the amount by $40,500,000,000.
       On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $38,650,000,000.
       On page 28, line 10, decrease the amount by 
     $43,000,000,000.
       On page 28, line 11, decrease the amount by 
     $42,150,000,000.
       On page 28, line 14, decrease the amount by 
     $46,500,000,000.
       On page 28, line 15, decrease the amount by 
     $45,650,000,000.
       On page 50, line 13, decrease the amount by 
     $33,000,000,000.
       On page 50, line 14, decrease the amount by 
     $22,300,000,000.


                           Amendment No. 763

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate prior to 
a vote on the Lieberman-Collins amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we would be willing to take the Lieberman-
Collins amendment by unanimous consent.
  Mr. CONRAD. There would be no objection on this side to taking 
Lieberman-Collins by unanimous consent.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Lieberman-
Collins amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Lieberman-
Collins amendment?
  If not, without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 763) was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 747

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, next is the Alexander amendment.
  May I say to colleagues, if staffs are listening, Members are 
listening, the Alexander amendment is next in line, then the Sessions 
amendment, then the Casey amendment, then the Ensign amendment, then 
the Kerry amendment, then the Cornyn amendment. It is very helpful if 
Senators are here when their amendments are called up. Also I say to 
colleagues, after the first vote, we are going to be dealing with 10-
minute votes.
  So, again, we have done the Lieberman-Collins amendment.
  The Alexander amendment is next, and Senator Alexander is here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I understand I have 60 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, this is the runaway debt limit 
amendment. It says 60 Senators have to agree before a budget can raise 
our national debt to more than 90 percent of U.S. gross domestic 
product, which this budget does every single year.
  We saw this week the leverage a lender can have over a borrower when 
the President of the United States fired the president of General 
Motors. Well, China, Japan, and Middle Eastern oil countries already 
own $1.4 trillion of U.S. debt. So vote yes on the runaway debt limit 
amendment if you do not want China, Japan, and Middle Eastern oil 
countries telling the United States how to run our business in the same 
way our Government is telling General Motors how to run its business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is a well-motivated amendment, but I 
think it is fatally flawed. The cure here is to make it harder to do a 
budget. If we are serious about reducing deficits and debt, I think all 
of us would want to do everything we can to encourage a budget 
resolution because it contains the fundamental disciplines to prevent 
deficits and debt from growing larger.
  So I would say to my colleagues, while I understand the sentiment, 
and share in it, I think we all have to be concerned about burgeoning 
debt. To make it harder to get a budget resolution, actually, I think 
undermines the effort to establish fiscal discipline because you lose 
all of the disciplines that are provided for in a budget resolution, 
all of the special points of order, the supermajority votes that are 
required to increase spending beyond what the budget resolution 
provides.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Alexander amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 747.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 119 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

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

                                NAYS--55

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 747) was rejected.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 772, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 772, as modified, offered by the Senator from Alabama, 
Mr. Sessions.
  The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this amendment would call for the level 
funding of nondefense--my amendment earlier today was nonveteran 
discretionary spending--by leveling the funding for 2 years and having 
a 1-percent growth for 3 years.
  This is reasonable and responsible, No. 1. No. 2, let me recall to 
our colleagues the stimulus package that we passed a few weeks ago, 
which increases nondefense discretionary spending by an average of 30 
percent over the next 3 years. We are not cutting our spending for 
discretionary accounts this year. We are seeing them surge. But in 
light of the stimulus package, this will be an excellent way to contain 
spending and save $200 billion over 5 years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, freezing domestic spending is a mistake at 
a

[[Page 9423]]

time of sharp economic downturn. You would be freezing education 
spending, freezing health care and transportation and freezing law 
enforcement.
  Beyond that, the Senator sought earlier to freeze veterans, and then 
he had an amendment to add back $1 billion for veterans. The problem 
is, the additional spending for veterans in the chairman's mark is $5.5 
billion. If you want to cut veterans $4.5 billion from the chairman's 
mark, vote for the Sessions amendment. If you want to keep veterans 
whole, vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 772, as modified.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 120 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

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

                                NAYS--58

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 772), as modified, 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 Senator from New Hampshire.


                 Amendments Nos. 783, 732, 762, and 776

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we approve the 
following amendments, agreed to by both sides: Senator Casey, amendment 
No. 783; Senator Kerry, amendment No. 732; Senator Isakson, amendment 
No. 762; and Senator Shaheen, amendment No. 776.
  Mr. CONRAD. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendments are agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senators who agreed to allow 
us to take their amendments by voice vote. I thank them for their 
courtesy to their colleagues. Senator Casey, Senator Kerry, Senator 
Isakson, and Senator Shaheen set a very good example for our colleagues 
and we appreciate it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished managers of the 
bill. One of the amendments that was just accepted--and I want to make 
clear Senator Lugar is a cosponsor of it, together with Senator Corker 
and others on that side of the aisle.
  This is an amendment that adds to the function 150 account. I want to 
make clear to colleagues why that was so important. Secretary Gates, a 
year and a half ago, while he was still Secretary serving with 
President Bush, said the following:

       What is clear to me is that there is a need for a dramatic 
     increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national 
     security, diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign 
     assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and 
     development.

  National Security Adviser Jim Jones, just the other day, mentioned 
that we have huge warships off the coast of Lebanon, but Hezbollah is, 
in fact, gaining more foothold because they are building schools and 
building homes and involved on the ground. Our diplomacy and our 
foreign policy needs to do that. With the acceptance of this amendment, 
hopefully, we are going to.
  I thank the distinguished managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I remind our colleagues that these are 10-
minute votes. This is sort of like the hors d'oeuvre for tomorrow. Get 
used to this. Please try to stick around.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Ensign is next.


                           Amendment No. 804

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 804 offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. The 
President, during his campaign, as well as during his speech to the 
Nation--his first major speech to the Nation--promised Americans who 
made less than $250,000 as a family that not one dime of their taxes 
would be raised. Repeatedly he has said it, time and again, and he 
listed taxes and basically said any taxes. That means direct and 
indirect taxes.
  My amendment makes the Senate and the House keep that promise made by 
the President.
  There is going to be a point made that the Parliamentarian is going 
to rule that this threatens the nature of the budget resolution being a 
privileged resolution. We submitted some questions to the 
Parliamentarian. We asked him:

       When was the last budget that lost its privileged status?

  Never happened. We also asked:

       Has one amendment ever resulted in a budget resolution 
     losing its privileged status?

  That has never happened.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask for 30 additional seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I hope we do not do that because if we 
start adding time on both sides--
  Mr. ENSIGN. Just 30 seconds to explain because we had a big 
discussion with the Parliamentarian.
  Mr. CONRAD. Because of the unusual nature of this, go ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, just to finish, Senator Gregg offered 
earlier--because the Parliamentarian was saying that one amendment 
could threaten but not necessarily kill this budget resolution, we 
asked the Parliamentarian to clarify. He said this has never happened. 
One amendment has never brought down a budget resolution from a 
privileged process. So do not make that as an excuse on this budget for 
stripping this amendment out of the conference report when it comes 
back, if it is adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I intend to vote for the Ensign amendment. 
I don't think any of us want to raise taxes on those earning less than 
$250,000 a year, and so I intend to vote for the Ensign amendment.
  On the question of threatening the special status of the budget 
resolution, the Parliamentarian made clear this morning in a series of 
questions that if we brought this matter back from conference, that 
would threaten the privileged nature of a budget resolution. That would 
be a very serious matter. But in the Senate, I intend to support the 
Ensign amendment.

[[Page 9424]]

  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 121 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 804) was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, 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.


                           Amendment No. 806

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 806, offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, my amendment creates a 60-vote point of 
order against legislation that will raise income taxes on small 
businesses. This is the third year in a row that I have offered this 
amendment. Previously, it has received as many as 63 votes. Last year, 
it got 58 votes, but it nevertheless was a strong bipartisan showing.
  For my colleagues' information, the National Federation of 
Independent Business supports this because they recognize what we all 
know, and that is that small businesses are the economic engine that 
creates jobs. Particularly in a tough economy, exactly the wrong thing 
to do is to raise taxes on the job creators, our small businesses.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, colleagues should know that the 
Parliamentarian has told us that if this amendment comes back from the 
conference committee, it would endanger the special privilege of a 
budget resolution. With that said, I intend to vote for it here in the 
Senate. I encourage colleagues to vote for it, if they are so inclined.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I understand what the chairman, Senator 
Conrad, has said. My hope is that the conference committee would not 
reflexively strip this amendment, if it passes by a large bipartisan 
majority, from the conference report but perhaps modify it in a way 
that it not render the budget resolution unprivileged.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that to the end of 
the list of amendments to be considered in this tranche, we add the Kyl 
amendment No. 793. That is according to the commitments we had made to 
colleagues that that would be added to this tranche.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 806.
  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 bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 82, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 122 Leg.]

                                YEAS--82

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

                                NAYS--16

     Bingaman
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cardin
     Casey
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Harkin
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Merkley
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Voinovich
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 806) was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 835

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relationship to 
amendment No. 835 offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg.
  The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Isakson be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment is an attempt to move down 
the road in resolving what is at the center of the problems which we 
have as a nation for fiscal policy in the future, which is that we are 
passing on to our children a country they cannot afford, primarily 
driven by the cost of entitlement programs. There are $66 trillion of 
unfunded entitlements.
  This is a proposal to start to address that issue through using a 
fast-track procedure, with a bipartisan task force. The debate this 
morning was about how that task force is structured. We believe, I feel 
strongly, that the task force must be bipartisan or will not be viewed 
as fair.
  In order to be bipartisan, a majority of both the minority members of 
the task force and the majority members of the task force have to vote 
for the proposal, whether or not there is going to be a membership 
which gives the majority a significant number of members more than the 
minority. But that minority membership has to vote as its group as a 
majority. It is the only fair way to do this; otherwise, you could end 
up with a report where, let's say, there are six Republicans on the 
task

[[Page 9425]]

force and only two approve it. That would not work properly. We need 
bipartisanship in this effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is actually a proposal that Senator 
Gregg and I have made. But this is at variance from our earlier 
agreement. Let me explain why. We talked about a membership of 16, 8 
Democrats and 8 Republicans. But that is when the Republicans 
controlled the White House; Democrats controlled the House and the 
Senate.
  Now Democrats have more numbers in the House and the Senate and 
control the White House. Yet the requirement of this task force is that 
the bipartisan task force, to report, has to have majority approval of 
each participating party.
  That gives our friends who are in the minority an unfair ability to 
influence the outcome. That does not recognize the political reality of 
the Senate controlled by Democrats, the House controlled by Democrats, 
the White House controlled by Democrats.
  Absolutely it should be bipartisan. But it should not be something 
that weights both parties the same. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  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.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan.) Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 123 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

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

                                NAYS--54

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 835) was rejected.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 844

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 844 offered by the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, this amendment is straightforward. One of 
the reasons Congress cannot control its runaway spending is that we 
always have 5-year budgets, where the tough decisions are made in the 
outyears, and in the first year of the budget, we don't make any tough 
decisions. This amendment will put a cap on the nondefense 
discretionary spending for the first 3 years of this budget using the 
very numbers of the budget.
  Why do we want to do this? Look at the budget. In the first year of 
this budget, nondefense discretionary spending grows by 7.3 percent. It 
is true that in the second and third and outyears, that rate of growth 
is projected to go down to under 2 percent. But we never get to the 
second year of any of our budgets because next year we will come back 
and start all over. We will have a budget where all the pain is in the 
outyears and the first year doesn't make any hard choices. We need to 
support this effort to put some teeth into the budget, put caps on at 
least the first 3 years of the numbers this budget proposes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I urge colleagues to vote against this 
amendment. At this time of extraordinary uncertainty, multiyear caps 
are especially unwise. Beyond that, we have a 1-year cap. This is a 
budget that will be revisited next year. A 1-year cap makes sense. 
Multiyear caps at a time of this uncertainty would be most unwise.
  I urge colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. CRAPO. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 844.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Are there any other 
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 124 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

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

                                NAYS--55

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 844) was rejected.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 836

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 836, offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am very pleased to offer this amendment 
with my colleague, Senator Snowe of Maine. It is a bipartisan amendment 
that would increase funding for LIHEAP from $3.2 billion to $5.1 
billion. That $5.1 billion is the total we spent this year.
  This is a program critical to seniors, critical to low-income people. 
With unemployment rates soaring in double digits, there are more and 
more people who will qualify. If we do not raise this ceiling, 
approximately 1.5 million households will lose help with their

[[Page 9426]]

heating bills, not only in the wintertime but in the hot months in the 
areas of the Southwest and Southeast because they, too, benefit from 
LIHEAP.
  Mr. President, I would be prepared to accept a voice vote, hopefully 
a very positive voice vote. If not, I would ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be approved.
  Mr. CONRAD. Without objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 836) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 869

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the next amendment that is in order is the 
Whitehouse-Boxer amendment.
  Senator Whitehouse.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, this amendment requires the Senate to balance, on the 
one hand, the newfound concern of our Republican colleagues about the 
reconciliation procedure they have used no less than 14 times for 
purposes such as raising the national debt to give America's suffering 
billionaires a tax cut against, on the other hand, jeopardy to the 
economy, to the public health or to the national security of the United 
States.
  It allows the reconciliation procedure to be considered if the Senate 
finds that inaction on climate change will jeopardize the public 
health, the economy or the national security of the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the economy, the national 
security, and the public health of the United States. I call up the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Whitehouse], for himself 
     and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 869.

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

       Section 202 is amended by inserting at the end the 
     following: ``(c) The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the 
     Budget shall not revise the allocations in this resolution if 
     the legislation provided for in subsections (a) or (b) is 
     reported from any committee pursuant to section 310 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974,'' unless, the Senate finds 
     that public health, the economy and national security of the 
     United States are jeopardized by inaction on global warming.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition? The Senator 
from Nebraska.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment. I ask them to vote against this amendment because it is 
important for Senate tradition.
  Some weeks ago, a man whom I respect a tremendous amount, Senator 
Byrd, and I circulated a letter. It was directed to the chairman of the 
Budget Committee. It simply said: Please don't use reconciliation to 
pass complex legislation such as climate change. We got over 30 
signatures on that--very bipartisan. We had Democrats and we had 
Republicans join in that.
  If we allow this amendment to pass, basically what we are saying is, 
under the terms of this language, a majority of Senators can arrive and 
simply take away our ability to have a robust debate, to have the 
ability to debate this issue the way it deserves, and this is 
enormously significant legislation.
  So I ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. It is important 
to the tradition of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, the pending amendment is not germane to 
the measure now before the Senate. I raise a point of order under 
section 305(b)2 of the Budget Act.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the 
point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for 
purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 42, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 125 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--56

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 42, the nays are 
56. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam 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.


                           Amendment No. 735

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided, on the Johanns amendment.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Senator Johanns has time in support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, let me thank my colleagues for their 
thoughtful approach to a very important issue.
  What this amendment essentially does is say that the budget 
reconciliation process will not be used to pass climate change 
legislation. There are many in this body who can talk about this 
institution and the importance of approaches such as this.
  Budget reconciliation was designed to reduce the deficit. It was 
never designed to pass complex legislation such as climate change. What 
this amendment does is it very clearly says that. It simply says 
reconciliation will not be used for that process.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. It is enormously 
important. I think it is an enormously important statement for this 
institution.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield the time in opposition to Senator Boxer.

[[Page 9427]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I wish to give you two reasons to vote 
no on this important, precedent-setting issue. Why would we start down 
this road taking a legal Senate procedure off the table? Have we ever 
done this before? We have looked it up and the answer is no.
  On the contrary, let me tell you when the Republicans used 
reconciliation. They used it 14 times in the 19 times it has been 
used--to cut food stamps, to cut energy assistance, to cut impact aid, 
to cut title I, to cut dairy price supports, and to cut the Social 
Security minimum benefit.
  Did I ever hear any of them then say: Oh, my goodness, reconciliation 
should not be used. Oh, no, which brings me to my second reason for 
voting no on this: hypocrisy and duplicity. Let me tell you what else 
the Republicans used it for: to cut Federal civilian and military 
retirement and disability COLAs, to delay and cut disaster loans to 
farmers. Let's stand tall for what we have a right to have, our rules. 
Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 126 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

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

                                NAYS--31

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 735) was agreed to.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 793

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided on amendment No. 793.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, my amendment prohibits Federal rationing of 
health care. A provision of the stimulus bill has raised a lot of 
concern. Madam President, $1.1 billion has been allocated for 
comparative effectiveness research.
  Here is the exact effective language from my amendment:

       The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not use 
     data obtained from the conduct of comparative effectiveness 
     research to deny coverage of an item or service under a 
     Federal health care program.

  That is all it does. Some say: Why do you need that? We are never 
going to do that.
  Well, then, we might as well say we are not going to do that. But 
when it came to Medicare Part D, we wanted to be sure we did not 
withhold coverage of a prescription drug, and as a result we provided 
that kind of language.
  Just last Thursday, the Acting Director of the NIH talked about 
research in terms of guiding future policies that support the 
allocation of health resources for the treatment of acute and chronic 
diseases. That is deciding what to cover and not cover.
  My amendment does not prevent the Secretary from protecting patients 
from unsafe or ineffective drugs. It is simply about using this kind of 
research to ration health care.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this is a rather remarkable amendment. 
It basically says we cannot pay any attention to the fruits of clinical 
research in making decisions about what is covered under health care 
reform. I find that pretty amazing.
  For example, let's say that clinical research shows a certain 
procedure is not only not good but it is harmful, such as Vioxx, which 
caused problems for seniors. This amendment says we cannot use that 
evidence. We cannot use that information. We can't do that because it 
might suggest we can't use a certain procedure--Vioxx.
  This is an ostrich amendment. This is a head-in-the-sand amendment. 
We want to have the benefits of clinical research so that doctors can 
make up their own minds what is the best procedure. We want the fruits 
and the benefit of clinical research to address the quality of health 
care.
  I urge Members to vote for health care and vote against this 
amendment.
  I might say, too, Madam President, that I misspoke earlier when I 
said who is a cosponsor of the bill. We are urging Senators Enzi and 
Hatch to cosponsor the bill. They haven't quite done that yet, but I 
think it is going to happen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
  Mr. KYL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 127 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

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

                                NAYS--54

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 793) was rejected.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 806

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, everyone in this body knows that small 
businesses are an extremely important dynamic part of the U.S. economy. 
I like to say that small business is the

[[Page 9428]]

engine that drives the U.S. economy. President Obama agrees that small 
businesses have generated 70 percent of net new jobs over the past 
decade. I was pleased to see that Senator Cornyn's small business 
amendment passed earlier tonight by an overwhelming vote of 82 to 16.
  America's small businesses have been suffering during this recession. 
Big banks have been cranking down lending to small businesses.
  In addition, job losses for small businesses have been staggering. A 
national employment report released today by Automatic Data Processing 
shows that 742,000 nonfarm private sector jobs were lost from February 
to March 2009. Of those 742,000 lost jobs, 614,000, or 83 percent, were 
from small businesses. Let me repeat that. From February to March, 
small businesses lost 614,000 jobs, or 83 percent of all nonfarm 
private sector job losses.
  The President's recent efforts to increase lending to the small 
business sector are commendable. The centerpiece of his small business 
plan will allow the Federal Government to spend up to $15 billion to 
purchase the small-business loans that are now hindering community 
banks and lenders. However, the positives that will come to small 
businesses from these loans which will ultimately have to be paid back 
will be heavily outweighed by the negative impact of the President's 
proposed tax increases. Helping small businesses get loans just to take 
that money back in the form of tax hikes is not wise.
  The President's Budget proposes to raise the top two marginal rates 
from 33 percent and 35 percent to 40 percent and 41 percent 
respectively, when PEP and Pease are fully reinstated. President 
Obama's marginal rate increase would mean an approximately 20 percent 
marginal tax rate increase on small business owners in the top two 
brackets.
  Many of my friends on the other side will say that while they agree 
that successful small businesses are vital to the success of the U.S. 
economy, the marginal tax increases for the top two brackets will not 
have a significant negative impact on small businesses.
  Proponents of these tax increases seek to minimize their impact by 
referring to Tax Policy Center data that indicate about 2 percent of 
small business filers pay taxes in the top two brackets. They argue 
that a minimal amount of small business activity is affected.
  However, there are two faulty assumptions to this small business 
filer argument.
  The first faulty assumption is that the percentage of small business 
filers is static. In fact, small businesses move in and out of gain and 
loss status depending on the nature of the business and business cycle. 
Also, the 2 percent figure from the Tax Policy Center is well below the 
percentage actually reported by the Government. For example, a 2007 
Treasury study states that, for flow-through businesses in 2006, 7 
percent to 9 percent of small business owners paid the top two marginal 
rates.
  The second faulty assumption is that the level of small business 
activity, including employment, is proportionate to the filer 
percentage.
  According to NFIB survey data, 50 percent of owners of small 
businesses that employ 20 to 249 workers would fall in the top two 
brackets. According to the Small Business Administration, about two-
thirds of the Nation's small business workers are employed by small 
businesses with 20 to 500 employees.
  Do we really want to raise taxes on these small businesses that 
create jobs and employ two-thirds of all small business workers? With 
these small businesses already suffering from the credit crunch, do we 
really think it is wise to hit them with the double-whammy of a 20-
percent increase in their marginal tax rates?
  Newly released data from the Joint Committee on Taxation demonstrates 
that in 2006, the last year for which data is available, 65 percent of 
the flow-through business income was earned by those making over 
$250,000. That flow-through business income will be subject to this 
budget's tax increases. This is a conservative number because it 
doesn't include flow-through business owners making between $200,000 
and $250,000 that will also be hit with the budget's proposed tax 
hikes.
  If the proponents of the marginal rate increase on small business 
owners agree that a 20 percent tax increase for half of the small 
businesses that employee two-thirds of all small business workers is 
not wise, then they should either oppose these tax increases or present 
data that show a different result.
  Madam President, today is April 1. It is known as April Fools Day. It 
is a day when folks play jokes on one another. But the state of our 
job-creating machinery, small business America, is no joke.
  Sadly, Senators Kerry and Snowe found out in a Small Business 
Committee hearing a short time ago that small business is getting the 
short end of the stick from the big banks. I suspect the treatment is 
even worse when the big banks getting the bailout money is considered. 
I put that question to the TARP oversight team the other day in a 
Finance Committee TARP oversight hearing.
  I told one of the witnesses, Professor Warren from Harvard, that we 
Senators need to stand behind the oversight committee, so that we can 
get answers from the Treasury.
  In any event, it seems to me that we need to step back from the big 
pieces of recent economic policy and take a look at the big picture. We 
need to look at what we are doing. The three pieces I am referring to 
are the TARP program, the stimulus bill, and this budget. All of these 
efforts involve trillions of taxpayer dollars.
  If our goal is doing the best we can to get jobs to every American 
who wants a job, then we need to recalibrate our actions. We ought to 
focus, as President Clinton once said, like a laser beam on job 
creation.
  President Obama and all of us agree at least 70 percent of new jobs 
come from small business. Let's take a look at how each of these three 
major pieces of legislation affects small business. On TARP, it looks 
like we need to make sure that the TARP recipients are providing credit 
to small business. On stimulus, less than one-half of 1 percent of the 
$787 billion went to small business tax relief. Less than one-half of 1 
percent.
  Now, on the budget, 82 Senators, a big bipartisan margin, agreed with 
Senator Cornyn that we ought to not raise taxes on small business. 
Senator Snowe, likewise, will be pressing the case for small business 
in a separate amendment.
  It may be April Fools Day, but this is no joke. We need to keep our 
eye on the job creation ball. Rather than hitting a foul ball with 
taxes on small business, we can hit a home run if we leave their taxes 
low. Future jobs depend on it.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate resumes consideration of the budget resolution on Thursday, 
April 2, there be 90 minutes remaining for debate, equally divided 
between the chair and ranking member or their designees, with 40 
minutes of that time for debate with respect to the McCain substitute 
amendment, with 20 minutes deducted from each manager, with the time 
for debate on the McCain amendment equally divided and controlled in 
the usual form; that for the remainder of today's session, no sense-of-
the-Senate amendments be in order to the budget resolution; that for 
the remainder of this evening, members be permitted to debate 
amendments they expect to offer during Thursday's session; that on 
Thursday, with respect to a vote sequence of amendments, the sequence 
would be established with the chair and ranking members concurring on 
any order; that during any sequence of votes established, there be 2 
minutes of debate prior to a vote, equally divided and controlled in 
the usual form; that after the first vote in any sequence, the 
remaining votes would be 10 minutes in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, for the information of my colleagues on

[[Page 9429]]

my side of the aisle, we intend to proceed, and I will list the 
speakers that we have this evening who have informed us that they wish 
to have time. Tomorrow, when we start the voting sequence, their 
amendments will be in order relative to the sequence that they are 
speaking here tonight; so the purpose of that being they do not have to 
call up their amendment tonight to protect their position in the order.
  We are going to begin with Senator McCain for 15 minutes. It is 
understood that there will be alternating speakers. On our side: 
McCain, 15 minutes; Senator Vitter, 10 minutes; Senator Coburn for 10 
minutes; Hutchison for 10 minutes; Bennett for 10 minutes; Senator 
Brownback for 10 minutes; Senator Snowe for 10 minutes; Senator 
Barrasso for 10 minutes.
  That is not a unanimous consent request. That is for the information 
of my colleagues. Actually, I ask unanimous consent that this evening, 
as these people arrive, these Senators be granted those times.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, in the morning, after the McCain 
amendment is disposed of, Senator Sanders would be the first to be able 
to offer an amendment on our side.
  For the information of Senators, tomorrow will be the so-called vote-
arama. That means Senators need to be ready to answer votes every 10 
minutes, and we will try to move expeditiously and with dispatch.
  We thank all Senators for their cooperation today, and I think next 
up is Senator McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 882

       (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 882.

  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, tonight I am pleased to be joined by 
Senators Coburn, Graham, and Hutchison to offer an amendment that will 
serve as an alternative to the 5-year budget offered by the chairman of 
the Senate Budget Committee and the 10-year budget offered by the 
President. Except for defense and veterans affairs, our proposal would 
cap discretionary funding, reduce our Nation's deficit and debt more 
than the proposals offered either by the Senate Budget Committee or the 
President.
  This 10-year budget alternative would cap discretionary funding at 
baseline levels, plus inflation, except for defense and veterans. 
Defense is increased by $190 billion above baseline over 5 years. 
Veterans is increased by $25 billion above baseline over 5 years, and 
other discretionary spending, $62 billion less than the Senate budget 
proposal over 5 years, $229 billion less than the President's proposal 
over 5 years, and $759 billion less than the President's proposal over 
10 years. Mandatory spending is $373 billion less than the Budget 
Committee proposal over 5 years, $922 billion less than the President's 
proposal over 5 years, and $3.2 trillion less than the President's 
proposal over 10 years.
  The deficit would be at $484 billion in 2014, the Conrad budget, the 
Senate Budget Committee budget deficit would be $508 billion, the 
President's would be $749 billion. It would be $448 billion by the year 
2019, compared with the President's $1.189 trillion deficit over 10 
years, and the Senate Budget Committee proposal is a 5-year budget.
  This results in a cumulative deficit reduction of $369 billion more 
than the Senate budget proposal, $977 billion more in reductions than 
the President's proposal, and $3.44 trillion--the deficit would be 
reduced--than the President's budget.
  The national debt would be $767 billion less than the Budget 
Committee over 5 years, $2 trillion less than the President's budget 
over 5 years, and $3.5 trillion less than the President's over 10 
years. In other words, why, why are we offering this alternative? It is 
simple. Our current national debt is $10.7 trillion. I know when we 
throw these numbers around, like $10.7 trillion, people's eyes glaze 
over.
  But we are talking about numbers that are unprecedented in the 
history of this country. The projected deficit for 2009 is $1.7 
trillion. The total cost of the stimulus bill enacted last month is 
$1.18 trillion. We gave the TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, 
$700 billion. Everyone expects the administration will request up to an 
additional $75 billion more.
  President Obama recently signed an Omnibus appropriations bill 
totaling $410 billion. The Federal Reserve recently pumped another $1.2 
trillion into our markets, and the President's budget request totals 
$3.6 trillion.
  Earlier this week the administration laid out a plan that will 
provide even more taxpayer dollars to the domestic automakers. The 
measure offered by the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee 
increases spending by $225 billion over current levels and raises at 
least $361 billion in taxes and borrows $1.1 trillion more than what we 
expect to borrow under current law.
  The President's budget doubles the public debt in 5 years and nearly 
triples it in 10 years. As a consequence, beginning in 2019, the 
Government will spend more on interest than on the defense of our 
Nation: $806 billion we will be spending on interest, $720 billion on 
defense. That is eight times more than we will spend on education, 
eight times more than we will spend on transportation.
  The budget proposals offered by the President and by the Senate 
Budget Committee put us on an unsustainable fiscal path, and we will 
pass on to future generations unprecedented levels of debt that they 
will never be able to afford.
  As I said on the floor of the Senate earlier this week, the 
President's budget numbers are staggering. On average, his budget adds 
$1 trillion to the debt every year for the next 10 years and contains 
$1.4 trillion in tax increases. It reinstates the death tax, and it 
discourages investment by raising taxes on capital gains and dividends. 
It would create more debt than under every President from George 
Washington to George W. Bush combined. As others have already warned, 
the Nation would be bankrupt. This is not just generational theft, it 
is multigenerational theft.
  That we are on a dangerous path is not just my opinion, in fact, it 
has been acknowledged by the President's Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget. In a recent interview, Peter Orszag was asked to 
respond to this statement:

       What deficit hawks are really saying is that the number is 
     so huge that it is literally going to swarm over us and 
     destroy us if we do not start dealing with it today.

  Mr. Orszag replied:

       There is no question that we are on an unsustainable fiscal 
     course, and we need to change course.

  The Federal budget must address the most pressing issues facing our 
Nation, and among these priorities are keeping Americans safe and our 
Nation secure and all of the other issues with which we are familiar.
  The budget must also ensure that taxpayers' dollars are managed in 
the most fiscally responsible manner by targeting resources to 
priorities, spending no more than needed, and holding their Government 
accountable to the taxpayer. This is exactly what our alternative will 
do. Our plan meets America's needs by spending less and reducing the 
debt faster than the Democrats' proposals. It caps discretionary 
spending, except for defense and veterans, at baseline, and increases 
defense spending by $190 billion. I would point out we are still in two 
wars.
  It also increases veterans spending by $25 billion over 5 years. It 
reduces the deficit to $484 billion by 2014, compared to the Budget 
Committee's $508 billion and the President's $749 billion. It keeps 
taxes low, and it shaves, by

[[Page 9430]]

2014, $767 billion more off the national debt than Chairman Conrad's 5-
year budget and nearly $3.5 trillion more than the President's 10-year 
budget.
  Today, the ranking member of the House Budget Committee unveiled the 
Republican alternative to the House budget resolution. In an op-ed 
about his plan in today's Wall Street Journal, Representative Paul Ryan 
wrote:

       House Republicans will offer an alternative plan. This too 
     is no ordinary budget. As the opposition party, we believe 
     this moment must be met by offering the American people a 
     different way forward--one based on our belief that America 
     is an exceptional nation, and we want to keep it that way. 
     Our budget applies our country's enduring first principles to 
     the problems of our day. Rather than attempting to equalize 
     the results of people's lives and micromanaging their 
     affairs, we seek to preserve our system of protecting our 
     natural rights and equalizing opportunity for all.

  I agree with Congressman Ryan's assessment, and that is why we are 
here tonight. My friends on the other side of the aisle have become 
fond of criticizing Republicans for just saying no and offering no 
alternatives or specifics.
  Well, we offered an alternative on the stimulus package. We offered 
an alternative on the omnibus bill. And we will continue, as members of 
the loyal opposition, to propose alternatives, complete with specifics 
and reflecting our philosophy as fundamentally fiscal responsible. I 
hope this will put an end once and for all to that argument.
  Our proposal budgets for 10 years. It achieves lower deficits than 
the Democratic plan in every year. By 2019, it yields nearly half the 
deficit proposed by the President. In doing so, we control Government 
debt so that under our plan, debt held by the public is $3.5 trillion 
less during the budget period. It gives priority to national defense 
and veterans health care. It addresses our critical energy goals. It 
takes steps to ensure health and retirement security by making these 
problems fiscally sustainable while preserving existing Medicare 
benefits for those beneficiaries age 55 and older. It does not raise 
taxes and extends the 2001 and 2003 tax laws. The nearly identical 
proposals of the House and Senate Republicans share the same goals of 
attaining health and retirement security, controlling our Nation's 
debt, putting our economy on a path of growth, and preserving the 
American legacy of leaving the next generation better off.
  We obviously are living in perilous economic times, but we will 
emerge from this period with strong job growth, rising incomes, 
restored confidence, and the ability to meet our obligation of passing 
on to the next generation the opportunity to make their lives safer, 
more prosperous, and more enriching than our own. We are dealing with a 
financial crisis, a housing crisis, and a consumer-led recession. Why 
then does the President's budget envision borrowing trillions of 
dollars for new initiatives without spending discipline or offsets? 
Addressing our most important and immediate problems should be our 
urgent priority. For two centuries, Americans have worked hard so their 
children could have better lives and greater opportunity. Are we going 
to reverse that order and force our children to work hard to pay off 
our debts because we didn't have the courage to make tough economic 
choices now? That is what this alternative is about--tough but 
realistic decisions designed to secure the future prosperity of our 
country. We were promised change, and that is what our proposal offers.
  In the op-ed I mentioned earlier, Congressman Ryan also wrote that 
``America is not the greatest nation on earth by chance. We earned this 
greatness by rewarding individual achievement, by advancing and 
protecting natural rights, and by embracing freedom. We (Republicans) 
intend to continue this uniquely American tradition.'' The Congressman 
is exactly right. We have an opportunity to put our Nation back on 
sound fiscal footing. Let us seize that opportunity. Let us propose, 
reason, debate and exhaust every means to invest in the future of this 
country according to our faith in free people and free markets, a faith 
that has produced more good for more people than ever imagined by our 
Forefathers. Let us not exploit this crisis for political gain. Let us 
do what every preceding generation has managed to do--bequeath 
subsequent American generations a land of unlimited opportunities.
  We can, and must do better, I urge my colleagues to support this 
alternative proposal.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record other 
provisions in this proposal.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Our proposal also includes:
       RESERVE FUNDS FOR:
       BRAC-like Social Security and Medicare & Medicaid 
     Commissions that would provide recommendations to reduce 
     mandatory spending by at least 4 percent over the next 5 
     years, and 7 percent over the next decade.) For the purposes 
     of this Resolution, for individuals 55 or older, Medicare 
     will not be changed (other than income-relating to the 
     prescription drug benefit).
       Sense of the Senate to Protect Seniors. This budget should 
     preserve existing Medicare benefits for those beneficiaries 
     age 55 or older (other than means testing for high-income 
     beneficiaries under the Medicare prescription drug benefit. 
     To make the program sustainable and dependable, those 54 and 
     younger should be able to enroll in a new Medicare Program 
     with health coverage similar to what is now available to 
     Members of Congress and Federal employees. Starting in 2021, 
     seniors should receive support payments based on income, so 
     that low income seniors receive extra support, and high 
     income seniors receive support relative to their incomes.
       Comprehensive health reform legislation that reduces the 
     costs, increases access to health insurance, and improves 
     quality of care for Americans.
       Enhanced eligibility for disabled military retirees and 
     their survivors to receive retired pay, veterans' disability 
     compensation, and survivor benefit plan annuities.
       Energy security activities, including funding for waste 
     storage alternatives, clean energy deployment, refurbishing 
     the transmission grid and increasing the use of nuclear 
     power.
       Tax code modernization, including income (includes AMT 
     revenue) and payroll tax reform that makes the tax code fair, 
     more pro-growth, easier to administer, improves compliance, 
     and aids U.S. international competitiveness.
       Defense acquisition and contracting reform.
       Bipartisan and comprehensive investigation into the 
     underlying causes of the current economic crisis and to 
     recommend ways to avoid another crisis.
       ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS:
       Point of Order against mandatory spending legislation that 
     increases the deficit until the President submits and 
     legislation is enacted to restore solvency to the Social 
     Security system.
       Point of Order against a budget resolution containing a 
     debt held by the public-to-GDP ratio that exceeds 65%.
       Point of Order against a budget resolution containing 
     deficit levels exceeding 8% of GDP.
       Additional provisions include discretionary spending 
     limits, program integrity initiatives, and points of order 
     against advance appropriations and legislation increasing 
     short-term deficit.

  Mr. McCAIN. We, as the loyal opposition, are required to offer an 
alternative to the President's budget and that passed by the Senate 
Budget Committee on a party-line vote. These are tough decisions that 
have to be made. We must continue to fund defense and take care of our 
veterans. But we are also going to have to reform entitlement programs, 
and we all know that. There is no expert or ordinary citizen in America 
who doesn't agree that we have to reform Medicare, Social Security, and 
other mandatory spending programs which are consuming a larger part of 
our budget. We need a bipartisan commission that has the BRAC 
imperatives, that they meet and we come up with a solution to the 
burgeoning fiscal problems posed by entitlement programs and other 
mandatory spending programs.
  I was in the other body in 1983, when Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill 
sat down together across the table and negotiated and saved Social 
Security for decades. That is what we need to do again. After this 
budget debate is over, why don't we sit down, the President, 
Republicans, and Democrats, together, and try and solve our Nation's 
problems. Americans voted for change. Americans want change. That 
change is to address these compelling and terrible issues that affect 
this Nation and our future in a bipartisan fashion. It is pretty clear 
what is going to pass tomorrow night sometime, but wouldn't

[[Page 9431]]

it be time for us to sit down together and chart a path for the 
Nation's future in an environment committed to fiscal responsibility on 
both sides of the aisle and ensuring our children's future?
  We will be discussing this more for a short period of time before the 
vote tomorrow.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                           Amendment No. 759

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I have listened with interest to the 
comments of the Senator from Arizona. I would like to point out one 
fact to fellow Senators and to the country: In this proposed budget, 
there is roughly $2.2 trillion worth of revenue. There is also roughly 
$2.2 trillion worth of mandatory spending. The mandatory spending eats 
up all the revenue. That means everything else we spend in a 
discretionary way--and that includes defense--is going to come out of 
borrowed money. That is the first time we have ever had that situation 
outside of wartime. It is a cautionary note. I salute the Senator from 
Arizona for his remarks.
  I rise to comment upon an amendment I have submitted, No. 759. I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Hatch be added as a cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. This amendment deals with the tax treatment of 
charitable contributions. In the trillions of dollars we have been 
talking about today, it may seem a relatively small amount. But to the 
people who are involved in it, it becomes a very major issue. It is 
worth focusing on. As I have said before, I have been called upon by 
arts organizations in the State of Utah that are very concerned that 
the contributions that keep them alive have dropped off as a result of 
the slowing down of the economy. They are hoping they might recover 
some of that dropoff from Federal dollars. Interestingly enough, the 
President's proposal calls for a reduction in the tax incentive for 
people to give money to charitable contributions. So the President is 
proposing something that will hurt the charities, will cause their 
income to go down in the name of fiscal responsibility and saying we 
need more Federal money, so let's change the tax treatment so we get 
more Federal money from those who would otherwise contribute to 
charitable contributions, and then turns around and watches the 
charities come in and say: We have to make that up or we will have to 
start laying off people. The President talks about saving jobs. The 
nonprofits provide over 10 million jobs. If they cannot get the money 
from their contributors and they cannot get the money from the Federal 
Government, they will lose jobs. It is foolish for us to say: All 
right, in the name of fiscal responsibility, let's take the money away 
from the contributors and bring it into the Federal coffers and then, 
to save the jobs, let's take the money out of the Federal coffers and 
give it to the charities so the Federal Government becomes the 
decisionmaker as to which charities get the money rather than the 
people themselves.
  Charitable giving is an almost unique American experience. As we look 
at other countries around the world, they do not have the level of 
charitable contributions we have. We contribute an enormous amount to 
nonprofit organizations, and we do it on the basis of what we want to 
support. We, unlike European nations, do not have governmental support 
in the form of expenditures made to churches. You go to churches in 
other countries, and it is the government that supports them. Their 
pews are empty by comparison to the religious services held in the 
United States because people don't take it seriously. Here the 
Government stays out of funding churches and says: If you want to have 
a viable church, a viable religious experience, you have to provide 
sufficient incentive to the people who align themselves with your 
church that they will support it out of their own pockets.
  That is what has made religion so viable and vigorous in America, 
because people do support it out of their own pockets, and it does not 
have a direct Government expenditure, but it does have Government 
approval of those kind of expenditures in the tax treatment of 
charitable contributions, tax treatment which the President now says he 
wants to change. That is a foolish thing to do, and that is why I have 
offered the amendment, along with my cosponsors. I hope the amendment 
will be voted on in appropriate fashion tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                           Amendment No. 799

  Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I rise to discuss amendment No. 799 that 
prioritizes small towns and rural communities in Colorado and all over 
this Nation at a time when so many there do not have sufficient access 
to quality, affordable health care. My amendment establishes a reserve 
fund that addresses inequalities in Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement 
that fall most harshly on rural areas.
  I thank Senator Roberts of Kansas for his strong support on this 
issue. Rural health disparities are truly a bipartisan issue, and I am 
honored that the distinguished Senator has cosponsored this amendment. 
I also thank Senator Lincoln of Arkansas for her cosponsorship. I ask 
unanimous consent to print letters of support for my amendment in the 
Congressional Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BENNET. The current system disadvantages rural areas in primary 
care and outpatient services, hospitals, and the supply of providers in 
the workforce. The problem is truly widespread. In Colorado, almost 75 
percent of the counties are considered rural. Health care providers in 
our rural communities are under enormous pressure to provide broad 
access to quality health care. They need our help. My amendment can 
open doors to reducing these disparities. It is important to know that 
this amendment is written to ensure deficit-neutrality as well. Thus, 
it is fiscally responsible.
  Colorado, like many other States, has a strong backbone of rural 
communities that work with the limited resources they have. For years, 
there have been payment disparities between rural and urban areas in 
Medicare and Medicaid. This imbalance only discourages providers from 
staying in rural communities and underfunds hospitals that serve as a 
safety-net for a majority of my population.
  Over 90 percent of Colorado counties are considered health 
professional shortage areas. These areas are severely underserved. They 
lack an adequate workforce. For example, six counties in Colorado do 
not have a full-time primary care physician. Fourteen counties do not 
even have a hospital. We will work hard to ensure that every family has 
insurance coverage, but this alone will not lead to access to health 
care services. Small communities need doctors and nurses, along with 
many other providers. Yet it must be worth their while to take new 
Medicare and Medicaid patients. Understanding this reality is critical 
if we are to improve our health care system.
  My amendment would highlight that future health care legislation 
should address rural disparities in a deficit-neutral way. I thank the 
chairman for all his good work on this budget resolution. I urge 
support from all my colleagues on this issue and the chairman's 
thoughtful, important underlying legislation.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                                 Colorado Rural Health Center,

                                       Aurora, CO, March 31, 2009.
       To Whom It May Concern: The Colorado Rural Health Center 
     (CRHC) is writing this letter of support for Senator Bennet's 
     proposed amendment, which emphasizes the importance of 
     Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement in accessing healthcare 
     services in rural areas of the United States. Serving as the 
     State Office of Rural Health, representing 29 Critical Access 
     Hospitals and 44 Rural Health Clinics throughout Colorado, 
     CRHC would like to encourage Congress to consider rural 
     clinics and hospitals, when deciding future budgetary 
     actions. CRHC understands these are tough economic times, but 
     it is essential that these rural safety net clinics, 
     hospitals, and other providers are

[[Page 9432]]

     able to survive since they are often the sole source of 
     healthcare services serving a community or county.
       There are a number of primary care clinics across rural 
     Colorado that are not designated as Federally Qualified 
     Health Centers (FQHCs) also known as Community Health 
     Centers. These rural clinics that are not FQHCs are valuable 
     safety net clinics, yet they have not received the same sort 
     of boost in funding from the federal stimulus package nor do 
     they receive the same amount of assistance from the federal 
     government, leaving them to rely more on reimbursement rates 
     from Medicare and Medicaid to remain viable.
       In addition to the Rural Health Clinics and Critical Access 
     Hospitals with whom CRHC directly works, there are numerous 
     other non-FQHC clinics that deliver care to rural Coloradans. 
     As stated above, for some of these clinics, it is the 
     Medicaid and/or Medicare reimbursement rates that help keep 
     their doors open. Any substantial cut in Medicaid and/or 
     Medicare provider rates greatly impacts and potentially 
     threatens the viability of healthcare in rural and 
     underserved areas of our state. At current reimbursement 
     rates, it is becoming more and more difficult for providers 
     to continue to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients due to 
     the abysmal reimbursement. Colorado is set to cut provider 
     rates yet again this year, due to the $1 billion dollar 
     shortfall in our state general funds. Unfortunately, this 
     means the federal government is being looked to in order to 
     help strengthen these vital rural healthcare services.
       CRHC understands difficult decisions need to be made in 
     regards to the federal budget. We urge you to please consider 
     and improve rural healthcare services by improving the 
     sustainability of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates. 
     Thank you for your consideration.
                                                   Lou Ann Wilroy,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                    National Rural


                                           Health Association,

                                   Kansas City, MO, April 1, 2009.
     Hon. Michael Bennet,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bennet: The National Rural Health Association 
     (NRHA) strongly supports your amendment to S. Con. Res. 13, 
     the Budget Resolution, to improve the health of 62 million 
     rural Americans. Your amendment, which creates a deficit-
     neutral reserve fund to target the grave inequities in rural 
     areas, will not only protect the fragile rural health care 
     safety net, it will make health care more accessible and 
     affordable for all rural Americans.
       Health care reform which will expand health care coverage 
     is necessary and laudable--in fact, rural Americans lack 
     insurance at a higher rate than their urban counterparts--but 
     there is a greater crisis in rural America: access to health 
     care. Coverage does not equate to access. Over 50 million 
     Americans live in areas where there are too few providers to 
     meet their basic primary care needs. Yet these rural patients 
     face the most daunting of health care challenges. Per capita, 
     rural populations are older, poorer and sicker than their 
     urban counterparts, and illnesses associated with poverty, 
     including infant mortality, are much more pronounced in rural 
     populations.
       Rural providers struggle, due to grave inequities in 
     Medicare and Medicaid payments, to keep their doors open. 
     Several Medicare payment provisions, vital to the 
     sustainability of rural providers, are once again set to 
     expire, thereby critically jeopardizing the rural health care 
     safety net providers and seniors' access to care.
       Senator, for any health reform to be a success, the health 
     care crisis in rural America must first be resolved--for it 
     does not matter if you have health insurance coverage if you 
     do not have access to a doctor or other health provider. For 
     health reform to be a success, the rural health care safety 
     net must be prevented from crumbling. Three reforms are 
     crucial:
       1. Equity in reimbursement must occur;
       2. The workforce shortage crisis must be abated;
       3. Decaying rural health care infrastructure must be 
     repaired and non-existent infrastructure must be created.
       Senator Bennet, the NRHA applauds your efforts and could 
     not support your amendment more. Creating a reserve fund to 
     address the systemic inequities in rural health care and 
     prioritizing eliminating those inequities as a part of health 
     care reform will finally create equity for the 62 million 
     people who call rural America home.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Beth Landon,
                                                        President.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                       Amendment Nos. 751 and 787

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to present two amendments to the 
budget resolution. They will be made in order and voted on tomorrow. 
The first is amendment No. 751. The idea behind that is very simple but 
important. It is to protect against what many of us fear, which is 
significant energy tax increases that will hit consumers, 
manufacturers, farmers, many others in our economy and hurt them as we 
are trying to recover from this crippling recession.
  Specifically, my amendment would add language to what is currently in 
the budget resolution in the area of the deficit-neutral reserve fund 
to invest in clean energy and preserve the environment. In that section 
of the budget resolution, my amendment would simply insert language 
that it would ``not increase the cost of producing energy from domestic 
sources, including oil and gas from the Outer Continental Shelf or 
other areas, would not increase the cost of energy for American 
families, would not increase the cost of energy for domestic 
manufacturers, farmers, fishermen, or other domestic industry, and 
would not enhance foreign competitiveness against U.S. businesses.''
  No one in this body--in fact, no one across America I know of--has a 
problem with efforts to invest in clean energy and to preserve the 
environment.
  There is no debate there. What we have a problem with is when we come 
up to Washington and get in this stale either/or debate--either it is 
that or it is traditional oil and gas, as if the two have to be at 
constant loggerheads and as if we do not have to produce under both of 
those headings very aggressively to get out of the energy deficit we 
are in. I believe in new alternative renewable energy. I believe in new 
technology. But I also believe in traditional energy sources as an 
absolutely necessary bridge to get us to that future.
  That gives rise to my amendment. I think it is crucial that we reject 
those aspects of the Obama budget which would tax traditional energy 
such as oil and gas, put an enormous burden on those providers in 
Louisiana and many other places around the country--folks who provide 
good, reliable energy domestically for our Nation right now--and I 
believe it would be a similar mistake to adopt whole hog in its present 
form the President's climate change proposals which would also place 
heavy taxes and heavy cost increases on energy consumers.
  Now, where am I pulling this from? I am pulling it from the 
President's own budget proposals, his concrete, specific proposals on 
climate change and taxing domestic energy, and I am pulling it 
specifically from what he has laid out in terms of movement in that 
direction.
  Perhaps the single clearest expression we have in that regard is a 
statement the President made about his cap-and-trade proposals in 
January of 2008 as he was in the midst of his Presidential campaign. He 
was speaking about cap and trade. He was very straightforward, very 
clear, and said:

       Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates 
     would necessarily skyrocket regardless of what I say . . . 
     that will cost money. They will pass that money on to 
     consumers.

  Electricity costs, energy costs, not just increasing at the margin 
but skyrocketing. Unfortunately, the President has followed through on 
that promise with regard to his specific climate change and energy 
proposals. When you look at his budget, they, in fact, ensure this sort 
of skyrocketing, both in terms of climate change proposals, which this 
quote directly refers to, but also in terms of producing traditional 
energy here in this country in areas of oil and gas.
  The President of the United States has laid out significant tax 
increases on domestic energy. This would cost real jobs here and now. 
It would be a significant antistimulus, and it would hamper domestic 
production exactly when we need it the most.
  Let me repeat--let me back up and repeat--I support investment in new 
technology. I support development of new alternative and particularly 
renewable forms of energy, and I have cast many votes in support, in 
furtherance of that goal. But it is not either/or. It has to be all of 
the above because we need to build that new energy future based on new 
renewable sources and new technology, but we also need to get there, 
and we also need the

[[Page 9433]]

bridge to get there, which includes traditional energy, produced in 
this country, particularly natural gas, also oil, so we can cross that 
bridge, get to the future, without bankrupting ourselves in the 
process.
  It is interesting, just as we are still apparently caught up in this 
stale either/or debate and we are attacking and taxing and burdening 
domestic oil and gas production, it is interesting that our neighbor to 
the north, Canada, is doing exactly the opposite. They are doing 
exactly the positive thing I am talking about by encouraging both--by 
encouraging new renewable forms of energy and at the same time 
encouraging domestic production of oil and gas.
  Specifically, in early March of this year, March 3, the government of 
Alberta announced a new three-point incentive program specifically 
designed to help keep Albertans working in the province's energy sector 
during the current global economic slowdown. The highlights of the 
three-point plan include a drilling royalty credit for new conventional 
oil and natural gas wells; a new well incentive program, which offers a 
maximum 5-percent royalty rate for the first year of production from 
new oil or gas wells; and to encourage the cleanup of inactive oil and 
gas wells, the province will invest $30 million in a fund committed to 
abandoning and reclaiming old well sites. Those are exactly the sort of 
incentives in present law that the President would get rid of. Those 
are exactly the sort of areas where President Obama proposes moving in 
the opposite direction with tax increases which are disincentives for 
much needed domestic production.
  To quote the Canadian Energy Minister, Mel Knight, on this 
announcement of their policy:

       While we cannot make up for the impact that global 
     financial markets are having on Alberta, we are doing what we 
     can. This short-term incentive program introduces innovative 
     ways to help spur activity in our energy drilling and service 
     sector during this economic downturn.

  That is exactly the sort of approach we should be taking here in this 
country. Yes, let's invest in new technology. Yes, let's develop new 
sources of energy, new and renewable. But at the same time, let's 
maintain and expand the domestic production of oil and gas as that 
bridge to the future, as that bridge to that new energy future that 
will take some time to build.
  Unfortunately, our President is moving in the opposite direction. He 
is proposing to levy significant tax increases on domestic oil and gas 
production. That is bad for our energy security, and it is a major 
antistimulus which will keep us in recession even longer.
  So, again, my amendment No. 751 is very simple. It would simply add 
to the relevant part of the budget resolution the following language, 
that it:

     would not increase the cost of producing energy from domestic 
     sources, including oil and gas from the Outer Continental 
     Shelf or other areas; would not increase the cost of energy 
     for American families; would not increase the cost of energy 
     for domestic manufacturers, farmers, fishermen, or other 
     domestic industries; and would not enhance foreign 
     competitiveness against U.S. businesses. . . .

  I commend that amendment to all of my colleagues, Democratic and 
Republican.
  Secondly, Madam President, I will also formally present and have a 
vote on a second amendment tomorrow, amendment No. 787. Amendment No. 
787 has to do with the TARP program, the so-called Troubled Asset 
Relief Program. Again, it is very simple. It would simply say, except 
for the TARP money which is already out the door and except for the 
$100 billion that is committed to the Treasury's newest plan to buy up 
toxic assets--which was the original point all along--with those two 
exceptions, the remainder of the TARP money will be returned to the 
taxpayer and bring down the debt, will reduce the debt. That is a 
significant amount of money. The entire TARP program, of course, is 
$750 billion. So far, approximately $371 billion is out the door. It 
would also create an exception under my amendment for $100 billion for 
this newly announced program of troubled assets. The remainder would go 
to buy down debt, not increase as much this horrendous debt we are on 
the road to doubling and tripling under this budget. That would save 
literally hundreds of billions of dollars. I daresay, of all of the 
myriad dozens and dozens of budget amendments we will be asked to 
consider and vote on, this probably saves the most money, reduces debt 
the most. If it is not No. 1, it is very close to that.
  CBO says they would expect us to never recoup all of that TARP money 
we are sending out the door. They are guesstimating we will only recoup 
half of that. So building that into the formula, this amendment will 
save hundreds of billions of dollars.
  But there is another even more important reason to adopt this 
amendment; that is, to get back to the original intent of the TARP 
program and not allow it to continue to be used for a slush fund--first 
by the Bush administration, now by the Obama administration--for every 
random idea they develop every other week.
  As we know, that is exactly the history of this fund and this 
program. It was proposed specifically to allow the Treasury to buy up 
troubled assets, to get those off the books of the troubled banks, and 
that is how it was sold to the Congress, 100 percent lock, stock, and 
barrel. In fact, Secretary Paulson, at the time, specifically said he 
did not want to, did not think it was a good idea to invest directly in 
troubled institutions and get preferred stock. Congress, without my 
vote, passed the program.
  Then, within a few weeks, literally within a few weeks of that 
passage, everything changed. The original troubled asset program model 
was thrown out the window and the Treasury started doing exactly what 
Secretary Paulson said it should not do, exactly what he had previously 
rejected by directly infusing capital into banks and taking preferred 
stock.
  Since then, there have been at least five other uses of the TARP 
program which have been imagined and instituted by, really, executive 
fiat because the underlying legislation has not changed at all.
  Then we finally came around full circle this past month under the new 
Obama administration. Secretary Geithner said: Gee, why don't we use 
TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, to actually buy up troubled 
assets? What a novel idea. It was the original idea. I guess if you go 
round and round often enough, you will eventually come back to where 
you started. And that is the new program that the Secretary said would 
take $100 billion.
  My amendment, again, is simple. It says the money that is out the 
door is out the door. We cannot do anything about that, unfortunately. 
And we will reserve the $100 billion for that newly announced program, 
which was the original intent, sole intent of TARP. But everything 
else--everything else that was imagined and that TARP was used and 
abused to authorize since it was first passed--everything else has to 
stop. If the new administration thinks some of these things are 
necessary ideas, great; they should come back to Congress and get real 
and proper and appropriate authority for that activity, which TARP 
never was.
  In doing so, in adopting this sort of amendment, we will save the 
taxpayer and reduce the debt several hundred billion dollars, well over 
$150 billion by any estimate. If we want to get serious about the debt, 
if we want to heed the call of the American people to control that 
runaway deficit and debt, this is the single biggest thing we can do in 
sight to do that to begin to turn the corner. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment. In contrast, voting against this amendment will 
essentially be a vote for everything Treasury has done and continues to 
do outside the original stated intent of the TARP program. I believe 
that is a very bad vote, both on the substance and in terms of where 
the American people rightly are.
  I commend both of these amendments to all my colleagues. I look 
forward to further debate and voting on them as we proceed on the 
budget resolution tomorrow. I thank the Chair.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Michigan is 
recognized.

[[Page 9434]]


  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I wish to speak this evening about an 
amendment I have filed. Do I understand it is not actually in order to 
offer amendments at this time; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.


                    Michigan State in the Final Four

  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, before talking about a very important 
and serious amendment I will be offering, I wish to take a point of 
personal privilege to speak about my alma mater, Michigan State 
University, that is in the final four. I have to say for the record, I 
knew they would get there. The final four is in Detroit. We are 
thrilled at Ford Field, a state-of-the-art facility. They play on 
Saturday night, and I am saying ``go State'' right now. For all those 
listening who are Michigan State fans, let's root them on because it is 
a point of terrific pride for Michigan State University, after a hard-
fought year with, I think, the best coach in the league, Tom Izzo, who 
is now going to represent us in the final four. I appreciate that.


                           Amendment No. 879

  Madam President, I have an amendment I will be offering that has been 
filed, amendment No. 879. I will be offering it tomorrow. I wish to 
read it briefly because I think it is important to read what this is. 
This is about climate change and it is about being for something and 
not just against something, and we have had a lot of amendments doing 
that.
  The amendment says we will decrease greenhouse gas emissions with a 
policy that will invest in energy technologies, reduce greenhouse 
gases, create new jobs, strengthen the manufacturing competitiveness of 
the United States, diversify the domestic clean energy supply, protect 
consumers and regions, and include opportunities for agriculture and 
forestry.
  This is the text of the amendment. As I indicated before, my 
amendment is about what we should be for. We have seen a number of 
amendments on the floor saying what we shouldn't do and what we can't 
do. This is about what we can do and what we should do.
  This budget is about investing in America's future. Our policy on 
climate change must do the same thing. As will the budget, if it is 
done right--and I believe we can do this right--climate change 
legislation will create new jobs in the great State of Michigan, in the 
great State of New Hampshire, and all across this country and 
revolutionize and revitalize our economy if this is done right.
  Coming from a Midwestern State where economic troubles are not new--
in fact, we now have 12 percent unemployment. I could spend a lot of 
time, as I have in the past on this floor, talking about what is 
happening to our families. I understand the risks associated with 
poorly designed climate policy, but I also understand that our 
economy--Michigan's economy, the U.S. economy--cannot go forward with 
the same old policies, dependent on foreign oil and pollution, that 
harms both our health and our economic interests. Climate change 
legislation, if designed right, will be a significant opportunity for 
new jobs and an economic transformation for our country.
  Climate change can and must look out for working families and 
businesses, whether it be a farmer, a manufacturer or a cleantech 
engineer. That is why I propose this amendment, so the budget instructs 
the future of climate policy to be well balanced, so it creates new 
jobs, strengthens manufacturing, and breaks America of our dangerous 
addiction to foreign oil.
  We can no longer rely on the same old technologies and the same old 
fuels. With new energy solutions come new jobs and new industries. 
America has always led the world in innovation and invention, and we 
can do it again with green energy. With or without a climate policy, 
energy companies, industries, and entrepreneurs must make investments 
for the future. This amendment will ensure that a cap-and-trade policy 
will provide direction for future investments. This amendment will 
direct us toward a smart climate policy that will protect and 
strengthen manufacturing.
  First, we can ensure a level playing field in the world economy by 
bringing other countries into an international agreement and ensuring 
that jobs remain in the United States by preventing rising energy costs 
from being a factor. Second, new manufacturing opportunities will 
arise. For example, to meet the needs of new clean energy production, 
new technologies must be produced. The massive scale of this need will 
create new markets for American manufacturers.
  Recent history has shown what happens when we rely primarily on 
foreign sources of energy. We subject ourselves to less than friendly 
international governments that can leverage unstable supplies and 
higher prices against the people we represent. This amendment will take 
us steps further to reducing our dangerous addiction to foreign oil.
  Furthermore, our domestic energy needs will increase over time, and 
all sources of clean energy should be added to our portfolio. Good 
investing, wise investing always requires diversification, so we must 
bring new clean sources of energy into the mix.
  This is a national and international problem, and we have to solve 
this together. Our President now has been spending time with global 
leaders talking about issues we know we need to be working together on. 
As he is reaching out to them, we must do that as well. But we know 
that through this amendment, we will ensure that all regions contribute 
equitably and help each other as America transitions to a clean energy 
future.
  A successful climate policy also has to include all stakeholders. 
Agriculture and forestry can make significant contributions to 
greenhouse gas reductions--as much as 20 percent--with the right 
incentives. This amendment will provide clear and certain opportunities 
for landowners as to how they can achieve emission reductions and 
benefit from doing so.
  Overall, this amendment is the road map, I believe, to a reasonable, 
balanced climate policy. With policies that meet these objectives, we 
can ensure the American public that greater economic opportunity lies 
ahead. We can do this while meeting the ambitious emission reduction 
targets set by President Obama.
  Instead of arguing about what we can't do, I urge the Senate to 
embrace what we can do and what we must do to create jobs for the 
future, to get us off our dependence on foreign oil, and to improve our 
environment. This is about the future of the country. I ask my 
colleagues to support this amendment that gives us a road map on how to 
get there.
  Thank you very much.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  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 wish to spend some time tonight 
talking about the budget that is before us as well as some good 
Government things we can do.
  If you are a typical American family, husband and wife working and 
you are bringing home $3,500 a month, and all of a sudden one of you 
gets a cut in pay, where now you are bringing $3,000 a month home, what 
is the first thing you do? The first thing you do, knowing the kind of 
economic times we are in, is you start saying: What is necessary and 
what is not? Where can we make up this difference? What can we not 
spend money on so that, in fact, we are not using our credit cards to 
finance a living standard that is less than what we have today? Almost 
every family in America would do that. They would go through and they 
would say: Well, utilities are important, food is important, clothing 
for the kids is important, automobile repair, gasoline is important, 
but building a new addition onto our house isn't important right now. 
It needs to wait. Going to the movies may not be important. Going out 
to eat may not be important, in terms of a list of priorities.

[[Page 9435]]

Every family would look at what their expenditures are and say: Where 
do we cut spending?
  This budget does exactly the opposite of that. We have markedly 
declining revenues, and we are going to increase spending $1.3 
trillion. The net effect of that is not so much that we might want to 
do good things for people, but it is that we are going to be doing 
those good things by taking the money--not from us and not even from 
our kids--but from our grandkids. So within this budget--the real 
budget, the Obama budget--are the plans for us to grow Government 
spending over the next 10 years to a level we have never seen before 
and at a rate of growth we have never seen before.
  Why would we do that? We wouldn't do it with our own home and our own 
family; we certainly wouldn't do that with our own business. Why is it 
Congress thinks, and this budget purports, that we can borrow our way 
and spend our way out of financial difficulty? The fact is, we can't. 
We cannot do that. It is impossible for us to do that.
  The dread secondary effect of that is to cripple potential growth in 
the future. Let me explain how that works. As we go from $11 trillion 
in debt to $30 trillion in debt, what is going to happen to us? How 
much inflation ultimately will come about because we do that kind of 
borrowing? Well, what will happen is everything you have and everything 
you try to buy will cost more and everything you own will be worth 
less. So what we are doing is we are generationally thieving, stealing 
money for us today so we don't have as much problem recognizing the 
pain.
  What is called for in our country today is not growing the 
Government, it is shrinking the Government. Here is what we do know, 
according to GAO and IG reports that are published and that any 
American can find: that out of the money we do spend every year, at 
least $380 billion of it is lost to fraud, duplication or waste. 
Nowhere in this budget is there any attention to any of that; not one 
place is there attention to it. My friend, President Obama, campaigned 
on the fact that the first thing he was going to do was a line-by-line 
analysis of every department of every program and get rid of the things 
that don't work and the things that work marginally, make them better. 
Well, that comes up to $380 billion. That is what it comes up to.
  Tonight I am going to introduce a series of amendments--I know they 
can't be called up by the unanimous consent agreement we are operating 
under, but they will be voted on during our votes tomorrow--that are 
plain common sense and that we would all do with our own business or 
with our own family; that we would actually put into place. The first 
thing we would do is we wouldn't give somebody a bonus who is repairing 
our house who didn't repair our house. Yet every year in this country, 
this Government pays out about $7 billion to bonuses to people who 
didn't perform.
  We create a reserve fund so we don't do that anymore. Let me give 
some examples. We have paid $8 billion to contractors for 
nonperformance bonuses--they didn't perform but got paid bonuses 
anyhow--in the Defense Department. Why would we continue to do that? I 
will put into the Record throughout the evening the line-by-line areas 
associated with that.
  The first amendment says we are going to quit paying for performance 
that we didn't get, so we will save $8 billion a year, or $80 billion 
over the next 10 years. It will get voted on, and everybody will vote 
for it, but then in conference it will get stripped out. That is the 
game we are playing in the Senate this week. Anything that passes, and 
we put it in, we will take it out in conference. Why would we continue 
to pay extra money for something that didn't perform the way it was 
supposed to? I am not talking about not paying the bills--that is a 
totally different question--and about absolutely not meeting the 
contract.
  I will give you an example. The Census Department had a contract--a 
no-bid contract with Harris Corporation--for hand-held recorder devices 
for the census. Oversight hearings were done in the Senate, and we 
said: What is your plan B if it doesn't work? They said it is going to 
work, no problem. Now we have spent $700 billion and paid $26 million 
in bonuses for something that doesn't work and will not be used by the 
census.
  Why would we do that and allow that to continue to happen? The 
Government is rife with that. So why would we not put a prohibition 
into the budget that has teeth, which says we are not going to pay 
bonuses for work that didn't meet performance standards? Yet we will 
vote on it, and it will get jerked right out when it goes to conference 
because of the connectedness of the elite in this country.
  The second thing I have an amendment for creates a reserve fund so we 
will do exactly what President Obama said we would do and that is a 
line-by-line analysis of every Government program: Does it work? Is it 
accomplishing what it is supposed to? If it is not, we should be 
eliminating it or fixing it. That may or may not pass. But it will get 
pulled out, even though that was a campaign promise--not only in the 
campaign, but in his inaugural statement, as well as in his statement 
to the Nation. He has embraced the very idea that we need to do that. 
Everybody knows we need to do that. If you are running a business and 
have hard times, you go through what is not working and get rid of it. 
But we don't do that in the Federal Government.
  One of the other amendments we will have says we will apply metrics 
to every program we have. In other words, we will say here is the goal, 
and we will put in measurements as to whether we are achieving the 
goal. Then we can, for sure, tell what we are doing. The fact is that 
50 percent of the programs aren't living up; 12 programs, specifically, 
have been on the warning list by the GAO for 10 years, and Congress has 
done nothing about that. The reason is because they don't want to put a 
metric system in because they don't know what it is. It might cause 
them to lose a vote with somebody if, in fact, it is not an effective 
program.
  The third amendment is to offer a reserve fund to set up metrics, so 
that when we do that and see that things aren't working, we can get rid 
of them.
  The fourth amendment we will offer is another one President Obama 
advocated. He said this time after time and he believes it and I 
believe it. The question is whether we will do it. There ought not to 
be any no-bid contracts for anything above $25 million. We mandate that 
there has to be competitive bidding.
  It is interesting that when we passed the stimulus, we all voted for 
it, but when it came out of conference, there was no competitive 
bidding requirement in the over $870 billion worth of spending. What 
does that mean to the average taxpayer? That means you are not going to 
get good value for the money we are spending. So there is no mandate, 
even though that is a commitment that was made, and we should live up 
to it.
  So we will have an amendment that says no bonuses if you don't earn 
it; No. 2, line-by-line going through the budget; No. 3, metrics 
performance measurements; No. 4, competitive bidding.
  Then, finally, an amendment I will offer is something that will make 
a real difference in people's lives today. The Senator from Texas and I 
worked on that during the stimulus. What it says is that if you have an 
IRA or 401(k) and you are underwater on your mortgage and you have 
money in that 401(k) or IRA and you want to take that money and apply 
it to your primary residence mortgage, where you are underwater, you 
can do that without a 10-percent penalty. In other words, we are not 
going to penalize you for taking out money you have saved to get 
yourself out of trouble today.
  That will be a controversial amendment, I am sure. The fact is, that 
is something that would make a big difference for families because they 
have money locked up, but we have such a harsh penalty for them to take 
it out; they have to give the Government 10 percent so they can use it 
to get themselves out of trouble on their mortgage.
  There will be two other amendments I will offer. One will be with 
Senator

[[Page 9436]]

McCain on an alternative budget, which describes what we should do, and 
it will save over $3.5 trillion, compared to this budget, which shrinks 
the size of the Federal Government and doesn't allow it to grow in 
terms of nondiscretionary spending, except for defense and veterans. It 
puts a cap on how fast it can grow. It doesn't raise taxes like this 
budget does.
  The last thing we should be doing--we know the history of what we did 
wrong in the 1930s and at other times--is raising taxes on individuals 
and corporations at a time when we are in a deep recession. That is 
exactly the wrong tax policy to create jobs. So we will be offering all 
those amendments come tomorrow.
  The draft budget increases the veterans spending by $25 billion over 
5 years to take care of the commitments we have made to our veterans. 
It increases the defense spending, which we need to do rather than 
decrease it, in terms of real dollars, $190 billion. It decreases some 
of our real problems, which is our mandatory spending in Medicaid, 
Medicare, and Social Security, by $3.2 trillion less than what the 
President's budget and this budget will portend. It doesn't play any 
games with AMT, as far as paying for it. It doesn't raise taxes. It 
will reduce the cumulative deficit, over the next 10 years, by $3.5 
trillion. It also will give us $3.5 trillion less debt. It is a budget 
that reflects a family's budget, that reflects the real times we are 
in, and it is a budget that says we recognize that if we are going to 
do something for our kids and grandkids, some sacrifice has to come 
now. Will people peel at it and shoot at it? You bet.
  The fact is, we have a way too big Federal Government. It is highly 
inefficient. It wastes at least 10 percent of everything it does every 
year--at least. That is a very conservative estimate. What we are going 
to put forward is a budget that doesn't do any of those things. When we 
waste $80 billion a year through fraud in Medicare, think what that 
means. That means 20 percent of the money spent in Medicare is 
defrauded. Our biggest problem is we are not going to be able to keep 
up with Medicare. Yet we have 20 percent of it that we are not doing a 
thing about in getting rid of fraud and improper payments. We have at 
least $40 billion in terms of Medicaid. We have a Medicaid Program here 
and a health care program that will save the States $880 billion over 
the next 10 years, and the Federal Government $400 billion over the 
next 10 years. That is $1.3 trillion. It will cover everybody at a 
level, where every doctor--no matter who they are--will take their 
insurance and will take the stamp of being a Medicaid patient right off 
their forehead, and nobody will ever know they are a Medicaid patient 
because they will have an insurance card just like everybody else. We 
can buy for them something better than they have and also save $1.3 
trillion.
  Why wouldn't we want to do that? That is in our budget. Why wouldn't 
we want to do that? Why wouldn't we want to create the opportunity so 
people will have an option? Instead of going to a nursing home, they 
can have a program that gives them in-home care, and we can still save 
money.
  Going back to what we were talking about on bonuses, do you realize 
that CMS paid out $322 million last year to nursing homes that were 
also on their list as substandard nursing homes? Think about that. We 
paid out in excess of $300 million in bonuses to nursing homes that had 
significant problems in terms of giving the care and meeting Medicare 
standards in the first place, but we still paid it. Why? Why wouldn't 
we fix that? We don't want to. It is hard to fix--except our budget 
would fix that. This budget will cause us to not waste as much money.
  This budget recognizes that we have real problems in our country, and 
the way to get out of it is not to borrow more money and spend more 
money. It is to be frugal and learn what we were taught by our 
grandmothers: If you have a penny, spend it wisely. If you have a 
dollar, don't spend it all. If you get fortunate enough to get more 
than a dollar, make sure you are saving something for the future.
  We all know that is right, but we don't apply it to the Federal 
Government. Consequently, what will happen is the standard of living of 
our grandchildren will erode. We are in a seminal moment in this 
country, where we are going to become on an equal basis with Europe. 
What does that mean? That means the standard of living in this country 
is getting ready to drop 30 percent, both by what we spend and the 
printed money that will come after that in terms of the inflation that 
will devalue everybody else's assets in this country.
  There are a lot of ways to run this Government, but the way we are 
running it now wouldn't pass muster anywhere in anybody's household. 
Nobody would throw 10 percent of their money away every year. Nobody 
would give bonuses to people who didn't deserve it. Nobody would not 
make measurements about what they are doing to see if it was working. 
We need a change. The seminal moment is coming. We may not win the 
budget battle but, in fact, if we don't win the budget battle, the 
problems are just going to be that much more severe.
  The debt load we will carry with this President's budget will shackle 
the next two generations in this country for their entire lifetime.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to discuss amendments I intend to offer 
tomorrow. I thank the Senator from Texas for allowing me to speak 
briefly. The first amendment is No. 898, which is a point of order 
against new mandatory spending if the Social Security trust fund dips 
below $5 billion.
  There is talk about this economy and the effects of a recession, and 
they are real. But one of the things we found out a couple of days ago 
is the Social Security trust fund spent more than it took in, in 
February. The projections for next year are to have a $3 billion 
surplus, so the day of reckoning that Senator Coburn was talking about, 
when it comes to Social Security, is upon us even quicker than we 
thought. Everybody thought it would be 2018 when we would pay out more 
benefits than we collect in taxes.
  If this trend continues, that will be accelerated by several years. 
That means the longer we delay in finding a fix for Social Security, 
the harder the mountain will be to climb. If we put this off one 
Congress after the next, the solutions that will get us to solvency are 
going to be too draconian and will hurt people. We need to act now 
because this problem is getting bigger faster than anybody anticipated.
  If we do responsible things about readjusting the benefits for upper 
income Americans and for Senators, where if we took $10 less a month 
when we retire, it would bring about 70 percent of the solvency needed 
to get Social Security back in balance. Do something on the age that is 
prospective, that realizes we all live longer. Do something on 
modernizing the program, so you could have savings on top of the Social 
Security. There are ways to get there. Increase revenues by raising the 
cap to have a transition. Let's make sure that people who live past 
80--the fastest growing demographic in America--do not outlive their 
401(k) plans.
  So we have a challenge and an opportunity, and this amendment says 
that there will be a budget point of order against any budget when 
there is not a $5 billion surplus in Social Security.
  The second one would be a point of order against any bill that would 
impose a national energy tax on middle-income Americans. The reason we 
talk about this is cap and trade. We have to be smart about how we deal 
with climate change. If we don't watch it, we will create a cap-and-
trade system that will be a huge burden on average, everyday Americans. 
Every time they flip on a light switch, there will be a sales tax. So 
this point of order is against an energy tax on middle-income 
Americans.
  Madam President, with that, I yield the floor, and I look forward to 
discussing these amendments when I offer them tomorrow. And I thank the 
Senator from Texas for allowing me to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.

[[Page 9437]]




                   Amendments Nos. 866, 868, and 867

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senator from South 
Carolina is going to have amendments that will try to bring this 
budget, which is going to increase the debt in our country, down to a 
level that can sustain our future generations. So I am proud to work 
with him to try to do that.
  I rise to discuss three amendments I will offer tomorrow as well. I 
truly believe we have made some progress today because some of the 
amendments that have passed will have an effect that I think will be 
positive on this budget.
  Anywhere I go in my State, or anywhere I go in this country, people 
are talking about the mounting debt. It is almost breathtaking because 
we have never seen this kind of debt. This debt, juxtaposed against our 
gross domestic product, is the highest we have seen since World War II. 
We know that World War II and the Great Depression before that were 
extraordinary times. Clearly, these, too, are extraordinary times, but 
we have a responsibility to our country and to the hard-working people 
of our country, and the people who have lost their jobs in our country, 
to act responsibly.
  We have already passed a trillion-dollar stimulus package. We passed 
another trillion dollars in spending just for this year, much of which 
was duplicative with the stimulus package. So that is $2 trillion we 
have obligated in the first 2 months of this year. Now we are looking 
at a budget that, over a 10-year period, is going to increase the debt 
by another $9 trillion. That is not sustainable. We are coming to a 
tipping point in which we will not be able to sell our debt because 
there will be a fear that we cannot repay it. That will be a financial 
crisis for sure.
  So I am offering three amendments, and I would like to start with 
amendment No. 866. It would provide permanent marriage penalty relief. 
My amendment would establish a point of order against any legislation 
that would impose or increase a marriage penalty, which is the most 
egregious antifamily action in our Tax Code.
  One of my highest priorities in the Senate has been to relieve 
American taxpayers of this punitive burden. The marriage penalty pushes 
married couples into a higher tax bracket than two single earners 
earning the same combined income. After years of fighting this issue of 
equity, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts made a great stride toward 
eliminating the marriage penalty by lowering tax rates, doubling the 
standard deduction, and simplifying other elements of the Tax Code. 
Prior to the Bush tax cuts, an estimated 25 million couples paid a 
penalty for being married in 1999, amounting to approximately $1,400 
per couple.
  Enacting marriage penalty relief was a giant step for tax fairness. 
But we may lose it. Even as married couples use the money they now save 
to put food on the table, buy clothes for their children, or send them 
to college, the budget that has been proposed by the President would 
raise taxes on the top two income brackets, both of which still include 
a marriage penalty. As a result of increasing the tax rates on this 
bracket, the President further exacerbates the marriage penalty for 
married couples in those brackets, effectively reversing the progress 
we have made in ensuring that marriage would not be a taxable event.
  The benefits of marriage are well-established. Yet, without marriage 
penalty relief, the Tax Code gives a disincentive for people to become 
married. My amendment would affirm this body's commitment to the 
institution of marriage by creating a point of order against any 
legislation that would impose or increase a marriage penalty. We should 
be celebrating marriage. Marriage and families are the core of our 
society. We should not be penalizing it.
  Amendment No. 868 enacts a permanent deduction for State and local 
sales taxes. I have worked, since I came to the Senate, to rectify a 
tax inequity that plagues eight States. They are the eight States that 
have a sales tax but not an income tax.
  Before 1986, taxpayers in these States--Texas, Washington, Nevada, 
Wyoming, South Dakota, Alaska, Florida, and Tennessee--had the ability 
to deduct their sales taxes, like every taxpaying citizen from States 
that impose income taxes. Unfortunately, citizens of some States were 
treated differently after 1986 when the deduction for State and local 
taxes--sales taxes, that is--was eliminated.
  Together, the eight States that impose sales taxes in lieu of income 
taxes fought to correct this injustice from 1986 until 2004, when we 
finally did correct it. Since then, we have provided extensions every 
few years, with the current extension set to expire at the end of this 
year. While the budget before us assumes an extension of that valuable 
relief for an additional 2 years--through 2011--what we really need is 
to make this relief permanent.
  The majority leader has an amendment, which I have cosponsored, to 
accomplish this goal. I support his effort, and I welcome his 
leadership on the issue because it is an initiative that we must 
accomplish to ensure fairness for our constituents. He certainly was 
one of the leaders in correcting the inequity in 2004, and I appreciate 
that.
  While I support his effort--I am not opposed to the approach he is 
taking--I do today rise to offer an alternative approach that ensures a 
permanent sales tax extension by actually accounting for it directly in 
the budget.
  There is a key distinction between our amendments. The majority 
leader's amendment requires our States' tax equity to be paid for by 
other changes in the budget, whether it is spending cuts or other tax 
increases. I disagree that our States should have to pay for tax relief 
that not only pays for itself but is granted to taxpayers who do not 
have sales taxes but do have income taxes, or maybe they have sales 
taxes and income taxes. It is a fundamental issue of fairness.
  While I will support any measure that makes the sales tax deduction 
permanent, I think we should not have to be held to a higher standard 
than other States when we are dealing with tax relief that really pays 
for itself. We should be equal in this country. The Federal Government 
should not be giving breaks to people who have income taxes but not the 
same breaks to people who have sales taxes. All the States collect 
taxes. They do it in different ways. The Federal Government should not 
pick winners and losers.
  The amendment I am offering today will permanently end the 
discrimination suffered by the eight States that have no income tax but 
do have a sales tax and don't have the option of that deduction. There 
should be a deduction, and you should be able to choose. People in 
income tax States should be able to choose that as their deduction; or 
if they would prefer, they could also deduct sales taxes. But the 
people in sales tax States that don't have an income tax should have 
the same rights.
  So I urge the adoption of amendment No. 868 when it is brought 
forward tomorrow.
  Mr. President, I have a third amendment, No. 867. This is the Outer 
Continental Shelf expansion budget resolution amendment. I wish to 
speak in support of the amendment I have filed with my colleagues, 
Senators Bond, Vitter, and Murkowski, which ensures that we will expand 
domestic offshore energy production on the Outer Continental Shelf.
  Section 202 of the budget resolution directs that we reduce our 
dependence on foreign sources of energy by producing green jobs, 
promoting renewable energy development, establishing a clean energy 
investment fund, and encouraging conservation and efficiency. While I 
support these initiatives, which will play a role in making our country 
more energy independent, we cannot overlook our own domestic oil and 
gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf, which this budget before 
us does.
  The goal of reducing our Nation's dependence on foreign sources of 
oil is one on which both sides of the aisle should be able to agree. 
Our President has said we must reduce our Nation's imports of oil. It 
is irresponsible to put our economic and national security in the hands 
of unstable and unfriendly regimes. Today, we import over 60 percent of 
our energy needs, and too much

[[Page 9438]]

of it comes from unstable and unfriendly regimes, such as Venezuela and 
parts of the Middle East. In 2008 alone, we spent close to $475 billion 
on imported oil.
  This amendment I have will reduce America's dependence on foreign 
sources of energy, minimize future increases in gasoline prices, and 
help reduce the debt with new lease revenue. We must reduce our 
dependence on dictators, such as Hugo Chavez, who control our energy 
supplies. Increased domestic oil and gas production right here at home, 
in the waters off our shores, will help us reduce our foreign 
dependency and make us more energy independent, and we can do it in an 
environmentally safe manner.
  Expanded energy production off U.S. shores will also help us minimize 
future price increases. With a lack of supply that could force up 
energy prices, increasing supply will certainly bring it back down. 
Some will say: Well, oil prices are low now. Why should we drill?
  That is exactly the kind of attitude that will ensure that prices go 
up. We could sit back and wait for oil prices to go back up and then 
act, but we have more responsibility and hopefully more leadership in 
the Senate than to wait because we know that if supplies dwindle, 
prices will go up.
  We have oil right here off our own shores. We need to use it. We are 
the only Nation in the world that has an abundance of energy supplies 
yet refuses to use them. Other nations either don't have energy 
supplies or they are trying very hard to get some kind of energy in 
their own countries. We have the capability to provide for our energy 
independence and we are not doing it. And we are letting down the 
people of our country if we don't.
  So I urge support for amendment No. 867 when we vote tomorrow.
  Mr. President, I just want to end by saying that I am a cosponsor of 
Senator McCain's amendment that would be a substitute for this budget. 
I hope to be able to talk on the floor tomorrow about his substitute. I 
believe we must produce an alternative to this budget. We have 
certainly criticized how big it is and how much we have to borrow to 
pay for it and the taxes that would have to be raised. The budget 
currently before us spends too much, borrows too much, and taxes too 
much. We can do better in this country. The substitute of Senator 
McCain and myself and other cosponsors will certainly do more in the 
area of bringing our budget down to a sustainable size and doing what 
is right for this country.
  It basically freezes spending and adds as the rate of inflation, so 
the programs in place right now would be able to grow with inflation, 
but it will show the American people that we mean to cut back in the 
outyears of this spending so we will not increase the debt. In fact, 
the McCain substitute will lower the debt that is envisioned in this 
Obama budget by $3.9 trillion. This would be our first step toward 
fiscal responsibility and doing what the Senate ought to do.
  I hope to talk more about the McCain substitute of which I am a 
cosponsor because I think it is the responsible approach and I think it 
is our responsibility to provide an alternative.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Brownback as a cosponsor of 
marriage penalty amendment No. 866.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I urge my colleagues to support these amendments when 
they come up, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. 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. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 808

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss amendment No. 808, an 
amendment I will offer tomorrow that will protect seniors from identity 
theft. Every day, some 44 million Americans are at risk of having their 
identity stolen--simply because they are Medicare beneficiaries. Why is 
that? We have talked in Congress for years now about removing Social 
Security numbers from Medicare cards. I think it is time to demonstrate 
that we are serious about taking action on something that, when you get 
right down to it, is pretty simple.
  It is common sense that Americans should avoid carrying their Social 
Security number around with them because of identity theft. In fact, 
the Social Security Administration itself insists citizens should not 
``routinely carry . . . documents that display [their Social Security 
number].'' Yet Medicare cards clearly display the Medicare 
beneficiary's health insurance claim number, which is the Social 
Security number followed by a letter. So anyone interested in identity 
theft when stealing a purse or billfold containing a Medicare card gets 
the Social Security number and can then have a Social Security number 
and can exploit having that Social Security number.
  What is worse, on the back of each card, beneficiaries are told to 
``carry your card with you when you are away from home.'' Medicare says 
you should carry your card with you, Social Security says don't carry 
your Social Security number with you.
  Something needs to change. It is not acceptable for the Government to 
be unnecessarily putting millions of Americans at risk of identity 
theft. That is why I will offer amendment No. 808, which will give the 
budget authority to make this change.
  Medicare thought, back in 2005--we don't have the numbers since--that 
identity theft costs the country $1.5 billion in 1 year. That is a 
conservative estimate.
  The Congressional Budget Office says, for whatever reason, it will 
cost $25 million to remove Social Security numbers from all future 
cards, so that is the amount we have raised under pay-go in this. It is 
a downpayment on fully addressing this problem. We owe it to seniors to 
include the language in our budget. I am confident we can find the $25 
million in savings by reducing waste, fraud, and abuse. That is why 
this amendment has the support of the Consumers Union and AARP. They 
both endorsed it. That is how the amendment is paid for. It is budget 
neutral. Let's demonstrate we are committed to protecting seniors from 
identity theft.
  To recap, Medicare suggests to seniors they should carry their 
Medicare card with them at all times. Medicare has made a decision to 
put a Social Security number on the Medicare card. Social Security 
says: Don't carry your Social Security number with you because if it is 
stolen, whatever you have with you and that number is stolen, then you 
can be a victim of identity theft.
  We just want a commonsense solution. We want seniors to carry their 
Medicare card, but we don't want seniors to be victims of identity 
theft, so we want to take the Social Security number off the card. 
Medicare could use another identification that protects seniors' 
confidentiality, protects privacy, and protects the public from anyone 
interested in identity theft from being able to get access to that 
Social Security number.
  It is a simple amendment. I urge my colleagues to support amendment 
No. 808.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 840

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I will be calling up amendment No. 840 
tomorrow. It is an amendment I put forward before. It is an amendment 
that passed this body last year in the budget debate. We talked about 
it. I think it is one of the things we need to do to try to be 
efficient with Government programs, and effective, and to make sure 
that if we have waste, fraud, and abuse or duplicative programs, they 
get eliminated.
  I draw the attention of my colleagues to a report card. I don't know 
if they know this, but the Federal Government itself does a report card 
on itself as to whether its programs are meeting the

[[Page 9439]]

design of the programs they put forward, are meeting the criteria of 
the program that was put forward by the Congress, and then this is 
scored by the Federal Government itself and it gets a report card.
  I am not very pleased to note to my colleagues and to the public that 
the Federal Government, giving itself a grade on this card--if you did 
it in A, B, C, D, you would see that the Federal Government's GPA is 
1.14. A 1.14 GPA is what the Federal Government has for its own 
programs, whether they pass or fail this test of whether the program is 
duplicative, whether the program has accomplished its purpose, whether 
the program is effective at all.
  You can go down through here and you can see--the State Department 
actually has the highest score that the Government grades for its 
programs that were reviewed, whether they are hitting the targets the 
program was designed to do--the highest score. They get a C-plus. You 
see down here we have the Labor Department, HUD, Education, all with 
failing scores, and D-minuses at EPA, Homeland Security; a D at 
Interior, HHS, Agriculture, and Justice.
  This is a bad report card. It is never seen as having much 
significance because nothing happens at the end of the report card, 
unlike when I was going to school or when my kids now are in school. 
There is a consequence to not getting a good grade, and you try to 
improve it. On this one, there is kind of no consequence to it: OK. We 
got an F. So what? Because there is no consequence.
  What I want to do is put a consequence into a Federal program failing 
to meet its target. And that is this amendment. It is called the 
Commission on Budgetary Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies; 
it is called CARFA. It would basically create a commission. Every 4 
years, each Federal program would be reviewed. That program would be 
scored. If the program receives an F, it would be put in the groups of 
Federal programs that all get failing scores and then be required to be 
voted on by this body, by the House, whether the program is continued 
or not. So all the bundled 500 programs--however many there are--those 
that fail, we would have to vote whether to continue those programs or 
discontinue those programs altogether, no amendment, limited time 
period for debate, deal or no deal. Do we eliminate the wasteful 
programs that have failed? Do we keep them?
  This is a process we have done on military bases--it has worked--on 
consolidating bases to ones from lower priority to higher priority 
ones. It has not cut military spending, but it has made it more 
efficient and effective. That is what we should at least be looking at 
in the Federal Government, to make the Federal programs more efficient 
and more effective. That is what this amendment would do.
  I had a group of college students in today. They were talking about 
the need to be able to do work programs abroad, study-abroad programs, 
all which I think are great. They say it has a price tag of about $3 
billion. Look at the deficit we are looking at. That is just way too 
high. But what if you said: OK, that is a good idea, or, we want to 
declare war on cancer--that is one I think we ought to uptick on this, 
saying we want to get a country where within a decade there are no 
longer deaths by cancer in the United States. If you decide to take 
care of yourself, the right treatments, this is treated as a chronic 
disease, not as a death sentence. That is something worth investing in.
  Typically, what we do here is say: OK, let's just put it in the stack 
and we will see if we can get at it. It goes along with all the other 
programs, even though these programs are failing, and we just try to 
add it on. What if we said we are going to take out the failing 
programs within these agencies we are going to eliminate them and take 
that money and put it on higher priority programs like a war on cancer, 
like maybe it is work experience abroad. I don't know if that is it or 
maybe it is green jobs and new energy, a big energy project. We want to 
get more energy production from the United States. Great, let's 
eliminate those that have not worked and take that money and spend it 
on programs that are higher priority.
  Maybe these are programs that have accomplished their purposes. We 
don't need them anymore. It is a novel notion that maybe the Federal 
Government started a program and it actually accomplished its purposes 
and we don't need it anymore, so we should move on past it. Yet the way 
the budget process so often works, the appropriations process works, 
once it gets in, it never leaves. It just continues on and on rather 
than us reappraising it or saying is it really meeting the need or is 
it not meeting the need. This is the way we get at waste, fraud, and 
abuse, duplication, and programs that have accomplished their purposes.
  Everybody here in this body would declare themselves against waste, 
fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government and say we are going to get 
to the bottom of this program and we are going to make sure it is 
efficient and effective. We have heard that from President Obama. 
Frankly, we hear it from every President who gets into office, that 
they are going to get at the bottom of this and they are going to make 
sure these programs are working, efficient and working. Yet the Federal 
Government, giving itself its own scorecard after President after 
President said this--and we have a 1.14 grade average, most of the 
programs failing to be able to do that--they say: Well, so? What are 
you going to do about it? We are going to continue to get our funding 
next year anyway.
  This is conservative Presidents, this is liberal Presidents who come 
in. We are always going to create and make a better system and we are 
going to stop this wastefulness, and it just doesn't happen. This would 
get added by putting a procedure in place, a required procedure that 
would cause these programs to be effective or face the consequences. 
This is sensible, bipartisan, good-government, an efficient way to move 
forward. It will work, and it is something we need to do.
  In closing, I ask that my colleagues would look at this program, and 
if we get it passed again this year--not strip it out in the conference 
report, that we would actually do something like this--it would send a 
notice of credibility to the American public that we are actually going 
to go at programs, and if they don't work, we are actually going to 
pull them out. Right now, the public does not believe we will do that. 
This creates a mechanism, a culling process that we eliminate those, 
and we could have some credibility with the public that we are going to 
eliminate programs that don't work, that have waste, fraud, and abuse 
within them. We have had good bipartisan support of this idea and this 
proposal in the past. I hope we could have it again in this budget 
proposal.
  Overall on the budget, I still think we are going seriously the wrong 
way. I did a townhall meeting, tele-townhall meeting last night in my 
State, talking about the budget. People are not satisfied at all with 
this process. They think there is way too much deficit spending in it. 
They think it is failing to hit the mark. They are very upset about a 
lot of the payouts for big entities. They are saying: What about us? 
Who is taking care of us? They look at those deficit numbers and the 
tax increases that are probably going to come behind them, and they 
just don't like it. They do not agree with it, and they do not think 
that is a way to move forward as a country; that what we ought to do is 
really get our house in order.
  I am pleased to see people putting forward other options for how they 
can deal with the budget and with the deficit. I urge my colleagues to 
vote against this one, and let's start over. Let's get one where we can 
have bipartisan agreement. Let's get one that cuts back on that 
deficit. Let's get one that doesn't raise taxes on Americans. Let's get 
one that can really help us move forward in this crisis we are in today 
rather than this one that is highly partisan, deficit oriented, tax 
increase oriented, and is not supported by the vast majority of the 
American public.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page 9440]]


  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Kerry/Lugar 
amendment that restores the full amount of the President's request for 
the international affairs budget.
  The Budget Committee has recommended a cut of $15 billion out of $540 
billion from total nondefense discretionary spending--a reduction of 
2.8 percent. But it has recommended a $4 billion cut out of $53.8 
billion from the international affairs account--a reduction of more 
than 7 percent.
  The foreign affairs account, already relatively small in the overall 
budget, is being asked to carry more than double the percentage 
spending cut than the rest of nondefense discretionary spending.
  Furthermore, the small investment in our overseas engagement is 
barely 1.5 percent of the entire proposed Federal budget and only 6.8 
percent of the national security budget, which includes defense and 
homeland security. Even at this level of spending, the international 
affairs budget represents only 0.35 percent of GDP.
  Our foreign affairs account is modest compared to what many other 
similarly wealthy nations spend on such programs.
  As we take stock of America's image in the world, it is clear that we 
need to do more to improve the lives of the world's poor and help 
stabilize fragile governments and economies.
  America's generosity and ability to help other countries are becoming 
more important to the effectiveness our foreign policy. In many cases 
our own security depends on the stability of far-flung places beyond 
our borders.
  With this relatively small account, the international affairs budget 
funds programs that: reduce tensions with other nations through 
diplomacy and engagement; lift millions out of poverty through 
educational, health, and economic programs; bring clean water and 
sanitation to the world's poor; strengthen fragile democracies and weak 
states; help with humanitarian, refugee and peacekeeping needs; and 
send some of most talented Americans to work in some of the most 
difficult corners of the planet.
  At a time when the need for such engagement is stark, we haven't made 
the investment we need in these critical foreign policy tools.
  For example, America's lead development agency, the U.S. Agency for 
International Development, at one point in its history had more than 
5,000 full time Foreign Service officers working on health, education, 
agricultural, and political development around the world.
  Today, while engaged in a global war of ideas and values, USAID has 
just over 1,000 Foreign Service officers. Its budget in real dollars 
has been cut by almost a quarter from a high in the 1980s.
  Similarly, the Peace Corps, one of our most successful programs at 
both sharing American values and assistance while also exposing our 
young people to the people and cultures of other worlds, has seen its 
budget in real dollars cut by almost 40 percent since its inception in 
1967.
  At a time when more failed states are in need of international 
peacekeeping missions, the United States is millions of dollars in 
arrears in U.N. peacekeeping dues.
  This budget is an essential component of our national security. 
Defense Secretary Gates has said:

       The problem is that the civil side of our government--the 
     Foreign Service and foreign-policy side, including our aid 
     for international development--[has] been systematically 
     starved of resources for a quarter of a century or more . . . 
     We have not provided the resources necessary, first of all, 
     for our diplomacy around the world; and second, for 
     communicating to the rest of the world what we are about and 
     who we are as a people.

  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed,

       The relatively small but important amount of money we do 
     spend on foreign aid is in the best interests of the American 
     people'' and ``promotes our national security and advances 
     our interests and reflects our values.

  The 2006 National Security Strategy, the Quadrennial Defense Review, 
and the 9/11 Commission all support increased investment in America's 
diplomatic and development capabilities.
  As the Obama administration works to address multiple difficult and 
dangerous international problems, we have to fully fund the basic tools 
needed for such engagement.
  Last year, 73 Senators, including 24 Republicans, voted for an 
amendment to restore the international affairs budget to the level 
requested by the President. The bipartisan message was clear we must 
continue to invest in our country's international affairs programs.
  America's international affairs programs are as important foreign 
policy tools as diplomacy and defense. Let's make sure they are funded 
as such.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, last fall, in a debate with my Arizona 
colleague, Senator McCain, President Obama decried the ``orgy of 
spending and enormous deficits'' that occurred under President Bush.
  At a recent press conference, the President told us that America must 
shun the ``borrow and spend'' policies of the past and embrace plans to 
``save and invest.'' I agree that we have to curtail Government 
spending now to protect future generations from historic debt.
  So why, after denouncing deficit spending, is President Obama 
proposing to borrow and spend more than any President ever? His budget 
is not only the biggest in history; it also creates more debt than the 
combined debt under every President since George Washington.
  Senator McCain told us during the campaign that spending and deficits 
are two sides of the same coin, that President Obama's spending 
promises would raise deficits to unsustainable levels; and that huge 
tax hikes--and not just for the wealthy--would be required to pay for 
it all.
  Now, the President's own Office of Management and Budget Director 
Peter Orzag has confirmed what Senator McCain said all along, that: the 
budget will lead to ``rising debt-to-gross domestic product ratios in a 
manner that would ultimately not be sustainable.''
  Let's consider some numbers to put that into perspective.
  Last year we had a $459 billion deficit. The Congressional Budget 
Office now projects it will more than triple this year, to $1.669 
trillion deficit. This budget will double the public debt in 5 years 
and triple it in 10. This budget does not contemplate one-time 
investments followed by years of reduced spending. Instead, billions in 
new outlays will continue indefinitely. So it is not just about massive 
spending, but about the permanent accruement of power in Washington.
  After bottoming out at $658 billion in 2012--a level still more than 
40 percent above the highest deficit during the Bush administration--
the Congressional Budget Office projects the total debt to increase to 
$9.2 trillion in 2019, or 82.4 percent of GDP! The Washington Post 
recently editorialized, ``President Obama's budget plan would have the 
government spending more than 23 percent of gross domestic product 
throughout the second half of the this decade while collecting less 
than 19 percent in revenue.''
  Is this the legacy we want to leave for the next generation? 
Unprecedented debt?
  And let's not forget the finance charges. Beginning in 2012 and every 
year thereafter, the Government will spend more than $1 billion per day 
paying finance charges to holders of U.S. debt.
  What does this mean for the average American family? Federal spending 
on finance charges for our Government's debt will be about $1,500 per 
household for 2009. Under President Obama's budget, this number would 
soar to nearly $5,700 per household by 2019. The interest on the 
national debt would be so big that it would be the largest single 
expenditure item in the budget by 2019.
  Then there are the tax increases this budget contemplates. President 
Obama said he will cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans. But his 
budget would raise taxes by $1.4 trillion over 10 years. It not only 
lets some of the existing tax rates expire--thus raising taxes--but 
implements a new $646 billion energy

[[Page 9441]]

tax that will impact every American household--regardless of income--
and is estimated to increase energy costs for every family by $3,168 
annually. And it's described as a ``down payment,'' meaning there is 
more to come.
  What about President Obama's suggestion that this deficit spending 
constitutes ``investments'' for the future? Most of us would agree that 
short-term deficits are sometimes necessary to help finance future 
prosperity. As Stephen Moore writes in the latest Weekly Standard, 
``The 1980s deficits were probably one of the highest-return 
investments in American history. We bought a victory over the Evil 
Empire in the Cold War and borrowed to finance reductions in tax rates 
that launched America's greatest period of wealth and prosperity: 1982-
2007.''
  But much of the new spending in this year's budget is not what the 
IRS or a well-run business would classify as an investment. Most of it 
is earmarked for services whose long-term value is difficult to 
measure.
  I'll quote Stephen Moore's article again: ``The debt we are now 
incurring is paying for windmills . . . new cars for federal employees, 
weatherizing homes, high-speed trains to nowhere, and the like. It buys 
almost nothing of long-term economic benefit.''
  Senator McCain was right. President Obama has promised to spend so 
much that we are looking at record deficits and tax increases on 
everyone just to start paying for it all. We need to get a handle on 
this budget before it is too late.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee 
and his staff for their hard work on this year's budget resolution.
  I regret, however, that the discretionary spending level is less than 
President Obama's request. The Obama administration, to its great 
credit, recognizes the serious consequences of the previous 
administration's lack of investment in American infrastructure. I will 
continue to support President Obama's full discretionary budget 
request. I look forward to working with the chairman of the Budget 
Committee on this matter as the resolution moves forward.
  I also compliment the chairman for making the right decision to 
forego reconciliation instructions in this budget. Unfortunately, the 
House budget resolution does include reconciliation instructions, and 
that should be of concern to every Senator.
  The House provisions open the door in conference to language 
requiring as many as five Senate committees to report reconciliation 
legislation--the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the Finance Committee, the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, and the Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee. While the House reconciliation 
instructions are ostensibly for health reform and education bills, they 
could also be used to report other bills under the jurisdictions of 
those committees--including climate legislation--as long as the bill 
complies with the budget's net deficit reduction instructions. Whatever 
legislation those committees decide to report, their bills would 
require only 51 votes for Senate passage. Under the Budget Act, debate 
is limited to 20 hours, and amendments are sharply curtailed.
  I am one of the authors of the reconciliation process. Its purpose is 
to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits. It 
was not designed to cut taxes. It was not designed to create a new 
climate and energy regime, and certainly not to restructure the entire 
health care system. The ironclad parliamentary rules are stacked 
against a partisan minority, and also against dissenting views within 
the majority caucus. It is such a dangerous process that in the 1980s, 
the then-Republican majority and then-Democratic minority adopted 
language, now codified as the Byrd Rule, intended to prohibit 
extraneous matter from being attached to these fast-track measures. The 
budget reconciliation process will not air dissenting views about 
health and climate legislation. It will not allow for feedback from the 
people or amendments that might improve the original proposals.
  If there are rules--such as the Byrd Rule--that frustrate Senators, I 
hope that they will take the time to understand that those rules exist 
for a reason. They protect every Senator, regardless of whether they 
are in the majority or minority party, because even a Democrat in the 
majority today may have a viewpoint in the minority tomorrow.
  I understand the White House and congressional leadership want to 
enact their legislative agenda. I support a lot of that agenda, but I 
hope it will not require using the reconciliation process. Again, I 
commend the chairman of the Budget Committee for excluding 
reconciliation instructions, and look forward to working with him to 
ensure those instructions are not included in conference.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am in strong support of the amendment 
offered by Senators Kerry and Lugar which I and many other Senators on 
both sides of the aisle have cosponsored to restore $4 billion to the 
international affairs function of the budget.
  This amendment would not have any effect on the top line for 
nondiscretionary spending. It is budget neutral.
  We have two choices. Cut $4 billion from the President's Fiscal year 
2010 budget for national security and diplomacy programs as the budget 
resolution would do, or restore those funds, as the Kerry-Lugar-Leahy-
Durbin amendment would do, and which both the Secretary of State and 
the Secretary of Defense have said is vital.
  This $4 billion is an insignificant amount when it comes to having an 
appreciable effect on the deficit over the long term, but it will pay 
immediate dividends in restoring United States influence around the 
world where it is desperately needed.
  The difference we are talking about is whether to freeze funding for 
international assistance programs at the 2009 level, or to step up to 
the plate and fund the initiatives President Obama, and Members of 
Congress of both parties, have recognized are urgently needed.
  These funds will be used to put the United States back in the 
driver's seat on climate change. They will support the increases for 
Pakistan and Afghanistan that the Secretary of Defense says are 
critical elements of our counterterrorism strategy there. It is not 
just a military strategy. It is also a diplomatic and development 
strategy.
  These are the funds to support that. They will support treatment for 
millions of people infected with HIV/AIDS. Lifesaving drugs that 
represent the best of America.
  Years from now, countries in Africa, South Asia, the Middle East, and 
Central Asia will remember what we do today. China is expanding its 
influence around the globe. We can step back and watch that happen, or 
we can show once again that the United States is going to lead by 
example.
  Not very long ago we had that chance with Russia. But rather than 
look for ways to put past hostilities and distrust behind us and embark 
on a new relationship, we sought to take advantage in ways that 
exacerbated that distrust.
  Today the relationship is a far cry from what it could and should be, 
and it will require significant investments in diplomacy to rebuild it.
  We can lead in the world, we can build new alliances and work to 
solve conflicts, promote stability and develop new markets, or we can 
turn inward. That is the choice we face with this amendment. We are 
part of a global economy. We face grave challenges, from al-Qaida in 
Pakistan to drug cartels in Mexico. Climate change threatens the 
survival of species in ways that may profoundly affect our own survival 
not fifty million years from now, but within the lifetimes of our 
children and grandchildren.
  This is no time to trifle with the need for American leadership. I 
thank all Senators for supporting this amendment.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the passage of a 
truly bipartisan amendment to the budget resolution that Senator Cardin 
and I are introducing. This vital

[[Page 9442]]

amendment would address the Government Accountability Office's, GAO, 
recent recommendations to improve the Small Business Administration's, 
SBA, management and oversight of the Historically Underutilized 
Business Zone, HUBZone Program and ensure that only eligible firms 
participate in this crucial program.
  As former chair and now ranking member of the Senate Committee on 
Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long championed critical 
small business programs such as the HUBZone Program, which provides 
Federal contracting assistance to small firms located in economically 
distressed areas, with the intent of stimulating economic development 
and job creation. According to the GAO, as of February 2008, 12,986 
certified businesses have participated in the HUBZone Program, since 
its inception in 1997. And in fiscal year 2007 alone, over 4,200 
HUBZone firms obtained approximately $8.5 billion in Federal contracts. 
During these troubling financial times, the HUBZone Program is an 
essential tool in helping small businesses drive our national economic 
recovery.
  Unfortunately, the GAO recently found in its three reports--Small 
Business Administration: Additional Actions Are Needed to Certify and 
Monitor HUBZone Businesses and Assess Program Results, GAO-08-643; 
HUBZone Program: SBA's Control Weaknesses Exposed the Government to 
Fraud and Abuse, GAO-08-964T; and HUBZone Program: SBA's Control 
Weaknesses Exposed the Government to Fraud and Abuse, GAO-08-964T--that 
the mechanisms that the SBA uses to certify and monitor HUBZone firms 
provide limited assurance that only eligible firms participate in the 
program. The GAO report found that of 125 applications submitted in 
September of 2007, the SBA only requested supporting documentation, 
which helps to clarify the eligibility of the business, for 36 percent 
of the applications and only conducted a single site visit for all 125 
applicants. While the SBA's policies and procedures require program 
examinations, the agency only conducts them on 5 percent of certified 
HUBZone firms each year. This is a glaring lack of oversight that must 
be rectified.
  The amendment we introduce today would take immediate steps to 
correct the lack of effective administrative oversight by incorporating 
all recommendations that GAO provided for improving the HUBZone 
Program. This measure would require more routine and consistent 
supporting documentation during the program's application process. In 
its report, the GAO found that the SBA relies on Federal law to 
identify qualified HUBZone areas, but the map it uses to publicize 
HUBZone areas is inaccurate, and the economic characteristics of 
designated areas vary widely. Our amendment would require that the SBA 
take immediate steps to correct and update the map that the SBA uses to 
identify HUBZone areas and implement procedures to ensure that the map 
is accurately updated with the most recently available data on a more 
frequent basis.
  The GAO also found that the mechanisms that the SBA uses to certify 
and monitor firms provide limited assurance that only eligible firms 
participate in the program. It reported that more than 4,600 firms that 
had been in the program for at least 3 years went unmonitored. This 
amendment would require the SBA to develop and implement guidance to 
more routinely and consistently obtain supporting documentation and 
conduct more frequent site visits, as appropriate, to ensure that firms 
applying for certification are indeed eligible. These commonsense, 
achievable steps would help to eliminate participant fraud and 
misrepresentation and ensure that firms applying for HUBZone 
certification are truly lawful and eligible businesses.
  In its reports, the GAO illustrates the SBA lack of a formal policy 
on how quickly it needs to make a final determination on decertifying 
firms that may no longer be eligible for the HUBZone Program. According 
to the GAO, of the more than 3,600 firms proposed for decertification 
in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, more than 1,400 were not processed 
within 60 days--the SBA's targeted timeline. As a result of these 
weaknesses, there is an increased risk that ineligible firms have 
participated in the program and had opportunities to receive Federal 
contracts based on their HUBZone certification. This failure in 
oversight hurts new and deserving firms in their quest to receive 
assistance through the HUBZone Program, which is the last thing we need 
during these challenging and perilous economic times. Our amendment 
would require the SBA to formalize and adhere to a specific timeframe 
for processing firms proposed for decertification in the future, as 
well as require further developed measures in assessing the 
effectiveness of the HUBZone Program.
  Moreover, the Federal Government must strive to continue to provide 
additional contracting opportunities to those who are legitimate 
HUBZone firms. I am dismayed by the myriad ways that Government 
agencies have time and again egregiously failed to meet most of their 
small business contracting goals. I am alarmed that only one Federal 
small business contracting program--the Small Disadvantaged Business 
Program--has met its statutory goal and that the three other small 
business goaling programs have all fallen drastically short. For 
example, in fiscal year 2007, the HUBZone Program met only 2.2 percent 
of its 3 percent Government-wide goal. The Federal Government can and 
must provide more to our country's hard-working small businesses, and I 
am confident that this amendment will pave the way for more qualified 
firms to receive HUBZone assistance. In my home State of Maine, only 
127 of 41,026 small businesses are qualified HUBZone businesses. 
HUBZones represent a tremendous tool for replacing lost jobs across all 
industry sectors in distressed geographic areas--clearly, this program 
should be better utilized.

                          ____________________