[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10985-11028]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
begin debate on the conference report to accompany S. Res. 13.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I also want to recognize the excellent 
first speech that the Senator from Colorado just gave. I had a chance 
to hear part of it on the Senate floor and part of it in the cloakroom. 
We welcome him. If his first speech is any measure, he is going to make 
a significant contribution. So we are delighted to have somebody of his 
thoughtfulness and quality as part of this body.
  Mr. President, the Senate now begins consideration of the conference 
agreement on the budget for 2010. I think we

[[Page 10986]]

have to see this budget in its context. We have to understand what this 
administration has inherited from the previous administration. To be 
clear, it is a colossal mess--the worst recession since the Great 
Depression, a doubling of debt under the previous administration, and a 
more than tripling of foreign holdings of U.S. debt.
  I try to suppress partisanship in my discussions on the Senate floor, 
but it is impossible to overlook the record of the previous 
administration. They have slammed this economy into the ditch. 
President Obama is put in the position of the cleanup crew. It is not 
pretty or easy, and it is going to be a difficult challenge for this 
country to come out of a policy stew that is impossible to choke down.
  Let me be clear in my own view of how we got here. I believe we had 
an overly loose monetary policy under the control of the Federal 
Reserve ever since 9/11, an overly loose fiscal policy under the 
control of the White House and the Congress, record deficits, a massive 
buildup of debt--when the economy was relatively strong and right 
before the baby boom generation started to retire. That is remarkable.
  If you look back into history, it is rare to have at the same time an 
overly loose monetary policy, low interest rates, Congress and the 
White House running an overly loose fiscal policy with record deficits, 
even at a time of relative economic strength; on top of that, a 
dysfunctional trade policy with record trade deficits, which meant we 
were shipping hundreds of billions of dollars to other countries to buy 
their goods, over and above what we were producing, and a deregulatory 
environment administratively and in terms of the laws of this country 
that allowed things like the AIG derivative fiasco to develop 
completely without oversight.
  Those elements created the seedbed for bubbles to form. So we didn't 
just get a housing bubble, we got a commodity bubble--wheat prices went 
to nearly $20 a bushel; we got an energy bubble, with oil prices up to 
$145 a barrel. So if one looks at this historically, we see the 
formation of these bubbles, and bubbles ultimately burst and create 
enormous economic wreckage. That is what has occurred here.
  All of this was under the direction, fundamentally, of the Bush 
administration. This was their policy that was pursued for 8 years. Our 
friends on the other side controlled the House and Senate for 6 of 
those 8 years. They put into place the policies that have been the 
guiding principles of policy for this country for the last 8 years.
  As a result, we saw a very dramatic deterioration in the budget 
picture under the Bush administration. They went from inheriting 
surpluses to putting us into record deficits. For 2009, there is a 
deficit of $1.7 trillion. In fairness to them, they are not responsible 
for that whole amount because part of it is the stimulus package that 
was enacted.
  Clearly, they are responsible for at least $1.3 trillion of the $1.7 
trillion of deficit in 2009. This is the record on deficit and of debt 
by the previous administration. After their first year in office, the 
debt was $5.8 trillion. We typically do not hold administrations 
responsible for their first year because they are working off the plan 
of the previous administration. If you look at the 8 years they are 
responsible for, the debt went from $5.8 trillion to over $12 trillion.
  Mr. President, that is not the only part of this that is important to 
keep in mind. It took 42 Presidents 224 years to build up $1 trillion 
of foreign debt held by foreign entities. The previous administration 
tripled that. They ran up another $2.5 trillion of U.S. debt held 
abroad. Some say it is a sign of strength that people are willing to 
lend us all this money. I personally don't think it is a sign of 
strength. I think it is a sign of vulnerability that we are running 
record trade deficits, meaning record borrowing, much of that borrowing 
done abroad.
  Last year, of the debt we had to finance, 68 percent of it was 
financed by foreign entities.
  Mr. President, this President walked into a truly astounding set of 
circumstances. Here is what they are: Record deficits, doubling of the 
national debt under the previous administration, the worst recession 
since the Great Depression, and financial market and housing crises. 
Everywhere you look, this President inherited a crisis--in housing, in 
the financial sector, and in the fiscal sector. Also, 3.7 million jobs 
have been lost in the last 6 months, and we have ongoing wars in Iraq 
and Afghanistan.
  So what do we do about it? The budget is a document that outlines the 
fundamental priorities of the country.
  In this conference agreement, we have attempted to preserve the 
President's priorities of reducing our dependence on foreign energy--
critically important to our economic future--a focus on excellence in 
education, and fundamental health care reform.
  If we look ahead to the fiscal future of America, no single thing is 
more important than reforming the health care system. Already, we are 
spending nearly 18 percent of our gross domestic product on health 
care. That is $1 of every $6 in this economy going to health care. We 
are on a trajectory to have 37 percent of our gross domestic product 
going to health care. That would be more than $1 in every $3 in our 
economy going to health care. Clearly, that is unsustainable. At the 
current rate of nearly 18 percent of our GDP going to health care, we 
are spending twice as much as any other industrialized country.
  We are on an unsustainable course, and the President says we have to 
alter that, we have to expand health care coverage so that everybody is 
included so we can then institute the kind of cost controls that will 
be necessary. I know it is counterintuitive to think: How can it be 
that we are going to reduce costs if we are expanding coverage? The 
thing we know in our current system is that people without coverage 
still get health care, but they are getting it in the most expensive 
setting: they are getting it in the emergency rooms of our hospitals 
all across the country. We would be much better off having them have 
coverage and having them in a system that is a wellness system, one 
that is designed to keep people from getting ill and, if they become 
ill, managing their illness in a way that prevents the most costly of 
outcomes.
  This conference report also provides $764 billion in tax cuts focused 
on the middle class. I know there has been a lot of talk in the press 
about some tax increases, and indeed there are. For those of us who are 
fortunate enough to make more than a quarter of a million dollars a 
year, we will be expected to pay somewhat more--not a lot more but a 
little bit more. If we are going to get our fiscal house in order, 
those of us who are most fortunate are going to have to pay a little 
bit more. But on a net basis, when you add in the tax increases asked 
for from those who are the most fortunate, with all of the other tax 
changes, the overall effect is to reduce taxes from current law by $764 
billion over the next 5 years, and those tax reductions are focused on 
the middle class.
  We also cut the deficit in half by 2012 and by two-thirds by 2014. We 
get it down to 3 percent of gross domestic product by 2014. Most of the 
economists say that is the key metric because at 3 percent of GDP, 
growth of the debt relative to our national income is stabilized. We 
keep the debt from growing the way it has been.
  The discretionary spending level in this conference report is $10 
billion below the President's proposal. We have cut his spending plan 
by $10 billion. In addition, there are reconciliation instructions for 
health care and education. They require at least $2 billion in deficit 
reduction.
  I personally believe reconciliation, which is a special process here, 
a fast-track process, will not be used for health care because as 
people get into it, I think they will find it is a very difficult way 
to write major, substantive legislation. My own prediction is that 
reconciliation will not be used for health care. The committees of 
jurisdiction have until October 15 to report legislation in the regular 
order of business using the regular procedure. I have talked with the 
chairman of the committee that has most of the responsibility for 
health care, and, of course,

[[Page 10987]]

that is the Finance Committee. Senator Baucus says it is his full 
intention to proceed under the regular order, not using the 
reconciliation instruction. But it is there as an insurance policy.
  We also have the alternative minimum tax fix for 3 years, so we will 
not see a big increase in the number of people affected by the 
alternative minimum tax. There are some 3 million or 4 million people 
now paying. If we did not take these steps, 24 million people would be 
expected to pay the alternative minimum tax. Nobody wants to see that 
happen. So we have a fix for the next 3 years.
  We also have disaster relief for the next 2 years. We call it a 
placeholder because it is an estimate of what disaster relief will cost 
for the next 2 years based on looking back over the last 5 years and 
doing an average.
  This is a break from how we have typically dealt with disaster 
funding. Typically, we have done it through emergency designations. The 
President thought: Look, we know we are going to have disasters. Why 
don't we budget for them? It is a worthy experiment, and we will see 
how it works.
  Even though none of us can predict what disasters might occur, we 
know the strong likelihood is that there will be disasters. Certainly, 
my state has experienced them. We have had flooding all across the 
State of North Dakota from one end to the other. I have been home three 
times in the last several weeks going from town to town all across 
North Dakota, from the Red River Valley in the east, to the Souris 
Valley in the central part of the state, the James, the Cheyenne--all 
of them, are experiencing flooding that is unlike anything we have ever 
seen in recorded history.
  We know there are disasters. There are going to be costs. In my 
state, hundreds of millions of dollars have already been experienced in 
terms of losses, roads, bridges devastated. We have even had dams 
significantly eroded by these weather events. We know there are costs 
associated with it, and we have tried to anticipate them in this 
budget.
  Most important, this budget coming from the conference committee 
focuses on three key priorities: reducing our dependence on foreign 
energy, putting a focus on excellence in education, and fundamental 
health care reform.
  First, with respect to energy, it reduces our dependence on foreign 
energy, creates green jobs, helps protect the environment, and helps 
with high home energy costs. It does that in three ways. One, it 
creates a reserve fund to accommodate legislation to invest in clean 
energy and address global climate change. Second, it provides $500 
million above the President's level of discretionary funding for energy 
for fiscal year 2010. Third, it builds on the economic recovery package 
investments in renewable energy, efficiency and conservation, low 
carbon coal technology, and modernizing the electric grid.
  By the way, modernizing the electric grid presents this country with 
an amazing opportunity to have a leap forward because we are really 
dealing almost in the horse-and-buggy era with the grid that we have 
that is not permitting us to shift power from places we can produce 
it--clean, green power--to places that need it.
  In addition, we have in this budget coming back from the conference a 
focus on excellence in education. We generate economic growth and jobs. 
We prepare the workforce to compete in this global economy. We make 
college more affordable. We attempt to improve student achievement, 
which is at the heart of what education is all about. We do it again in 
three ways: by providing a higher education reserve fund to facilitate 
the President's student aid increases; we provide for education tax 
cuts to make it more affordable for our young people to go to college 
and other institutions of higher learning; and we provide the 
President's requested level of $5,550 for Pell grants and fully fund 
his education priorities, such as early childhood education.
  The third key priority is fundamental health care reform, and that is 
accommodated in the conference report. We attempt to bend the health 
care cost curve to get costs under control, to improve health care 
outcomes for our nation's people, to expand coverage because we have 
more than 40 million people now without any health care insurance. We 
increase research, especially devoted to those areas of highest 
opportunity to make meaningful progress, and we promote food and drug 
safety. Again, we do that in three ways with a reserve fund to 
accommodate the President's initiative to reform the health care 
system; by funding for at least 2 years a reserve fund that further 
addresses Medicare physician payments; and continues investment in key 
health care programs, such as the NIH and the FDA.
  I want to at this moment indicate that one of the key staff persons 
on our Budget Committee is himself in the hospital. Joel Friedman, who 
is the deputy staff director for the Budget Committee, a remarkable 
person, truly gifted, somebody who has the respect of people on both 
sides of the aisle, is in the hospital. Our thoughts and prayers are 
with Joel and his family. I don't know if he is able to watch this. 
Last week, he was not able to because he did not have C-SPAN in his 
room. But I want him and his family to know that the entire Budget 
Committee family--and that goes for Republicans and Democrats--is 
thinking of him and hoping for his swift recovery.
  While we have focused on these key priorities of the President--
excellence in education, reducing our dependence on foreign energy, 
health care reform--we are doing it all in the context of dramatically 
reducing the deficit. In fact, we cut the deficit by two-thirds by 
2014. As measured by the gross domestic product, which economists say 
is the best measure, we do even better than that, as measured by share 
of the gross domestic product, we are reducing the deficit by 75 
percent, by three-quarters, from 12 percent of GDP in this year to 3 
percent of GDP in 2014.
  Again, that metric of 3 percent of GDP in 2014 is especially 
important because economists tell us that at that rate, we have about 
stabilized the growth of the debt. In other words, the debt will not 
continue to grow faster than our national income if we can continue 
deficits of 3 percent of GDP. My own view is we should do even better 
than that. Certainly, in the second 5 years, I think it is incredibly 
important that we do better than that given the fact the baby boom 
generation will be retiring.
  In terms of the revenue changes in the budget resolution, I indicated 
earlier that if you look at total tax changes in the budget 
resolution--and this is CBO scoring, this is not my invention--the 
taxes are cut by $764 billion over the 5 years, and here is where: 
middle-class tax relief, $512 billion. That includes the 10-percent 
bracket, the marriage penalty relief, the child tax credit, education 
incentives, and all of the other 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that affect 
those earning less than $250,000 a year. All of those tax cuts are 
extended for the entire 5 years.
  In addition, we have provided for alternative minimum tax relief for 
3 years at a cost of $214 billion. We have provided for estate tax 
reform at a cost of $72 billion that will permit couples to avoid any 
estate tax if they have estates of $7 million or less. Let me say that 
excludes 99.8 percent of estates. Mr. President, 99.8 percent of 
estates will pay nothing--zero--under the budget proposal.
  In addition, we provide $63 billion for the so-called tax extenders. 
Tax extenders are items such as the research and development tax 
credit. Those have to be extended every year or every other year, 
depending on which one we are talking about, and we provide for those 
as well.
  Those tax cuts that amount to $861 billion are offset by loophole 
closers of $97 billion. And what we are focused on here is the offshore 
tax havens; the abusive tax shelters.
  We now know, from the Permanent Committee on Investigations, that we 
are losing over $100 billion a year to these offshore tax havens; 
billions of dollars more to abusive tax shelters. I have shown on the 
floor of the Senate many times pictures of European sewer systems, and 
people have asked me: What has that got to do with the budget of the 
United States? Well, it turns

[[Page 10988]]

out it increasingly has something to do with the budget of the United 
States because we have the spectacle of wealthy investors here and 
companies here buying European sewer systems--not because they are in 
the sewer business but because they want to depreciate those assets on 
their books for U.S. tax purposes--and they turn around and lease the 
sewer systems back to the European cities that built them in the first 
place.
  I picked out sewer systems, because that is most graphic, but it 
doesn't end there. We actually have companies buying city halls in 
Europe and depreciating on their books for U.S. tax purposes here 
leasing those city halls back to the European cities that built them in 
the first place.
  Some say if you go after that kind of scam, you are increasing 
somebody's taxes. Well, I suppose in some sense you are. But you know 
what. Shame on the people who are doing it. The vast majority of us pay 
what we owe. But unfortunately, we have an increasing group of 
companies and individuals who are dodging what they legitimately owe 
here and they are doing it in these offshore tax havens.
  I have shown on many occasions a picture of this little five-story 
building in the Cayman Islands that claims to be the home to 14,000 
companies--14,000 companies. They say they are all doing business out 
of this little five-story building in the Cayman Islands. They are not 
doing any business out of there. They are doing monkey business. And 
the monkey business they are doing is to avoid their taxes in the 
United States. Shame on us if we don't close that down.
  Some say: Well, this is a big spending budget--big spending. Really? 
That can only be the statement of people who haven't read this budget, 
because this budget takes domestic discretionary spending as a 
percentage of our gross domestic product from 4.4 percent in 2010 to 
3.4 percent in 2014. So as a share of our national income, domestic 
discretionary spending is going down.
  Facts are stubborn things. Over the life of this budget, non-defense 
discretionary spending in dollar terms--in dollar terms--is being 
increased 2.9 percent a year. That is below the rate of growth of our 
national income. That is why, as a share of our economy, domestic 
discretionary spending is going down, not up. So when you hear claims 
this is a big spending budget, it is not this budget. They may be 
talking about some other budget, but the budget before us is the budget 
reported by the conference committee, and that budget is tough on 
spending, it is tough on deficits, it is tough on getting our country 
back on a more sustainable course.
  We have a series of budget enforcement tools in this budget 
resolution that I am particularly proud of: discretionary caps for 2009 
and 2010. We maintain a strong pay-go rule. We have a point of order 
against long-term deficit increases; a point of order against short-
term deficit increases. We allow reconciliation for deficit reduction 
only. And we provide a point of order against mandatory spending on an 
appropriations bill.
  This last one I want to emphasize I think is especially important. 
Because what we have found is our friends on the Appropriations 
Committee have found a new way around the rules here and they have 
started to put mandatory spending on discretionary spending bills. Let 
me be clear. Mandatory spending is for things such as Medicare, for 
Social Security. If you are eligible, if you qualify, you get your 
benefits. So that is called mandatory spending, and that is most of the 
spending of the Federal Government. Most of the spending is now 
mandatory spending. Medicare and Social Security are the biggest ones. 
We also have certain veterans benefits, which is mandatory spending for 
some of it, much of it discretionary.
  Discretionary means under the discretion of the appropriations 
process each year. That is why it is discretionary. And discretionary 
spending, as I have indicated, is going down under this budget as a 
share of our gross domestic product. But we don't want mandatory 
spending to be increased in discretionary spending bills, and that 
started to happen a couple of years ago and we put this point of order 
in place to provide a barrier, a hurdle, against that bad practice.
  We also have in this budget resolution provisions addressing our 
long-term fiscal challenges. I think everybody understands that health 
care is the 800-pound gorilla. Health care in our Federal accounts--
Medicare, Federal share of Medicaid, and other aspects of health care 
spending--is where we see spending of the Federal Government soaring 
and continuing to grow out of control. So there is the health care 
reform reserve fund that I previously described that is critically 
important to getting our fiscal future back in line.
  We also provide program integrity initiatives to crack down on waste, 
fraud, and abuse in Social Security and Medicare. This is especially 
prevalent in Medicare. The previous Secretary--Secretary Leavitt--whom 
I had high regard for, came to see me one day. He had with him 
information about scams that were being conducted across the country to 
defraud Medicare, and he had pictures of phony operations in Florida 
that were in shopping malls where they had individual storefronts set 
up that were supposedly providing Medicare services, each of them 
billing $500,000 to $1 million a year in so-called services to 
Medicare-eligible patients.
  When they pierced the veil, what they found was they weren't 
providing any services, they were just doing the billing. They were 
billing but they weren't providing any services. It was a complete 
scam. And there were dozens of them--dozens of these storefront 
operations. The Secretary himself went to some of them in the middle of 
the day and they were closed. They were closed for the public, but they 
were open for scam. We have provided funds to go after those kinds of 
fraudulent operations.
  We have also provided a long-term deficit increase point of order to 
try to prevent any action by the Congress to increase the long-term 
deficit without facing a supermajority point of order hurdle.
  Let me close on this quote by President Obama, because it is 
something I agree with very much. While I believe this budget has made 
good progress at getting our fiscal house back in order for the next 5 
years, we have to do much more--much, much more. President Obama said 
this at the Fiscal Responsibility Summit he hosted at the White House 
at the end of February:

       Now, I want to be very clear. While we are making important 
     progress towards fiscal responsibility this year, in this 
     budget, this is just the beginning. In the coming years, 
     we'll be forced to make more tough choices, and do much more 
     to address our long-term challenges.

  That is true. We have got much more work to be done, especially in 
the second 5 years. This is a 5-year budget, because of the 34 budgets 
written by the Congress, 30 of the 34 have been 5-year budgets. The 
President sent us a 10-year budget. Some have asked why we didn't do a 
10-year budget. Very simply, because Congress almost always has done 5-
year budgets because we know that the projections for the second 5 
years are highly unreliable--highly unreliable. Frankly, a forecast for 
5 years is a bit of a crap-shoot.
  I used to have the responsibility of forecasting the revenue for my 
State. I had to do it for 3 years. I know how difficult it was to do 
that for 3 years. Five years is extraordinarily difficult, especially 
at a time like this of dramatic economic changes and a very steep 
downdraft. The reality is that 10-year forecasts have very little 
reliability. So we have done a 5-year budget here. That, as I say, has 
been done 30 of the 34 times Congress has written a budget under the 
Budget Act. Thirty of the 34 times, it has been a 5-year budget.
  I say to my colleagues, I believe this budget is part of economic 
recovery. We are facing very tough winds. We are facing a very tough 
economic environment--the steepest downturn since the Great 
Depression--and we are going to have to be aggressive in terms of 
preventing a deflationary spiral that could suck this economy down. We 
saw it in the Great Depression--a failure of Government to act 
effectively until tremendous damage had been done: the

[[Page 10989]]

unemployment rate rose to 25 percent, the stock market fell by nearly 
90 percent. We had a circumstance in which 25 percent of the people--
more than 25 percent of the people--were unemployed, with staggering 
devastation to the strength of America.
  The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Bernanke, has made it his 
life's work to study how to avoid another Great Depression. In his 
analysis, and others like it--as historians look back--the conclusion 
is there was a failure of the Government to act proactively. It waited 
too long. It believed the markets would correct themselves. It believed 
that somehow everything would work out without intervention. That 
proved to be a fatal mistake.
  All of the elements of the Federal response have taken a different 
direction in this downturn, and it started with the previous 
administration, to their credit. The Federal Reserve has done a great 
deal to provide liquidity in this economy. Instead of pulling back, it 
has extended credit. The Federal Government, instead of pulling back in 
order to balance our budget in the short term, has put forward hundreds 
of billions of dollars in a stimulus package to provide an increase in 
aggregate demand to provide stimulation to the economy, to provide 
liquidity. Without it, I believe the collapse would be far steeper, far 
more serious, and far more threatening. And remember, what we are faced 
with is not just a national crisis, it is a global crisis, with global 
economic activity falling very dramatically all around the world. The 
response of almost every industrialized country has been like ours, to 
provide liquidity, to provide stimulus. China has a major stimulus 
program, Japan, and Europe; virtually all the countries of Europe. 
Russia has announced a major stimulus plan.
  I believe those are the right policy responses, however imperfect--
and imperfect they are, the specific packages that have been developed. 
I myself thought we could have done much better in our stimulus 
package. I would have liked to have seen much more funding for 
infrastructure. I wanted much more funding for infrastructure because I 
personally believe that is a place where you get a two-fer: You get a 
lift for the economy and you also get an investment that strengthens 
our economic competitive position for the future. But look, there was a 
substantial infrastructure component. I would have liked to have seen 
it be far bigger and more robust, but nonetheless, we are moving in the 
right direction.
  This budget moves in the right direction. It is a contribution to 
economic recovery. It does preserve the President's key priorities of 
reducing our dependence on foreign energy, which must be done. It 
focuses on excellence in education, because if we are not the best 
educated, we are not going to be the strongest country in the world for 
very long. And it provides for fundamental health care reform--because 
that is the 800-pound gorilla that could swamp the fiscal boat of the 
United States, not to mention the boats of every American family and 
American companies that absolutely need cost containment--at the same 
time improving health care outcomes for the American people.
  Finally, yes, dramatically reducing the deficit, reducing it by two-
thirds in dollar terms, by three-quarters as a share of the gross 
domestic product of the United States over the next 5 years.
  This is not a perfect document. If I were able to write it just by 
myself I think I could have improved it. I think every Member here 
believes that; that if they were able to write this document it would 
be a better document.
  That is not our option. We have a Senate, we have a House of 
Representatives, we have a President. This is the work of all three 
entities: The President of the United States, the Senate of the United 
States, the House of Representatives. I believe we have produced an 
important step in economic recovery.
  I urge my colleagues to support the conference report. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the Budget chairman for a lot of 
things. One is his openmindedness. But I particularly thank him for the 
closing he presented because it relates directly to the subject I would 
like to discuss, but I would like to yield to the chairman to ask him 
two questions to make sure I am accurate about the conference report. 
First, it is my understanding that there is a $634 billion account set 
up for health care; is that correct?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, answering through the Chair, that was in 
the President's budget. We did not provide for that in this conference 
report. What we did provide for is a deficit-neutral reserve fund. We 
did not specify an amount that would be necessary for health care 
because we do not know whether the right number is $200 billion, $400 
billion or $600 billion, as the Senator referenced. What we do say is 
whatever that number is, it has to be dealt with in a deficit-neutral 
way. It has to be paid for.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the chairman. Second, is it not true that the 
amendment the Senate unanimously adopted that set forth a deficit-
neutral account of $34.2 billion for a housing tax credit was deleted 
from the conference report?
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. ISAKSON. I thank my distinguished chairman.
  I wish to make my remarks not to the Senate. I commend the chairman 
and the Senate for adopting the amendment as we did on the floor 3 
weeks ago. I wish to direct my remarks to the President of the United 
States, to Dr. Summers, to Dr. Christina Romer, the head of the Council 
of Economic Advisers to the President, to Secretary Geithner, and my 
friend, Rahm Emanuel. I wish to make a case for what the Senate did, 
which is deleted from this budget resolution, and I wish to start it 
looking back 15 months ago.
  Fifteen months ago, when we came in, in January of last year, we were 
beginning to see foreclosures, beginning to see the housing market 
decline, and I introduced at that time, along with other Members of the 
Senate, a housing tax credit for the purchase of foreclosed and vacant 
houses. It was scored at a cost of $11.4 billion. The Finance Committee 
rejected that amendment in the Senate, saying it cost too much.
  Ninety days later, the Senate passed a $150 billion economic stimulus 
bill recommended by President Bush that gave every American $300, or up 
to $1,200 per family, to stimulate the economy--and the economy 
spiraled down.
  In July of last year, we dealt with a housing bill that created HOPE 
for Homeowners and an FHA program expansion. I tried to amend that with 
a housing tax credit and, to the credit of the House and Senate, the 
conferees ended up creating a $7,500 interest-free loan for first-time 
home buyers. It did not work, but it was a sincere effort to try.
  Then we came back this year and Senator Lieberman, myself, and others 
reintroduced the $15,000 tax credit for any family who buys and 
occupies their home, any single-family residence in America, for at 
least 3 years. The tax credit of $15,000 is a substantial incentive. It 
is tied directly to exactly what happened in this country in 1975, when 
America offered a $2,000 tax credit for anyone to buy any one of the 3 
years' worth of standing vacant inventory that was on the market in the 
United States. We passed it at that time and exited that recession 
within 12 months, restimulating the housing market which had led us 
into that particular recession.
  It is housing that led us into this recession and it is housing that 
is causing precisely what the chairman referred to and that is the 
deflation that is going on in the United States of America. One in five 
homes today is underwater, meaning they owe more on their home than it 
is worth. The equity lines of credit have been wiped out. Families' 
basic major estate and their net worth has been wiped out and the 
housing market continues to be a collection of short sales and 
foreclosures.
  The current tax credit we have, which is now $8,000 to a family as 
long as their income doesn't exceed $150,000 and as long as it is their 
first home

[[Page 10990]]

purchase, is a fair effort to start, but our problem is not with first-
time home buyers. Our problem is with move-ups, with transferees, 
people who have been playing by the rules, making their payments. If 
they are transferred, they are afraid to take the transfer because they 
are afraid they can't sell their house, and they are afraid there is no 
buyer incentive to help get them there. I urge the President, Dr. 
Summers, Secretary Geithner, Dr. Romer, and Rahm Emanuel to consider 
this: That $15,000 tax credit, if it were passed today in America for 
12 months, would cost, as scored by CBO, $34.2 billion. How much is 
$34.2 billion? It is 5.4 percent of the President's set-aside of $634 
billion for health care. It is one one-hundredth of 1 percent of the 
$3.5 trillion budget--one one-hundredth of 1 percent of the amount of 
the budget.
  Don't you think we could provide an incentive that is that 
inexpensive to motivate a housing market to return, to begin to reflate 
values back and put equity in the pockets of the American people and 
return our economy?
  Experts have estimated--and I am not saying I am an expert, this is 
experts who have estimated--that if that tax credit had passed last 
year it would have created 700,000 home sales and 587,000 jobs. Mr. 
President, 587,000 jobs is the number of jobs we have been losing a 
month. We need to find a way to create that kind of number.
  More important, let me give you the intriguing fact about the 700,00 
house sales. Current home sales in America are at 500,000. An average 
year in this decade in this country was 1.2 million, a good year was 
1.5 million. If you add that estimated 700,000 produced by the credit 
to the existing 500,000, you would return the United States to a 
balanced housing market. You would begin to appreciate the value of 
those houses back to where they were. You would restore equity lines of 
credit for the men and women of the United States of America. You will 
employ people in the construction industry.
  My last point is very important. This housing recession and the 
difficulties in it now are in the developed lots that are standing, 
developed and unsold, and the A, D, and C loans that have been made by 
the major banks funded around the country to fund those developments. 
Those loans are beginning to come due. They are threatening the 
integrity of the U.S. banking system, and there is only one thing that 
will solve that and that is for those lots to begin to be absorbed. The 
only way to do that is to get house buyers back in the market with an 
incentive to come back in and buy.
  If the tax credit passed, we do not have that much of a vacant 
inventory available in the country. It would immediately stimulate the 
employment of construction workers to go into homebuilding.
  My thanks to the Senate for its wisdom in adopting the $15,000 
credit. I express my deep disappointment in the conference committee 
dropping it, and I encourage our President and the leadership of our 
country to give a second thought to what this credit could do. It seems 
to me one one-hundredth of 1 percent of the budget is worth a gamble to 
create almost 600,000 jobs and 700,000 home sales, restore equity lines 
of credit to America's families and, most important of all, reenergize 
the great engine that is the American economy. The greatest stimulus in 
the world is not a gift of money, it is an incentive to invest and for 
American families to return their confidence in this great economy we 
have in this great country.
  I urge the leadership of the country to consider that. I, again, 
thank the chairman of the Budget Committee and every Member of the 
Senate for their unanimous support of it, and I yield the floor in 
sincere hopes that when this speech goes to the White House they will 
read it, they will check the numbers, and they will ask the question: 
Is one one-hundredth of 1 percent of this budget worth the chance to 
restore the economy of America?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The Senator from Maryland is 
recognized.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, last November the American people voted 
for change. I think it is appropriate today, as we are considering the 
conference report on the budget, which is the blueprint for our Nation, 
and we also celebrate the 100th day of Barack Obama's Presidency and 
his administration--I think it is time to reflect where we have been in 
these last 100 days and the changes that have occurred. But first it is 
important to point out the mess President Obama inherited.
  The United States is engaged in two wars. We have the worst economic 
crisis since the Great Depression inherited by this administration. We 
have record deficits inherited by this administration. The 
international reputation of the United States is badly damaged.
  In 100 days, the Obama administration, working with us in Congress, 
has an impressive record of accomplishments. I think it is important to 
point out that the No. 1 priority, as all my constituents tell me on a 
daily basis, is to fix our economy. Our economy is in deep trouble. The 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act put the recovery of our economy 
first by creating jobs. We need more jobs, to save jobs, create jobs. 
The Obama administration put that as their top priority.
  But they also invested in America's future in education, in health 
care, and in energy; protecting our essential services for America's 
most vulnerable people; and providing tax cuts to help restore consumer 
confidence in our economy.
  That was the first priority. That bill has passed and its impact is 
now being felt in our country. But in the Congress, under the 
leadership of President Obama working with us, other things were 
accomplished in a very short period of time.
  The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Equity Act was passed, guaranteeing we 
have an enforceable right for equal pay.
  We passed the Children's Health Insurance Program that now covers 4 
million more children with health insurance. I am particularly pleased 
that law includes dental care so children will be able to see a 
dentist.
  We passed legislation protecting public lands and protecting our 
environment for future generations.
  We passed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, for Americans to 
be able to engage in volunteer service to their country throughout 
their lifetime.
  The Obama administration, working with this Congress, has restored 
America's international leadership. We have made it clear from the 
beginning that this Nation will not permit the use of torture, focused 
our missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan of going after the 
terrorists--which is what we should do to make America safe--and 
prepared to join the international community in combating global 
climate change.
  We have done a lot during the first 100 days--quite a record. Today 
we are on the verge of passing the budget conference report which will 
provide a new blueprint for America's future. What are the priorities? 
The priority first, is the economy. Again, we have to get out of this 
recession. This budget allows us to invest in creating new jobs. It 
will do it in a fiscally responsible way and will invest in health 
care, energy, and education.
  President Obama, as I pointed out earlier, inherited quite a fiscal 
mess. President Bush, during the 8 years of his Presidency, started 
with a surplus. Let me remind you, 8 years ago we had a surplus, a $236 
billion surplus in 2000. The current year's deficit is $1.75 trillion. 
This was the fiscal recklessness of the Bush administration that has 
been inherited by the Obama administration. It has cost us jobs. We are 
losing half a million jobs each and every month. That is what was 
confronting the President back when he took office.
  We have a housing crisis, people losing their homes. They are still 
losing their homes today. We have to pay attention to that. We have got 
to give confidence so that people can keep their homes. It is important 
for individuals, it is important for our communities, it is important 
for our economy.
  Banks are not lending money. They still are not lending money. We 
have got to get our financial system working the way it should so that 
America

[[Page 10991]]

can grow. We have got to help small business. That is the growth engine 
of America in order to create jobs and move forward with innovation.
  What we need to do is have a budget that puts our priorities on 
America's future. Well, the budget President Obama has that we are 
about ready to pass does that. It helps our economy but does it in a 
fiscally responsible way. It puts us on a glide path to reduce the 
Federal budget by two-thirds by the year 2014.
  We are working on the economy, working on creating jobs, but we are 
also working on fiscal responsibility to get out from this deficit. 
Because we not only have a moral obligation to our children and 
grandchildren to pay our bills, it is critically important for the 
fiscal strength of America that we get our budget back into balance. So 
as we come out of this recession, as we create the jobs that this 
budget will allow us to do, we also put us on a glidepath toward fiscal 
responsibility.
  But the budget recognizes another essential point. We are not going 
to do things the way we have done them in the past. We have an 
administration that is prepared to tackle the tough problems. It is one 
thing to get out of this recession and to try to balance the budget and 
get our budget balanced, but we have got to deal with the underlying 
problems that America confronts. We have got to fix a broken health 
care system, because it is too expensive and drains our economy.
  We have got to become energy independent, because that drains our 
economy and our budget. And we have got to invest in education. Our 
children are our future. We have got to put our resources with our 
children.
  The budget recognizes that for America to be able to have a strong 
budget in the future, we need to fix our health care system. We talked 
about this for a long time. We have talked about fixing it. Well, we 
now have a President who has said the only option that is not on the 
table is the status quo. I agree with President Obama, we have got to 
fix the system. Why?
  First, it is way too expensive. Not only is it a drain on Federal 
taxpayers but to every person in this country. Our health care system 
is twice as expensive, per capita, than the next most expensive system 
in the world. And yet we have seen, during the Bush years, the 8 years 
of his Presidency, the number of uninsured grow from 40 million to 47 
million. There are 47 million Americans who do not have health 
insurance. And we do not have the health care results that would 
warrant such a large expenditure of our Federal economy in health care. 
We should have better results. We do not have those results, so we have 
got to fix our health care system.
  What does this budget resolution do, the conference report that is 
before us--that will shortly be before us for a vote? What this budget 
resolution does is allows us to move boldly toward universal health 
coverage, toward universal coverage. Why is that so important? Well, 
you see, someone who has no health insurance today enters a health care 
system in a very expensive way. They use our emergency rooms for 
primary care, to the extent that they get primary care. They do not 
have prevention. And they enter our system in a much more costly way. 
Illnesses that could have been detected early are left untreated. They 
enter our system in a very expensive way.
  Many times people without health insurance do not pay their bills. 
But they get paid. Guess who pays them. The taxpayers of this country. 
Those who have insurance pay more for their premiums and doctors and 
hospitals because of people who have no health insurance.
  It is in our national interest to get everyone covered by insurance. 
This budget conference report will allow our committee to bring in a 
bill to fix our health care system to provide universal coverage that 
will provide better quality care and save us money.
  This budget allows us to save money in the health care system by 
investing in preventive health care. If we get more people tested for 
early detection of diseases, it will save us money. We invest in health 
information technology so we can eliminate a lot of the waste in our 
health care system, the administrative costs. Not only will it 
eliminate costs, unnecessary costs, but you will have better management 
of care. Doctors and hospitals will be able to communicate with each 
other. They will understand the complexities of your own individual 
health history and be able to build health protocols to give you more 
cost-effective, quality care. That is using technology. This will help 
us.
  We need to deal with the disparities in health care. We know there 
are gaps across racial and ethnic lines. We need to narrow that, pay 
attention to that. This budget allows us to move in that direction to 
eliminate these disparities.
  The budget allows us to reform our own Medicare system. Medicare is 
the largest insurance program in our country. Our elderly and disabled 
depend upon our Medicare system. But our Medicare system needs to be 
changed and reformed. Ask any physician about the sustainable growth 
rate methodology for reforming, for paying their fees every year. We 
have got to change that. We have got to eliminate this physical therapy 
and rehab cap. It makes no sense at all.
  This budget resolution allows us to reform the Medicare system to 
make it more cost effective, and the budget resolution provides for the 
backup of budget reconciliation instructions.
  What does that mean? I want to give you my interpretation. That 
allows us to use regular order to get this issue dealt with, to get 
health care dealt with. We have been talking about it for years. It is 
time to act. It is time to fix our health care system. And this is not 
a partisan issue. It is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. 
This is an issue that affects our country. It is an American issue. We 
need to work together on it. But it is not regular order to use a 
filibuster to prevent this body from taking up these issues. And that 
is what the budget reform process was all about many years ago.
  I hope every Member of this body will work together so we can fix 
this health care system. That is what we need to do. Nobody has a 
monopoly on the best ideas. President Obama has reached out and said: 
Look, I know what we need to accomplish. You know what we need to 
accomplish. Let's work together and get it done so we can make health 
care more accessible, and people can get quality care in a much more 
cost-effective way, saving the taxpayers of this country money, helping 
our economy grow, making American companies more competitive 
internationally. If we fix the health care system, all of that is 
possible if we get it done right.
  I want to compliment--I see the Chairman of the Budget Committee is 
on the floor, Senator Conrad. I want to thank him for his leadership on 
these issues. You now have a budget that will allow us to deal with 
these priorities. But the budget resolution also recognizes that for 
America to be strong, we also need to become energy independent. And 
the budget resolution allows us, our committees, to do that. We need to 
become energy independent for the sake of our economy.
  We saw the impact on our economy when energy prices went up and down, 
and we had very little to do with it. But if we get the energy policy 
right, we are going to create green jobs, more jobs in America. This is 
about our economy. This is about helping America grow. So smart energy, 
energy independence, is the right thing to help our economy. By the 
way, it is also important for national security. We should not be 
challenged to fight wars because we need imported oil. Let us become 
energy independent for the sake of our national security, and, yes, let 
us become energy independent using good green technology, because it is 
good for our environment and we can do something about global climate 
change, working with the international community.
  But the budget goes further and says, look, if we are going to be a 
strong nation, if we are going to get our future budgets in balance, if 
we are going to be competitive internationally, if our economy is going 
to grow, and the American standard of living is going to

[[Page 10992]]

grow, we are going to invest in education. Education has got to be our 
top priority.
  We can do a much better job at pre-K through 12 and quality 
education. Every child should have access to a quality school. This 
budget resolution allows our committees to move in that direction, and 
to bring down the cost of higher education for the typical family. Too 
many families today are being denied the opportunity to send their 
child to college because they simply cannot afford the cost of higher 
education. We have increased Pell grants. It is another great record of 
this Congress. We increased the Pell grants. This budget resolution 
allows us to go further to bring down the cost of higher education.
  The budget resolution recognizes that we have to empower families to 
be able to afford and to participate in our economy. So tax relief to 
middle-income families is extended and expanded in this budget 
resolution.
  The budget resolution recognizes that small businesses are the 
driving force behind job creation. Most of our jobs are going to be 
created by small businesses. Innovation comes from small companies. So 
this budget resolution allows us to continue the incentive so that 
small companies can get the credit they need, can get the help they 
need to be able to not only survive this economic downturn but to turn 
it around and create new jobs.
  I particularly thank the conferees for continuing to include the 
increases, the 2-percent increases, in the Small Business 
Administration, an agency that was decimated under the prior 
administration. I offered an amendment in the committee that was 
adopted that increased that appropriation to $880 million. We want the 
SBA to be the advocate for the small business community, to fight 
Government agencies to make sure they make contracts available to small 
companies, to help mentor small companies so they have a business plan 
that can get a loan from a bank. That is what we want the SBA to do. 
And now with this budget support, the SBA should be able to build and 
help our small businesses in America.
  Last November America voted for a change. We are delivering on that 
expectation. This budget resolution that has come out of the conference 
committee allows our committees, working with President Obama, to 
tackle the challenges confronting our Nation. The conference committee 
gives us the blueprint we need by focusing on different areas for 
helping in tax relief, for bringing our budget better into balance, 
helping working families, and investing in universal health care and 
educational opportunities and energy independence.
  I urge my colleagues to support the work that has been done by our 
conferees. Let's work together to refuel and revitalize our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maryland, Mr. 
Cardin, who is a very important member of the Budget Committee. We were 
very lucky to have Senator Cardin join the Budget Committee when he 
became a Member of the Senate, having come from the House where he 
served on the Ways and Means Committee.
  If you look at Senator Cardin's career, it is a career of leadership, 
being elected at a young age in Maryland, rising to the most powerful 
position in the Maryland legislature, coming to the House of 
Representatives, and now to the Senate. We are very fortunate to have 
his background, his knowledge, and his skills helping us form a budget 
resolution for the country. I am indebted to him and I appreciate very 
much his wise counsel.
  I ask unanimous consent that all quorum calls be charged equally to 
both sides for the duration of the debate on the conference report 
accompanying the concurrent resolution on the budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I want to indicate, for the purposes of our colleagues, 
that we have a series of speakers. We do not have this firmly locked in 
in terms of an order, but we are expecting Senator Enzi momentarily; 
Senator Gregg--I see Senator Enzi now; Senator Bunning approximately at 
12:30; Senator Johanns at roughly 1 o'clock; Senator Lindsey Graham at 
approximately 1:30. I will answer, to the extent I determine necessary, 
as we go through these speeches. But I want to indicate that that is 
roughly the order of where we are: Senator Enzi, Senator Gregg, Senator 
Bunning, Senator Johanns, Senator Graham, and Senator Murray after 
that.
  We have other Senators also in the train. But if other Senators wish 
to join this debate and discussion, they are certainly welcome. It will 
be important for them to call the cloakroom so they can get in the 
queue so that they do not have to waste their time waiting here on the 
floor as others speak.
  With that, I see Senator Enzi has come to the floor. I will give him 
a few minutes to get ready, because he is, as is so often the case with 
Senator Enzi, not only on time but ahead of his scheduled time, and we 
appreciate that very much.
  We are delighted to have Senator Enzi here. He is also an important 
member of the Senate Budget Committee. While we have differences--no 
doubt he will have a different view of this budget resolution than 
perhaps do I--nonetheless, we have great respect for the contributions 
he makes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I thank the chairman for his kind remarks 
and for the great job he does on very difficult issues.
  Anytime you talk about money, whether it is at home, at work, or here 
in the Senate, it raises a lot of concern and difficulty.
  I know this has been a difficult process to work through. Of course, 
I have a major disagreement with the budget that I want to concentrate 
on because I am not only on the Budget Committee, I am also on the HELP 
Committee, which is a big bite of the apple, especially since the 
President has placed so much emphasis on health care reform and 
education reform this year. I also happen to be on the Finance 
Committee. So the three committees have to interact on those issues, 
particularly the health care issue. I have never been involved in an 
issue with as many moving parts or as difficult as health care reform, 
probably because it involves 100 percent of the American people. Seldom 
do we have a bill that involves that. This also involves every single 
business and every single health care provider. All of them are nervous 
and probably ought to be as long as we are in session. I will speak in 
opposition because of a particular part of the budget resolution 
conference agreement that I am disappointed in.
  As I review the agreement before the Senate, it once again reminds me 
of the old adage that I have referred to before: You can pay me now or 
you can pay me later. This budget conference agreement leaves the bills 
for later. It taxes too much, it spends too much, and it borrows too 
much. I ask my colleagues if this is the legacy we want to leave our 
children and grandchildren. Actually, we are going to be paying for it 
within our lifetimes; it will not be just the next generation. We ought 
to know better.
  Yesterday, we were having a hearing in the HELP Committee where we 
were talking to several States that have done something significant in 
the area of health care. I like the roundtable approach. That is where 
we bring in people who have done something, and they explain how they 
did it, why, what the results were, what they would do differently. It 
is not like a regular hearing where one side invites in some of the 
witnesses, the other side invites one of the witnesses, and then 
everybody shows up to beat up on the witnesses. This is to get 
information. It was fascinating because we had Massachusetts, 
California, Vermont, and Utah--four States that have tried or done 
something in the area of health care.
  Yesterday, California explained their health care reform and had to 
mention

[[Page 10993]]

that it failed. I asked why. They said it was primarily because they 
had a $14 billion deficit they were trying to figure out how to cover, 
and health care costs money. I did have to point out that our deficit 
is significantly bigger each and every year. Even proportionately, it 
is significantly bigger. So that will raise some difficulties. This 
budget resolution conference agreement doesn't get near to solving that 
problem, not even in the long run. So we are not considering a 
conference report that will confront any of the tough financial 
priority choices that face our country.
  As I have said repeatedly, we cannot sustain the current level of 
spending without inflicting grave danger on the fiscal health of the 
country. Recently, I noticed that England tried to sell some bonds. 
They had difficulty selling them. They didn't sell them. Everyone will 
recall that China has been asking what additional guarantees we would 
give on our bonds. What does that say? That says that we have maxed out 
our credit cards. Every individual in America who has ever had a maxed-
out credit card knows what that means. It means you can't get more 
credit. We run on credit, particularly if we run deficits.
  One of the most offensive and dangerous parts of this conference 
agreement is the use of budget reconciliation. It is a procedural tool, 
and it is a backdoor method to bypass the full and fair legislative 
process. The Senate was designed to include minority views, and there 
aren't issues where it is more important to do this on than with health 
care reform and education reform. I am hoping that on either of those, 
in order for the American people to have confidence in what we are 
doing, we will put together a bill that will have 75 or 80 votes. We 
need to have that kind of agreement in order to have a plan that will 
work. And Lord help the party that designs one that does not work or 
that stops the process of getting one to work. Both sides have a 
tremendous responsibility in the health care and education debates. 
Either one can end their party with either of those bills. 
Reconciliation's intended use is for meaningful deficit reduction on 
budgetary issues. If you attack those problems purely from a budgetary 
issue, you cannot get to the core of the problem and you cannot resolve 
it.
  I just came from a Senate Finance Committee meeting where we are 
talking about the Senate Finance Committee piece of health care. That 
is separate from the HELP Committee portion of health care. Both have 
to work together, along with the Budget Committee, in order to come up 
with a plan. Today, we were going through roughly one-third of the 
problem. We were going to go through the delivery system part, how do 
we deliver health care. We have a little eight-page document. The first 
page is just a cover page. The second page is just a summary. The third 
page is where we spent the last 2 hours. There are five more pages to 
go. The other five pages are more difficult than the first page. After 
we finish all of this and reach some resolution, which we are hoping to 
do before the middle of May, then we have to look at coverage, what 
kind of coverage people will be given if they are under health care, 
and we want to get everyone under health care. The final piece we have 
to do is how to pay for it. So you can see it is a very complicated 
process.
  Reconciliation is intended for the use of meaningful deficit 
reduction on budgetary issues. The budget resolution that passed this 
Chamber in March, the Senate version, was silent on reconciliation. 
Reconciliation is included in the House budget resolution and was, 
therefore, an item we resolved during the conference process.
  The conference agreement provides reconciliation instructions to the 
Finance Committee and the HELP Committee on both health care reform and 
higher education. I serve on both committees, and as the ranking 
Republican on the HELP Committee, I do have expertise on the issues at 
the heart of the debate.
  I also have a track record of legislative accomplishments and getting 
bills across the finish line. It doesn't do any good to just debate 
them. If they don't get finished, it never helps anybody. I work on 
getting them across the finish line. The way to do that is to focus on 
the 80-percent rule. That means focusing on the issues where there is 
general agreement 80 percent of the time rather than the 20 percent of 
the issues where consensus is not likely. On that 80 percent, you have 
to pick out the 80 percent of the issue that everybody can agree on and 
find another way, a new way of doing that other 20 percent. Then you 
can reach the goal. If you are divided at the beginning, you won't get 
the 80 percent, let alone the other 20. It takes time to keep everybody 
calm and focused and listening. It takes time to reach solutions, 
particularly on the 20 percent where you are trying to come up with a 
new way, where neither side loses face, and get a result.
  What we have is a situation where the House of Representatives is 
dictating the Senate process. How did reconciliation instructions make 
it into the conference report after so many powerful Senate Democrats--
the Budget Committee chairman, the Finance Committee chairman, the HELP 
Committee chairman, all of the committees involved in this--opposed 
using reconciliation and said they would fight to keep it out of the 
budget? How did that many important people get rolled on this thing? 
How did that happen? They said they opposed it, but it winds up in 
there.
  The House Rules Committee can allow large, comprehensive bills to be 
cleared in a single afternoon. They don't need it. They can do it 
irrespective of whether the bill is designated as reconciliation 
legislation. However, in the Senate, without privileged designation, it 
could take a week or more to consider the same legislation. It does 
take longer over here. That is because we want to get it right. Using 
the reconciliation process does not allow for a full and open debate in 
the Senate. It does not allow a thorough vetting and amendment process. 
Its fast-track nature shuts out Members, particularly from the minority 
party. It also shuts out centrist Democrats. So it is a declaration 
that Republican ideas and centrist Democratic ideas are going to be 
left out of the mix. It is counter to the successful way legislation is 
typically considered in the HELP Committee. We often work in a 
bipartisan way that results in much of our legislation being worked out 
to achieve strong support from both sides of the aisle. Laws such as 
the Pension Protection Act and the Head Start reauthorization were 
hundreds of pages in length, and they passed the Senate with little 
debate and by huge margins.
  I am deeply disappointed that the final budget resolution paves the 
way for a partisan process, particularly on these issues that are 
important on education and health. I have to say that the most radical 
on both sides will favor this. The far-left Democrats see this as a way 
to do it their way. The far-right Republicans see it as a way to delay 
it so it doesn't get done because they will be able to cause confusion 
with the amount of time that is involved. That will be bad for both 
sides. It won't work for the American people. That is why it won't work 
for either side. That is why we have to be centrist on this and pull 
together 75 or 80 people who can agree on these issues. That will take 
time in committee. If we do the proper amount in committee, it will 
take less time on the floor. We have proven that with past legislation. 
To just throw out this little bomb that says we are going to do this in 
a very short period of time really affects the ability to work closely 
together.
  One truly difficult challenge this Congress has to address is how to 
get control of America's exploding health care costs. Simply throwing 
more money at the problem is not a solution. Real health care reform 
has to be bipartisan. It has to have a full and open debate. If we 
enact the wrong health care fix, we will worsen our budget crisis. 
Enacting reforms without reducing costs represents an unsustainable 
promise that the American people will long regret.
  It is taking us time to do these roundtables and hearings. Yesterday, 
Massachusetts, Vermont, California, and Utah talked about their 
experiences. We learned a lot. Both sides

[[Page 10994]]

learned a lot. They have learned a lot. The States are really 
laboratories for the Federal Government. What works at the State level 
might have some transformation to the Federal level. On the other hand, 
if we take it all at the Federal level and we do one-size-fits-all, we 
can damage efforts that can be done at the local level. The local level 
is where people live.
  Health care reform is too big an issue to advance with procedural 
shortcuts. There never has been a bill with as many moving parts that 
affects as many people as health care reform will. To get a workable 
solution, it will require the effort of everybody in the Senate. We can 
bring them together and do that. If we can't come up with a plan that 
will garner the support of at least 75 or 80 Senators, this institution 
will not gain the confidence of the American people. Without that 
confidence, the plan will fail. We will never overcome the objections 
that will be raised.
  Misusing the reconciliation process to get a health care bill or 
higher education reforms is not the right approach. It conflicts with 
the new bipartisan spirit the President has promised. This is a 
disappointing day in the Senate. Moving a health care reform bill 
through reconciliation rehashes what we have been suffering from--the 
Pelosi war cry: We won the election, we get to write the bills. That is 
not right. This kind of partisanship disenfranchises millions of 
Americans--not just Senators, millions of Americans--and it is wrong. 
They are looking for commonsense solutions, not party messages.
  The American people deserve a good bipartisan bill that will work. 
Using reconciliation will make that impossible. While I expect that 
Chairman Conrad has the votes to adopt this conference agreement, I am 
going to urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution and on the basis 
of needing to have good health care reform done the right way with 
everybody working on it. That is exactly how it has to be. It cannot be 
just one side. Anybody who opposes health care reform--unless it is 
because it was rushed through with just one party listening--will 
suffer too. If we get everybody together, we can come up with a plan 
that will work. I regret that ever made it into the budget. I still 
cannot believe that could be a part of it--the House, that does not 
need it, imposing it on a Senate that knows better.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, very briefly because I see Senator Gregg 
is in the Chamber, and I know he is on a very tight timeframe.
  I very briefly say to the Senator from Wyoming, I do not favor 
reconciliation for writing health care. I, personally, do not believe 
it will be used to write health care reform. It is here as an insurance 
policy. I think virtually everybody who has been engaged in the debate 
publicly and privately has now concluded it is not the preferred 
alternative for writing health care.
  One of the things we did do is push back the date to October 15 for 
the committees to act to give them more time to work under the regular 
order. Chairman Baucus has made an absolute commitment to try to do 
this in the regular order. I have done the same. The majority leader 
has done the same.
  I sincerely believe health care can and should be written without 
using the fast-track process of reconciliation. It is true it is here 
as an insurance policy, as a backstop. I would have strongly preferred 
it not even be that. But let me say, when it is the President of the 
United States, the Speaker, the majority leader here, it gets fairly 
lonely as a conferee. But I do wish to say to the Senator, I agreed 
with so much of what he said. He is going to be a major player in 
health care reform. He already has been--certainly in the CHIP 
legislation.
  I believe there is going to be a full opportunity to write it the way 
it should be written, which is in the committees of jurisdiction, with 
both sides fully participating. That is the best way and the right way 
to do it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, picking up on the comments made by the 
chairman--and I fully accept his sincerity and his belief and his 
desire not to use reconciliation, but that is not, as he said, the 
position of the President, the Speaker of the House, and the majority 
leader. I think we can assume if those three folks want reconciliation 
to be used, it is going to be used.
  The practical implications of reconciliation are to devastate the 
constitutional prerogative of the Senate. The purpose of the Senate is 
to debate, discuss, and then amend items of major--major--policy.
  The point is, reconciliation was put into this document, which we 
just received, for the purposes of muzzling the minority and making the 
Senate into having the same status, from a parliamentary procedure 
standpoint, as the House, where amendments are not allowed, where 
discussion is limited, and where an up-or-down vote is the only option 
given to the membership.
  It is not only a terrible idea from the standpoint of the impact it 
has on the constitutional role of the Senate--which has been explained 
very effectively by people such as Senator Byrd as being a place where 
we are supposed to give the minority the capacity to make points and 
discuss matters of high policy and complex issues in an open forum with 
the ability to amend--but it is also a very difficult way to proceed on 
an issue of such complexity as health care reform or the climate change 
issue. The practical effect of using reconciliation will be that a bill 
will pass in this Congress, especially in this Senate, which the 
American people will know is not fair. They will know it is not fair 
because there will have been no ability for the minority or for people 
who disagree with the way the bill was written down at the White House 
to object to it or to amend it.
  That type of legislation--major health care legislation, which 
affects every American--in order for it to be effective and in order 
for it to be accepted by the American people, needs to be perceived as, 
and really be, a fair document, reached through compromise, with the 
purposes of having all the different stakeholders at the table in order 
to discuss the issue. Regrettably, that is not going to happen under 
the reconciliation instruction.
  I would note that even though the chairman has said--and I am sure he 
says this in all sincerity; I know he says it in all sincerity--he 
believes reconciliation will not be used in health care, it can be used 
and will be used on health care if the President and the majority 
leader and the Speaker of the House want it to be because that is why 
they put it in.
  In addition, the idea it will not be used to raise the national sales 
tax on energy or a light switch tax, which is what is being proposed 
relative to the carbon tax, that also probably does not apply because 
the language of the bill is not binding. It simply says it is assumed. 
``Assumed'' is a pretty weak--in fact, I cannot think of many words 
that are any weaker than the term ``assumed.'' It is assumed 
reconciliation will not be used in the area of climate change 
legislation, which means it can be used in the area of climate change 
legislation and probably will be if there is a determination by those 
folks who want to push that issue to do so.
  It is ironic this bill--for which we have had two major votes in this 
Senate that said: Do not use reconciliation for the purposes of climate 
change--has in it such weak language on that issue, basically opening 
the door to using reconciliation for the purposes of climate change.
  But the reconciliation issue, as serious as it is--and it is a 
serious issue because it goes to the purposes and the role of the 
Senate, in my opinion; and it also, in my opinion, will undermine the 
quality of the product produced in the area of health care or climate 
change--is not the core problem with this budget. The core problem with 
this budget is it spends too much money, it raises and creates too much 
debt, especially on our children's backs, and it raises and spends too 
much in the way

[[Page 10995]]

of taxes. It is going to have a dramatic impact on the quality of life 
in this Nation as it plays out, as it is creating an unsustainable 
government, a government which neither our generation nor our 
children's generation, nor our children's children's generation are 
going to be able to pay for because it is going to increase in size so 
much and create so much in the way of deficit and debt, which will have 
to be paid for by our children and our grandchildren.
  To try to put this in perspective, the budget basically raises 
discretionary spending by $1.5 trillion. We are going to hear some 
arguments from the other side of the aisle that: No, it does not do 
that. I will get to that in a second. They are essentially doing the 
Obama budget, the President's budget. The Director of OMB says there is 
virtually no difference between the two. They are 98 percent the same.
  Essentially, they are raising discretionary spending by $1.4 
trillion, mandatory spending by $1.1 trillion, and raising taxes by 
$1.5 trillion. In fact, it may be a lot more. They are making 
absolutely no savings in the area of spending accounts, which are 
critical to getting this deficit down and under control.
  As we have mentioned on numerous occasions, but which is accurate and 
needs to be repeated, they double the size of the debt in 5 years, they 
triple it in 10 years, and they leave our children with a debt which is 
80 percent of GDP--a public debt which is 80 percent of GDP.
  The practical effect of having a debt that is 80 percent of GDP is 
that basically you have a nation which cannot sustain its obligations 
of debt. Today, our public debt to GDP is about 40 percent. If you wish 
to get into the European Union, your public debt can only be 60 percent 
of GDP. Under this budget, we are going to 80 percent of GDP. Latvia 
could get into the European Union, but we could not under this budget. 
That is what is going to happen. It is not a question of some sort of 
theoretical event. Under the spending program of this budget--and 
because the Congress is now totally controlled by the liberal side of 
the aisle and because the President is of that party--this is going to 
happen. It is not like it is not going to happen. It is going to 
happen.
  What is driving these massive deficits? Primarily, it is massive 
spending increases. It is not too tricky an issue. Under President 
Obama's budget, and under the budget that is brought here by our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle--although they tried to 
obfuscate the spending; at least the President is forthright about his 
spending--the spending of the Federal Government goes up dramatically.
  This chart I have in the Chamber shows, historically, Federal 
spending has been about 20 percent of GDP. That is about what we can 
afford, historically, because our revenues are a little bit below 
that--19 percent of GDP. Under this proposal, the spending goes up 
radically in the next year, year and a half, and then it comes down as 
a result of the end of the recession and then it starts going up again. 
But it never comes down that much. It is 23 percent, 24 percent, 25 
percent of GDP.
  The problem is spending. The President is very forthright about this. 
He says he believes strongly--and his party, obviously, agrees with 
him--that you should significantly increase the size of the Federal 
Government, that you should significantly increase spending because if 
you increase the size of the Government, if you move the Government to 
the left, if you increase its spending, you create prosperity. He 
believes governments create prosperity.
  Well, we do not agree with that. We think the way you create 
prosperity is having a government you can afford. That does not mean 
you eliminate Government. It means you have one you can afford. The 
proposal here is not for a government you can afford. It is just the 
opposite: a government we cannot afford, a government that is not 
sustainable. The way to create prosperity is by having a government you 
can afford and giving individuals the ability to go out, make 
investments, takes risks, and create jobs. That is how you create 
prosperity--not by radically increasing the size of Government, 
radically moving it to the left, which is exactly what is proposed in 
this budget.
  All this new spending leads to a massive increase in debt. In fact, 
one of the more interesting statistics--because I noticed the chart of 
my colleague from the other side relative to George Bush--this 
President dwarfs--dwarfs--what President George W. Bush did in the area 
of adding debt to our children's backs. It dwarfs that. If you take all 
the debt created in this country since George Washington through George 
W. Bush, President Obama's budget--and the budget which is being 
brought here by the other side of the aisle, if it were honestly scored 
and correctly accounted for, which would be essentially the same as 
President Obama's budget--doubles the amount of debt that has been put 
on our books by all the Presidents in all the history of this Nation. 
That is a tragic event for us, but it is an even more tragic event for 
the next generation.
  I hear the other side constantly talking about what President Obama 
inherited. Yes, he inherited tough times. But the issue is not what he 
inherited. The issue is what he is going to bequeath, what he is going 
to leave the next generation. What he is leaving the next generation is 
an unsustainable Government. You do not have to listen to me to believe 
that. The chairmen of the Budget Committees on both sides of Congress--
on the House side and the Senate side--have said the budget, as 
presently proposed, is unsustainable in the outyears. Their budget is 
unsustainable in the outyears. Of course, they eliminate the outyears. 
They only did a 5-year budget. The President did 10 years. They took 
off the last 5 years so they would not have to talk about it. But it is 
not going away at the end of 5 years--still growing, still out of 
control. And it is unsustainable in their own terms.
  Why is it unsustainable?
  This chart shows the bottom line of why it is unsustainable. It is 
called the debt. To quote one of the sages and oracles around here: 
``The debt is the threat,'' and the debt is just going up and up and 
up. It is an unsustainable situation.
  What does ``unsustainable'' mean? That is some sort of term we throw 
out and people don't really catch on. What does it mean? It means the 
average American family at the end of the President's budget will have 
$130,000 of new debt--every family in America--that they will have to 
pay for as part of the Federal debt. It means the average American 
family will have $6,000 a year of interest payments on that debt for 
which they will be responsible. It means our children will inherit a 
government which will cost them so much that basically one of two 
things will happen to them: The economy will have to be inflated 
radically to pay off this debt, thus reducing the value of the dollar, 
eliminating savings of most Americans and creating an economic tax of 
inordinate proportions through massive inflation; or taxes on all 
Americans will have to be significantly increased at a rate that we 
have never seen in our history--other than in World War II--a rate 
which will essentially mean Americans would not be able to go out and 
buy a home. They would not be able to go out and send their kids to 
college. They would not be able to buy that car or live that lifestyle 
our generation had.
  With the debt at 80 percent of GDP, it will mean for the first time 
in the history of our country, one generation will have passed on to 
another generation less of a nation--less prosperous, less strong, less 
opportunity. Totally unfair, but that is exactly what will happen. 
There is no way around this. Their budget locks us into this path. They 
themselves admit it is not sustainable, but that hasn't caused them to 
hesitate in going forward, and going forward in an aggressive way to 
expand the size of government and not pay for it and leave our kids 
with these massive debts.
  I think it is appropriate at this time to also talk a little bit 
about the specific budget before us, which is the compromise between 
the House and the Senate budget because there is so much misdirection 
and disingenuousness

[[Page 10996]]

about this budget that it is staggering. I give the President of the 
United States and his people credit, including Director Orszag and OMB. 
They attempted to send an honest and straightforward budget where they 
actually told us what was going to happen and what the costs were going 
to be. They put in one big gaming mechanism in the area of defense 
where they assumed $1.6 billion of spending, which everybody knew 
wasn't going to occur because they counted on the war costs going on 
for 10 years at their present levels--and we all know that is not going 
to happen--and then they claimed savings when those war costs were 
reduced. That was a fairly big item. But outside of that item, for the 
most part they gave us a budget that had integrity to it in the area of 
what it really was and what it was really going to cost.
  This budget which was just sent to us is just the opposite. It is 
filled with gamesmanship, with stuffing spending under the rug so we 
don't notice it, with tools that avoid enforcement mechanisms, and with 
things such as the reconciliation instructions, which are a total 
adulteration of the congressional process when it is used relative to a 
public policy issue as big as the question of health care.
  Let's note a few of the things they have left out of their budget to 
get to their alleged number. Remember, their alleged number is around 
$500 billion of deficit in the fourth and fifth years, and they pound 
their chest in great praise of themselves: Oh, we reduced the deficit 
to $500 billion. We have reduced it by half or three-fourths or 
whatever they want to claim. That is a little hard to sell to anyone 
with any common sense. When the deficit is run up to $1.8 trillion or 
$2 trillion and then brought down to $500 billion, that is not moving 
forward, folks; that is taking six steps back and one step forward and 
claiming that we are moving forward. We are still going backwards.
  This budget goes backwards at an atrocious rate. It goes backwards at 
an atrocious rate, and it doesn't even tell us how much it goes 
backwards because they hide so much of their spending and their costs 
underneath the rug.
  In the area, for example, of the doctor fix--we all know around here 
what the doctor fix is. The doctors in this country get reimbursed 
under Medicare, but we have this stupid, arcane rule around here which 
every year cuts the doctors' reimbursements by some amount, and now it 
is up to 20 percent. So every year we have to fix that. It is an 
expensive fix, but we do it every year, so we know we are going to 
spend that money to fix that arcane rule that ends up cutting doctors' 
reimbursements arbitrarily and unfairly.
  The President's budget accounted for that. They accounted for that 
fix. Does this budget account for that fix? A very small part of that 
fix--a very small part of that fix. They leave out about $50 billion of 
that fix.
  In the area of the alternative minimum tax, we know the alternative 
minimum tax wasn't supposed to apply to 20 million Americans; it was 
only supposed to apply to a small number of Americans who make a huge 
amount of money who could avoid paying taxes because they used tax 
avoidance mechanisms. But because of the failure to index that system, 
we now have 20 million Americans who will be subject to the alternative 
minimum tax if we don't fix it every year.
  So what do we do? Every year we eliminate the application of that tax 
to those 20 million Americans because it was never supposed to be there 
to begin with. But what does this budget do? The President had the 
integrity to say he was going to do that throughout his budget. They 
were not going to assume the revenues from the alternative minimum tax 
because they knew for a surety that they were not going to get those 
revenues because every year we repeal that tax that applies to those 
folks. So what do they do in their budget?
  Unlike the President, they don't account for all the alternative 
minimum tax. They score some of that revenue to themselves, taking 
advantage of that revenue. So instead of having the full cost of the 
alternative minimum tax in their bill, they have a small percentage of 
it--not a small percentage of it; about half of the cost accounted for 
in the bill. So they leave out a big number relative to the alternative 
minimum tax--about $70 billion--or about $80 billion, actually.
  Then the TARP, the President asked for more TARP money. It certainly 
looks as though, when you listen to all of these things coming out of 
the White House, that they are going to need more TARP money. They put 
that TARP money in his budget; they leave it out. No, no TARP money. 
Well, maybe arguably they will not step up when the President asks them 
to and finance the issue of how we maintain our financial stability as 
a country relative to our financial system, but I suspect if the 
President asks for TARP, it will be allocated, and they should have 
scored it. At least the President did that.
  Budgeting for disasters: We know we have disasters. The President 
knows we are going to have disasters. It appears the House Democrats 
and the Senate Democrats don't know we have disasters, or if they do, 
they decided not to budget for them because they left those numbers out 
in order to get to a better number on their deficit figure.
  Health care reform: We know we are going to get health care reform. 
We are going to get it through reconciliation probably. They are going 
to ram it down the throats of this Congress. It is going to be their 
bill, and we know their bill scores at $1.2 trillion over 10 years. 
That is how it scores. The President had the integrity to say he would 
put half of that in here. He put in $650 billion of that cost into his 
budget. Does it appear anywhere? No, it doesn't. The Democrats in the 
House and in the Senate, they are not going to pay for health care at 
all. They put in this euphemism of a reserve fund that claims they are 
going to pay for it, when we know that is about as likely as their use 
of pay-go to enforce any spending around here.
  The Make Work Pay tax credit, one of the premier items of the 
President, remember; we hear so much about how there is not going to be 
a tax increase on working Americans. Well, let's point out the fact 
that working Americans are going to get hammered pretty hard under this 
bill in the area of tax increases. First, they are going to get hit 
with a carbon tax, and a carbon tax is essentially a national sales tax 
on the production of electricity and the use of electricity. So if 
someone uses electricity in their home and turns on their light switch, 
they are going to get hit with a carbon tax.
  The estimates of that tax are huge--huge. MIT did a study and said it 
is $300 billion a year, massive numbers. It is $3,000 per household if 
we take that study and just divide the number of households into the 
cost of the study. But independent of that tax, which doesn't appear 
anywhere in this budget, by the way, other than the fact that we know 
it is coming through some reserve fund, alleged reserve fund--they wipe 
out the President's Make Work Pay tax credit which he asked to be 
extended. They assume it would not be extended. Why? They know it is 
going to be extended because if the President tells them to extend it, 
they are going to extend it.
  Why do they not put it in here? They don't put it in because they 
want to make their bottom line look better--look better. Then they 
actually skim down the middle-class tax relief. They have already 
scored the fact that they are going to tax wealthy Americans--alleged 
wealthy Americans--people making more than $250,000. They have already 
scored that and taken in that money.
  Remember, most of those people, the vast majority of those people, 
are basically running a small business, and when we raise their taxes, 
what can't they do? They can't expand their small business. They can't 
add jobs. They are the engine of jobs in this country, by the way. So 
they are going to tax them, take their money away from them, put it 
into the Government, expand the size of the Government on the 
allegation that the Government can create prosperity, not small 
business.
  Small business doesn't create prosperity as far as our colleagues on 
the

[[Page 10997]]

other side of the aisle are concerned. No, no, they tax them. No, it is 
the Government that creates prosperity, so let's take more money from 
small business, move it over here and give it to the Government, and we 
will create prosperity for Americans.
  Well, tell that to the person who is running the restaurant or 
running the garage or has a little software company who would like to 
use his money or her money in order to reinvest it so they can actually 
hire some more people and actually produce some value in this society, 
versus expanding the Government and creating more consultants and more 
people who are out there spending money in a very inefficient way, for 
the most part. But that is their policy. They won the election. Fine. 
But in winning the election, they also said they weren't going to tax 
middle Americans.
  Well, look at the document. There is $180 billion of taxes on middle-
income Americans which they do not define from where it comes. They 
simply say it is there. It is in there somewhere. Well, somebody is 
going to have to pay it. I think it is pretty safe to say it is going 
to be working Americans who are going to have to pay that $180 billion.
  Why did they raise those taxes on working Americans? Why did they go 
back on their campaign promises, both in the Make Work Pay area and in 
the taxing working Americans? Well, they did it so they could make 
their bottom line number look better than the President's. At least the 
President had integrity. He had honesty. He came to us and said: I am 
going to extend Make Work Pay. I am going to have a middle-class tax 
cut. The other side of the aisle, the Democrats in the House and the 
Senate don't play by those rules. They play by the old rules of let's 
obfuscate, hide, sequester money and make it look as if we are saving 
money when we absolutely know for sure the spending is misrepresented 
in the bill and the taxes are misrepresented in the bill.
  Then they have the temerity to use the phony 920 number. We all know 
920 is a phony number. This is an account we set up, and when we claim 
savings, we put things into 920. In other words, I am going to increase 
spending on the XYZ program because I like XYZ. Well, where do I get 
the money for that if I am going to try to stay revenue neutral? I am 
going to get it out of account 920. I am going to spend $40 billion on 
the XYZ program and the offset is going to be account 920. Account 920 
is an account that for all intents and purposes leads to a cut around 
here. It never leads to anything. It is not specific. It should come 
out of all accounts. It never happens, but they were a little off in 
the numbers they wanted to get to, so they did a 920 account in their 
budget to the tune of, I think, $40 billion or more--$48 billion.
  All of that added up, and their real number, their real deficit 
numbers--the numbers that the President actually had, ironically--come 
out pretty close to the same. If we put back in all the stuff they have 
hidden under the rug, all the stuff they claimed they are not going to 
do, which we know they are going to do, we come back to deficit numbers 
which are almost exactly what the President's deficit numbers are.
  There is no $500 billion deficit in the fifth year; it is $924 
billion--if you put back in what they have hidden, claimed, obfuscated, 
manipulated, and generally tried to play games with around here.
  So the President's numbers were accurate. He deserves credit for 
that. But this budget is a fraud on its baseline numbers. The reason 
this is important, besides the fact that there is actually $400 billion 
of spending almost every year that is not accounted for in this budget, 
is that the deficit, at these numbers, is around 5 percent of GDP. A 
deficit of around 5 percent of GDP and a public debt of around 80 
percent of GDP leads you to being a country that is essentially 
unsustainable in its fiscal policy. It leads to a nation where the 
dollar loses its value, where our debt cannot be sold, where inflation 
is rampant, tax policy is basically so heavy that productivity is 
significantly stifled. They want to hide that number. At least the 
President had the integrity to admit that. The House and Senate 
Democrats have tried to hide that.
  There is one other point that needs to be made here, because of the 
foolishness of the statements about how they are going to reinstitute a 
real pay-go. You know, I understand that the Blue Dog Democrats on the 
House side come from districts where their people expect them to be 
fiscally responsible. They have gotten on this banner of pay-go. They 
say we are going to assert pay-go. That will be the rules that guide 
us, and we will make sure all the spending is paid for and the tax cuts 
are paid for. That is called pay-go. They say that as a mantra, to the 
point where it has become a term of art that implies you are fiscally 
responsible.
  Look at this budget. My colleagues on the House side, who are Blue 
Dogs, claim to wrap themselves in the banner of pay-go, but they have 
no banner on their pole. There is no pay-go in this bill that will have 
a significant impact. In fact, the budget passed by the House and 
Senate put in place policies that would obfuscate pay-go to the tune of 
approximately $2.4 trillion. So on the face of this, they have ignored 
pay-go in their own budget. The ultimate insult is that the most 
significant public policy event we are going to do, probably in the 
term of anybody in this Congress, going back to the beginning of Robert 
C. Byrd's term, forward to the end of probably the youngest Member of 
the Congress who is serving today's term, which is the issue of 
rewriting the health care system of this country--17 percent of our 
GDP--the single most significant public policy event we will ever 
undertake--affecting every American everywhere, at all different 
levels, they formally, by law, waive pay-go in this bill for that 
exercise.
  The Blue Dog Democrats in the House say we have the pay-go 
protection. Nobody who is being forthright with their constituents 
should go out and claim that pay-go is going to be a disciplining 
event. It isn't, hasn't been, and will not be--especially on the most 
significant issue we confront, which is the question of health care 
reform.
  We have already talked, of course, about reconciliation and the 
affront that is to the Senate procedures and the constitutional role of 
the Senate. But it should be noted that using reconciliation also 
creates the situation where you can run through a massive tax increase, 
such as the carbon tax, and use it to pay for health care reform. Don't 
think that that is not being considered around here. Assuming that 
reconciliation won't be used in that area is an optimistic projection, 
because the majority leader has already said publicly that--and I am 
paraphrasing--isn't it interesting that the revenues from the carbon 
tax, or the national sales tax, light switch tax, pretty much is what 
we need in order to do the first few years of the health care bill as 
we see it.
  So offsetting those two has obviously been an idea that has presented 
itself to the majority leader, and he wields significant authority 
here. He was able to keep reconciliation in over the objections of our 
chairman, allegedly, so I know he is powerful, because the chairman is 
extraordinarily powerful. When two powerful forces meet, if one of them 
survives, we know that one is really powerful. We know the majority 
leader is really powerful because he was more powerful than the 
chairman on the issue of reconciliation. So that is serious. We could 
use the carbon tax to pay for the health care, which is possible. I am 
not saying it is going to happen, but it is possible while using 
reconciliation.
  That brings me back to my closing point, which I want to reiterate. 
It is about debt. It is about the fact that when this is all said and 
done, when all the smoke has risen, there will still be burning a 
massive explosion of Federal debt, an explosion so large, increases so 
dramatic, that I don't see any way out from under it with this budget. 
I am so concerned about where this takes our opportunities as a Nation. 
When you pass on--and it is not that far away because we are talking 
2013, 2014, when we start getting big numbers. When you pass on a 
deficit of 4 to 5 percent of

[[Page 10998]]

GDP, a debt of 60 to 80 percent GDP, where do we go as a Nation? Let's 
think about that for a minute. How does a nation get out from 
underneath that? Doesn't the world start to look at us and say, my God, 
has America lost its way? Is it no longer capable of disciplining 
itself and living in a responsible manner? When they say that about us, 
where does our Nation end up? Where do we leave our children?
  It is a serious issue. Yet it is right here, and this budget is the 
point. If we pass this budget in its present form, with the outyear 
spending and outyear debt, I don't know how we get out from behind it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I found the presentation of my 
colleague, for whom I have great respect--but on this presentation I 
found it highly entertaining, and it bears almost no relationship to 
the document that is at the desk.
  It is very interesting, if you read the charts that the Senator 
presented, they all relate to the President's budget. You notice they 
don't relate to the budget that is before us. The fact is that we made 
significant changes in the President's budget, because after the 
President presented his budget, we learned in the Congressional Budget 
forecast that we were losing $2 trillion of revenue because of the 
economic slowdown over the next 10 years. So we made a series of very 
significant adjustments to respond to that reality.
  In fact, over 5 years alone, we changed the Obama budget by $555 
billion. Not one dime of that was reflected in the Senator's charts. 
They say if you are a lawyer and if you have the facts, argue the 
facts; if you have the law, argue the law; if you have neither, attack 
your opponent. That is what we have heard. They don't have the facts, 
they don't have the law, and they certainly are not talking about the 
legislation before us; so they launched an ad hominem attack.
  Let me go back to the facts, because they are stubborn things. On 
spending, let's be clear. This budget takes domestic discretionary 
spending, as a percentage of GDP, from 4.4 percent in 2010 to 3.4 
percent in 2014. That is not a big spending budget; that is a tough 
budget that reduces the share of our national economy going to Federal 
domestic discretionary spending. On nondefense discretionary spending, 
in dollar terms, over the 5 years of the budget, the spending is 
increased, on average, by 2.9 percent a year. That is less than the 
growth in national income. That is why the share of domestic 
discretionary spending as a part of our economy is going down under 
this budget.
  The Senator said that somehow there is a $180 billion tax increase in 
this budget. Where? I mean, he made this same assertion last year. He 
said the budget last year was going to increase taxes. What happened 
with last year's budget? Did it increase taxes? No. It cut taxes by 
hundreds of billions of dollars. That is what this budget does. This 
budget cuts taxes, on balance, over 5 years by $764 billion. That is a 
fact. That is not made up for the convenience of a political debate. 
That is a fact. Taxes are cut under this budget $764 billion.
  On reconciliation, I must say the speech by the Senator is beyond the 
pale. He acts as though reconciliation is against the Constitution of 
the United States. Well, it is interesting what he had to say when the 
shoe was on the other foot. When the shoe was on the other foot in 
2001, and he wanted to use reconciliation, what did the Senator say 
then? Unfortunately for the credibility of his speech here, we have the 
Record. We know what he said then. Here is what he said then:

       Reconciliation is a rule of the Senate, set up under the 
     Budget Act. It has been used before for purposes exactly like 
     this on numerous occasions. The fact is, all this rule of the 
     Senate does is allow a majority of the Senate to take a 
     position and pass a piece of legislation, support that 
     position. Is there something wrong with majority rules? I 
     don't think so.

  So when they wanted to use reconciliation, it was a rule of the 
Senate, and it simply allowed the majority to work their will, and 
there was nothing wrong with it. Now when we have a reconciliation 
instruction as a backup, as an insurance policy, now it is somehow 
against the Constitution. Please. That is not going to stand up against 
the Senator's own record. The fact is that reconciliation has been used 
19 times--13 by the party on the opposite side. I didn't hear and see 
crocodile tears from them about how it threatened the Constitution. In 
fact, the Senator described it then as a simple Senate rule that 
allowed the majority to rule.
  I take great offense to the suggestion that this budget is made up. 
This budget is not made up. It is scored by the CBO, which is 
nonpartisan. This budget does precisely what I have presented it as 
doing. It reduces the deficit by two-thirds over 5 years. As a share of 
GDP, it cuts the deficit by three quarters. The Senator says, you have 
hidden the doc fix, which is this. We know doctors who treat Medicare 
patients are scheduled to take major reductions. We have not hidden a 
thing. We have said that, after 2 years, fixing the downward spiral on 
doctors' reimbursement for those who treat Medicare patients will have 
to be paid for. That is not hidden; that is very clear, direct, and it 
is what we should be doing here--paying for things.
  When we found we were in a circumstance in which we had $2 trillion 
less than the President had to write a budget, we had to make changes, 
and we did. We made responsible changes. One of the changes we made was 
to say that, no, doctors should not be cut. We will provide the money 
in this budget for the next 2 years so they are not cut. But after 
that, additional fixes would have to be paid for. That is what we have 
to start doing around here--paying for things.
  And there is the alternative minimum tax. We have said in this 
resolution that the alternative minimum tax should not be imposed on 
anybody, and for the next 3 years it can be done without offsets, 
without paying for it, because we don't want to raise taxes during a 
time of economic downturn. But after the 3 years, further moves to 
prevent the AMT from being imposed have to be paid for.
  The same is true on TARP funding. The Senator said we excluded TARP 
funding. Yes, we did because we could not pass $250 billion of TARP 
funding after the way TARP has been handled in the first round. It 
would not pass. The President said put it in as an insurance policy. He 
does not have a specific proposal before us, in any event. But we did 
not include it here because it could not pass this body.
  On health care, the Senator suggests this is going to add $1 trillion 
to the debt. Not under this budget. Again, he failed to read the 
document. It makes very clear, if we are going to have health care 
reform, it has to be paid for. The reserve fund he kind of glossed over 
is very specific. I can only change the allocations to committees if 
the issue is paid for. I have no authority to change the allocation to 
committees unless health care reform is paid for.
  On Make Work Pay, the President's middle-class tax cut, in addition 
to all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that are all included in this budget, 
over $500 billion of tax cuts for the middle class that are in this 
budget, the President's middle-class tax cuts that are over and above 
those that were included in 2001 and 2003, the so-called ``make work 
pay'' provisions, they are already provided for in the stimulus 
package. That is already the law for the next 2 years. If it is to be 
extended, this budget says we have to pay for it. That is exactly what 
we are going to have to do to bring the deficit down. We are going to 
have to start paying for things.
  There are so many things that were said that are in error about this 
budget, it is breathtaking.
  I wish to conclude on this note. If this budget is so bad, why didn't 
the Senator offer an alternative? In 2001, when I thought the Bush 
budget was fatally flawed, I offered an alternative on the floor of 
this body. This year, the Senator has offered no alternative. All he 
offers is complaints and misrepresentations and a rewriting of history.
  The debt is on an unsustainable course. Why? Because the previous 
administration doubled the debt, tripled

[[Page 10999]]

foreign holdings of U.S. debt, and put us on a course in which we face 
the worst recession since the Great Depression. That is why the debt is 
burgeoning. It is not as a result of this budget document. This budget 
document moves the deficit down, reduces it by two-thirds over the next 
5 years.
  We inherited a colossal mess--colossal. To suggest this President is 
responsible for this colossal mess after he has been in office 100 days 
does not stand the test of truth and will not stand any scrutiny. We 
all know how we got to where we are. The previous administration 
doubled the debt of the country at a time when the economy was 
relatively good. Unfortunately, when they left office, the economy was 
in the worst shape in 60 years. History will not treat the previous 
administration and their supporters on the Hill gently or kindly 
because they put us in this ditch. The President is seeking to lift us 
out of it.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate the following 
message from the House of Representatives, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the House to the 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, having met, after full and 
     free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to 
     their respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of 
     conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration 
of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of April 27, 2009.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I rise to discuss the conference report 
on the fiscal year 2010 budget. Unfortunately, I will not be able to 
support this legislation. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee 
since I have been in the Senate, I spoke on this budget during the 
committee consideration, and I also spoke on it while it was on the 
Senate floor. I was unable to support it those two times, and I am 
disappointed to say I will not be able to support it here either.
  Today marks the 100th day of the Obama administration. It is still 
too early to see most of the effects the different pieces of 
legislation the President has signed into law will have on America. 
However, we do know one thing: It sure has cost a lot.
  The price tag for the so-called stimulus bill was over $1 trillion, 
if you include the interest. The cost of the Omnibus appropriations 
bill was about $410 billion. What does this mean? It means that over 
these first 100 days, President Obama has spent an average of $12 
billion a day. That is a staggering rate of spending. We cannot 
continue to manage our Nation's finances like this.
  The budget proposed by the Obama administration several weeks ago is 
no more responsible than these other bills. It spends too much, it 
taxes too much, and it borrows much too much.
  I have mentioned these numbers before, but they are worth repeating. 
The President's proposal will double the publicly held national debt to 
more than $15 trillion. Annual spending would leap from $24,000 per 
household to $32,000. This plan would also raise taxes by $1.4 trillion 
over 10 years.
  Those are not my numbers. I didn't make them up. The people hired by 
the Democrats, the Congressional Budget Office, picked by Senator Reid, 
Speaker Pelosi and one member of the Finance Committee and one member 
of the Ways and Means Committee, Senator Baucus and Congressman 
Rangel--those are the people who picked CBO's Director, and those are 
his numbers.
  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. In fact, the proposal would create more debt under every 
previous President from George Washington to include George W. Bush.
  I know today we are not voting on the Obama proposal. However, I 
still think it is completely reasonable to discuss it. This proposal 
gives us a great insight into how President Obama views Government. We 
see he wants to greatly expand it. He also no longer is a member of the 
legislative branch. However, he is the leader of the party that 
controls the legislative branch. We know he will have influence on how 
legislation is written.
  One of the most troubling aspects of the document before us is the 
inclusion of reconciliation instructions for health care and education 
legislation. I don't want to talk about arcane Senate procedure today. 
However, this is an abuse of the process. Reconciliation is supposed to 
be used to return money to the taxpayers and the Treasury. It makes 
legislation that accomplishes this much easier to pass. These 
instructions require a total savings of $2 billion. This is absurd 
because we know health care reform and education legislation will cost 
much more than $2 billion. In fact, as we know from the numbers I 
mentioned above, the administration has spent $2 billion every 4 hours 
or so. This will not be any kind of significant deficit reduction.
  Another worrying feature of this budget is the assault on small 
businesses. President Obama admits that 70 percent of job growth will 
come from small businesses. So why does this budget tax them out of 
existence?
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim they are only 
raising taxes on a handful of small businesses, but they ignore the 
fact that they are hurting the businesses that are responsible for two-
thirds of small business jobs. Small business jobs are key to our 
economic recovery. But look at what the failed policies of this 
Congress have done for small businesses.
  The so-called stimulus bill that added over $1 trillion to our 
national debt spends less than one-half of 1 percent--one-half of 1 
percent--on small businesses. Also, after mortgaging our future on the 
TARP bailout, 70 percent of the large banks have actually decreased 
their small business lending. Now these small businesses that have been 
devastated by the economy and cannot get a loan to make payroll are 
going to be hit with a massive tax increase. How are these small 
business owners going to be able to hire even one more worker? This 
budget is an assault on small businesses. It taxes too much, and it 
should be defeated.
  I would like to mention energy policy before I conclude my remarks. 
Throughout this year's budget debate, we have talked a lot about 
energy, particularly a proposed cap-and-trade tax proposal. At a time 
when our Nation's energy needs are continuing to grow, we should turn 
our focus on how best to meet those needs while creating jobs instead 
of taxing American families. If we act too rapidly by imposing carbon 
taxes, all Americans will pay the cost through dramatic increases in 
utility prices. If enacted, a cap-and-trade revenue program would 
institute one of the largest tax increases in American history. Every 
American will pay a sales tax whenever they turn the light switch on or 
start their car. This tax will be untargeted and regressive. Even our 
poorest citizens will be hit by this tax. This is a dangerous policy, 
and I am startled by how much support it has received from this current 
administration.
  So much for the President's promise not to tax anyone making less 
than $250,000 per year. Maybe that is because he knows he needs more 
money than he can raise by taxing just the rich to pay for all of his 
plans to make Government even a bigger part of ordinary Americans' 
lives.
  As I have outlined above, this budget has some problems. It spends 
too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in support of fiscal responsibility by voting 
against this piece of legislation.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Madam President, I rise today to express my extreme 
disappointment in the outcome of the

[[Page 11000]]

conference report, specifically the blatant disregard of the will of a 
bipartisan majority of this Senate. Madam President, 67 Members--67 of 
us--spoke with one voice in opposition to allowing cap-and-trade 
legislation to be slipped into the law in a way that stifles amendments 
and debate.
  Almost 70 of us spoke, again in a very bipartisan voice, to instruct 
the budget conferees to include our amendment in their report to ensure 
that the bright light of transparency shines on cap-and-trade 
legislation. Yet that very amendment, supported by 67 Senators, is 
nowhere to be found in the conference report. So the door has been 
reopened to pass sweeping cap-and-trade legislation with a simple 
majority.
  The Budget Committee leadership did include report language about 
climate change, but it really has no meaning. The sentence in the 
conference report states:

       It is assumed that reconciliation will not be used for 
     changes in legislation related to global climate change.

  In reality, this statement is not worth the paper on which it is 
written. This assumption is made by people who don't have any control 
over the process. Frankly, the Budget Committee can assume whatever it 
wants, but the truth is that the majority leadership can roll them at 
any time.
  And then what is our recourse? Well, there is none. This Budget 
Committee assumption has no teeth whatsoever. It is simply a nice 
platitude to try to lull us to sleep.
  Certainly you can understand my skepticism. Sixty-seven Senators 
supported an amendment that had real enforcement teeth to shield the 
American people from being railroaded in the dead of night. It would 
have ensured open debate and the opportunity to offer amendments on the 
Senate floor. Yet when the conference agreement returned, the amendment 
had been stripped from the budget resolution to ensure it appears 
nowhere--nowhere in black and white.
  So today we must be on our guard again. Some might suggest we relax 
because there are no reconciliation instructions entitled ``cap and 
trade.'' In fact, some will argue that because there are no 
instructions from the Senate for the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works at all, so there is no need to worry; case closed.
  Don't fall for it. Remember, the House Energy and Commerce Committee 
has reconciliation instructions in the final resolution. So the House 
could easily use these instructions to enact cap and trade. They could 
generate over $1 trillion for nationalized health care or really for 
any other initiative. They could go to the conference, and then, 
presto, cap and trade emerges from the conference with not a single 
Senate amendment offered and only 10 hours of debate on the Senate 
floor.
  Consider this: A hard-working American on the night shift could 
literally go to bed after a long night's work and wake up to find cap 
and trade is the law of the land. What a rude awakening that would be: 
his family facing a new $3,000 tax and his job in jeopardy of moving 
overseas where no carbon tax exists. And let's not be fooled. There 
will be tremendous pressure on the committee to follow this exact path.
  Many will want to avoid such inconveniences as consultation with the 
American people. After all, these discussions would be very 
uncomfortable. Who would want the very unpleasant job of explaining to 
the American people that they are going to be taxed every time they 
turn on a light switch or start the washing machine or throw clothes 
into the dryer? I can see why some think it would be easier just to 
slip the legislation through with no transparency.
  It is not just cap and trade that could become the law of the land 
without a robust debate. Budget reconciliation could be used to pass 
universal health care. Some describe this as an insurance policy. 
Insurance policy for what? Don't the American people, through their 
elected representatives, have a right to use Senate procedure to 
examine this very important change?
  My point is this: Many have risen over the years to speak against 
reconciliation to pass complex legislation. Budget reconciliation is 
simply ill-suited to pass difficult, comprehensive legislation such as 
cap and trade or health care.
  Well, what has happened is this: By mixing complex policy questions 
with budget reconciliation instructions and the Byrd rule, you get a 
witch's brew. The result is a bizarre set of rules. You could literally 
have a situation where a high bar would be set--a 60-vote requirement--
to pass very noncontroversial, budget-neutral health care provisions, 
and yet--listen to this odd result--major overhaul provisions which 
cost hundreds of billions of dollars would need just a simple majority. 
We have reduced the Senate to not the deliberative body but a body 
where literally we get around the rules.
  And that is where we will be. Some simple sections of the health care 
bill will require 60 votes, while the tax increases and the extravagant 
spending provisions within the same bill will require a simple 
majority. I challenge any Member to come to the floor and explain to me 
why that makes any sense. How unfortunate. It certainly is no way to 
legislate. It is not what I planned on when I came to the Senate. This 
situation will make a mockery of the work we do on this floor.
  Allowing only 20 hours of debate on this extremely complex issue will 
result in very piecemeal policies with glaring weaknesses. Eventually, 
the American people will catch up with this and say: What were you 
thinking?
  I am not interested in a band-aid solution. I am not interested in 
playing politics with such an important issue. It is a game changer. I 
am interested in being thoughtful and careful about our approach to 
such important policy--legislation that will affect the lives of 
virtually every single American.
  The budget rules were never intended to expand Government programs or 
to be the catalyst for major policy implementation. The American people 
deserve better than the course this budget resolution is charting.
  I will also say that I don't believe I was elected to come here and 
assign blame. Let's just follow our rules, starting today, and bring 
transparency to these complex issues. Debate them, amend them, then 
cast our vote.
  I urge all Americans to pay close attention because I think we are on 
a dangerous course. There is troubling potential for health care reform 
and climate legislation to constitute the largest tax increase ever 
witnessed in the history of this country. I ask the American people 
today, therefore, in view of where we seem to be headed, to be 
vigilant. They have to demand honesty. They must demand transparency. 
And demand that those in Washington remember the principles of 
democracy and remember why we were sent here--to have great debates, to 
follow our rules, to amend where we can, and then to cast our vote. 
Unfortunately, this budget resolution takes us on a different course.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and because I don't see anyone 
else queued up, 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. GRAHAM. 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. GRAHAM. Madam President, could you inform me when 10 minutes has 
expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
  I rise today to speak about the budget and the debate we are having 
in the Senate about the budget. Quite frankly, if you asked me to give 
a scenario that would best explain what a politician thinks about life 
and politics, I would say: Let them write a budget. When you give a 
political leader the opportunity to sit down and spend money coming 
from the taxpayer, it tells you a lot about their priorities, it tells 
you a lot about how they view the role of Government. And I am here to 
say that this budget is not good news for the American taxpayer.
  Today marks the anniversary of the President's first 100 days, and I 
think

[[Page 11001]]

the biggest accomplishment in the first 100 is a budget that is 
transformational in terms of how it transforms the country in a way 
that I don't think is healthy.
  The one thing we have had going for us as Americans, from one 
generation to the next, is the hope and belief that the ones to 
follow--our kids and grandkids--would have a chance to do better; that 
we would do what is right and what is necessary on our watch so they 
would have a chance to do better. If this budget passes, you are going 
to have a hard time looking the next generation of Americans in the eye 
and saying: You are going to have a chance to do better than people 
alive here today.
  What this budget does is it doubles the national debt. President 
Obama's proposal, a 10-year budget--I will give him credit for making 
it a 10-year window--triples the national debt. This budget creates 
more debt for America in the first 100 days of the Obama administration 
than every President since George Washington combined. We have spent, 
in the first 100 days, $12 billion a day. We are running up the deficit 
and the debt at an alarming rate, and we are growing the size of the 
Government in a way that future generations are going to have to pay 
for.
  The question for the country, if this budget passes, is this: Are we 
creating a government that is sustainable by the next generation? Can 
the next generation, with this budget in place, have a chance of doing 
better than we have? I don't think so. I really don't. And I never 
thought I would hear myself say that.
  As we look down the road, we see how the budget explodes the national 
debt and the deficit--67 percent of the debt held by the public as a 
percentage of GDP. That is what happens under the Obama budget in 2014. 
This is a 5-year budget, and we have ignored some of the things we know 
we are going to do to make the numbers look better because the 
President's budget was so large and so unnerving in terms of long-term 
indebtedness.
  The worst that Bush did--and we did not do a good job on our watch as 
Republicans--was to have a $500 billion deficit.
  The best this budget does, 10 years from now, is about $600 billion, 
and we sustain trillion-dollar deficits for several years. But the 
percentage of publicly held debt relative to GDP, gross domestic 
product, is going to be 67 percent down the road. That is Third World 
nation status.
  The budget is a 5-year budget. The numbers look better, but we have 
not done anything to fix the doctor reimbursement problem, the last 2 
years of the AMT fix are not included, and we are expanding the Make 
Work Pay tax credit. What we have done is mask the real cost of what we 
know is going to be there after 5 years.
  The budget that was proposed by the President triples the national 
debt and increases taxes by $1 trillion on people who make over 
$250,000 a year. That may sound good because I don't make $250,000 a 
year. Maybe 2 or 3 years of my entire life I have. I am the first 
person in my family to go to college. My dad and mom owned a liquor 
store. We had a middle-class lifestyle at best, but we were happy. I 
never looked across the street at the person who owned the big business 
in town and had the nice house as my enemy. They are not.
  In a recession and a global economy that is on its knees, if we start 
raising taxes on American business people, they are going to look to 
take their business somewhere else. To go from 35 percent to 39.5 
percent on people who earn over $250,000 is in theory more money for 
the Government, but it is less money for the people who have taken a 
huge risk to create a business. The day we start punishing people and 
rewarding the Government for the risks they take is the day America 
gets off track.
  Raising the capital gains rates, as this budget does, from 15 to 20 
percent, will make it less likely that people will engage in 
entrepreneurial activity. But one thing John Kennedy understood is, low 
tax rates generate business activities that actually generate more 
money for the Government. So what we are doing is raising taxes, and we 
are playing class warfare.
  The defense spending in President Obama's budget over a 10-year 
period went to 3 percent of gross domestic product. It is about 4.5 or 
4.6 percent now. That would put us on the low end, in the Nation's 
history, for defense spending. So liberals raise taxes, and they cut 
defense at a time when I think we can't afford to do either.
  The world, to me, in the next 10 years is not going to be safer 
unless we act. Iran and North Korea are pursuing nuclear programs that 
could jeopardize our lives as we know it. The one thing I can tell you 
about Iraq and Afghanistan, we made plenty of mistakes, but we have the 
best trained, best equipped military in the world, and that really does 
matter. We are going to win in Iraq if we continue the course we are 
on, and we are going to turn Afghanistan around, but it is going to 
take blood and treasure.
  The one thing I am not looking for from an American perspective is a 
fair fight. When we go to war--and sometimes that is required to 
protect the national interest--we need to go to win, and we need to 
overwhelm the enemy. We need to have technology they do not. We need to 
have more troops than they do. We need to have equipment that can 
destroy their equipment without destroying our people. That requires 
investment. The whole world is reducing their defense budgets.
  Our NATO allies spend less on defense combined than we do. Like it or 
not, we are the arsenal of democracy, and now is not the time to reduce 
the arsenal and to be cheap on defense and grow the domestic side of 
Government. We need butter and we need guns, but let me tell you right 
now we need a lot of guns in the world we are about to inherit in the 
next 10 years.
  Finally, the increase in domestic spending puts the country on an 
unsustainable path, and the next generation is going to have to pay for 
this big government. To pay for it we are going to have to raise their 
taxes. To make it all work we are cutting defense.
  There is a better way. Let's keep taxes competitive and as low as 
possible, realizing we have a government to run. Let's spend wisely. 
Let's reform health care so the Government doesn't become the one group 
in the country that decides what doctor we can see and what the doctor 
makes and what kind of treatment we get.
  This climate change issue is real, in my opinion. I think manmade 
emissions, CO2 emissions, are heating up the planet. In the 
President's budget he was going to put a $646 billion cap-and-trade tax 
on industry and American consumers--$3,100 per family--at a time when 
we could ill afford it. That was taken out of the budget. That is good 
news. But what I am trying to say to my Democratic colleagues is, this 
is your Government now. You run this place. The problems in the past, 
the mistakes made by Republicans are real. You don't fix those mistakes 
by spending more money than we did. You don't fix the problems that 
America faces for the next generation by growing the Government at a 
pace and a level you can't pay for down the road unless you have to 
give up some of your hopes and dreams.
  There is a role for Government. There is a role for us in health 
care. There is a role for us to play in the economy of our times: to 
help business and to be a safety net for those who have lost their 
jobs. But we are about to pass a budget that will increase the national 
debt, double what we have today. There will be a day in 2014 when we 
will spend more money paying the interest on the national debt than the 
entire Defense Department budget. That is not healthy for this country.
  We have done nothing to reform Medicare or Social Security. We are 
talking about $1 trillion more in spending on health care when we spend 
more than any nation in the world.
  We are going to pass this budget. It is my hope the American people 
will weigh in. The stimulus package was $787 billion of spending--a lot 
of growth in Government and very few jobs created. You need to speak 
out. You need to get involved. You need to tell us all, Republicans and 
Democrats: I expect

[[Page 11002]]

you to collect taxes from me. I expect you to offer services to me and 
my family. But I do not expect you to make it so that my children and 
my grandchildren cannot have the life I have had. I expect you to do 
what I am doing, tighten your belt and set priorities.
  This is your Government at the end of the day. It is fashionable and 
appropriate to criticize political leadership. But in a democracy, when 
you look in the mirror, that is ``we the people.'' So for America to 
change it is going to require Americans to demand it from both of us, 
Republicans and Democrats. I believe in you. Your Government is 
dysfunctional. It will be made better if you want it to be. There are 
people here listening. Speak out before it is too late.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I would like to pick up where my 
colleague from South Carolina left off and talk a little bit about the 
need to have a budget agreement that reflects the will of the American 
people, to have Republicans and Democrats both engaged, involved in 
that, not only in Washington in the Senate but Republicans and 
Democrats around the country. What we saw in this budget was a certain 
number of amendments that were accepted on the floor of the Senate, 
Republican amendments, all of which were stripped out in the conference 
committee with the House--which many of us predicted. But there were 
lots of good amendments that addressed key, core issues.
  We had amendments that addressed the issue of climate change, which 
the door is left open to in this budget. We had amendments that 
addressed issues such as the deduction for charitable giving, which was 
an amendment I offered on the Senate floor. It was adopted by a vote of 
94 to 3. That was struck in the conference.
  We had amendments that were offered that were designed to protect 
those with incomes less than $250,000 a year from having tax increases 
in the budget. That was an Ensign amendment. That was stripped out. So 
any Republican input or involvement in this budget process was 
nullified by the work of the conference committee, the Democrats who 
led the conference between the House and the Senate. So we are left 
with a budget that has been sanitized of any of those protections 
against higher costs for energy, against higher taxes, and a whole 
range of other things--protection against losing the deduction that is 
available to people, the tax benefit available to people for charitable 
giving, that being stripped away and used to pay for other things.
  The budget essentially now is a Democratic budget. My colleague from 
North Dakota was here earlier talking about how these problems were all 
inherited; that the spending all occurred on the past administration's 
watch and now they are just trying to clean up the mess.
  I have to point out to my colleagues in the Senate and to the 
American people that there are certain givens I think we all would 
subscribe to, one being the fact that we did have a $5.8 trillion debt 
at the end of the last administration. Many of us have acknowledged 
that Republicans didn't do a good enough job when we were in charge of 
keeping Federal spending under control. But that does not negate the 
fact that in the next 5 years that $5.8 trillion debt is going to 
double. In 10 years it is going to triple. In fact, if we go back in 
the annals of American history, go back starting at the time of the 
Revolutionary War through the last Presidency, that of President George 
Bush, from George Washington to George Bush, the accumulated debt over 
that entire time period will be equaled by the public debt that America 
will pile up in the next 5 years. It will be tripled in the next 10 
years. That is a staggering number.
  When you start looking at doubling of the public debt in a 5-year 
timeframe, tripling in 10 years, when at the end of the 10 years we 
have $7 trillion in debt or 82 percent of our gross domestic product 
that is composed of publicly held debt, we have not seen that kind of 
number since the end of World War II, since 1948.
  I would daresay, with all due respect to my colleague from North 
Dakota who made the point that these are all problems that were passed 
on by the previous administration, that it was not the Bush 
administration that put on the table and passed a trillion-dollar 
stimulus bill. I think it is fair to ask the question, is this trillion 
dollars in stimulus spending going to be carried on and extended and 
considered part of the baseline so it will create obligations and 
liabilities for our Government in the future?
  We talked about $1 trillion on the floor of the Senate that actually, 
according to the CBO, when asked the question, if the spending in this 
bill is extended and not terminated, how much would it cost, the answer 
was $3 trillion--with interest, over $3 trillion. That was not a Bush 
administration policy, nor is the fact that the Omnibus appropriations 
bill that was passed earlier this year, which had an 8.3-percent 
increase in spending in it, which was more than double the rate of 
inflation in this country, nor does this more recently passed budget--
is the Bush administration responsible for that? This is the budget 
that was put forward by the new administration, that was passed in the 
Senate without a Republican vote. It went to conference where any 
amendments that were adopted on the floor of the Senate that had been 
offered by Republicans were subsequently stripped out.
  This budget is a statement of priorities and reflects the spending 
choices that are made by the new administration and by this Congress. 
So we cannot blame the past administration for the trillion-dollar 
stimulus which, if those programs are extended in the future, end up 
being not $1 trillion but $3 trillion. We cannot blame the past 
administration for the more than double rate of inflation increase in 
spending in the annual appropriations bills we passed earlier this 
year, and we cannot blame the past administration for a budget, a $3.6 
trillion budget, that increases nondefense discretionary spending by 
8.9 percent this year and piles mountains of debt on future 
generations.
  If we look at the deficits--just the 5-year, which we are limited 
to--earlier, I used some 10-year numbers. But the 5-year numbers on the 
deficits we are going to accumulate--2009, the current fiscal year, 
almost $1.7 trillion; 2010, $1.2 trillion; 2013, $916 billion.
  Incidentally, this year, 2009, as a percentage of GDP, that deficit 
is 12 percent--12 percent of our GDP. The benchmark for getting into 
the European Union is you cannot have a deficit, as a percentage of 
GDP, that exceeds 3 percent. Some of our European brothers, I assume, 
with the bad economy, are in excess of that now too, but the point is 
we are going to have a 12-percent deficit to GDP ratio which is four 
times the benchmark for entering the European Union.
  The debt as a percentage of our GDP, the debt held by the public, 
starts at 55 percent this year, goes to 61 next year, 64 the year 
after, 66 the year after that, 67 the year after that--in 2014, 67 
percent of public debt as a percentage of GDP, and if you extend it out 
for 10 years, which we saw in the original budget blueprint, we are 
talking about a debt that is 82 percent of our gross domestic product. 
That is not something for which the past administration is responsible. 
These are decisions that have been made by the present administration 
and this Congress when it comes to spending the American taxpayers' 
dollars.
  So you have a stimulus bill which is a trillion dollars, and then 
again, as I said earlier, if those programs are extended in the future, 
it ends up being in excess of $3 trillion; you have an Omnibus 
appropriations bill that passed earlier this year that increased at 
more than twice the rate of inflation and a budget which increases 
nondefense discretionary spending in front of us today by 8.9 percent 
and adds, over the next 5 years, about $5 trillion, $5.5 trillion to 
the Federal debt. Those are decisions that are being made real-time.
  A lot of my colleagues on the other side have a sort of Bush 
administration

[[Page 11003]]

phobia. They want to talk about everything that has happened before. 
Well, there comes a point at which you own these decisions. Decisions 
have consequences, and there are consequences of the decisions that are 
being made here.
  A lot of people believe that if we continue this rate of spending and 
taxing and borrowing, in the future, if we continue to pile up the 
interest on the debt--again, incidentally, at the end of the 10th year, 
we will spend more on interest on the debt than we actually spend on 
national defense, about $4 trillion over the course of the next 10 
years in interest on the debt, or $52,000 for every household in 
America. That is just the interest on the debt.
  A lot of people think the level of borrowing is going to lead 
inevitably to higher inflation down the road and therefore higher 
interest rates and all kinds of other bad economic outcomes that will 
put this Nation's economy in peril and make it more difficult for us to 
recover.
  So if we are going to have a debate here in the Senate about this 
budget resolution and the conference report that came out, it should be 
about what is in front of us, not what has happened in the 8 years 
previous, because this budget is a budget that was presented and 
submitted by this administration, adopted by this Congress, adopted 
here in the Senate without a single Republican vote, then went into 
conference with the House of Representatives where any Republican 
amendments which were agreed to on the floor of the Senate, many of 
which got big votes: Well, just let them go ahead, vote for this stuff. 
We do not want to put out bad votes against these good amendments; we 
will strip them in the conference with the House. So those amendments, 
all of them, were stripped out. So we now have in front of us a budget 
that includes or makes possible the prospect of a climate change or the 
carbon tax proposal being done through reconciliation.
  The Senator from North Dakota put out a statement that says: Assume 
that reconciliation will not be used for changes in legislation related 
to global climate change. Well, that is really nice, but it is a 
statement. The amendment that was offered by the Senator from Nebraska, 
Mr. Johanns, which was adopted here on the floor of the Senate, which 
got 67 votes, was binding, basically said that reconciliation would not 
be used for climate change legislation. It got an overwhelming vote 
here in the Senate. A lot of Democrats voted for it. It got stripped in 
the conference committee, which opens the door to a cap-and-tax 
proposal that, by some estimates, could cost the average family in this 
country over $3,000 a year in higher electricity costs. That is not a 
previous administration issue. This is a real-time budget. This is a 
real-time issue. These are decisions that are being made by the current 
administration and the current Congress, make no mistake about it.
  The final point I wish to make is that in the context of this--and 
they have been coming down and saying: There is really no tax increase 
in this. Well, there is. Taxes are going to go up on a lot of people. 
Well, they may say it is high-income people, but there are a lot of 
small businesses that are going to be captured under that net. This is 
not just going to hit the high-income people because a lot of small 
businesses that are organized as LLCs or subchapter S's or in some way 
that allows the income they derive from their small business to flow 
through to their individual tax return are going to pay higher income 
tax rates. Instead of paying at 33 and 35 percent, they are going to 
pay at 40 and 42 percent. Taxes are going to go up on capital gains. 
Taxes are going to go up on dividends. There are tax increases in 
there, there is no question about that, and the American people are 
going to find that out very soon.
  The other thing that did not happen in this budget, in this whole 
sort of pursuit of new Government spending--and there are 
reconciliation instructions in here for health care reform which can be 
very costly to the economy and which there is no way of paying for in 
the budget. It is just assumed at that point that they will come up 
with the revenue source for that. But you have a health care 
reconciliation instruction, a climate tax reconciliation instruction, 
all of which could cost the economy enormous amounts of money, and yet 
nothing was done in the budget to deal with the fundamental issue that 
is driving these deficits and this debt for years and years into the 
future, and that is entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, 
Medicaid. All of these programs on the mandatory side of the budget 
that continue to drive Government spending, to drive deficits and drive 
debts well into the future, there is nothing that is done to reduce the 
overall cost of these mandatory spending programs, these entitlement 
programs, or to reform them.
  The President said we need to reform these and look at all of these 
entitlement programs. Well, this budget does nothing of the sort. All 
it does is increase spending, increase taxes, and add mountains and 
mountains to the public debt--a debt that we hand off to future 
generations.
  So I hope my colleagues will reject and vote down this conference 
report. It would have been better, it would have been a much improved 
product had some of the amendments my colleagues on the Republican side 
had adopted when it was debated here in the Senate been retained in the 
conference committee. But they weren't. They have been struck, all of 
them struck, many of which passed by large margins. As I said, I had a 
couple of amendments on the floor, one with 89 votes and another was 94 
votes. You would think, when the Senate makes that kind of statement in 
support of a particular amendment or policy, you might want to think 
about retaining that in the conference. Those were struck. The 
amendment by my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Johanns, which got 67 
votes, which directed the conferees not to use reconciliation for 
climate change legislation, was struck from the conference report.
  That is unfortunate. This could have been a better budget. It 
wouldn't have been a good budget because it still spends too much, 
taxes too much, and borrows too much, but it certainly would have been 
improved had some of those amendments been retained.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote against this, and I hope, now that 
this budget is going to pass here and we start doing appropriations 
bills, that this Congress will get serious about controlling Federal 
spending, about doing the serious work that is necessary to get our 
fiscal house in order. We cannot afford to continue to pass on these 
mountains and mountains of debt to future generations. It is not fair 
to them, and it is not fair to the American taxpayer. It is high time 
we started focusing on this issue and did something about it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Madam President.
  Let me start by commending Chairman Conrad for his leadership of our 
Budget Committee and especially for the hundreds of hours he and his 
staff have dedicated to getting this budget done and accommodating both 
the priorities and concerns of so many of us in this body. Putting 
together a budget is never an easy process, but I believe our chairman 
has achieved a very good balance that will set us on a course both to 
reduce our deficits and invest in the areas we know will make us 
stronger in the future: energy, health care, and education. A budget is 
a statement of priorities, and ours are very clearly in this budget. We 
put the middle class first, and we get our country back on track by 
investing in our future.
  There is no doubt that we have inherited great challenges at this 
time. We now face the worst economic crisis in generations. Since 
December 2007, we have lost 5.1 million jobs, including 3.3 million of 
those in just the past 5 months. So before we consider where we are 
going, I believe it is important today to talk a little bit about where 
we have been.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been bemoaning 
deficits

[[Page 11004]]

and debt with not a moment of consideration for their own record on 
this issue. Back in 2001, Republicans controlled the full power of our 
entire Government. Under the leadership of President Bush and 
Republicans in Congress, record surpluses that were created under 
President Clinton became record deficits. Those Republican deficits 
grew and grew, and now today they add up to trillions of dollars in new 
debt that is going to be shouldered by future generations of Americans.
  So it was with this perspective, which I hope our Republican friends 
will start to acknowledge and own up to, that we know at this point in 
time we have two choices: Choice 1 is to continue down the Republican 
deficit path--no investments in the future, a widening gap between the 
rich and the middle class, and more massive deficits. Choice 2 is 
represented by the budget we present today. It improves the economy by 
investing in energy and education and health care reform so that we are 
stronger in the future, cutting taxes to the middle class, and 
addressing deficits so that our children do not continue to bear the 
burden of bad decisions well into the future.
  After 8 years of the Bush administration's very shortsighted budget 
and misplaced priorities, we are now working with President Obama to 
invest in our Nation's needs and chart a new course for America. We 
have chosen a new path with this budget. The American people deserve an 
economic plan that works for everyone in this country. Our budget makes 
responsible choices that will help get our economy moving again. I want 
to talk about a few of them. Let me start with education.
  We all know that education and training are the keys to our future 
strengths. In this new global economy, a good education is no longer 
just a pathway to opportunity, it is a requirement for success. We will 
not rebuild our economy and be competitive long term unless we can both 
create jobs and ensure that our American workers have the education and 
skills needed to fill those jobs.
  This budget before us invests strongly in education and in training. 
We also place a priority on making sure American students do not fall 
behind as they make their way into the global marketplace. Our budget 
helps to retrain American workers for careers in those new high-growth 
and emergent green industries, such as health care or renewable energy 
and energy-efficient construction, so that those workers stay in the 
middle class.
  This budget makes strong investments in early childhood education and 
home visiting programs to make sure that our young students are healthy 
and that they are ready for school. It also, importantly, invests in 
making sure college is affordable and accessible for more of our 
students. We want all of our students to achieve a postsecondary 
credential, whether it is through a registered apprenticeship, through 
a community college, or through a university. This budget helps point 
us in that direction.
  As a nation, we have to change the way we think about preparing our 
young people for careers, starting with making sure education works 
better.
  This current economic crisis has cost us dearly. Every weekend I go 
home to my home State of Washington, and I hear about another business 
that has closed or another family who cannot pay the bills. But we know 
that if we make changes and we make smart investments, we can move our 
country forward. Investing in education and investing in training is 
one of those smart investments.
  That brings me to our next investment. As we are all aware today, 
energy issues are some of the most pressing facing our Nation today. 
Our dependence on foreign oil has left us beholden to other nations, as 
middle-class families pay the price at the pump. By making renewable 
energy a priority, we can reduce our dependence on foreign sources of 
energy in the future and help create green jobs here at home and leave 
a cleaner environment for future generations. This budget does that.
  On an issue that everyone knows is near and dear to my heart, I 
commend both the committee and President Obama for making veterans a 
priority in this budget process. Our men and women in uniform and their 
families have served and sacrificed for our Nation. After years of 
underfunded budgets and being overshadowed by other priorities, this 
budget finally does right by them. I commend my Budget chairman and our 
President and all of us for making sure that happens in this budget.
  This budget is honest with the American people about the cost of war, 
not just by paying for our veterans care but by paying for the wars in 
Iraq and Afghanistan on budget for the first time since they started 
over 6 years ago.
  I also note that this budget meets our commitment to nuclear waste 
cleanup in my State and across the country. Workers at Hanford nuclear 
reservation and people of that community sacrificed to help our Nation 
win World War II. Hanford and other sites are now still home to 
millions of gallons of waste, and our Government needs to live up to 
our promise to clean them up. This budget does that.
  As is the case in many States across America, farming and ranching 
and agricultural production is my home State's largest industry. 
Protecting our agricultural sector is critical to the economy, the 
environment, and to our quality of life. We have to make sure our rural 
communities are strong. We worked to make sure we have a bright future 
for our farm families. Production agriculture, such as Washington 
State's wheat farming, is a very volatile business. A workable safety 
net such as in the farm bill is vital to the security of our family 
farms. I have also long supported the Market Access Program which 
provides funds for our producers to promote their products overseas and 
expand into those important international markets. Especially in these 
difficult economic times, when our foreign competitors are trying to 
limit our market access with tariffs, the last thing we should be doing 
is cutting programs such as MAP that will help growers in a competitive 
marketplace.
  I want my colleagues to know I will continue to work with everyone to 
make sure we find ways to support one of the staples of our economy, 
our agricultural community.
  We all know our health care system is broken. It needs real reform. 
Today we have an historic opportunity to finally tackle this challenge. 
These investments are not luxuries. They are essential to this 
country's future strength. That is why we have to prioritize the health 
professions workforce and access to quality care in rural areas. We 
have to work to ensure that preventive measures are given priority so 
American families are not left with giant bills for expensive care down 
the road.
  Some critics of this budget are saying now is not the time to tackle 
health care reform. I believe that is pretty shortsighted reasoning. 
There is a direct connection between our Nation's long-term prosperity 
and developing health care policies that stem the chronic bleeding in 
business and in State and national budgets. A recent editorial in the 
Everett Herald newspaper in my home State made this point very well. 
They said:

       Yes, the economy is the most urgent challenge. But our 
     broken health care system and addiction to oil threaten to 
     become our long-term undoing.
       They're all intertwined: Failing to find solutions to our 
     long-term problems will likely stunt future economic 
     expansions, creating longer and deeper downturns.

  Health care is an important priority in this budget before us.
  There has been a lot of talk over the past few weeks about the 
inclusion of reconciliation in this budget. Some following this debate 
are probably very surprised that our Republican colleagues, who were so 
adamant about using this procedural motion when it came to passing huge 
tax cuts for a very few while paying for it on the backs of many, would 
now be arguing against its inclusion in this budget. As I said earlier, 
there is a direct connection between America's long-term prosperity and 
improving our health care system. Today nearly 46 million Americans do 
not have health insurance. One

[[Page 11005]]

in five working adults does not have good coverage today. There was a 
survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation this month that found 6 in 10 
American families put off care because of cost, and 42 percent of those 
people said they relied on home remedies instead of going to see a 
doctor.
  Of course, just this week the covers of newspapers across the country 
are filled with photos of people wearing surgical masks. TV screens are 
filled with commentators talking about the possibility of a new strain 
of flu crippling the country and our economy. I can't think of a better 
time to be talking about the need to insure all Americans, to focus on 
prevention, and to make absolutely certain that when there is the 
possibility of a public health crisis, no one puts off medical care 
because they don't have the means to pay for it. But in order to do all 
that, we have to work together.
  Democrats would strongly prefer to address health care in a 
bipartisan manner and by going through the regular legislative process. 
It is our full intent to do just that. Democrats believe all Americans 
deserve high quality health care that reduces our costs, makes care 
more affordable, and creates jobs in the health care sector. We believe 
in protecting existing coverage when it is good, improving it when it 
is not, and guaranteeing health care for the millions of Americans who 
have none. We know the only way for our economy to fully recover is by 
making this critical investment in health care today. We are committed 
to working with Republicans to do that. But they have to demonstrate a 
sincere interest in legislating, because the stakes are too high and 
the cost of inaction is too great for us not to move forward. As long 
as Republicans want to be at the table, they have a seat. We welcome 
them. This is simply too important an issue not to have their voices. 
But it is also too important an issue to stall using partisan tactics. 
We have to address this crisis. We intend to move forward this year.
  I urge all colleagues to stop debating the process and, instead, join 
the conversation about how we move forward on this issue that is so 
critical to America's families today and to our Nation's future 
economic strength.
  America has paid dearly for the Bush administration's failure to 
invest in our Nation. We all know that. We don't have to tell the 
American people. They wake up to it every day: rising health care 
costs, pink slips, crumbling infrastructure, bills and mortgages they 
can't afford to pay. We tried it the other way for 8 years. It is time 
to invest in America again. It is time to give the middle class a 
break. It is time for honesty, and it is time to make bold decisions. 
This budget invests in our future and begins to get us back on track.
  I thank our chairman who is now in the Chamber and tell him I 
appreciate the tremendous work he and his staff and so many people did 
to make sure we now have a budget before us that begins to get America 
back on track.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to especially thank Senator Murray. 
She is next in line on the Budget Committee. When I really want to 
threaten her, I tell her I am going to leave as chairman of the 
committee and she can take over.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Every day I pray for the health and welfare of the 
chairman of our committee.
  Mr. CONRAD. We could not have a stronger or better ally than the 
Senator from Washington. Senator Murray is exceptional. I have so 
enjoyed getting to know her over the years and working with her. When 
there is something you need to get done, you need an assignment that 
can actually get done, you want Senator Murray on the case. She is 
somebody who is a performer. She gets results. I have such respect for 
her and the contribution she makes to this committee and to this 
Chamber. We are fortunate to have Senator Murray in the Senate.
  I tell my colleagues, they have seen her in vote-arama go around this 
floor, convincing colleagues that perhaps this is not the time to offer 
an amendment, perhaps they could wait. They have seen how effective she 
can be in personal interactions to get results. It goes way beyond the 
procedural. It goes to the question of policy and getting a good result 
for the country. I am so blessed to have Senator Murray as the top 
Democrat on the committee. I thank her personally for everything she 
has done as a conferee to bring us to this point, to have a successful 
resolution and a budget that is responsible, that does help get America 
back on track.
  I have heard from the other side: We have tax increases here. Let's 
get to the facts. The fact is, on balance, we have a very substantial 
tax cut in this budget proposal aimed at the middle class. They are the 
ones who deserve and need it. We have also heard that this leaves open 
the possibility of global climate change being used in reconciliation. 
Nonsense. There is an absolute commitment from everyone who is a party 
to this discussion. It is in the wording of the resolution that climate 
change will not come to this body or to the other body through 
reconciliation. It is not going to happen. It has the absolute 
commitment of the majority leader, of the Speaker, and of the President 
himself. He has said it to me directly. So let's not be chasing straw 
dogs here. Climate change is not going to be done through 
reconciliation, period.
  Again, I thank Senator Murray for her constructive work on this 
budget.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if I may respond to the chairman of our 
committee, I appreciate his thanks and praise. But our colleagues 
should know, no one has spent more time and energy, not just for a few 
months but for a very long time, to make sure we have a responsible 
budget we can all be proud of to vote on today. I again thank him and 
his staff for their tremendous leadership, in calls late at night, when 
I am out on the west coast, and I know it is even later for him. I 
appreciate the tremendous amount of work he does, both policywise and 
making sure we keep the right fiscal balance. There is no one who is 
stronger in our caucus talking about how important it is to make sure 
we look at not just what we do today in terms of this budget but how we 
to do it in the future. Keeping that balance between spending and 
deficit is at the forefront of his mind. We would not be here today 
without him. I thank him.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator for her kindness. Next we have 
Senator Hutchison. How much time would the Senator require?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. May I have 15 minutes?
  Mr. CONRAD. You certainly may.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of 
the committee. I want to say about the chairman that I do believe he 
made very credible changes in the original budget proposal by saying he 
would not sign on to many of the even bigger spending items that went 
over the 10- year period. This budget has some redeeming value, and I 
appreciate his leadership. Because it is very
  I am speaking against the budget resolution today because the 
overwhelming parts of the budget that are unacceptable outweigh the few 
good things that were done. Reconciliation was the subject of 
conversation. Reconciliation, of course, is the procedure that is used 
to completely wipe out the minority's opportunities for input. Maybe we 
will have input, but no Republican amendments will pass. On 
reconciliation, you do not have the ability to filibuster at all. While 
reconciliation is not completely allowed on the climate change bill, 
the report says:

       It is assumed that reconciliation will not be used for 
     changes in legislation related to global climate change.

  I am going to take the chairman at his word saying that global 
climate change will not be subject to reconciliation because it is very 
important we have amendments. One of the amendments I had on this 
budget resolution, which was taken out by the conference, relates to 
the energy portion of the bill. So not having reconciliation and

[[Page 11006]]

taking away the ability to filibuster in the climate change bills that 
will come later is a positive.
  However, reconciliation is in the health care part of this budget, 
which means health care reform and the single-payer system that has 
been proposed by the President and the leaders in Congress is in 
reconciliation, which means there will be no opportunity to filibuster 
or possibly have input--certainly no leverage by the minority. That is 
in the health care section of the resolution, which may be the most 
important one that affects people's lives.
  We know our system of health care in America is the best in the 
world. There may be a few other countries that have equal access to 
private choices and doctor choices and the ability to choose what 
hospital and the type of care you are going to get and the kind of 
insurance coverage you get. But I think it is best in America. I know 
the countries that have gone to the single-payer system--which takes 
the private sector largely out of health care, takes the choice out of 
health care--end up with a system that allows people to die while they 
are waiting to have the procedures they need that they would have in 
the United States of America within a week.
  So we have that in this budget in reconciliation, which means it is a 
51-vote bill. That in itself is enough for us to vote against this 
budget. But there are other reasons as well.
  We know our Nation is in the middle of an economic crisis the likes 
of which none of us have ever seen. Yet we are looking at a $3.5 
trillion budget resolution that says basically to the American people: 
We know you are struggling. We know you are trying to make ends meet. 
We know you cannot get loans from the bank. We know your small 
businesses are struggling to stay open. But not the American 
Government. The American Government is growing. It is getting bigger. 
It is going to be a burden that is going to be beyond what we will be 
able to bring back or contract if we can get through this economic 
crisis.
  So while the American people are proving their resilience in the face 
of hardship, we are seeing the American Government grow as if we had 
all the money in the world to spend, which we do not. We are now 
looking at an unprecedented growth in Government in this country with a 
$3.5 trillion budget, on top of a $1 trillion stimulus bill, on top of 
a $410 billion Omnibus appropriations bill--all of which have been 
passed in the last 100 days.
  The American people know this increase in Government spending is not 
free and it is not sustainable. The American people will be forced to 
pay for it. It is a short-term gain for a very long-term cost. It will 
double the public debt in 5 years. In 10 years, this budget will triple 
the American debt.
  The distinguished chairman, Senator Conrad, would not allow this 
budget to go forward for 10 years because he saw that debt and he had 
the integrity to say no. So it is 5 years. Hopefully, when this budget 
resolution is adopted--because it is going to despite our objections--
hopefully, in the next 2 years, if we can see the economy coming back, 
the people with integrity in the majority will say it is time to start 
reversing some of the debt that has been created, get these deficits 
down, and give our country a chance to recover for the long term and 
not hand our children this debt. Because if we go on with this budget 
as it is today, which will presumably be adopted by Congress today--
because the House has already adopted it--it will create more debt than 
every President from George Washington to George W. Bush combined--more 
debt than all the Presidents of our country combined.
  In 10 years, this budget will spend nearly four times more on 
interest payments than on education, energy, and transportation 
combined. That is staggering. I would urge my colleagues to think twice 
before they vote for this resolution because reversing it will be very 
difficult.
  There are some good parts of this budget. One is I want to commend 
the majority leader, Harry Reid, because he did take the lead in making 
permanent the State and local sales tax deduction. It is something I 
have worked on with him and with others in this body, who represent the 
eight States that do not have a personal income tax, just to get 
equity. Senator Cantwell, Senator Murray, myself, and the Senators from 
Tennessee have all worked tirelessly, along with Senator Reid and 
Senator Ensign, to rectify the inequity that has plagued the eight 
States that do not have the State income tax. But they do have sales 
taxes.
  What the majority leader has led the fight to do is to allow those 
eight States, on a permanent basis, to deduct our sales taxes on our 
Federal income taxes, just like all the other 42 States in our country 
are able to deduct their State income taxes on their Federal income 
taxes.
  This all started in 1986, when the sales tax deduction was 
eliminated, but the income tax deduction was kept. Since 1986, until 
2004, we had that inequity. But we corrected it in 2004 with the 
efforts of many of us. Thank goodness we have had extensions. Now we 
will make it permanent. That is a fundamental issue of fairness, and I 
commend Senator Reid for his leadership.
  However, my amendment to permanently eliminate the marriage penalty, 
which was adopted by the Senate, was taken out in conference. I think 
it is the most egregious antifamily tax we have in this country today.
  We, in the plan that is before us, did not make that tax relief 
permanent. We have had it since the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. I hoped 
to make it permanent. But we were not able to do that. What is going to 
happen after 2010 is the marriage penalty is going to come back in full 
force for those who make over $200,000--many of which are subchapter S 
corporations. They are the small businesses that create jobs.
  We have a common goal: President Obama and the Democrats in Congress 
and the Republicans in Congress all want to create jobs. The problem 
is, the policies that are put forward in President Obama's budget and 
in the one that is getting ready to be adopted will hit, with tax 
increases, the people who will create jobs, by increasing their tax 
brackets, by increasing the marriage penalty on them. We should follow 
our goals with policies that will achieve them. But instead, 
unfortunately, we are going in the opposite direction.
  Here is another example: the Outer Continental Shelf. President Obama 
said in the campaign, and he has said since: We have a goal of energy 
independence for America. Sixty percent of our energy needs are 
imported from foreign countries--countries that do not want us to 
succeed, countries such as Venezuela, countries in the Middle East. We 
are importing our energy needs from countries that would like to shut 
us down.
  We have a goal. It is a common goal, once again--Democrats and 
Republicans--energy independence for America. But we are taxing the 
only energy source in this country that actually produces enough energy 
to make us independent.
  Drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf would open exploration and 
give every State that allows that exploration a part of the royalties. 
We would encourage environmentally safe drilling off our shores, using 
our natural resources for our common goal of energy independence for 
our country.
  But, no, the amendment the Senate adopted was taken out of the 
conference report that would have encouraged the expansion of oil and 
gas production in the Outer Continental Shelf. It has been shown by the 
drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which is today our largest source of 
oil off our own shores--because we know how to drill in an 
environmentally safely way, just like we could do in ANWR, where the 
people of Alaska want to be able to drill in a very small frozen tundra 
in Alaska, where we would have an even bigger resource than the Gulf of 
Mexico, and yet that, too, has been shut out.
  We have a unique position in the world; that is, we are the only 
country in the world with abundant natural resources that could reduce 
our energy dependence in an environmentally safe way. Yet we refuse to 
use those natural resources. Other countries in the world

[[Page 11007]]

fight for natural resources that we have in abundance but are unable to 
use because we have shut those down.
  Every one of us in this body believes that wind energy is great, that 
solar energy is great, that we need to do more research in technology, 
so that solar and wind energy will be more available on a 24-hour, 
everyday basis. We want more technology to learn how batteries can 
increase their capacity so we can have electric cars that could run for 
a long time. We want those things but not at the expense of 
environmentally safely using the resources we have--such as nuclear 
energy, for instance, which is the cheapest source of electricity in 
this country. There are no carbon emissions from nuclear energy. We 
have not built a new nuclear powerplant in this country in over 30 
years. We must encourage these energy sources that would make us energy 
independent in an environmentally safe way.
  There are so many parts of this budget that are wrong, and I hope 
that we will say no to it--if only for the reason of having 
reconciliation in health care and adding an unprecedented amount of 
money to our debt, giving us deficits that are unable to be stopped as 
far as the eye can see. Go back to the drawing board and bring us a 
budget that tells the American people: We get it. We know a big 
increase in Government is not in a family's best interest, a family 
that is struggling to make ends meet and stay in their home and either 
keep their job or produce jobs for others. This budget will not do 
that. I hope the majority will listen to what we are saying: Defeat 
this budget and then, in a bipartisan way, we can come up with a plan 
that will be good for America and that will give Americans confidence 
that they are going to have an economy once again that will create jobs 
and good incomes for their families.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I will talk, as my colleague has, about 
the Federal budget, the budget resolution that has been prepared for 
our consideration as a result of the conference that has occurred 
between the House and Senate. I express my thanks particularly to the 
chairman of the committee, Senator Conrad, for the work he and his 
staff and other members of the committee have done, Democrat and 
Republican, including Senator Gregg.
  I wish to respond a bit to what my colleague from Texas said. This 
administration didn't inherit a day at the beach. They have inherited a 
tough situation. We as a country have been around sort of officially 
since 1787, and if you go from 1787 to 2001, I think that is about 214 
years. We ran up in that period of time roughly $5 trillion worth of 
debt. We essentially doubled that over the last 8 years. We doubled it 
in only 8 years. We ran up as much new debt in the last 8 years as we 
did in 214 years as a nation. I didn't hear nearly the kind of 
bemoaning and railing about the growth in the deficit and the national 
debt during those 8 years as we hear today from our friends on the 
other side of the aisle.
  I think my colleagues know I am not a real partisan guy, but I think 
it is important to say this is the hand we have been dealt. The 
question is what do we do about it. We have a couple of wars we are 
fighting. We have an economy that is the worst since the Great 
Depression and we have to do something about it. One of the first 
things we have decided to do about it is to try to jolt the economy 
back to life. I remember those old Frankenstein movies where Dr. 
Frankenstein is in the lab trying to put the electrodes to the monster 
and jolt that monster back to life. We are trying to jolt not a monster 
back to life but an economy back to life. Economists on all sides--
liberal, conservative, and everything in between--have said, you have 
to spend a lot of money and hopefully it will be used to produce jobs 
and add to the value that will be for a good purpose in our country.
  That is what we have done with the stimulus package. As we go through 
this year, and probably the next year or so, the deficit is going to be 
a whole lot bigger than I am comfortable with. I was elected to the 
House and served there for 10 years before I became Governor. I was a 
deficit hawk and in my heart I still am. I wish to talk about some 
things we can do, ought to do, and in some cases are doing, to bring 
the deficit down further.
  I am encouraged when I hear our new President say the deficit is 
large this year, but over the next 4 years we will reduce the deficit 
in half. I think that is fine. The important thing is we don't just 
stop there, and if we have the same administration or a new one, it is 
important that we continue to make progress and drive the deficit back 
to zero. I am one of those people who thinks it is appropriate to spend 
when we are in a time of economic calamity, when we are in a time of 
war, and as it turns out right now we are in both. Hopefully, 4 years 
from now--hopefully sooner than that--we won't be in both and we can 
turn back our spending. When the economy is sound, when we are not in a 
national disaster, in war in places around the world, I think it is 
appropriate to balance our budget. In fact, one of the things I was 
proudest of as Governor is we not only balanced our budget for 7 years 
in a row, we reduced taxes and paid down our debt a little bit, and 
that made me proud, and the legislature too. Hopefully, we will be in a 
position in the years to come, as we were in 1999 and 2000, when we 
paid down the debt.
  I have suggested to the administration some things we can do, and I 
have talked about them here on the floor, to reduce the deficit. I wish 
to talk about one of them and mention one of the others as well. In 
order to better match revenues and expenditures going forward, we 
obviously cannot avoid the question of taxes. As far as I am concerned, 
before we start raising a lot of taxes, the first thing--maybe the 
better thing--for us to do is to collect the taxes that are owed. Every 
year we hear about the tax gap. The last one was actually officially 
done, I think, about 8 or 9 years ago by the IRS and they figured that 
at the time we had a tax gap--monies owed to the Treasury, not being 
collected by the Treasury--of about $300 billion a year. By most 
estimates I hear today, it is almost $400 billion a year. If we can 
only recover half of it or a third of it, we are talking about real 
money that would make a real dent in our deficit.
  We make a lot of improper payments in this Government of ours. I 
chair a subcommittee that has jurisdiction over that sort of thing. We 
know our improper payments that we made into the Federal Government 
last year were right around $72 billion, mostly overpayments, some 
underpayments. We need to do a better job. At least we know now for the 
most part where the improper payments are going, or at least the 
departments that are making them, but we are not doing a very good job 
of actually going back, after we have made an overpayment, especially, 
and recovering the money, recapturing that money. We call it postaudit 
cost recoveries. We are just beginning to scratch the surface in one of 
our big entitlement programs, Medicare. Starting about 3 years ago we 
hired some private firms and said, For monies we have overpaid to 
providers or medical suppliers, corporate suppliers, let's go back and 
get the money we have overpaid. We said we were going to do it in three 
States--California, Texas, and Florida. The first year of this effort 
we recovered almost nothing. The second year we recovered a little bit. 
Last year we recovered about $700 million. That is real money. The idea 
is not to just do it in 3 States but to do it in all 50 States, and I 
am encouraged that we are going to do that. If we can recover that kind 
of money for overpayments in Medicare, my guess is we could recover 
some money in Medicaid. If we have two of our three big entitlement 
programs that are sucking up a lot of money, one of the first issues we 
should face there is reducing the overpayments and going after the 
money and recovering that money we have overspent or, in some cases, 
misspent.
  The third area we need to focus on is the area of major weapons 
systems. We have spent a lot of money. Going back to I think it was 
2000, we were overspending on major weapons systems

[[Page 11008]]

cost overruns by about $50 billion in 2000. In 2005 we were up to $200 
billion. Last year we were close to $300 billion in major weapons 
systems cost overruns. Clearly that is an area where we can do better 
and have to do better. Secretary Gates has come forth with a number of 
proposals and reforms that deserve our support, and I hope they will 
enjoy our support as we go forward, to try to better align our weapons 
systems with buying for the kinds of wars we are likely to fight. We 
could do a much better job in terms of controlling our costs for those 
weapons systems as well.
  The Federal Government owns a lot of property, not just land, not 
just military bases, not just buildings, but all of the above, and in 
some cases we don't use them. We pay security for those properties, we 
may pay utilities for those properties, but we don't use them. We don't 
do a very good job of disposing of properties that are not being used. 
We need to dispose of those properties. Those are only a couple of 
things we can do and ought to be doing. I hope in the years to come we 
will do more of each of those.
  One other thing I would mention is most Governors have what we call 
line item veto power--the ability to go and line out a single line item 
in a budget. They have it by virtue of the Constitution so they can 
veto bills, they can go through the lines of their bills and veto lines 
and different pieces of a spending package that they have signed into 
law. We have something like that in the Federal Government. It is 
called rescission power. The President can sign an appropriations bill 
into law, submit that to the Congress, and the Congress can vote it up 
or down. But if we don't do anything, then it kind of goes away. The 
President sends rescission messages to us from time to time and we 
don't do anything, and the rescission of the proposal sort of goes 
away.
  If we go back to 1995, 1996, there was a proposal in the Clinton 
administration that changed that. The idea was to make the President's 
rescission powers look more like line item veto powers. I thought it 
was a flawed effort. I think line item veto powers are oversold in 
terms of their value of reducing the deficit, but there is some virtue 
there. They are a good tool to have in the toolbox. But in 1995, 1996, 
what they came up with, it passed here in the House and Senate and it 
was signed into law. The President proposes a rescission, the Congress 
has to vote on it, and unless they vote it down with a two-thirds vote 
in the House and in the Senate, that proposed rescission is going to 
become law. Think about that. We are not talking about a bill. We are 
saying a line or a couple of lines in a bill, the President could 
propose to rescind those and his recommendations on rescinding spending 
in an appropriations bill or a tax bill or an entitlement bill, or all 
of the above, would actually become law unless two-thirds of the House 
and the Senate said no, we are going to override that. That is a huge 
shift of power from the legislative branch to the executive branch. I 
didn't think it was a good idea then. The Supreme Court didn't think it 
was a good idea either. If not the Supreme Court, one of the top 
circuit courts of appeal said they didn't think it was a good idea. 
They threw it out for being unconstitutional.
  Having said that, I think the idea of at least compelling us to give 
a Presidential rescission a day in court, a day on the floor, is a good 
idea. What a number of us, 21 of us have done, is we have cosponsored 
legislation that we introduced this week, Democrats and Republicans. 
The idea behind the legislation is when the President signs a spending 
bill--not a tax bill, not a revenue bill, not an entitlement measure, 
but when he or she signs an appropriations bill into law, he or she 
would have the right to send us a rescission message to propose to 
reduce or rescind spending in that spending bill. We would constrain 
how much the President could rescind. He couldn't rescind more than 25 
percent. If they are unauthorized, there is no limit. The long and 
short of it is, though, the President would send a rescission message 
and we would have to vote on it. We could vote it down with a simple 
majority; in the Senate, 51 votes, or in the House with 218--not a two-
thirds override, not both Houses, just a simple majority in either the 
House or the Senate. We limit the time for this to occur. In fact, we 
limit the amount of years that this could be law to 4 years--4 years. I 
call it a 4-year test drive with enhanced rescission powers for a 
President. If the President abuses it, if the President should say to 
the Presiding Officer from New Mexico: Unless you vote for my top 
priorities, I am going to go after your top priorities, to try to 
intimidate a Member of the Senate or House--that could happen. As a 
result, we provide for this 4-year sunset. After that, the law goes 
away. If Presidents, current or future, continue to abuse this, they 
will not continue to enjoy this particular balance.
  Do I think this will balance the budget? No, I don't. Do I think it 
might be of some help? Yes, I do.
  I will close with a comment on earmarks. Some people think earmarks 
are the devil's work. The earmarks that we submit in my State--Senator 
Kaufman and myself, Governor Castle before he became Governor--were 
earmarks that we are proud of. We have three budgets in Delaware State 
government, and one of the major budgets is the operating budget which 
basically runs the State. The second is the capital budget--bricks and 
mortar, schools, roads, prisons, and that sort of thing. The third 
piece of our budget, the third budget, if you will, is something called 
a grant and aid budget. The Governor proposes the operating budget. The 
Governor proposes the capital budget in my State. The Governor doesn't 
propose the grant and aid budget in my State. That comes from the 
legislature. We found in the 1990s that the grant and aid budget was 
growing like Topsy, kind of crowding out spending in the operating 
budget and the capital budget. What we decided to do was put a 
constraint on the growth of the grant and aid budget, no more than 2 
percent; no more than 2 percent of revenues. That put a halt to the 
growth and kind of put things back on the right keel.
  With respect to earmarks, among the things we have done here--there 
is nothing inherently wrong with earmarks, directed spending, but when 
they are growing like Topsy, as they were for a while, that is not a 
good thing. We have now decided to limit earmarks to 1 percent of 
revenue which I think is appropriate.
  The second thing we didn't know for the longest time is where the 
earmarks were coming from and who was asking for them. We didn't know 
necessarily who was going to benefit from the earmark. We have 
addressed that so we know both.
  The other thing I believe we have addressed is called air drops, 
where you have a conference committee with the House and Senate on 
appropriations bills, you don't have an earmark in either one, yet out 
of the conference committee emerges an earmark from somebody and we 
don't know where it came from and it wasn't in either bill. That 
shouldn't be allowed.
  The last thing I would mention is at the end of the day, you have the 
ability for the President to look through a bill, whether with earmarks 
or other forms of spending, and say maybe this is a bad idea. This is 
an egregious form of spending. It should be addressed, and basically 
say to us in the Senate or the House: I have signed this bill into law, 
but I wanted to come back and vote on a couple specific items. If I 
cannot get 50 colleagues to vote for an earmark that I have made on 
behalf of Delaware, I should probably not be asking for that earmark in 
the first place. That is the long and short of it.
  There are a lot of things we can do to continue to make progress. We 
are getting down to 3 percent of GDP in the next 4 years, and I applaud 
that. There are other things we want to do. I look forward to working 
with the chairman. Those are just a few of the ways we can make 
additional progress.
  I applaud the chairman, and I thank him for all his work. I cannot 
imagine what it is like to bear the burden of this or any budget, but 
he has done it well and in good humor for a long time.

[[Page 11009]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware, who has 
been so constructive on many critical issues since he joined the 
Senate. He is somebody whose career I followed closely when he was in 
the House of Representatives and as Governor of his State. He is one of 
the real clear thinkers on fiscal issues before this body. I thank him 
for all of the contributions he has made.
  Next, we have Senator Whitehouse, a very valued member of the Budget 
Committee. He is one of the people who put a great deal of effort and 
energy into producing the budget resolution that came from the Senate 
which really served as the model of what we have before us in terms of 
the conference report. This is a conference report, as I have said 
repeatedly, that captures the President's key priorities of reducing 
our dependence on foreign energy, focusing on excellence in education, 
and providing for health care reform, which is a special passion of the 
Senator from Rhode Island. It also contains substantial middle-class 
tax cuts--in fact, over $750 billion in middle-class tax cuts--all the 
while reducing the deficit by two-thirds over the next 4 years.
  As measured against a share of GDP, it is even better. We reduce the 
economy on that metric--and the economists say that is the best 
metric--by three quarters. No member of the committee has made a 
greater contribution on health care issues than the Senator from Rhode 
Island, Mr. Whitehouse.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island is 
recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of 
the committee for his kind words. I congratulate him on having brought 
this budget successfully to the floor for a vote at this point. The 
procedures the budget must go through are very complex. The 
consequences for this body, if the budget should fail, are dire, and 
the economic catastrophe the country and our new President have been 
presented with have made this a particularly challenging budget 
substantively to work with. Through all that, the distinguished 
chairman has persevered and succeeded with his customary diligence, 
grace, and good will; and it is customary on our part to rely on his 
expertise. He made a remarkable contribution. It would not be right to 
not acknowledge what a spectacular achievement, under the 
circumstances, this has been.
  What is particularly useful about this budget is the emphasis on the 
pressing priorities that our country faces--particularly clean energy 
technology and energy efficiencies, the education of our young people, 
and I think most important, as the distinguished chairman has 
suggested, it lays the groundwork for a vitally necessary, far-reaching 
reform of our health care system in the coming months and years.
  This reform cannot come soon enough. Our health care system is a 
mess. The number of uninsured Americans continues to climb and will 
soon hit 50 million. The annual cost of the system is over $2 trillion 
a year, and that will shortly double. We spend 16 percent of our 
Nation's gross domestic product on health care--more than any other 
industrialized country in the world, and double the average of our 
European Union economic competitors. There is more health care than 
steel in the cost of Ford cars. There is more health care than coffee 
beans in the cost of Starbucks coffee. Unless we act quickly, the 
recession we are living through now will seem like nothing compared to 
what will happen when $35 trillion in unfunded Medicare liability--
against which we have set not one nickel--comes due.
  Even more important, however, is the extraordinary price that 
hardworking Americans pay every day for this dysfunctional system. In 
America, we have the best doctors, the best nurses, the best 
procedures, the best hospitals, and the best equipment in the world. 
Yet our broken health care system grinds that up and produces mediocre 
results.
  More than 100,000 Americans are killed every year by unnecessary and 
avoidable medical errors. Many more are faced with longer health care 
stays and higher costs. Life expectancy, obesity rates, and child 
mortality are much worse than they should be in a country such as ours. 
More families in America experience bankruptcy because of medical 
expenses for that family than any other cause.
  Fundamentally, the system itself doesn't work. Hospitals are going 
broke, doctors are furious, and paperwork chokes the system. Quarrels 
between providers and payers drive up the cost, while potential savings 
in billions of dollars for improved quality and prevention lie there on 
the table. It is a system in crisis, and it threatens our Nation's 
fiscal security. It must be repaired, and we have to see this as an 
urgent task.
  Mr. President, a few months ago, I added a new feature to my Web 
site, which is a Health Care Storyboard, to give Rhode Islanders a 
chance to share personal experiences in the health care system and 
their ideas for how to fix it. Since we launched the Storyboard, more 
than 300 people, from 45 different communities, have sent me their 
stories. While I was in Rhode Island over the recess, I had the chance 
to meet with some of the people who sent in stories, so I could talk to 
them firsthand.
  Joyce from Warwick told me she is supposed to take two medications 
every day, but her insurance will pay for only one. There is no generic 
for the one she must pay for out of pocket. She would love to retire, 
but she simply cannot because her medical coverage would cost too much. 
She is trapped at work by health care.
  Judith and Scott from Cranston have been struggling ever since he 
needed a liver transplant in 2006. Their family incurred $60,000 in 
medical bills that weren't covered by insurance as a result. Scott has 
been unable to work since 2004 due to his illness, which meant the 
family was relying on Judith's insurance. But 18 months ago, Judith 
lost her job, which meant her family had to go on COBRA. To make 
matters worse, their COBRA is about to run out, and Judith still cannot 
find a job.
  Like hundreds of thousands of American families, Judith and Scott had 
to file chapter 7 bankruptcy on February 12, 2008, because of the 
medical costs of Scott's illness.
  Claudia from Providence is self-employed and pays for her own health 
insurance. She recently did a few precautionary tests at her annual 
doctor visit when the doctor suggested they were a good idea. However, 
she found out her health coverage only covers 80 percent of her visit, 
and she had to pay an extra $176. At the time, she didn't realize how 
much these tests would cost her. She told me she might have skipped 
them had she known it was not included in her premium.
  She, like so many Americans, would have bypassed necessary health 
care in order to save money. Claudia told me calling what we have a 
``health care system'' is too kind. It is more like a trap that people 
fall into.
  Marie from Wakefield told me she had been healthy her entire life 
until extreme pelvic pain sent her to the emergency room twice in 2006. 
She was eventually diagnosed with endometrial cancer, which was treated 
with a hysterectomy and six sessions of chemotherapy. Fortunately, 
Marie had excellent coverage and paid very little for the countless 
doctor visits, blood work, hospitalizations, scans, and specialists. 
But now her employer will be changing her coverage dramatically. She 
may not have post-retirement health care options, and her copay may 
rise considerably. She has no idea what her future health care needs 
will be. All she knows is she was once promised one thing, when her 
career began, and now as she looks toward retirement, she is faced with 
very different options.
  Finally Barbara from Exeter, a registered nurse since 1983 and works 
in hospice care. She told me about her experience ``watching our health 
care system fall apart at the seams, while insurance giants have gotten 
out of control.'' Barbara said she had witnessed providers who no 
longer determine what the best care is for patients

[[Page 11010]]

based on clinical excellence, but rather on what the insurance company 
demands and will pay for. She has seen patients forgoing needed medical 
care because of costs, and ultimately spending more because when they 
finally seek treatment, their illnesses have become more severe. ``The 
whole concept of insurance is not what people expect it to be,'' she 
said.
  These are just stories of six Rhode Islanders. In them we see a loss 
of dignity, a loss of security, a loss of confidence and comfort, a 
loss that is shared by millions of Americans. Their stories remind us 
that health care reform isn't just an abstract Washington problem--that 
underneath the awful numbers we see coming out of our health care 
system are even more awful human tragedies.
  As we work to reform our health care system, two goals loom large: 
One, ensuring that health care is available for all, and that it is 
affordable. But the stories I have heard from these and hundreds of 
Rhode Islanders remind us it is not just enough to solve the problem of 
coverage. When the boat is sinking, it is not enough to get everybody 
out of the water and into the boat. Instead, we must also reform the 
health care system itself, making it more intelligent, more sensible, 
more helpful, more efficient, better supported by information 
technology, and better grounded in quality and prevention. We need an 
information technology infrastructure so every American can count on 
his or her own secure electronic health record. We need improvements in 
the quality of health care so care is both cheaper and more effective. 
We need to reform our misaligned payment and reimbursement system so 
the health care we want is the health care we are paying for.
  This budget begins the process of making that possible, and I am 
proud to support it. These delivery system reforms in health care 
cannot be just flipped on like a light switch. They will require 
complex workforce, regulatory, and infrastructure changes, and then 
those changes will have to be implemented and administered. It will 
take time. It could take years. It is all the more reason we need to 
start now. This budget launches us on that journey.
  We made good progress yesterday by confirming Secretary Kathleen 
Sebelius, an experienced and determined leader who will be an enormous 
asset in this fight. I am encouraged by her confirmation, and I look 
forward to her leadership at the helm of this effort. Reforming our 
health care system will be more than a financial problem, more than a 
policy puzzle, and more than a political fight. This is a landscape of 
human tragedy, and families all across this country are struggling 
every single day that we fail to act.
  This budget does that. It is a good thing. Before I leave the floor, 
I have to add this because I have been listening across the internal 
television network to the speeches of my colleagues--in particular, 
Republican colleagues. From their speeches, you would never know that 
during the Bush administration the difference between the budget that 
President Bush inherited and the budget projections he was given the 
day he took office and the actual budget outcomes that the Bush 
administration produced, the difference was nearly $9 trillion--$9 
trillion of debt. During that time, there was not a peep from our 
Republican friends about this carnival of debt, this orgy of fair 
weather debt in which George Bush and the Republican party engaged.
  Now something has changed. We have a different President, and 
suddenly we are hearing a whole different message from the Republicans. 
Now that we have a serious recession, the one time when families are 
contracting their budgets, businesses are contracting their budgets, 
and State and local governments are contracting their budgets, and the 
Federal Government has an economic obligation to spend counter 
cyclically to keep the budget from melting down, now at this time we 
hear the most intense caterwauling about debt and deficit.
  I ask my colleagues, where were you when the Bush administration was 
running up nearly $9 trillion, putting a war in Iraq on the credit 
card, and giving tax relief to America's billionaires? Where was the 
economic urgency of putting those things on the American debt tab? This 
is the one time when it makes sense to countercyclically spend, to 
deficit spend through a recession. Yet we hear these complaints.
  I am a lawyer, as is the Presiding Officer, formerly a distinguished 
attorney general of New Mexico. We both know that when you are arguing 
in a court of law, if you intend to make a point, it is usually helpful 
if the point you are making is consistent with what you have done in 
the past. It is called the clean hands doctrine. You cannot come into 
court and argue for a position when you have acted counter to it in the 
past. You don't have clean hands, and the court will take that into 
account.
  I submit that our friends on the other side, the party of no, is now 
the party of no consistency and the party of no clean hands on this 
subject. It is impossible to ignore the Bush debt of nearly $9 trillion 
and come to the floor and claim that this President, in this emergency 
he inherited from the previous administration, should not do the one 
thing economists say makes sense in this timeframe, which is in a 
recession to have the Government spend countercyclically. It makes no 
sense. I think we need to do what President Obama does: Look to the 
future, look to the pressing priorities of our time, look to the urgent 
demands, such as health care, and support this budget.
  I will conclude, again, with my very great appreciation for the 
extraordinary work my chairman on the Budget Committee has done to 
bring us to this day. I think we can look forward to this budget 
passing, although there will be a certain amount of back and forth 
until we get there. I think we are doing the American people a service 
by passing this budget and it is thanks to the chairman's leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I, again, thank the Senator from Rhode 
Island, Mr. Whitehouse, who is such a valuable member of the Senate 
Budget Committee, as is the occupant of the Chair, who has newly joined 
us and is already making good contributions to our work. We are 
delighted to have Senator Merkley, the occupant of the Chair and a 
Member of the Senate Budget Committee, with us and appreciate so much 
the efforts of Senator Whitehouse and Senator Merkley in developing a 
budget resolution that, by the way, our outline was largely followed in 
the conference committee. It is very close to what passed the Senate 
earlier. I think the reasons for that success are, No. 1, we did 
capture the President's priorities of reducing dependence on foreign 
energy, a focus on excellence in education, providing for major health 
care reform that is absolutely critical to the country's future and, at 
the same time, cutting the deficit by two-thirds over the next 5 years, 
by three-quarters as measured by the gross domestic product, and also 
providing very substantial middle-class tax relief, hundreds of 
billions of dollars--in fact, over $700 billion--of middle-class tax 
relief that is in this budget. I think we can be proud of that.
  We have already seen the budget earlier today pass in the House of 
Representatives by a very wide margin. I anticipate, when we have our 
vote, it will also pass with a healthy margin.
  I, again, especially thank Senator Whitehouse and Senator Merkley, 
who are key members of the Budget Committee who did so much to help us 
fashion a document that can command the respect of our colleagues.
  For one moment, I would like to, as we are waiting for Senator 
Grassley to arrive, indicate that earlier there were a number of 
comments made to which I wish to respond. First, that reconciliation 
could still be used for global climate change legislation. Technically, 
that is true, but it is not going to happen. We have the absolute 
assurance of all those who are in leadership positions in the House and 
the Senate, the President of the United States--in fact, the President 
has assured me directly--directly--that he

[[Page 11011]]

would not allow that. Let's take that off the table.
  Second, we have heard concern from our Republican colleagues about 
the use of reconciliation. I share those concerns. I have opposed the 
use of reconciliation for these purposes. But my own belief is health 
care will not use the reconciliation process. I believe health care 
will move in the regular order. The committees of jurisdiction have 
until October 15 to do so.
  I see now that Senator Durbin, who is a member of our leadership, is 
here. If he is ready to go--how much time does the Senator request? I 
yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee, Senator Conrad of North Dakota, not only for yielding but 
also for his leadership in the preparation of this important document.
  The budget resolution is a blueprint. We pass it and then we go to 
work with the individual parts of it in the appropriations bills. But 
we have to get this done first because the budget resolution tells us 
how much we can spend in total. Once we have that guidance, it is 
turned over to the Appropriations Committee on which I serve. We then 
parcel it out among the different appropriations subcommittees and go 
to work looking at the individual budgets. I have one of those 
subcommittees for which I am responsible. We cannot start working until 
this budget resolution is agreed to.
  It is not an easy political task. First, it is a highly technical 
document which few Members understand in detail, the chairman and 
ranking member being notable exceptions. Second, it is highly political 
because when you start describing what your budget is going to look 
like, not only next year but several years down the road, you are doing 
more than putting figures on paper, you are spelling out your values, 
what do you want to do.
  The budget submitted to us by President Obama is significantly 
different than the budgets we have seen in years gone by. His 
priorities differ from previous administrations, particularly of 
President George Bush. We have to realize that in the last 8 years, 
there has been a significant change in Government spending. In the 
entire history of the United States of America, through all the 
Presidents, including President Clinton, we had accumulated about $5 
trillion in debt. That is all the debt of America. That was our 
mortgage when President George W. Bush took office. When he left 
office--let me go back.
  When he assumed office, he assumed a surplus. In other words, the 
last budget left to him generated more money than we were spending. 
What did we do with the surplus? We reduced the debt of the Social 
Security trust fund, which meant that Social Security could last a few 
years longer.
  President Bush inherited a surplus in the budget and a $5 trillion 
mortgage that all the Presidents had accumulated.
  When he left office, what did he leave behind? Eight years after he 
was elected President, he left a national mortgage of over $10 
trillion. It had doubled in an 8-year period of time, and he left to 
the new President, President Obama, the largest deficit in the history 
of the United States. I believe it was in the range of $1.3 trillion--a 
huge amount of money that we were in red ink facing.
  President Obama faced a tough task dealing with an economy that was 
flat on its back in a recession and how to revive it, how to make sure 
we create and save jobs, how to get businesses back on their feet, how 
to give some tax incentives and help particularly to working families, 
how to fund the things in Government which are essential because, as we 
know, when we get into a recession, people need more things.
  I went to a plant in Chicago with Vice President Biden on Monday, a 
plant which last December laid off 240 employees and now was reopening. 
We, of course, couldn't be happier that was occurring. I asked one of 
the workers coming back: How did you get by for the last 4 or 5 months? 
Senator, unemployment, that is how I got by.
  Unemployment compensation is one of the things Government pays out in 
the midst of recession. With more and more Americans out of work, we 
have been paying out more for unemployment insurance, for food stamps, 
the basic things people need to survive until the economy turns around 
and their lives turn around.
  Faced with that, this Budget Committee had to sit down and try to 
write a budget that moved us toward reducing the deficit in America and 
also revitalizing the economy. That is a tough job. If your goal is 
just to reduce spending, that is pretty obvious. We know how to do 
that. But if your goal is to still spend enough to get the economy 
moving and yet create a trend that moves us at least closer to a 
balanced budget, then you have a tough assignment.
  Now add in two other elements that make this even more complicated. 
President Obama said if we are going to spend money in this economy, we 
need to invest it in what has meaning, long-term investments in 
America. There is this caricature of WPA, under Franklin Roosevelt, of 
people leaning on shovels, folks sitting at desks where phones never 
ring. I am not sure that is any more than caricature.
  Today President Obama said: Let's create jobs that we will use to 
invest in our future. Let's build things that will have value to us in 
the outyears. He looked at two or three areas in specific terms. One is 
health care, and the President is right. If you look at the curve line 
on the increase in costs of health care in America, it continues to 
rise. It will continue to rise unabated to the point where there is no 
hope for us to balance this budget. We will start spending more and 
more on health care for the elderly, for the poor, for those who are 
disabled to the point where we cannot even consider any kind of 
balanced budget. The President said: As part of this next budget, let 
us move toward the day when we have a new health care system in 
America, one that serves everyone and is reasonably priced. That is a 
tough assignment, no doubt about it. But in this budget, we address 
that issue.
  Senator Conrad has talked about reconciliation. That is a term which 
beyond divorce court most people do not know what you are talking 
about. For most Americans, it is a term of mystery. For us, it is a 
procedure on the Senate floor that changes the vote necessary to pass a 
bill. This is, after all, the Senate, and a majority does not get the 
job done on a given day. In the Senate, you need 60 votes out of 100 to 
do anything that is controversial or important. Reconciliation says: On 
any given issue under reconciliation, a majority is sufficient. But 
there are strict rules on what you can put in there, strict rules on 
what you can consider.
  Senator Conrad had to deal with this whole question: What procedure 
would we use to move toward health care. I think he came up with a 
reasonable conclusion, and it is one I support. If by October 15 we 
have not made progress toward health care reform, we can consider it 
under the reconciliation rules.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle, the Republican side of the 
aisle, have protested this saying it is fundamentally unfair, 
unconstitutional, and ungodly. But the fact is, it has been used 
repeatedly, 18 or 19 times in the last few years, and it has been used 
as frequently, if not more so, on the Republican side of the aisle as 
the Democratic side. I don't think there is anything inherently evil in 
it unless you are in the minority and it diminishes your power in the 
Senate.
  Senator Conrad struck the right balance. He gives us a chance to deal 
with it in a bipartisan fashion but says, if at the end of the day, 
October 15, we are not going to have anything to show for our efforts, 
we can at least consider reconciliation. I think that is a reasonable 
approach.
  This budget resolution also offers a promising vision when it comes 
to education. The budget will dramatically expand access to quality 
early childhood education, including Head Start. The budget invests in 
teachers and innovative programs. This budget will help us build the 
education system we need to compete in the global economy.

[[Page 11012]]

  It is almost a cliche in politics for us to talk about education. 
Every politician, every candidate does. But the American people know 
intuitively this was their ladder to success. Unless you were born on 
some crystal staircase, you were lucky enough to get a good education 
and make your way in life. We want to make sure more kids are reached 
earlier in their school years, their learning years, and given that 
chance. This budget does it.
  It also takes into account the fact that tuition costs are increasing 
dramatically. I left a hearing in the other building of a person who is 
seeking a Federal circuit court judgeship. That is a pretty high-level 
appointment. I noted this man, who is roughly 51 years old and has been 
a lawyer and a judge, at the age of 51 still has over $40,000 in 
student loans to pay off--51 years old, $40,000 left.
  It is no surprise, if you are putting a child through college and 
they are fortunate enough to be accepted at a great school, they could 
end up with a great debt. We want to make sure, particularly for those 
in lower income groups, that there is more Federal money available to 
help them.
  Since 2000, the average cost of tuition at a 4-year college has 
increased by 29 percent, and financial aid has not kept up. This bill 
moves us toward more financial aid for students.
  Energy is another element the President focused on because if we 
don't find ourselves more independent when it comes to energy sources, 
we are not only going to be at the mercy of other countries with these 
energy resources, our economy cannot thrive the way we want it to. If 
we are not sensitive to the fact that responsible use of energy would 
make certain we don't increase global warming and climate change and 
jeopardize future generations, we will pay an even heavier price.
  This budget lays the groundwork for cutting back on energy sources 
that generate greenhouses gases. The budget proposes we spend less 
money burning conventional fuels and more money on cleaner energy 
sources, and it helps us create good-paying jobs in energy pursuit. 
Some of the most exciting areas of our economy--I think the areas that 
will grow us out of this recession--relate to new visions on energy.
  I tell the story about the Sears Tower--now called the Willis Tower--
in Chicago. This magnificent building, built 35 years ago, has 16,000 
single-pane windows--totally energy disastrous. They are going to be 
replaced, hopefully with energy-efficient windows. And I hope they will 
be made in Chicago. We have a new plant there that can do it.
  The point is, at the end of the day, in 3 years, Willis Tower--once 
Sears Tower--can recapture the cost of those windows in energy cost 
savings. In the meantime, we can produce this new window, creating jobs 
for people to make 16,000 windows. It fits together nicely and it 
reduces the carbon footprint of this building. Buildings are one of the 
major sources of pollution in America.
  Finally, let me say that this conference report provides tax relief 
for American families when they need it the most, and I hope we can 
continue on that.
  It is sad and disappointing to me that the budget offered in the 
House of Representatives, the one we will vote on later, didn't receive 
a single Republican vote, not one, not a single vote. The stimulus bill 
the President brought forward to try to turn the recession around--the 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act--didn't receive a single Republican vote 
in the House of Representatives. Fortunately, three Republican Senators 
stepped up and said they would join us in passing it over here; 
otherwise, it wouldn't have happened.
  Well, in comes the President's budget--an effort to reduce the 
deficit by half over 4 or 5 years, an effort to make the right 
investments--and not a single Republican in the House of 
Representatives would support it. They have become the party of ``no'' 
when it comes to this Obama administration. He continues to open the 
door and invite them in, and too many of them say: No, we are not 
interested.
  Well, the American people are interested. The American people voted 
for change. They voted for new direction and new leadership. And I 
commend the Senator from North Dakota for bringing this to the floor, 
and I hope we pass it with a convincing vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the whip, Senator Durbin, for all 
of the leadership he has provided that has helped us get to this point. 
We had some pretty direct meetings with some of our colleagues. 
Sometimes voices were raised, and there was a lot of energy in the 
room, but it is that kind of dialog which is essential to getting 
agreement. I think we have done that, and we have achieved it in a way 
that is responsible and fair, and I thank him very much for his 
leadership and his friendship.
  Mr. President, Senator Grassley is next, and I would yield--how much 
time?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thought they reserved 15 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 15 minutes off Senator Gregg's time to Senator 
Grassley, who is, by the way, let me just say, a very valuable member 
of the Senate Budget Committee, the ranking member of the Finance 
Committee, and somebody who is extremely constructive. We don't always 
agree. That is the beauty of democracy. But when Senator Grassley 
speaks, people listen because he has earned their respect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Iowa is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished 
chairman of the committee for those kind remarks, and I hold him in 
high esteem as well.
  First of all, the budget we are voting on had bipartisan opposition 
in the House of Representatives. Seventeen Democrats voted against this 
budget. Most of those are what you call conservative Democrats, or 
whatever title they want. That is what I will call them--fiscally 
conservative Democrats. They think this budget leaves too much of a 
legacy to our children and grandchildren in the way of debt. So 
bipartisan opposition ought to tell this White House and this majority 
something, and I hope in time that will become very clear.
  Today, the Senate begins its debate on the congressional budget 
resolution, and it will pass shortly, I am sure. The budget process 
started, of course, with the President's budget coming to the Hill on 
February 26. That was about 2 months ago. During the committee 
process--and I participated in that process, and I participated in the 
floor process--we faced one key question, and that was: Should we apply 
more or less budget discipline to the record debts and deficits of my 
President, President Obama, on what he inherited January 20, 2009?
  Over the past few weeks, we have heard a lot about revisionist fiscal 
history or it might best be described as heavy editing of recent budget 
history. I was pleased to see the distinguished Budget Committee 
chairman make the record clear: President Obama inherited a $1.3 
trillion deficit. I agree with that. I don't take exception to that. 
Those are quantifiable facts. Republicans don't disagree that President 
Obama inherited a large deficit.
  One point of clarification, though, needs to be made. The deficit and 
the debt were bequeathed on a bipartisan basis. That was due to the 
makeup of the Presidency last time and the Congress over the last 2 
years. The Democratic leadership obviously controlled the House and 
Senate during the years those budgets were drawn up--2007 and 2008. The 
Democratic leadership wrote the tax and spending bills President Bush 
signed in the last Congress. So congressional Democrats negotiated the 
bailout bill with the Bush administration. Those fiscal policy 
decisions, though at times very combative, in the end were jointly made 
on the one hand by a Congress, controlled by the Democrats, and by the 
administration, controlled by a Republican President. So it was 
bipartisan.
  The antirecessionary spending, together with the lower tax receipts 
and

[[Page 11013]]

the TARP activities, set a fiscal table of a debt of $1.3 trillion. 
That, in fact, was on the President's desk when he took over the Oval 
Office on January 20 this year. That is the highest deficit as a 
percentage of the economy in post-World War II history. Not a very 
pretty picture, Mr. President.
  I have a chart here that shows that part of the story, and that part 
of the story is the gray there, as you can see.
  As predicted a couple of months ago, that picture got a lot uglier 
with the stimulus bill. So for the folks who saw that bill as an 
opportunity to ``recover'' America, with Government taking a larger 
share of the economy over the long term, well, they can say: Mission 
accomplished. For those who voted for the stimulus bill--and I didn't--
you put us on a path to a bigger role for the Government. Over $1 
trillion of new deficit spending was hidden in that bill. It caused 
some of the extra red ink in this chart.
  So I point to what is called the inherited aspect of the debt, and 
those are the red bars on top of the gray bars--what was inherited.
  I think supporters of that bill need to own up to the fiscal course 
they charted. Again, that is the red line, if you want averages, and it 
is the red bars for what has been done since this President has come to 
office.
  To be sure, after the other side pushed through the stimulus bill and 
the second $350 billion of the TARP bill, CBO reestimated the baseline. 
A portion of this new red ink up front is due to that reestimate. The 
bottom line, however, is that reestimate occurred several weeks--
several weeks--after the President and a more robust Democratic 
majority took over in January of this year. Decisions were made. And do 
you know what happens here? Decisions have consequences. So fiscal 
consequences followed.
  The budget before us, for the most part, follows the fiscal trail 
blazed by President Obama. As the administration's top budget official 
said: This budget is 98 percent like the President's budget. I want to 
congratulate the chairman on keeping some of the tax priorities of the 
Senate, however. One deals with the alternative minimum tax patch. 
Although shorter than I proposed, it is dealt with over 3 years. The 
chairman also kept part of the Senate's middle-income tax relief.
  But on both the tax and the spending side, we need to take a hard 
look at what is going on at the end of this budget term--2014. The 
budget resolution conference report claims to reduce the deficit from 
$1.7 trillion this year to about $520 billion in 2014. However, the 
final year of the budget fails to include the revenue loss from the 
alternative minimum tax patch for that year. It fails to include the 
revenue loss for fully extending the 2001 and 2003 middle-class tax 
relief, the President's Making Work Pay tax credit, the Medicare 
physician fix, and natural disasters, but it does include illusory, 
unspecified future discretionary spending cuts. When you add it all up, 
the thing it fails to do--or claims to do but doesn't--the conference 
report falls hundreds of billions of dollars short of its claimed 
deficit reduction.
  So let's return, then, to the basic question I asked at the very 
beginning and also asked when we started the budget process several 
weeks ago. The question, once again, is this: Should we apply more or 
less budget discipline to record debts and deficits which my President, 
President Obama, inherited on January 20, 2009? This budget does answer 
that basic question. It makes the fiscal situation even worse. 
Inherited debt doesn't stay at its unacceptably high level; it doubles 
to 82 percent of gross national product.
  So we have another chart here, with the red line going up toward the 
top in the 10-year outlook that the Congressional Budget Office shows 
to be over 80 percent. Abnormal deficit levels become normal deficit 
levels. Again, you see here what is normal and what isn't normal. 
Levels once considered a fiscal vice by most people--at, say, the peak 
during the Bush years--of 3 to 4 percentage points--here in the years 
2007 and 2008, as you can see from the chart--are very dramatically 
dwarfed during the outyears of the President's budget. Fiscal vices 
become what? Fiscal habits, under this budget. I would ask anyone 
whether they define that plan as fiscal discipline.
  Everyone in this body wants to help get our economy back on track. If 
the economy gets back on track, everybody wins. From a fiscal 
situation, there is no better policy development than growing the 
economy. More economy to be divided over an increasing population, so 
more economy for more people to have more. If we do not grow the 
economy, we have less for more people.
  I think everyone in this body would agree that we ought to grow the 
economy. Likewise, we know small businesses are an extremely important 
part of our U.S. economy. I like to say that small business is the 
engine that drives the U.S. economy. President Obama agrees that small 
businesses have generated 70 percent of the net new jobs over the past 
decade, and most economists agree with that.
  One month ago we debated the budget resolution on the Senate floor. 
During that debate, the Senate spoke on this point. Senator Cornyn's 
small business tax relief amendment passed by an overwhelming 82 to 16; 
in other words, 82 of the people in this body agreed with President 
Obama.
  Senator Snowe had a similar amendment that was accepted by the 
managers of the floor bill. Last week the Senate spoke again. This time 
the question was phrased on a motion to instruct the budget resolution 
conferees on the importance of keeping taxes on small business low. The 
vote grew even more: 84 in favor of it, 9 against it. Unfortunately, 
the conferees did not adopt the Senate budget resolution protecting 
small businesses from tax increases.
  America's small businesses have been suffering during this recession. 
We will hear it in our events back home--I do. A very good source of 
answers on the environment for small businesses is found in the monthly 
survey of small businesses, the survey by the National Federation of 
Independent Business, NFIB, a spokes-organization for small business. 
They are well known around here. They have been conducting this survey 
for 35 years.
  The NFIB membership includes hundreds of thousands of small 
businesses all across America. I encourage every Member to check out 
this important survey and particularly this month's survey.
  This survey shows some extremely disturbing trends. On credit 
availability, small businesses are getting squeezed very hard. We have 
a chart that shows this trend. Particularly, look out here at the year 
2009 on the right side of this chart. It is way down as far as the 
percentage change compared to before. This credit crunch and other 
factors have contributed to a near record low in the NFIB's index of 
small business optimism.
  I have a chart that puts this data in perspective. We have here, over 
a long period of time, the optimism of small business. What you see is 
the attitude of decisionmakers in small business America. Those are the 
decisionmakers for businesses that President Obama and Congress agree 
are the businesses most likely to grow or contract jobs. The pessimism 
is at its second lowest point in those 35 years of surveying. The data 
should concern every policymaker in this town.
  As bad as the two sets of data are, it gets even worse. This chart 
shows the net increase or decrease in small business hiring plans. The 
survey asks the business owner whether he or she planned to expand or 
contract employment over the next 3 months. As you can see right here, 
it is very negative. This chart shows small business activity 
contracting tremendously. Small business hiring plans are at their most 
negative level in the 35-year history of this survey.
  With this pessimistic environment, we should not be surprised, then, 
that small businesses are hemorrhaging jobs. The President's recent 
efforts to increase lending to the small business sector are 
commendable. The centerpiece of the President's small business plan 
will allow the Federal Government to spend up to $25 billion to 
purchase the small business loans that are now hindering small banks 
and lenders.

[[Page 11014]]

Unfortunately, very well intentioned as it is, that is a drop in a very 
empty bucket. Remember, small business accounts for about half of the 
private sector.
  Moreover, the positives that will come to small business from this 
relatively small package of loans which will ultimately have to be paid 
back will be heavily outweighed by the negative impact of the 
President's proposed tax increases on those very same small businesses, 
the business sector. Helping small businesses get loans just to take 
the money back in the form of tax hikes is not wise. It would be wise 
to make those loans possible, but these tax policies that the President 
is thinking about doing are going to hinder small business.
  Don't take my word for it. Just today the National Federation of 
Independent Business wrote to all of us, all the Members of the Senate, 
on this point. NFIB's hundreds of thousands of small business owners 
oppose this conference report. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of 
that letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                            National Federation of


                                         Independent Business,

                                   Washington, DC, April 29, 2009.
       Dear Senator, On behalf of the National Federation of 
     Independent Business (NFIB), the nation's largest small 
     business advocacy organization, I am writing in opposition to 
     S. Con. Res. 13, the fiscal year 2010 budget conference 
     report.
       NFIB is discouraged that the conference report does not 
     contain more relief for small businesses, but instead places 
     more burdens on them. The March small business optimism index 
     hit the second lowest reading in the 35-year history of the 
     NFIB Small Business Economic Trends (SBET) survey, with plans 
     to hire and make capital expenditures at or near an all-time 
     low. Small business is the source of job creation, but 
     economic growth will be stalled if Congress continues 
     unchecked spending while increasing taxes and placing new 
     mandates on America's job creators.
       Specifically, NFIB is concerned the conference report 
     assumes the top individual tax rates will expire, which would 
     mean a tax increase for some small business owners. 
     Increasing audits and the tax filing burden as a way to close 
     the tax gap would be a direct hit on small businesses. In 
     addition, despite bipartisan support in the Senate for 
     additional relief from the estate tax, this help for small 
     business was removed in the conference.
       We are also concerned that considering healthcare 
     legislation under the reconciliation process will lead to a 
     bill that does not generate bipartisan support. Essential to 
     the long-term economic stability of our nation's small 
     businesses is the need to address the unsustainable, ever-
     increasing costs of healthcare. However, reforming the 
     healthcare system is a large undertaking impacting all 
     Americans and--as we have stated repeatedly--must be a 
     bipartisan effort.
       The budget conference report does not contain the right 
     policy direction for our nation's small businesses, and I 
     encourage you to vote against it.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Susan Eckerly,
                             Senior Vice President, Public Policy.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Here is what the NFIB says in that letter:

       NFIB is concerned the conference report assumes the top 
     individual tax rates will expire, which would mean a tax 
     increase from some small business owners.

  Do we really want to raise taxes on these small businesses that 
create new jobs and employ two-thirds of all small business workers? 
With these small businesses already suffering from the credit crunch 
before the entire country, do we really think it is wise to hit small 
business again with this double-whammy of a 20 percent increase in 
marginal tax rates?
  As we move forward from the budget process, the President and the 
congressional Democratic leadership have an opportunity to change 
course. From my 33 town meetings in Iowa during spring break, they want 
to change that course. There is a lot of concern about the legacy of 
debt that we are leaving to children and grandchildren. Both budgets 
would perpetuate the double whammy of constricted credit and high taxes 
directed at America's job engine, small business.
  So as I close, in the coming months we Republicans will try to 
persuade our Democratic friends who have all the controls of fiscal 
policy to change course. One way they can change course is to focus 
like a laser beam on jump-starting the Nation's job engine--the small 
businesses of America. We need to reverse the direction of the sharply 
downward-sloping arrow that you have seen on some of these charts. That 
is where the President and the Congress agree that we need to get more 
job growth.
  I quoted the President: 70 percent of the new jobs--small business. 
We in this party agree with that. As we move on from the budget, let's 
recognize the reality and the importance of small business.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me take a moment to review what is in 
the resolution before us with respect to taxes because I think it is 
important to go over it. The actual tax changes on a net basis in this 
package are a reduction from current law of $764 billion. We have $512 
billion of middle-class tax relief. All of the 2001 and 2003 provisions 
that provide individuals tax relief to the middle class are provided 
for for the next 5 years in this budget resolution. The 10 percent 
bracket, marriage penalty relief, all the other 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, 
including the child tax credit and the education incentives, all of 
them are in this budget.
  We also have alternative minimum tax reform for 3 years, as the 
Senator indicated. We have estate tax reform going to $7 million a 
couple excluded from any estate tax. That means 99.8 percent of estates 
would pay nothing, zero.
  The tax extenders for business are all included for a subtotal of tax 
relief of $861 billion.
  On the other side we have $97 billion of tax raises. That $97 billion 
is loophole closers aimed primarily at offshore tax havens and abusive 
tax shelters. Let me just indicate, only 2 percent of taxpayers with 
business income are affected by the changes in the top rate because, 
again, all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are extended for those earning 
less than $250,000 a year. Only 2 percent of taxpayers with small 
business income are affected by the top rate changes. That means 98 
percent are not.
  Under the definition being used by our colleagues across the aisle, 
former Vice President Cheney would qualify as a small businessman 
because what they are describing as small business people is ``anybody 
who has on their income tax returns small business income.'' There are 
a lot of people who are very big business people, have big businesses, 
who show small business income on their returns.
  Vice President Cheney, under the definition used by our colleagues on 
other side of the aisle, like any taxpayer with any small business 
income, qualifies as a small businessman. Vice President Cheney in 2007 
had income of $3 million. He had $180,000 of small business income, 
small businesses in which he apparently has an interest. Under their 
definition, he is a small businessman.
  I would say that is a tortured definition. There are people with much 
greater wealth--under their definition, Bill Gates is a small 
businessman. The richest or second richest man in the world is a small 
businessman. Under their definition, Warren Buffett is a small 
businessman. I don't think so.
  In the Bush tax cut in 2007, people averaging over $1 million a year 
in income got on average a tax reduction of almost $120,000 a year. The 
vast majority of people got next to nothing, as this chart shows. But 
those with average incomes of more than $1 million got tax reductions 
averaging $120,000. That is one of the reasons we are in the deep hole 
we are in.
  My assertion is, on the loophole closers we have, we can go after 
money that is owed that is not now being collected. The tax gap in the 
most recent year for which there is a calculation, 2006, amounted to 
$345 billion a year, money that is owed that is not being collected. 
That is the first place we ought to focus before we talk about a tax 
increase for anyone.
  The second place we ought to look is these offshore tax havens. These 
offshore tax havens are running amok.

[[Page 11015]]

Here is the conclusion from our own Homeland Security and Government 
Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. This is from their 
work in 2007:

       Experts have estimated that total loss to the Treasury from 
     offshore tax evasion alone approaches $100 billion per year--

  It is $100 billion a year in these offshore tax haven scams--

     including $40 to $70 billion from individuals and another $30 
     billion from corporations engaging in offshore tax evasion. 
     Abusive tax shelters add tens of billions of dollars more.

  We do not have to wonder if our own Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations knows what they are talking about. We can just go to the 
newspaper. Here is February 20 of this year, the New York Times:

       The UBS memo was blunt: The ``Swiss solution'' could help 
     affluent Americans.
       That message, sent to the bank's executives in July 2004, 
     referred to a UBS plan to help rich customers evade taxes by 
     hiding money in offshore havens like the Bahamas.
       The memo, along with dozens of e-mail messages like it, 
     were disclosed on Thursday in a blistering court document 
     filed by the Justice Department, which sought to compel UBS, 
     based in Switzerland, to divulge the identities of 52,000 
     Americans whom the authorities suspect of using secret 
     offshore accounts at the bank to dodge taxes.

  We do not have to use our imaginations very much to figure out what 
is going on. Here is a little five-story building in the Cayman islands 
called Ugland House. It claims to be the home of 14,000 companies. Can 
you see them there in this little five-story building? Do you see them 
doing their business out of this building, 14,000 companies, supposedly 
doing business out of this little building down in the Cayman Islands?
  They are not doing any business out of that building. They are 
engaged in monkey business. What they are doing is an elaborate tax 
scam, much of it revealed in the UBS court documents; much more 
revealed in the collapse of Stanford Financial, which has shown that 
there are loads of companies, loads of individuals, who are engaged in 
dodging what they legitimately owe the United States by establishing 
these offshore tax haven locations, where they claim they do business, 
and all they are doing is dodging taxes.
  Let me say, most of the largest U.S. corporations have subsidiaries 
in tax havens. Eighty-three of the one hundred largest publicly traded 
U.S. corporations have subsidiaries in tax havens, and 42 of these 
companies have subsidiaries in 10 or more tax havens--10 or more.
  Sixty-three of the one hundred largest U.S. Federal contractors have 
subsidiaries in tax havens, and 33 of these companies have subsidiaries 
in 10 or more tax havens. Look, anybody who does not see what is going 
on is blind.
  Here is the picture I hope people will pay attention to. This is a 
sewer system in Europe. A sewer system in Europe. What has that got to 
do with the budget of the United States? Well, it turns out to 
increasingly have a lot to do with the budget here, because this is a 
sewer system that was bought by a U.S. company that is not in the sewer 
business. They bought this sewer system in Europe to depreciate it on 
their books in the United States to suppress taxes they legitimately 
owe here. Do you know what they did. After they bought it so they could 
depreciate it, they leased it back to the European city they bought it 
from and paid for it in the first place.
  If we do not cut down and stop this kind of scam, shame on us. Shame 
on us. And some of our friends over here say that is a tax increase. 
Well, sign me up if that is a tax increase to shut down this kind of 
scam. The vast majority of us pay what we owe, but a few get by with 
establishing these accounts in these offshore tax havens and engaging 
in these unbelievably abusive tax shelters.
  So we need tax reform. We have got a tax system that is out of date 
and hurting U.S. competitiveness. We are hemorrhaging revenue. Right 
now we are only collecting about 75 percent of what is actually due 
under the current code. So without any tax increases, we can completely 
close the structural gap between spending and revenue in this country 
if we collect what the current system says is owed.
  The fact is, the vast majority of us on tax day pay what we owe. But 
increasingly we have got big companies, wealthy individuals, who are 
not. Let's end it. Let's end it.
  The AMT is another problem threatening millions of middle-class 
taxpayers that we have addressed in this proposal. Additionally, we 
have a long-term imbalance that must be addressed between spending and 
revenue. Finally, we need simplification and reform to keep rates low 
for the vast majority of us who are honest.
  I have heard the argument on the other side that we have got the 
highest corporate rate in the world. Well, what is true is we do have 
one of the highest nominal tax rates, stated tax rates. But our 
effective tax rate on corporations is among the lowest in the world. 
That is because, while the statutory rate is 35 percent, the effective 
rate, what companies actually pay, is only 13 percent. When you take 
that into account, here is where we stack up. Here are the major 
industrialized countries in the world. Here is the average. Here is 
where the United States is. The only countries that have a lower 
effective corporate tax rate than the United States are Slovakia, 
Poland, Austria, and Germany. Everybody else has a higher effective 
corporate tax rate than do we. I make this review for the purposes of 
establishing this in the Record.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to briefly respond to my 
friend from North Dakota, the chairman of the Budget Committee. The 
chairman was responding to my remarks on small business and the effects 
of proposed 20 percent higher marginal rates on small business owners.
  The budget brought before us raises taxes on small business owners. 
There can be no question about it. Here is how it works.
  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. The chairman 
appears to fall into this camp.
  Proponents of these tax increases, like the distinguished chairman, 
the senior Senator from North Dakota, 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. In testimony 
before the Senate Finance Committee, Dr. Bob Greenstein, director of 
the liberal think tank, Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, also 
used that figure. Moreover, Secretary Geithner has testified that this 
Treasury Department agrees with that figure. 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. 
The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation has indicated that, for 
2011, approximately 3 percent of small business filers will be hit by 
these proposed higher rates. These statistics compare to a 2007 
treasury which showed 7 percent of flow-through business owners paying 
the top rate. In the latest analysis, when the impact of the 
alternative minimum tax--AMT--is fully included, that percentage may 
drop some.
  Small Business Administration--SBA--data provide evidence of the 
dynamic nature of small business. You can find that data on the SBA Web 
site in its frequently asked questions discussion. The website is 
www.sba.gov/

[[Page 11016]]

advo. According to SBA, 67 percent of small businesses survive for 2 
years; 44 percent of small businesses survive at least 4 years; and 31 
percent of small businesses survive at least 7 years.
  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 20-249 workers would fall in the top two 
brackets. You can see it right here on this chart.
  According to the SBA, about two-thirds of the Nation's small business 
workers are employed by small businesses with 20-500 employees.
  Newly developed data from the Joint Committee on Taxation 
demonstrates that 55 percent of the tax from the higher rates will be 
borne by small business owners with income over $250,000. 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.
  Now, as is frequently the case in debate, the proponent of an idea 
seeks to change the nature of the debate by changing the question. We 
witnessed a bit of that this afternoon.
  Notice the distinguished chairman did not dispute the basic thrust of 
the points I raised. Instead, he said, we, on this side, used an unfair 
or inappropriate definition of small business. He cited examples of 
former Vice President Cheney and Microsoft founder Bill Gates, Jr. The 
point seems to be that the 750,000 flow-through small business owners, 
again those most likely to expand or contract their workforces, who 
will be in the bulls-eye of the 20 percent higher marginal rates, 
should be ignored. We should focus instead on one or two examples. The 
point seems to be that it is fine to target the large group of small 
business owners if you can find a Cheney or Gates example.
  On this point, I direct the distinguished chairman and the full 
Senate to the Treasury Conference on Business Taxation and Global 
Competitiveness Background Paper. It was put out on July 26, 2007. The 
current Treasury is spending some time updating this data and will be 
incorporating the full effect of the alternative minimum tax--AMT--for 
2011. If colleagues examine the study at page 20, table 3.3, they will 
find an insightful analysis. The study sorted Treasury data for flow-
through entities. The analysis sorted the data to isolate active 
manager/owners from the broader pool of all flow-through filers. When 
so sorted, Treasury found that the lion's share of income and tax was 
still born by those manager/owners. I ask consent to have printed in 
the Record a copy of the Treasury table.
  Even the Tax Policy Center, an institution in accord with President 
Obama and the congressional Democratic leadership's goal of raising the 
top rates on small business, shows a large slug of active small 
business income in taxpayers in the top two brackets. I will ask 
consent to include a TPC chart printed in the Record.
  The proponents of a tax increase of up to 20 percent in the marginal 
rates of small business owners should bear the burden to disprove the 
concerns those on our side have raised. Perhaps they could work with 
Senator Snowe, Senator Cornyn and others to craft an exception that 
shields the small businesses that employ two-thirds of all small 
business workers from the tax increase. Pointing to an extreme example, 
like a Vice-President Cheney or a Bill Gates, Jr., may make great sound 
bites for politics.
  It, however, will not amuse the small business owners who have worked 
hard to build a business. It won't amuse the workers they need to 
layoff. It won't amuse the suppliers they have to curtail purchases 
from. The bottom line is the budget contains a tax increase that is 
aimed at small businesses most likely to expand or contract. That tax 
increase is significant and real to those small business owners. They, 
not the politicians voting in the tax increase, will have to deal with 
the added tax burden.
  Last week, a strong bipartisan group of 84 Senators agreed there is a 
problem here. We are raising taxes on Small Business America. We ought 
to be careful.
  Throwing out a red herring involving Vice-President Cheney or Bill 
Gates, Jr. doesn't deal with the problem we have raised.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the materials to which 
I referred printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              FLOW-THROUGH INCOME AND INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES, 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Taxpayers with       Flow-through        Tax on Flow-
                                                         Flow-through        income/loss*       through income/
                                                          income/loss    --------------------        loss*
                                                     --------------------                    -------------------
                                                       $millions     %     $billions     %     $billions     %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Flow-through income
    All taxpayers...................................         27.5    100          938    100          159    100
    Top 2 tax brackets..............................          2.1      8          671     72          131     82
    Top tax bracket.................................            1      4          573     61          113     71
Active, positive flow-through income
    All taxpayers...................................         18.3    100          762    100          145    100
    Top 2 tax brackets..............................          1.4      7          433     57          109     75
    Top tax bracket.................................          0.7      4          349     46           92     64
Flow-through income >50% wages
    All taxpayers...................................         11.9    100          880    100          156    100
    Top 2 tax brackets..............................          1.1      9          608     69          127     81
    Top tax bracket.................................          0.6      5          527     60          110     70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*=``Flow-through income/loss'' includes net ordinary income from sole proprietorships, S corporations, and
  partnerships plus net long-term and short-term gains from partnerships, S corporations, estates, and trusts.
Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Tax Analysis-analysis of unpublished IRS data.


 TABLE T08-0164--DISTRIBUTION OF TAX UNITS WITH BUSINESS INCOME BY STATUTORY MARGINAL TAX RATE--ASSUMING EXTENSION AND INDEXATION OF THE 2007 AMT PATCH,
                                                                        2009 \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   All tax units         Tax Units with business    Percent of tax units with business income
                                            ---------------------------         income \2\                             \3\                      Business
                                                                       ----------------------------------------------------------------------- income as
     Statutory marginal income tax rate          Number       Percent                                          Greater    Greater    Greater    percent
                                               (thousands)    of total      Number       Percent    Greater    than 10%   than 25%   than 50%    of AGI
                                                                          (thousands)    of total    than 0     of AGI     of AGI     of AGI      \3\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-filers.................................          20,758       13.8             999        2.9        4.8        3.7        3.3        3.0        7.5
0%.........................................          23,434       15.6           6,960       20.0       29.7       28.6       26.0       22.8       62.7
10%........................................          22,375       14.9           4,740       13.6       21.2       16.2       12.6        8.9       12.1
15%........................................          49,522       33.0          11,024       31.7       22.3       12.5        7.8        4.5        6.9
25%........................................          25,506       17.0           6,662       19.2       26.1       12.0        7.1        4.2        6.7
26% (AMT)..................................           2,434        1.6           1,160        3.3       47.6       21.0       12.9        7.8       11.4
28% (Regular)..............................           3,137        2.1           1,175        3.4       37.4       20.6       15.4       10.4       13.0
28% (AMT)..................................           2,164        1.4           1,353        3.9       62.5       38.2       29.6       20.5       21.5
33%........................................             335        0.2             206        0.6       61.7       46.3       38.0       29.9       31.6
35%........................................             577        0.4             457        1.3       79.2       57.6       50.3       40.7       38.8
All........................................         150,241      100.0          34,736      100.0       23.1       15.2       11.4        8.4       14.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center Microsimulation Model (version 0308-5).

[[Page 11017]]

 
(1) Calendar year. Assumes extension and indexation of the 2007 AMT patch. Tax units that are dependents of other tax units are excluded from the
  analysis.
(2) Includes all tax units reporting a gain or loss on one or more of Schedules C, E, or F.
(3) Business income is defined as the sum of the absolute values of the gains or losses reported on Schedules C, E, and F.

  Mr. CONRAD. I note my colleague Senator Sanders, who is an important 
member of the Budget Committee, is here. I ask the Senator how much 
time does he seek?
  Mr. SANDERS. I need 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to yield 5 minutes. If the Senator would 
like more at the end of that time, he only needs to ask.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the chairman for yielding. I want to 
congratulate him and his staff for the excellent work they have done on 
this budget, which I certainly will be voting for.
  What I wanted to do is to take a brief moment to highlight a 
provision in the budget resolution that I introduced, along with 
Senators Feingold, Webb, and Bunning. That deals with the outrage that 
exists in our country at what happened last year and this year on Wall 
Street. I think, as most Americans know, as a result of the greed, the 
recklessness, the illegal behavior we have seen within some of our 
largest financial institutions, our country and, in fact, much of the 
world, has been plunged into a very deep recession which has cost 
millions of Americans their jobs, their homes, their savings, and their 
ability to get a higher education.
  A lot of people are suffering because of the greed and recklessness 
of Wall Street. In my view, the regulatory efforts of the last several 
decades, which I strongly opposed as a member of the House Financial 
Services Committee, have proven to be a grotesque failure.
  The bottom line is, when you deregulate Wall Street, they do what we 
would expect that they do; that is, they do anything and everything 
they can to make as much profit as they can in as short a period of 
time as they can, no matter how recklessly they behave in the process.
  They create a bubble. When that bubble bursts, as it surely would, 
the American people are left holding the bag in the midst of a very 
deep recession. In my view it goes without saying that we must restore 
regulations on Wall Street.
  One part of that process is to bring about substantially increased 
transparency. It is beyond comprehensive, it is absurd, that trillions 
of dollars in credit default swaps and other exotic and complicated 
financial instruments are traded every single day with no public 
understanding about who owns these instruments or the impact these 
trades are having on the world's financial system.
  I am happy to note that as one small step forward in terms of 
transparency, this budget resolution incorporates provisions that 
passed the Senate by a 59-to-39 strongly bipartisan vote. What that 
amendment does is quite simple: It adds the reality that in the midst 
of this financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has lent out over $2 
trillion to financial institutions. If you were to ask the American 
people, if you were to ask any Member of this Senate, any Member of the 
House, who received that money, which financial institutions got it, 
and what the terms are that they received it are, nobody would be able 
to tell you. No one in this country understands it, because that has 
been kept secret.
  What the provision that I introduced into the budget resolution does 
is simply say: We have got to make that public. The American people 
have a right to know who is getting those loans and what the terms are.
  I am delighted that that provision is in the budget resolution. In my 
view, this is a small step forward in fighting for transparency within 
the Fed. It is a smaller step forward, overall, in beginning the reform 
measures that we need to create a new Wall Street, so that never again 
will we be placed in the position that we have been over the last few 
months.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, again I thank Senator Sanders for his kind 
remarks and for his contributions to the work of the Budget Committee. 
He has been a very energetic and important member. He has done an 
outstanding job of questioning witnesses before the committee, and he 
has also been someone who has worked very hard on community clinics, 
which I think are going to make a great difference across the country. 
There is a very significant increase for those clinics in this 
resolution, and the person responsible and the person who deserves 
credit is the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders. We thank him for that 
contribution.
  We are now approaching the 4 o'clock hour. We have Senator Coburn who 
wishes to come and speak at roughly 4:30; Senator McCain, whom I 
understand wishes to speak at roughly 4:45; I understand that Senator 
Udall from Colorado wishes speak as in morning business. I want to 
alert his staff, if they are listening, this would be a good time for 
him to come and speak, because we have some time between now and when 
we expect Senator Coburn.
  I hope we are able to move to a vote soon after Senator McCain 
concludes his remarks. But we have yet to hear definitively that that 
will be the case.
  I want to very briefly go over what I think is important about this 
budget. First, it preserves the President's key priorities of reducing 
our dependence on foreign energy, which is critically important to our 
national security and our economic security; a focus on excellence in 
education, because if we are not the best educated, we are not going to 
be the most powerful country for very long; and, third, fundamental 
health care reform.
  We are on a course that is completely unsustainable in health care. 
We are spending nearly 18 percent of our gross domestic product on 
health care. That is $1 of every $6 in this country. But we are on a 
trend line to spend 37 percent of our gross domestic product on health 
care. That is more than $1 in every $3. That can not be the outcome. 
That will put us at a huge disadvantage both in terms of 
competitiveness in this global economy, and it would have devastating 
consequences on American patients, American consumers, American 
families, American business.
  We know we need fundamental health care reform. The President has put 
that front and center before the Congress of the United States, and it 
is accommodated in this budget resolution. No. 4, we have the extension 
of middle-class tax cuts, over $700 billion in tax cuts included in 
this bill, most of it directed at the middle class.
  In addition, this budget reduces the deficit by two-thirds over 5 
years. Relative to GDP, we are reducing the deficit by more than that, 
by three-quarters between now and 2014, from 12 percent of GDP in 2010, 
to 3 percent of GDP in 2014. Those are the fundamentals of this budget.
  Is it perfect? There is no document that is prepared by the hand of 
men and women that is perfect. So we understand this is not a perfect 
document. This is the product of compromise between 435 Members of the 
House of Representatives and 100 Members of the Senate. This is purely 
a congressional document. It does not become law. It is not signed by 
the President of the United States. It is a document to guide the 
spending and the revenues of the United States for the next 5 years.
  Obviously, since we do another budget next year, the most important 
thing is what this budget does over the next year.
  Remember that this President inherited an extremely difficult 
situation--massive deficits, an economy that was in the worst shape 
since the Great Depression, a circumstance in which the United States 
is having two wars. This President inherited a very tough situation.
  We also know we are starting to see the signs of a turn in terms of 
consumer spending, in terms of housing sales, in terms of automobile 
sales. For the first time, we are seeing an improvement. Last week we 
had before us in our caucus Mr. Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal 
Reserve, who said he

[[Page 11018]]

sees the economy turning, that the precipitous downturn seems to have 
stopped or ebbed at least, and he sees the prospect of the beginning of 
recovery later this year. We all hope that is the case.
  This budget is an important part of an overall economic recovery 
strategy. While we have not adopted precisely the budget the President 
sent us, there is good reason for that. Because from the time the 
President's people made their estimates of the revenue available over 
the next 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office, some months later, 
did a new estimate which is the basis for our budget. The President's 
budget had $2 trillion more available to him when he wrote his budget 
than we have had available to us in writing our budget. That 
necessitated changes in order to achieve the deficit reduction he had 
called for and the deficit reduction most economists say is 
fundamentally necessary.
  We wrote a 5-year budget, not a 10-year budget. Of the 34 budgets 
that have been written under the Congressional Budget Act, 30 of the 34 
have been 5-year budgets. Why is that? Because forecasts for 10 years 
are notoriously unreliable. That is why Congress, 30 of the 34 times it 
has done a budget, has done 5-year budgets because the forecasts, even 
then, for the outyears were highly suspect. When we are talking about a 
10-year forecast, that is just throwing a dart.
  That is where we are. We have worked in a credible way to fashion a 
budget document that meets the needs of the American people, that puts 
us in a better position for the future. I freely acknowledge we must do 
much more, especially in the second 5 years. It is absolutely 
imperative we do more to get our long-term financial house in order. 
That is going to require entitlement reform--Medicare, Social Security. 
That is going to require tax reform because we have a tax system that 
is only collecting about 75 percent of the money due and owed under the 
current tax rates. We wouldn't need any tax increase of any kind to 
balance the books if we would just collect what is due and owed under 
the current system. Unfortunately, while the vast majority of us pay 
what we owe, we have an increasing number of people and companies that 
don't. That has to stop.
  With that, I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  We are expecting Senator Coburn at roughly 4:30, Senator McCain at 
roughly 4:45, and Senator Udall of Colorado. If he is available and his 
people are within earshot, this would be a good time for him to come 
and use the time he has requested.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I have received information now that Senator Udall will 
be with us at roughly 4:15. Senator Udall at 4:15 for 10 minutes and 
then Senator Coburn at 4:30 for 10 or 15 minutes and then Senator 
McCain at 4:45 for roughly 15 minutes. I am not asking unanimous 
consent because we don't want to be locked in if one of them comes 
before another. We don't want to be wasting time. I may need time to 
respond to what other Senators might offer. We are hopeful that if 
there are any others who wish to speak, they will let their respective 
cloakrooms know.
  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, it is my understanding Senator Udall of 
Colorado would like to speak as in morning business.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. How much time would the Senator like?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Ten minutes maximum.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Colorado as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North 
Dakota and thank him for his great work on behalf of this important 
budget we are going to adopt in short order.


                             Line-Item Veto

  Mr. President, I rise in support of the Budget Enforcement 
Legislative Tool Act my colleague from Delaware, Senator Carper, is 
introducing today.
  I am also pleased to be a cosponsor of the Congressional and Line-
Item Veto Act, introduced recently by Senator Feingold.
  Both bills have my support and the support of other Democrats and 
Republicans who typically fall on opposite sides of the ideological 
divide. But while we may disagree with each other on many issues, we 
agree that a constitutionally sound version of the line-item veto will 
help increase both fiscal responsibility and congressional 
accountability--both of which have been in short supply in recent 
years.
  Establishing a line-item veto has long been a goal of mine. Three 
years ago, I introduced legislation in the House--the SLICE Act--to 
establish a legislative line-item veto, and I worked with 
Representative Paul Ryan from Wisconsin, a Republican, in the House to 
pass similar legislation in June 2006. We reintroduced that legislation 
in the House again in the last Congress.
  As we worked to advance this bill in the House, Senator Feingold and 
Senator Carper were each working on similar bills in the Senate, and 
they have again introduced their bills in the 111th Congress. While 
their bills differ in the details, they are both intended to employ the 
legislative line-item veto as a tool to help rein in unnecessary 
spending and begin the difficult work of reducing budget deficits.
  These goals have a greater urgency than ever before. Why? Over the 
last decade, we have seen a dramatic change in the Federal budget--a 
change for the worse. We have gone from Federal budget surpluses to 
enormous deficits and from reducing the national debt to increasing the 
``debt tax'' on our children.
  We know how this has happened: tax cuts that did not grow the 
economy, wars that have been financed by borrowing, reckless earmark 
spending, and a deep recession. We know today's economic crisis has 
required that we stimulate job creation with public sector spending to 
prevent another Great Depression.
  Our challenge is daunting. In the short term, we must spur the 
economy back to life, even at the risk of incurring historic deficits, 
and yet still lay the foundation for dramatic deficit reduction in the 
long term.
  We have heard some say deficits do not matter. But this cannot go on 
forever. The President's own Budget Director agrees that if recent CBO 
projections are accurate, we could see a deficit exceeding 5 percent of 
gross domestic product--clearly, a dangerously high level that many 
economists across the spectrum believe is not sustainable.
  No one wants our country, no one wants America, to suffer from the 
crippling hyperinflation that plagued Germany after the First World War 
or the combination of economic decline and inflation--which we called 
stagnation--some of us remember from the 1970s. Again, this means 
laying a foundation for entitlement reform and deficit reduction. This 
means using every tool in our toolbox and creating new ones, if 
necessary, to attack this problem.
  I am a strong supporter of the economic recovery package we passed in 
February. I say to the Presiding Officer, it will be important for our 
home State of Colorado. But I am also mindful that we are borrowing 
from our children and grandchildren to save the economy from collapse. 
That makes it all the more important that the spending we engage in 
today is wise and necessary.
  A legislative line-item veto will give Congress and the President a 
tool to

[[Page 11019]]

keep our spending decisions both wise and necessary.
  I say to the Presiding Officer, many Presidents from both parties 
have asked for the kind of line-item veto that can be used by Governors 
in our home State of Colorado and several other States. In 1996, 
Congress actually passed a law intended to give President Clinton that 
kind of authority. However, in 1998, the Supreme Court ruled that the 
legislation was unconstitutional--and I think the Court got it right.
  By trying to allow the President, in effect, to repeal a part of the 
law he has already signed and saying it takes a two-thirds vote in both 
Houses of Congress to restore that part--the Congress of 1996 went too 
far. I think that kind of line-item veto would undermine the checks and 
balances between the executive and legislative branches of the 
Government.
  But the SLICE Act I introduced in 2006 and the bills Senator Carper 
and Senator Feingold have introduced in this Congress are different. 
They are practical, effective, and, best of all, constitutional 
versions of a line-item veto.
  Current law says the President can ask Congress to rescind; that is, 
cancel, spending items. But the Congress can ignore those requests and 
often has done so. These bills will change that. Under the Carper and 
Feingold bills, the President could identify specific spending items he 
thinks should be cut, and Congress would have to vote up or down on 
whether to cut each of them.
  This legislation--don't get me wrong--would give the President a 
powerful tool, but it would also retain the balance between the 
executive and legislative branches.
  Presidents are elected to lead, and only they represent the entire 
Nation. These bills recognize that by giving the President the 
leadership role of identifying specific spending items he thinks should 
be cut.
  But under the Constitution, it is the Congress that is primarily 
accountable to the American people for how their tax dollars will be 
spent. The legislation respects and emphasizes that congressional role 
by requiring a vote on each spending cut proposed by the President.
  Of course, without knowing--and I think the Presiding Officer would 
join me in this sentiment--what the President might propose to rescind, 
I do not know, in a speculative fashion, if I could support those 
proposals. But I do know people in Colorado and across the country 
believe there must be greater transparency in our decisions on taxing 
and spending. I know they are also demanding we take responsibility for 
those decisions. That is the purpose of the Carper and Feingold bills.
  If there was ever a time in our history when we needed to reassure 
the American people that Congress understands the need for reform and 
integrity in the process of spending taxpayer dollars, it is now. Along 
with reform of the earmark process and other reform measures, I believe 
the legislative line-item veto is an essential tool in restoring public 
confidence and trust in the legislative process.
  The American people expect Federal spending will reflect critical 
national priorities and broader public purpose. Most of all, they 
expect Congress to pass funding bills in ways that ensure wise use of 
taxpayer dollars. These are the purposes of this legislation. We must 
reassure the American people that their dollars--and the debt future 
generations incur as a result of our spending--will be debated in the 
sunshine of public scrutiny.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado. He has 
been such a bright addition to this Chamber, and we are delighted he is 
here. He comes very well respected from the House of Representatives. 
We count ourselves fortunate to have him participating in this budget 
discussion, and I look forward to working with him in the future.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North 
Dakota for those sentiments. I look forward to working with him on the 
very important work to balance the needs of this country when it comes 
to spending but also to make sure we do not pass on unsustainable debt 
to our children. He has been a leader in this effort, and I look 
forward to working at his side in the future days and months and years 
to come.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will support this conference report, 
but I do so with great reluctance. Given the irresponsible and even 
reckless budget policies of the previous administration, our highest 
budget priority must be to get back onto a fiscally responsible budget 
path. This budget resolution does that. It may not go as far as I would 
like with respect to reducing annual budget deficits, but it is a 
significant improvement over what we have experienced during the past 8 
years.
  Moreover, the budget resolution sets this path under the most 
challenging of conditions. The Bush administration's legacy is one not 
only of fiscal recklessness, but also of economic recession, crisis in 
the financial markets, and a housing market in collapse. Even without 
the cost of cleaning up a set of international security policies that 
undermined our national security and cost trillions of dollars, this 
budget has been the most demanding a President has had to write since 
the Great Depression. And by and large it addresses our national 
priorities in a responsible manner.
  However, there are some features of this resolution with which I take 
exception, most notably the use of reconciliation as a tool to expedite 
health care reform. The arguments over the use of reconciliation are 
familiar to this body. Sadly, a tool intended to streamline the painful 
process of deficit reduction has been used to clear a path for major 
policy changes that have, at best, only a passing relationship to 
reducing the budget deficit. This is not the first budget resolution to 
abuse the special budget procedures to ease the enactment of 
significant and potentially controversial policy changes. Perhaps the 
grossest misuse of reconciliation was to pass sweeping changes to the 
Tax Code in 2001 and 2003 that far from reducing the deficit actually 
exploded annual budget deficits and government debt. Indeed, we are 
still living with the downstream effects of those fiscally reckless 
measures that have left us less able to meet either the current 
economic crisis or our long-term fiscal challenges.
  I had hoped that with a new President in the White House and 
Democrats in control of both Chambers we could restore a respect for 
the proper use of budget procedures. But while the budget we pass today 
is a huge improvement over those submitted by the previous 
administration, both with respect to honest budgeting and the fiscal 
path it embraces, its misuse of reconciliation to advance policy 
priorities is regrettable.
  I opposed using reconciliation when it was abused by the other party 
to enact fiscally reckless tax cuts and when it was attempted to be 
used to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. I 
opposed it earlier in this debate as a way to expedite climate change 
legislation, and I oppose it now as a vehicle to fast-track health care 
reform.
  Congressional leadership indicate they may not need to use 
reconciliation to enact health care reform, that it will be used only 
as a last option to ensure Congress acts on that vitally important 
issue. That may be, and I certainly hope this body will pass a health 
care reform measure under regular procedures. Health care reform is 
long overdue, and I look forward to the Senate finally acting on an 
issue that is so important to my constituents. But let's not kid 
ourselves. It is no more appropriate to use reconciliation as a hammer 
to push through health care reform under regular procedures than it is 
to use it directly to enact those reforms. Both are abuses. Both 
undermine its original intent. Both invite even greater abuses in the 
future.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I like this budget. I support many of the 
policies that the President's budget embraces including middle-class 
tax relief, and

[[Page 11020]]

badly needed investments in our Nation's infrastructure but I cannot, 
and I will not, vote to authorize the use of the reconciliation process 
to expedite passage of health care reform legislation or any other 
legislative proposal that ought to be debated at length by this body.
  Using reconciliation to ram through complicated, far-reaching 
legislation is an abuse of the budget process. The writers of the 
Budget Act, and I am one, never intended for its reconciliation's 
expedited procedures to be used this way. These procedures were 
narrowly tailored for deficit reduction. They were never intended to be 
used to pass tax cuts or to create new Federal regimes. Additionally, 
reconciliation measures must comply with section 313 of the Budget Act, 
known as the Byrd Rule, which means that whatever health legislation is 
reported from the Finance Committee or legislation from any other 
committee that is shoe-horned into reconciliation will sunset after 5 
years. Additionally, numerous other nonbudgetary provisions of any such 
legislation will have to be omitted under reconciliation. This is a 
very messy way to achieve a goal like health care reform, and one that 
will make crafting the legislation more difficult.
  Whatever abuses of the budget reconciliation process which have 
occurred in the past, or however many times the process has been 
twisted to achieve partisan ends does not justify the egregious 
violation done to the Senate's constitutional purpose. The Senate has a 
unique institutional role.
  It is the one place in all of government where the rights of the 
numerical minority are protected. As long as the Senate preserves the 
right to debate and the right to amend we hold true to our role as the 
Framers envisioned. We were to be the cooling off place where proposals 
could be examined carefully and debated extensively, so that flaws 
might be discovered and changes might be made. Remember, Democrats will 
not always control this Chamber, the House of Representatives or the 
White House. The worm will turn. Some day the other party will again be 
in the majority, and we will want minority rights to be shielded from 
the beartrap of the reconciliation process.
  Under reconciliation's gag rule there are 20 hours of debate or less 
if time is yielded back, and little or no opportunity to amend. Those 
restrictions mean that whatever is nailed into reconciliation by the 
majority will likely emerge as the final product. With critical matters 
such as a massive revamping of our health care system which will impact 
the lives of every citizen of our great land, the Senate has a duty to 
debate and amend and explain in the full light of day, however long 
that may take, what it is we propose, and why we propose it. The 
citizens who sent us here deserve that explanation and they should 
demand it. We must not run roughshod over minority views. A minority 
can be right. An amendment can vastly improve legislation. Debate can 
expose serious flaws. Ramrodding and railroading have no place when it 
comes to such matters as our people's healthcare. The President came to 
the White House promising a bipartisan government because he knew how 
sick and tired the American public is of scorched earth politics. I 
daresay President Obama should not be in favor of the destruction of 
the institutional purpose of this Senate in which he served any more 
than he would bless a rigged psuedo-debate on healthcare, completely 
absent minority input.
  While I support the admirable budget priorities outlined in this 
resolution, I cannot and will not condone legislation that puts 
political expediency ahead of the time-honored purpose of this 
institution.
 Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am firmly opposed to this 
proposed budget conference report. It is, I sadly conclude, the most 
irresponsible budget in the history of the Republic. This budget will 
increase nondefense discretionary spending in 2010 9.7 percent over 
this year's levels.
  As a result of this reckless spending, the budget proposal doubles 
the national debt to $11.5 trillion in only 5 years, and will nearly 
triple it in 10. The amount of money we spend each year to pay the 
interest on this debt will also soar because of the conference report. 
This year alone we will spend $170 billion to service the national 
debt. In 5 years we are projected to spend $428 billion on interest 
payments in that year alone, and we will likely spend over $800 billion 
in 2019 to pay the interest on our national debt alone. By comparison, 
the Federal Government spends less than $100 billion a year on 
education, and about $40 billion a year on highways. In 10 years, this 
budget will spend more on interest payments on our national debt than 
it spends on education and highway funding combined.
  I am also disappointed that the conference report includes 
reconciliation instructions to expedite sweeping changes to our 
Nation's health care laws under special rules that limit debate and 
require only a simple majority for final passage. The purpose of 
reconciliation is to maintain fiscal control over the Government, not 
to fundamentally change the government's policies. The American people 
deserve a robust and full debate on the merits of health care reform. 
Using the reconciliation process to move health care legislation would 
preclude the reasoned and informed debate necessary to ensure that the 
best possible policy is enacted. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this dangerous budget.
  Mr. DURBIN Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on final passage 
of the budget resolution conference report for fiscal year 2010.
  We will be voting on fundamental decisions about the shape of our 
economy and the prosperity of our country.
  We need to face the facts--we have inherited the worst economic 
crisis in generations.
  We took an important first step in returning our Nation to prosperity 
earlier this year by passing the economic recovery package.
  The Obama administration continues to work hard to repair our 
financial system so that businesses can make payroll and families can 
borrow for college.
  But there is much more to do to put our economy back on track, and 
the budget resolution conference report we are considering follows the 
principles President Obama laid out in his budget proposal.
  This budget resolution sets a path to regain the balance our country 
once enjoyed--careful investments in our future, while creating 
opportunity for working families who have lost ground over the last 
decade.
  It provides the flexibility the authorizing committees need to tackle 
our toughest challenges.
  And it begins to repair years of neglect by making critical 
investments to recover economically--particularly in health care, 
education, and energy.
  We need to reform our health care system fundamentally, and we need 
to do it this year. This budget gives the Congress the flexibility we 
need to get this job done.
  The budget resolution includes a deficit-neutral reserve fund that 
will allow the Finance and HELP Committees to take on the challenge of 
fundamental health care reform this year.
  We hope to work on a bipartisan basis to reform the system in a way 
that benefits all Americans--patients, providers, insurers, and the 
taxpayers.
  But if the Republicans decide to try to obstruct these reforms, the 
reconciliation instructions included in this budget give us the tools 
we need to pass meaningful reform.
  Those instructions don't take effect until October 15, and so we have 
several months to work together before reconciliation is even an 
option.
  I very much hope that we don't need to use this approach. But reform 
can no longer wait.
  The budget resolution conference report also offers a promising 
vision for education. First, the budget will dramatically expand access 
to quality early childhood education programs, including Head Start. 
And the budget invests in teachers and innovative programs so that all 
children can succeed in the classroom.
  This budget will help us build the education system we need to 
compete

[[Page 11021]]

in the global economy, not just today, but in the next generation.
  This budget would also help families afford the high cost of tuition 
by raising the maximum Pell grant award and streamlining student loan 
programs.
  The cost of college is higher than ever before. Since 2000, the 
average cost of tuition at public 4-year college has increased 29 
percent, far outpacing inflation and increases in household income.
  Financial aid hasn't kept up these costs. Thirty years ago, a Pell 
grant could cover 77 percent of public college costs. Now it covers 
just 35 percent.
  The budget would increase Pell grants to $5,550, which will help the 
7 million students who rely on these grants pay for college.
  We can't transform our education system overnight. But we can start 
to provide the investments and the programs that will help to get us 
there soon. This budget would do just that.
  This budget also starts the process of reducing our dependence on 
foreign energy by funding the President's request for energy funding in 
2010.
  This budget also lays the groundwork for cutting back on energy 
sources that generate greenhouse gases.
  The budget proposes we spend less money burning conventional fuels 
and more money developing cleaner energy sources.
  This budget helps us create good jobs, dramatically improve energy 
efficiencies, and protect the environment before climate change 
inflicts permanent damage.
  Finally, the conference report provides for tax relief to American 
families at a time when that relief is much needed.
  The budget provides $764 billion in tax cuts, mostly to the middle 
class.
  The conference report provides $512 billion to extend middle-class 
tax cuts such as the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and 
education incentives.
  It includes $214 billion for 3 years of alternative minimum tax 
reform.
  The budget matches the President's estate tax proposal, which would 
permanently extend the 2009 exemption of $7 million for couples and 
index that for inflation.
  And the resolution provides $63 billion for 2 years of ``tax 
extenders'' for businesses and individuals.
  Preparing a budget is about making choices.
  It is a moral document, one that describes what you believe in.
  The conference report prepared by the Budget Committee would make 
critical investments in our Nation's highest priorities, at a time when 
America needs them most.
  This budget would provide a little bit of help to hard-working 
families that desperately need it.
  This budget would bring true, long-lasting change to America that is 
smart, fair, and responsible.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  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. COBURN. 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. COBURN. Mr. President, I wish to spend a few minutes talking 
about the budget that is before us and make some simple notes.
  In 73 pages, this budget spends $3.5 trillion in 1 year. That is an 
astounding amount of money. It spends $17.9 trillion, at a minimum, 
over the next 5 years.
  This budget is more than a document full of numbers. It is a 
statement of priorities. My feeling is it does not address some of the 
key fundamental challenges we face as a nation. In fact, it is going to 
make some of the challenges we have worse because we are going to be 
spending money we don't have on things we don't need. Every family in 
this country today, as we know by decreased consumer spending, is 
making hard choices. They are making priorities. Their priorities are: 
How do we do the absolute minimum necessary, as well as how do we say 
we are going to have the largest savings rate we have had in 40, 50 
years in this country so we can save for tomorrow? Most of the time, 
those families are not just thinking about the adult members of those 
families; most of the time those families are making those decisions 
because they are thinking into the future about their children.
  We are not doing that with this budget. As a matter of fact, the only 
thing we are thinking about in this budget for our children is how much 
we are going to put on their backs because we refuse to face the 
realities of living within our means as every family is trying to do 
out there today. We are going to transfer a doubling of the publicly 
held debt. Over the next 5 years, it is going to double, and over the 
next 10 years it is going to triple.
  That is going to have a serious impact on us as a nation, but it is 
going to have a personal impact on every young child out there today. 
Let me tell my colleagues what the impact is going to be. We are going 
to steal opportunity from them because we refused to make the hard 
choices today. The impact is going to be that a large portion of them 
aren't going to be able to afford to go to college. We know education 
is one of the areas that advance our society, that create opportunities 
for American exceptionalism, that create opportunities for advancement 
of all through education. Yet the things we are doing today, by 
stealing the money from them in the future and burdening them with an 
interest obligation that most of them won't earn the amount we are 
going to have to pay every year, seem to me to be penny wise and pound 
foolish.
  The other thing this document does is it has go-pay. It doesn't have 
pay-go in it; it has go and pay. What it says is: We are not going to 
be responsible, so you--meaning the next two generations--you go and 
pay for it. We claim pay-go, but, as seen in all of the documents, 
there is no pay-go application to the biggest expenditures in this 
bill. We just take it off line and we allow us to create all of these 
new programs and new items. Yet we don't have to be responsible to make 
the hard choices about what is important, what is a priority, and what 
is not a priority.
  Last year, families across this country saw less than a 2-percent 
increase in their incomes. After a 9-percent across-the-board--not 
counting the stimulus, just the omnibus bill--we are going to then bump 
up another 7.2 percent. So we are going to grow the Government 4 times 
faster than the income increase was last year, and now we are going to 
grow it 3\1/2\ times more, faster, than what personal income has risen 
and 70 times greater than what the net inflation is going to be. That 
is called real spending, real growing the Federal Government, not 
making the hard choices. What it results in, in spite of what we call 
it--whether it is my favorite pet program or somebody else's--what it 
results in is less liberty, less freedom for the generations that will 
follow. You tell me a country where you can have real freedom when you 
have no economic freedom. There isn't freedom when there is no economic 
freedom. What we are doing with this budget is slashing into the 
economic liberties of the children and grandchildren who follow us.
  During the Senate consideration, I offered numerous amendments that 
were designed to make us make hard choices, including allowing penalty-
free withdrawals from retirement accounts to make some of the mortgage 
payments people are having trouble with today, to allow us to help. It 
was accepted unanimously. Not one person voted against it. It is not in 
this final document.
  Ending bogus performance bonuses by Government contractors and 
executives--not one person expressed an objection to that--it is not in 
the final budget.
  Reviewing the budget line by line for waste, fraud, 
inappropriateness, and metrics was agreed to. As a matter of fact, the 
chairman said right before we voted on the final bill that this is one 
we will try to protect in the conference. It comes out of conference, 
nothing is there. That is one of President Obama's promises. We won't 
even help him do the things he said he wanted to do.
  To set performance standards to identify failing Government programs,

[[Page 11022]]

not one person objected on the Senate floor. It was unanimous. Yet when 
it comes out of the conference, none of it is there.
  Ending no-bid contracts--something every American knows this Congress 
has a problem with because we let the favorite one get no-bid 
contracts, the well-connected, the well-heeled; requiring competitive 
bidding on anything above $25,000 outside of national security issues, 
nobody objected to that. It actually had a vote prior where we had a 
97-to-nothing vote. When it comes out of the conference, it is not in 
there.
  Protecting patients and health care providers from health care 
coercion, it is not in there.
  So we are going to pass a budget and say: You go pay, and all the 
things we really need to do to make the programs we have today 
efficient and to measure the programs we have today and control some of 
the waste, fraud, and abuse that is over $300 billion a year--all of 
the things that needed to be in this budget to make sure that happens 
got rejected in the conference. What should the American people think 
about that? They are certainly not going to go out and have their 
plumbing redone in their bathroom without getting some quotes on it. 
They are going to make people competitively bid. If they buy a car, 
they are not just going to go to an automobile showroom and pay the 
first place they go; they are going to price that because it is a 
necessity to get good value today. Yet we reject that as a body. The 
House rejected it. The Senate rejected it in conference. What should 
the American people think about us? We won't do any of the commonsense 
things they are having to do right now so we can get rid of some of the 
$300 billion of waste that we don't want to charge to our children. We 
won't do it. Why is that? Why is it we won't do that? Is there some 
other reason? Can somebody explain to me why we would not want to go 
through the budget in a time when we are going to run close to a $2 
trillion budget deficit that is all charged to our kids, that we 
wouldn't want to go through it and find the waste, fraud, and abuse in 
the programs that don't work? This conference report rejects doing 
that. Are we just lazy? Maybe we don't care. Which is it? It certainly 
can't be that there is a logical reason we wouldn't do that. Yet we 
didn't do it. Why would we not get rid of some of the waste? We have 
$80 billion worth of fraud a year in Medicare and Medicaid. Nothing is 
being done about it.
  We are going to have a reconciliation process that is going to 
totally change the history of the Senate forever in terms of the 1974 
Budget Act. We are going to hand to us a redo of all of the health 
care, and the health care we run today, which accounts for 61 percent 
if you count everything that the Federal Government is into, is the 
most wasteful, fraudulent, lame system in the world. Yet we won't 
address it.
  I don't want a legacy of stealing opportunity from my grandchildren 
or anybody else's. If you vote for this budget without this kind of 
hard work that we should be required to do, of accountability to the 
American people to get rid of some of the waste, and do what any other 
prudent person would do in terms of competitively bidding projects, you 
are saying that is OK, it is OK to steal. There is no other word for 
it. It is theft of opportunity from our children and our grandchildren 
because we don't have the backbone to stand up and do the hard work.
  President Obama has asked for this. He has asked for us to go line by 
line. We have an opportunity with a bill moving through the Senate to 
do that. What do we do? We say, no, it is our way or the highway, Mr. 
President. You can do it over there. But we are the ones who control 
all of these programs. And we have done a terrible job. As a matter of 
fact, if you look at the oversight hearings that occurred in the Senate 
and measure them compared to all of the other hearings, they count for 
about 2 percent of the hearings we had. What do we do when a new 
problem comes up? We don't look to see how the present program is 
working and what we can do to fix it; we just create another one and 
charge that to our grandkids rather than say: Where are the metrics to 
measure what this program is doing? Is it accomplishing what we want? 
Is it efficient? Could we do it a different way? We just ignore it and 
we create a brandnew program. This budget is full of that.
  So I will finish my remarks by again saying that if you vote for this 
budget, there is a real question in my mind whether you actually can 
represent to your constituencies that you feel their children are worth 
the hard work of this body. There is also the question of whether what 
President Obama ran on in terms of doing a line-by-line, of getting rid 
of the waste, of actually measuring the effectiveness of programs, 
whether we are going to help him do that. This document says we are 
not.
  So all the commonsense reforms that would put some burden on us we 
have taken out, and then in this budget we have said: Children, we are 
going to be at $17.3 trillion of publicly held debt in 10 years, and 
you go pay for it. You go pay for it because we don't have the courage 
and we don't care for you enough to make the hard work and hard 
decisions now to lessen that burden on you.
  That is what this budget is about. It is about growing the Federal 
Government at a size and a pace that we have never seen before in this 
country--have never seen--and growing the debt to a level that is going 
to cripple productivity and opportunity in the future.
  There are the votes to pass this budget, but the American people need 
to know what this budget really is. What it is is an escape from 
responsibility, an expansion of the Government knowing best, and an 
elimination of opportunity of generations to come.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank my colleague from Oklahoma 
for his strong statement and his eloquent description of the 
consequences of the budget resolution we are about to pass. This is a 
$3.5 trillion budget resolution. Frankly, it amounts to little more 
than generational theft. It represents a massive growth in Government 
spending and sets our Nation solidly on a course to bankruptcy. The 
resolution assumes a deficit of almost $1.7 trillion in fiscal year 
2009, which is then supposed to fall to $523 billion in fiscal year 
2014. It is only a 5-year budget, not a 10 year; it doesn't show the 
massive deficit increases that will kick in after 5 years under the 
President's plan.
  I have seen games played with budget resolutions over the years, but 
I think it is really remarkable that this budget, by being only 5 
years, doesn't show that the debt held by the public will rise from 
$7.7 trillion in fiscal year 2009 to $11.5 trillion in 2014. This 
represents an increase in the debt as a percentage of gross domestic 
product from the current 55 percent to 66.7 percent in 2014.
  After trillions of dollars for bailouts and huge amounts of spending 
disguised as stimulus, this budget makes no hard choices and doesn't do 
anything more to ensure the future fiscal viability of our Nation. It 
is irresponsible. It is an irresponsible act of generational theft 
which will mortgage our children's futures and our grandchildren's 
futures. We cannot have this level of spending because it is totally 
unsustainable.
  Mr. President, we didn't have to do this. We could have made tough 
choices here. We could have adopted a resolution that required us to 
embark on a path to a balanced budget.
  The conference report contains reconciliation instructions that would 
allow for a massive overhaul of America's health care system with 
little or no input from the minority--just as this conference report 
had little or no input from the minority.
  I don't have to tell the American people and my colleagues that the 
American health care system is too expensive, it is broken, and we have 
to fix it. We want to be part of that solution. And to include it in a 
budget resolution, obviously, does a great disservice to the American 
people who expect a full and complete ventilation of the issues 
surrounding our health care system in America.
  I realize that elections have consequences. However, it doesn't 
justify

[[Page 11023]]

the misuse of a process intended to help reduce Federal deficits--and, 
I might add, the Democratic proposals floating around recently would 
have the opposite effect.
  So, again, we are not changing the climate in Washington; we are 
continuing it. I want to make it clear that I understand that 
Republicans have, in the past, used the reconciliation process to 
further their party's agenda. I wish it had not been done. I hope it 
will not be done now. But the groundwork was laid, and I think this 
would be a grave mistake. Apparently, it is also possible that climate 
change could be addressed in the budget reconciliation process.
  I noted during the consideration of the Senate's budget resolution 
that, unlike the budget submitted by the President, this one only 
budgets for 5 years. Budgeting for a 5-year period hides the cost of 
the expansion of Government that is sure to take place after 2014. In a 
recent Washington Post op ed, entitled ``Hiding a Mountain of Debt,'' 
probably the most respected columnist in America, David Broder, wrote:

       The Democratic Congress is about to perform a coverup on 
     the most serious threat to America's economic future.
       The Congressional Budget Office sketched the dimensions of 
     the problem on March 20, and Congress reacted with shock. The 
     CBO said that over the next 10 years, current policies would 
     add a staggering $9.3 trillion to the national debt--one-
     third more than President Obama had estimated by using much 
     more optimistic assumptions about future economic growth.
       The ever-growing national debt will require ever-larger 
     annual interest payments, with much of that money going 
     overseas to China, Japan and other countries that have been 
     buying our bonds.
       Reacting to this scary prospect, the House and Senate 
     budget committees took the paring knife to some of the 
     spending proposals and tax cuts last week. But many of the 
     proposed savings look more like bookkeeping gimmicks than 
     realistic cutbacks.
       But the main device the Democratic budgeteers employed was 
     simply to shrink the budget ``window'' from 10 years to 5. 
     Instantly, $5 trillion in debt disappeared from view, along 
     with the worry that long after the recession is past, the 
     structural deficit would continue to blight the future of 
     young working families.

  Here are some cold, hard facts. Our current national debt is $11.2 
trillion. The projected deficit for 2009 is $1.7 trillion. The total 
cost of the recently enacted ``stimulus'' bill is over $1.1 trillion. 
We gave the TARP, Troubled Asset Relief Program, $700 billion--with 
every expectation being that the administration will request hundreds 
of billions of dollars more. President Obama recently signed an Omnibus 
appropriations bill totaling $410 billion. The Federal Reserve pumped 
another $1.2 trillion into our markets, and we now have before us a 
budget resolution totaling nearly $3.6 trillion. We bailed out the 
banks, insurance giants, and automakers--and the list goes on and on.
  We are seeing the largest transfer of authority from the private 
sector to the Government that we have ever seen in the history of our 
country.
  I see the chairman of the Budget Committee on the floor, whom I 
admire and respect. I asked him on the floor, during the consideration 
of the budget, whether health care would be considered in the 
reconciliation. The Senator's response was that he was against it. I 
note that he voted for it.
  We are in the midst of a severe recession. The economy shrank at a 
rate of 6.1 percent in the first quarter of this year. Times are tough; 
I don't have to tell any of my colleagues or any fellow Americans.
  What we are doing is committing an act of generational theft. We are 
laying a debt on future generations of Americans that is not 
sustainable. The chairman of the Budget Committee has been involved in 
recent years in attempts to reform Social Security. I will--and I hope 
my colleagues will--join him in that effort. Unless we reform Social 
Security and Medicare, we will have an unsustainable debt.
  In the recent campaign, the President campaigned on a theme of 
changing the climate in Washington. The climate hasn't changed. Bills 
have been passed with Democratic majorities voting almost completely 
for them--whether it be the stimulus, the omnibus, and other major 
pieces of legislation, and also on this budget--on a totally partisan 
basis. I understand that. I understand that elections have 
consequences. But to say you are going to ``change the climate'' in 
Washington and then not sit down in serious negotiations, whether it be 
on a stimulus package or on a budget, is not changing the climate.
  Let me tell you what serious negotiations are. I have been involved 
in them over the last 20-some years. I have sat down across the table 
in negotiations. What they are is compromise. They are compromise, 
where you say, OK, I give this and you give that. It is not visits and 
conversations, and it is not phone calls. It is face-to-face, hard-
nosed negotiations based on compromise. That is how we got the gang of 
14 and averted a crisis in this Senate that would have required only 51 
votes for the confirmation of judges. That is how we got numerous 
pieces of legislation done on a bipartisan basis.
  That is not happening now in the Senate. I understand that. I 
understand that elections have consequences and the votes are there on 
the other side of the aisle. But I also say to my colleagues that I 
have been here quite a while. I have seen the Democrats in the majority 
and I have seen the Republicans in the majority. I saw abuses over on 
this side of the aisle. I am now seeing those same abuses repeated, 
reinforced, and done in a more egregious fashion than I have ever seen 
it in the years I have been a Member of the Senate.
  I believe our economy will recover. I am confident, because, as I 
said during the recent campaign, I believe with the foundations of our 
economy--entrepreneurship, productivity, the finest workers in the 
world, and best technology--we will come out of this malaise and crisis 
we are in, and our economy will be restored. But I can also tell you 
that we will have to debase the currency and experience inflation if we 
pass this kind of budget and we continue on this spending spree.
  What was the administration's reaction? It was that we will get 
together and cut $100 million in spending--after spending trillions and 
trillions of dollars in the most irresponsible fashion, in my view.
  Now we are the owners of the automobile industry and of banks. What 
is the Government going to own in America as we continue on this 
incredible takeover of the free enterprise system? The automobile 
manufacturers should have gone into structured bankruptcy a long time 
ago, and they could have come out and been viable. Instead, we are 
spending billions and billions of dollars of American taxpayer dollars 
to prop up an industry that needed to go into prestructured 
bankruptcy--which they probably will do after we have spent billions of 
dollars propping them up.
  I vigorously, strongly condemn and will vote against and oppose this 
budget resolution. It is laying the path to a crisis in America that 
may be as severe as this one if we experience the hyperinflation and 
debasement of the currency that can only be the result of deficits as 
far as the eye can see.
  With great respect for the chairman of the Budget Committee and those 
who worked hard on this issue, this is a product that the American 
people will pay a very heavy price for in the years to come.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, there are a couple of things I wish to 
respond to. I have respect for the Senator from Arizona, Senator 
McCain. We came to this Chamber at the same time. First, he said, on 
reconciliation I told him I was against it. In fact, I did not include 
it in the budget resolution out of the Senate. He said in conference 
committee I voted for it. I say this. I voted for the final agreement. 
I did not vote specifically for reconciliation. I opposed it every step 
of the way publicly and privately. I think it is a mistake. I have said 
so publicly and privately. I believe reconciliation will not be used 
for health care, even though it is authorized under the conference 
report. I believe that as people examine what

[[Page 11024]]

would actually happen using reconciliation, they will be convinced it 
is not the appropriate way to do health care. I believe that, at the 
end of the day, the reconciliation approach will not be used for health 
care reform.
  With that said, I want to make very clear--and you can ask any of the 
participants--I argued strenuously against reconciliation every step of 
the way. It was not included in the resolution here, over which I had 
direct control. It is included in the final conference agreement 
because the President wanted it as an insurance policy, the majority 
leader wanted it as an insurance policy, and the Speaker of the House 
wanted it as an insurance policy. And, frankly, although I have some 
influence, I don't have the ability to overcome the President, the 
majority leader, and the Speaker of the House.
  The Senator also questioned a 10-year budget versus 5-year budget. 
Let me repeat what I said before. We have had 34 budgets under the 
Budget Act; 30 of the 34 have been 5-year budgets. The basic reason for 
that is not hiding things, as was asserted here; it is because 
forecasts beyond 5 years are notoriously unreliable. That is why 
Congress in 30 of the 34 times has written the budget on a 5-year 
basis. Frankly, the outyears of a 5-year forecast are not very 
credible, but years 6 through 10 are throwing a dart. I used to 
forecast revenue for my State. I know something about forecasting 
revenue and expenses. When you get beyond 5 years, you are in kind of a 
world that doesn't exist. That is total guesswork.
  Beyond that, I didn't accept the trajectory the country was on in the 
10-year budget that the President proposed. I believe we have to do far 
better. That is why the ranking Republican and I have proposed a task 
force of Democrats and Republicans, with the responsibility to come up 
with a plan, and if 12 of the 16 members of the task force could agree, 
that plan would come to Congress for a vote--not another study to sit 
on a dusty shelf somewhere, but a vote.
  The Senator made a number of other assertions with respect to this 
budget. He termed it ``generational theft.'' Let me say that the 
trajectory we are on has nothing to do with this budget but has 
everything to do with the reality of the fiscal circumstance of this 
country. Our spending is above our revenue. There is a structural gap; 
and the Senator is absolutely right, if we allow that to play out 
uninterrupted, it will constitute generational theft. But this budget 
makes the first steps toward turning that around. It reduces the 
deficit by two-thirds, in dollar terms, over the next 5 years, and, in 
terms of a share of GDP, which the economists say is the better 
measure, it reduces the deficit by three-quarters, 75 percent, from 12 
percent of GDP to 3 percent. Additionally, at 3 percent of GDP you 
basically stabilize the growth of the debt relative to our national 
income.
  Why are we in this circumstance? It is because the previous 
administration doubled the debt, put this economy in the worst 
recession since the Great Depression, and now we have to dig out. The 
first thing we have to do is give lift to the economy. The stimulus was 
passed to provide liquidity to the American economy, because the only 
place it could come from was the Government. We have learned in past 
economic downturns that if the Government fails to acts, you could have 
a deflationary spiral that would suck the economy down as we saw in the 
Great Depression.
  In the short term, I make no apologies. I am known as a deficit hawk, 
somebody who believes in balanced budgets, somebody who has fought for 
them my whole career. But when you have a severe economic downturn, 
that is not the time to turn away from the Government being the last 
resort, the Government providing the liquidity to the system to prevent 
a collapse.
  This budget is responsible. As I have said at every step: in the 
second 5 years, we must do much more. The President has said that. The 
President is committed to it. So am I. If our colleagues are serious 
about entering into a long-term negotiation about entitlement reform 
and tax reform, count me in. Count me in. It has to be done. It is in 
the interest of the country. That is where we agree.
  Mr. President, I see Senator Alexander is here, a very valued member 
of the Budget Committee, someone for whom I have high regard. We may 
not agree on every detail, but I certainly have great respect for the 
contribution he has made to the Budget Committee.
  How much time does the Senator desire?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, not more than 10 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 10 minutes off Senator Gregg's time and say to 
the Senator, if he requests more, we will absolutely be happy to extend 
it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Budget 
Committee. I am here to speak on a personal matter more than the 
budget. I made my comments on the budget this morning. I was listening, 
though, to the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from North Dakota. 
I have heard the Senator from North Dakota say he is opposed to using 
reconciliation to run the health care bill through the Senate with 51 
votes. I have heard him say that. I agree with him. I know he stood up 
against some in his party for doing that.
  But if I am not mistaken, there were three Senate conferees, and if 
the Senator from North Dakota voted no, we would not have 
reconciliation instructions included in this conference report. I think 
I am correct about that.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Of course.
  Mr. CONRAD. Let me say, if I had not agreed, I probably would not 
have been a conferee. There are certain things such as higher powers 
around here.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. That is a very honest response, and I accept that. But 
the point is there are three conferees from the Senate, including 
Senator Gregg who was opposed to including reconciliation. So if the 
Senator from North Dakota had said no, maybe he would not have been a 
conferee, but there would not be reconciliation in this Budget 
Resolution.
  Let me move to something more bipartisan than that.


                         Tribute to Tom Ingram

  Mr. President, on May 1, Tom Ingram is leaving his post as chief of 
staff for the Alexander office and as staff director of the Senate 
Republican Conference. I know what it is to be a staff member of the 
Senate, having come here in 1967 as Senator Howard Baker's legislative 
assistant. That is back when each Senator only had one. I know that 
staff members are the lifeblood of this institution, that they 
regularly come and go, and that we Senators are grateful for their 
service.
  But Tom Ingram's service for the Senate and for me personally is a 
good deal more than the usual coming and going. Tom and I first met in 
1966 when I was a young volunteer on Howard Baker's Senate campaign and 
Tom was an even younger reporter for the Nashville Tennessean. The 
Tennessean was then such a Democratic newspaper that it was said that 
Tom was the first reporter ever assigned by that newspaper to cover a 
Republican candidate on a regular basis. In fairness to the Tennessean, 
there had not been much to cover. Senator Baker in 1966 became the 
first Republican Senator in Tennessee history. We had not elected a 
Republican Governor since the Harding sweep in 1920.
  In 1974, Tom served as press secretary for what could only be 
described as my upstart campaign for Governor of Tennessee. We did 
pretty well for some young guys, winning the primary over more 
established figures, but losing the general election. That was the 
Watergate year. There were only 12 Republican Governors left in America 
after that debacle, and I figured my political career was over at a 
very young age.
  But in 1978, as things tend to do in politics, times changed, and I 
was elected Governor, walking a thousand miles across Tennessee in a 
red and black plaid shirt. Tom this time was my successful campaign 
manager. He then managed my transition into the Governor's office, 
served as chief of staff and deputy to the Governor for 5

[[Page 11025]]

years. Then he left to form a very successful business in Nashville.
  During his business career, he found time to help establish my office 
when I became president of the University of Tennessee. He did the same 
when I became the first President Bush's Education Secretary.
  The long and short of it is, when Tom Ingram has been around, I have 
done my best work, and perhaps so has he. We know each other so well 
that we operate independently toward the same goal and get twice as 
much done than either of us could do working alone.
  One of Tom's gifts is team building. An Ingram-led staff is fun to be 
a part of, and it is a purposeful group. He has made sure that each of 
us, Senator included, remember who hired us. For example, the entire 
Washington staff and State staff spent 3 days in Memphis a couple of 
weeks ago making sure that we understand as much as we can about the 
people and the needs of our State's biggest city and biggest county. As 
Tom leaves to reenter the private sector, he has taken time to make 
sure that the new staff is well led and well organized, and for that I 
am especially grateful.
  Tom's greater contribution may have been to the Senate as a whole. He 
has helped our Republican conference develop a clearer message. And 
working with Bob Russell, Senator Mark Pryor's chief of staff, he 
created a bipartisan chiefs of staff group that has been more 
successful at working across party lines than their bosses have been. 
The Senator from Illinois and I are part of a group of Senators from 
both parties that meets on Tuesday mornings. There are 8, 10, 15, 20 of 
us sometimes. But more than half the chiefs of staff get together on a 
regular basis as part of this bipartisan alliance, which is a 
remarkable number in this already over-organized and busy place.
  Tom Ingram came to the Senate expecting to stay a few months. He is 
leaving after 6 years. I am grateful to him for that, and the Senate is 
a better place.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
an article about the bipartisan chiefs of staff organization from Roll 
Call which appeared on March 10, 2009, and an article about Tom's work 
that appeared in the Knoxville News Sentinel last year.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           [From the Knoxville News Sentinel, Apr. 20, 2008]

         Side by side: Ingram-Alexander Partnership Perseveres

                          (By Michael Collins)

       Washington--Tom Ingram used to have the same jaded view of 
     the nation's capital as many other Americans.
       But working as U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander's chief of staff 
     has opened his eyes in ways he didn't expect.
       ``I've become less cynical and more optimistic as I get to 
     know the city and the people and what we're all about,'' 
     Ingram said.
       Is Washington perfect? Of course not. Are there things that 
     should be done differently? Absolutely, Ingram said.
       But, ``this is still the greatest country in the world, and 
     this is the capital of the greatest country in the world,'' 
     he said. ``I believe most people are here because they want 
     to be part of that in a positive, constructive way.''
       Call it a revelation or an epiphany or whatever noun you 
     choose. But you can't call it a political novice's naivete.
       Ingram has been active in politics--Tennessee politics, in 
     particular--for more than three decades. He has been at 
     Alexander's side as a political strategist, trusted aide and 
     personal confidante during campaigns for governor, president 
     and the Senate. Theirs is one of the most powerful political 
     partnerships in the state.
       Now, their influence is growing in Washington.
       Alexander moved into the upper echelon of power last 
     December when his GOP colleagues chose him as chairman of the 
     Senate Republican Conference. The position makes him the 
     Senate's third-highest-ranking Republican.
       Ingram's stock has risen, too. He now holds dual roles as 
     Alexander's chief of staff and as staff director for the 
     Republican conference, a job that allows him to help craft 
     the GOP's message in the Senate.
       His clout hasn't gone unnoticed.
       Two Washington publications that closely follow politics 
     recently named Ingram one of the top movers and shakers on 
     Capitol Hill. Roll Call lauded his knack for ``spin, know-how 
     and access.'' The Politico called him ``an old hand in a new 
     job'' and noted, ``Now he's gotten to the inner circle of the 
     Republican leadership.''
       Ingram, who lives in Knoxville, has spent most of his 
     career working behind the scenes. He seems uncomfortable and 
     even a little embarrassed by all the adulation.
       ``I don't get too juiced up about these lists,'' he said 
     recently, seated behind a table in Alexander's suite of 
     offices near the Capitol. ``If you look at the names on those 
     lists, most people are associated with (Congress) members who 
     have done well. There are very few of us who make those lists 
     without our members going ahead of us.''
       Alexander, however, said Ingram's skill and instincts are 
     invaluable.
       ``I do my best work when I'm working with Tom,'' the 
     senator said. ``It's because we're complementary. . . . He 
     fits what I'm doing like a glove.''


                       On the rise, side by side

       The two first met on the campaign trail in 1966. Ingram was 
     a skinny young newspaper reporter working his way through 
     college, and Alexander was fresh out of law school and a 
     volunteer in Howard Baker Jr.'s Senate campaign.
       They clicked immediately. Alexander hired Ingram to be his 
     press secretary when he ran for governor in 1974. They lost 
     that race. But four years later, with Ingram as his campaign 
     manager, Alexander ran again. This time they won. Ingram 
     would go on to work as Alexander's chief of staff and deputy 
     during his first term in the governor's office.
       Later, when Alexander ran for president, Ingram helped put 
     together his statewide organization in Iowa. When Alexander 
     ran for U.S. Senate in 2002, he again called on Ingram to 
     help with the campaign and, after he won, asked Ingram to 
     help set up his Senate staff.
       Ingram arrived in Washington for what he thought would be a 
     six- or eight-week assignment. He never left
       ``I have great respect for Lamar,'' Ingram said. ``I think 
     he embodies what we want in a public servant. He's here for 
     all of the right reasons. And we're buddies. We have a good 
     time working together.''
       Alexander said Ingram is a good manager who hires talented 
     people, assigns them to jobs that fit and then creates an 
     environment in which they like to work. ``That leaves me free 
     to focus on being a good governor or senator,'' he said.
       Ingram has never tried to act like he's the one who was 
     elected, Alexander said, but ``we work side by side. I don't 
     consider him in a subordinate role. And I think people who 
     work with us understand that, and it makes us much more 
     effective in what we do.''


                             Tennessee ties

       When not working for Alexander, Ingram has held a number of 
     jobs in the private sector, including a sometimes-
     controversial stint as president and chief executive officer 
     of the Knoxville Area Chamber Partnership.
       Several business and civic groups had formed the 
     partnership to unify economic development efforts and to 
     increase their influence.
       Yet under Ingram's leadership, the partnership often took 
     positions at odds with the city. Some organizations resented 
     being under the partnership's umbrella and at times continued 
     to work independently. Ingram also was criticized for making 
     personnel changes and for continuing to work as a political 
     consultant to Alexander.
       ``That was a tough job,'' Ingram said. ``Knoxville is a 
     great city with so many assets. The partnership was a bold 
     venture, and there was a lot of resistance at the time. But I 
     think some of the suggestions we had about working together 
     as a region and stimulating local government and focusing on 
     downtown redevelopment, I hope some of those ideas are still 
     perking and contributing to some of the success that we are 
     seeing in Knoxville now.''
       Alexander isn't the only politician who has benefited from 
     Ingram's expertise over the years.
       Fred Thompson sought his advice when he was considering a 
     run for the U.S. Senate in 1994. U.S. Sen. Bob Corker of 
     Chattanooga credits Ingram with helping turn around his 
     campaign in 2006.
       Before Ingram came on board, ``there were many things I 
     personally was involved in that were a distraction to me as 
     candidate,'' Corker said. ``Tom really allowed me to focus on 
     being a candidate. . . . It was just a really hand-in-glove 
     fit at a time when we really needed it''


              Washington weekdays, East Tennessee weekends

       Ingram figures he was probably in the first or second grade 
     when he saw his first living, breathing politician. Some of 
     the details have been erased by the passing of time, but he 
     remembers stopping with his grandfather alongside a road--at 
     a gas station, perhaps--when they came across Big Jim Folsom, 
     the colorful, populist Alabama governor who liked to dress in 
     cream suits and a matching western hat.
       ``He was just this huge, bigger-than-life guy who kind of 
     moved into this small group of people and took over,'' Ingram 
     said. ``It was very impressive to a small young person at the 
     time.''
       Ironically, Ingram's family wasn't all that interested in 
     politics. He was born in Ozark,

[[Page 11026]]

     Ala. His father was a Church of Christ preacher. His paternal 
     grandmother thought it was wrong to vote. The family moved 
     frequently and lived in Alabama, Florida and Georgia before 
     eventually settling in Nashville.
       Politics may be Ingram's lifeblood now. But when he was 
     younger, newspaper ink was in his veins.
       When he was in the fifth grade, Ingram started his own 
     newspaper with a buddy. They would write about events like 
     the circus coming to town, and his friend's mother would type 
     up their articles and run off copies. Then, they'd circulate 
     the paper in the neighborhood and sell it to relatives.
       Later, he spent years as a reporter and editor in Nashville 
     before making the move into politics. To this day, he 
     genuinely likes reporters, he said, but he's not a fan of the 
     24/7 news cycle, which he dismisses as ``mostly 24/7 
     entertainment.''
       In Washington, Ingram works around the clock Monday through 
     Thursday and catches the last flight out Thursday night so he 
     can be with his family back in Knoxville on the weekends. He 
     and the senator have an agreement that he'll stay in the job 
     as long as it's fun and he can make it work at home, he said.
       ``If you get up every day and think maybe I can make a 
     little difference in something, that's a pretty good 
     feeling,'' Ingram said. ``And I feel like over the years, 
     working with Lamar and others, that I've taken part in things 
     that do make a difference.''
                                  ____


                  [From the Roll Call, Mar. 10, 2009]

                       Chiefs Eschew Partisanship

                         (By David M. Drucker)

       In an institution that has seen the rise of many a 
     bipartisan ``gang'' in recent years, the monthly meeting of 
     Senate chiefs of staff now in its seventh year might be the 
     best-kept secret on Capitol Hill.
       Launched almost by accident in 2002 by Sen. Lamar 
     Alexander's (R-Tenn.) chief of staff, Tom Ingram, and Sen. 
     Mark Pryor's (D-Ark.) chief of staff, Bob Russell, the group 
     of top Senate aides has grown from a family of two to about 
     60 regulars. Known informally as the bipartisan chiefs of 
     staff group, the bloc has no leadership structure, just a 12-
     member advisory board of six Democrats and six Republicans.
       In addition to their monthly breakfasts at Capitol Hill's 
     Monocle restaurant, the chiefs meet in the evening bimonthly 
     usually welcoming a special guest. They span the political 
     spectrum, with aides to Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and 
     Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) participating.
       ``We started doing breakfast in the Senate dining room once 
     a month,'' Russell said of the group's early gatherings. 
     Ingram interrupted, ``And we ended up taking up about four to 
     six tables and being a little rowdy. And so the Senators--
     some of the Senators--suggested that maybe we should . . .''
       ``They ran us out of the Senate dining room,'' said 
     Russell, jumping back into the conversation to finish 
     Ingram's sentence.
       In a joint interview with Roll Call, Ingram and Russell 
     discussed how the group blossomed amid what many longtime 
     Senate observers believe were some of the chamber's most 
     partisan years. The two aides arrived on Capitol Hill 
     following the 2002 elections. Alexander won an open seat; 
     Pryor was the only Democrat to defeat a GOP incumbent that 
     year.
       Neither newly minted chief of staff was a Washington, D.C., 
     veteran. But they had much in common. Both were close 
     personal friends with their bosses; both worked for Senators 
     with an interest in working across the aisle; both had an 
     extensive private-sector background; and neither intended to 
     stay in town very long. Ingram was in private business in 
     Tennessee, and Russell was an attorney in Little Rock, Ark.
       What began as a way for Ingram and Russell to discuss the 
     nonpolitical, managerial aspects of their new jobs and reach 
     across the aisle for some political and policy insight 
     quickly mushroomed. The pair initially invited some of their 
     fellow GOP and Democratic chiefs to join them at their 
     breakfasts, but as word of the gatherings spread, more top 
     Senate aides wanted in.
       ``Tom and Bob are natural leaders, and they understand the 
     best way to get things done in this town is by keeping the 
     lines of communication open,'' said Susan McCue, a charter 
     member of the group and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's 
     (D-Nev.) former chief of staff.
       ```During some of the most divisive [President George W.] 
     Bush years, we kept those lines of communication open,'' 
     continued McCue, who now runs the firm Message Global. ``The 
     group might have been the only functioning and productive 
     group of bipartisan operatives working throughout those 
     years.''
       Indeed, the bipartisan chiefs flourished during some of the 
     Senate's most partisan hours. And while they won't claim any 
     involvement, they watched closely as a bipartisan group of 
     Senators came together in 2005 to form the ``Gang of 14.'' 
     That Senate gang, the first of several, helped cut a deal and 
     avert a showdown over Bush's then-stalled judicial nominees.
       The upcoming Senate battle over President Barack Obama's 
     fiscal 2010 budget proposal is not likely to be resolved via 
     the bipartisan chiefs. Nor are the Democratic and Republican 
     chiefs likely to forge a bipartisan deal on health care 
     anytime soon.
       Resolving political differences between their Senate bosses 
     is not the group's goal, nor has it ever functioned that way. 
     In fact, Ingram and Russell describe the meetings as a haven 
     from politics that has maintained its character even as the 
     Senate became more Republican in 2004, flipped to Democratic 
     control in 2006 and became further Democratic last November.
       The gatherings offer a forum for top Senate aides to 
     develop bipartisan relationships--the kinds that would be 
     difficult to come by otherwise. The group also provides a 
     vehicle for chiefs to discuss the more mundane but still very 
     important aspects of their jobs such as personnel and office 
     managers.
       The group recently concluded its inaugural retreat, a 
     weekend in Philadelphia featuring a lecture by historian 
     David McCullough.
       The evening events have been held at locations such as the 
     Newseum, George Washington's historic home at Mount Vernon 
     and the National Archives, with noted special guests over the 
     years such as Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and 
     Antonin Scalia, ex-White House officials Mike McCurry and 
     Karl Rove, and ex-Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker (R-
     Tenn.) and Tom Daschle (D-S.D.).
       ``The real purpose of it all is building relationships. So 
     a large part of it is getting to know each other and getting 
     comfortable with each other,'' Ingram said.
       ``I now know most of the chiefs of staff and am very 
     familiar with them,'' Russell said. ``So no matter what the 
     issue is, whether its coming from the staff or coming to me 
     from the Senator, I can pick up the phone and call a chief of 
     staff. . . . Before, without knowing who was on the other 
     side, you just didn't know how anybody might respond or even 
     where to start.''
       The chiefs' primary purpose has always been relationship 
     building, but the organization has also spawned splinter 
     groups with more specific goals.
       One such group is a policy study roundtable on issues 
     relating to China. Another deals with conflict resolution and 
     how to address the various problems faced by chiefs of staff 
     on a daily basis.
       The group has served as a unique forum for the chiefs to 
     share with each other their thoughts and stories that would 
     be difficult for others to understand, such as when Shawn 
     Whitman, then chief of staff to Sen. Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.), 
     recounted for his colleagues what it felt like when his boss 
     died. Thomas lost his battle with cancer in June 2007; 
     Whitman is now chief of staff for Thomas's successor, Sen. 
     John Barrasso (R).
       Jackie Cottrell, chief of staff to Sen. Pat Roberts (R-
     Kan.), recalled the aftermath of the tornado that wiped out 
     Greensburg, Kan. and the help and support her office received 
     from several of her counterparts. Cottrell said there were 
     offers to provide extra staff, including to handle the 
     phones, which were ringing off the hook, as well as words of 
     support.
       Cottrell credited the bipartisan chiefs group almost solely 
     for the help Roberts' office received as it dealt with the 
     tragedy and worked to help Kansas and the residents of 
     Greensburg recover. Additionally, Cottrell said the group has 
     improved the ability to communicate with other Senate offices 
     on policy matters, which she said has had a direct benefit 
     not only on the Senate, but on Kansas.
       ``I think it's probably one of the best stories on the Hill 
     for bipartisanship that no one knows about,'' Cottrell said. 
     ``There are 100 offices up here, and we all have the same 
     challenges, no matter what our boss's party affiliation is.''
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Budget 
Committee for the time. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Alexander. I am serious 
when I say he is a very valuable member of the Budget Committee. He has 
made a real contribution there, and we thank him for it.
  We now have exhausted all of the speakers who have given us notice on 
both sides. We are awaiting word on whether we can go to a vote. I am 
hopeful we can go to a vote soon, but we will need to hear from the 
leadership on both sides as to when that might be possible.
  We have had a spirited, healthy debate today on the question of the 
budget. I feel strongly that this is a responsible approach. Adopting 
the President's clear priorities of reducing our dependence on foreign 
energy, focusing on excellence in education, providing for major health 
care reform, all the while providing more than $750 billion of 
additional tax relief to the American people, focused on middle-class 
taxpayers, and reducing the deficit dramatically, reducing it by more 
than

[[Page 11027]]

two-thirds in dollar terms, by more than three-quarters as a percentage 
of the gross domestic product, getting to a deficit level which will 
stabilize growth of the debt.
  Again, I am swift to say much more needs to be done in terms of long-
term deficit and debt reduction. I believe deeply we ought to have a 
special process for entitlement and tax reform. As I have noted 
throughout this debate, for the long term, we are on an unsustainable 
course in this country. That is a situation that is not the creation of 
President Obama. That is a situation that was the creation of the 
previous administration that inherited massive surpluses and turned 
them into massive debts. That is a fact, and there is no way to change 
that fact.
  The previous administration left this country in the deepest 
recession since the Great Depression. Of course, the deficit has 
skyrocketed as a result. That is not the fault of the President who has 
been in office for 100 days. He inherited this mess. He is expected to 
clean it up, and he has taken aggressive, vigorous action to move us in 
the right direction, and the American people are responding. The latest 
polls show that now there has been a tripling of the percentage of 
people in this country who believe we are now on the right track--a 
tripling in the 100 days of this Presidency.
  I was the second Senator to endorse Senator Obama. The first Senator 
to endorse him was his colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin. I was 
the second Senator to endorse him. I had never endorsed in a 
Presidential primary before. I did it because I saw something 
exceptional in Senator Obama. I saw in him somebody who is not only 
very smart, but extraordinarily calm, somebody who has the right 
temperament to deal with the crises that any President confronts.
  I must say, I have been so proud to have been an early supporter of 
this President because I believe he is keeping the promise that he made 
to the American people to turn us in a new and better direction. He 
adopted the motto of ``Yes We Can.'' That is the motto I had when I 
first ran for the Senate in 1986. When he found out, he said maybe he 
owes me royalties. I said: No, you don't owe me a thing.
  I am so pleased that he is the President of the United States at this 
moment in time. He has the right background, the right temperament, the 
right intelligence, the right character to be our leader at this 
extraordinary time of challenge.
  While our budget is quite different than his because we had $2 
trillion less in revenue to write the budget because of the changing 
forecast, because of the nature of the economic downturn, nonetheless 
we were able to preserve his key priorities, and I am proud of it.
  Mr. President, I see the ranking member, Senator Gregg, is here. 
Perhaps he can enlighten us as to whether there are additional speakers 
or when we might be prepared to vote.
  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 ask the Senator, would he like 
additional time for debate or should we call the vote for 5:30 p.m. and 
yield back all time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like a few minutes. First, I know 
that one of the senior staff members on the chairman's side, Joel 
Friedman, is going through some very difficult health situations. I 
know he wanted to talk a little bit about that. We wish him the best. I 
know my staff, who works closely with him, feels great concern. The 
concern goes out to him and his family. We certainly wish him the best 
during this very difficult period dealing with this very difficult 
health issue.
  Mr. CONRAD. First, I thank Senator Gregg for that sentiment. Let me 
say that Joel Friedman of my staff, who is a very senior member of the 
Budget Committee staff, one of my deputy staff directors, is in the 
hospital, has been there for about a week. We are very concerned about 
his recovery. I care deeply about Joel, his wife Debbie, his family, 
his children. He is someone who has labored extraordinarily hard in the 
months leading up to consideration of the budget. I know he is 
frustrated not to be able to be here, and I want him and his family to 
know we are thinking of them, we love them, we miss him very much, and 
we are praying for his swift recovery.
  We have a circumstance in which we have intense debates, as we have 
had today, but on both sides there is a respect for the professionalism 
of the other side, and we certainly appreciate Senator Gregg's 
professional staff. They are outstanding. Their word is good, they are 
people of character, and they wish nothing but the best for this 
country. Senator Gregg is an outstanding leader; someone whom I 
actually share many views with about our long-term budget circumstance. 
Sometimes that is not altogether clear as we have this debate about 
short-term budget situations, but I believe he is absolutely right 
about our long-term budget condition and the need to do much more.
  I appreciate very much the way he approaches his job. He takes on his 
position with knowledge, he does it in good faith, and I appreciate 
very much the way he conducts our Members on the other side and the 
work of the committee. We have a very smooth-functioning committee 
because of the good professional relationship we enjoy.
  Again, I wish to applaud his staff, certainly my staff as well, 
especially Mary Naylor, my staff director, my other professional staff, 
John Righter, Steve Bailey, Sarah Egge Kuehl, Jim Esquea, Josh Evenson, 
Michael Feldman, Brodi Fontenot, Joel Friedman, John Fuher, Joe Gaeta, 
Robyn Hiestand, Cliff Isenberg, Mike Jones, Jackie Keaveny, Matt 
Mohning, Jamie Morin, Stu Nagurka, Kobye Noel, Anne Page, Steve Posner, 
Purva Rawal, Josh Ryan, Matt Salomon, and Ben Soskin. Let me say they 
have worked weekends for months and months and months, late into the 
night for months and months and months, as has Senator Gregg's staff, 
and we all owe them a great debt of gratitude.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me, again, express the concern of my 
staff and myself for Joel and his family and wish him the best in this 
very difficult time and wish his family the best. We certainly hope he 
returns to good health soon.
  Let me second the words of the chairman. This committee has 
contention. Even when the chairman produces a bill which is utterly 
incorrect and takes us totally in the wrong direction, I totally 
respect his efforts. I say that with some humor. The strength of this 
committee, besides the fact that it is a very influential committee in 
the Senate, is that we approach the issues in a forthright, 
professional manner. There is, on both sides of the aisle, a genuine 
and sincere and very successful effort to make sure the committee does 
its business in an orderly, professional, and cooperative way, which we 
hope brings credit to the Senate and the way the Senate should 
function. I believe it does.
  It is, in large part, because the chairman sets that tone, as does 
his staff--Mary Naylor and the excellent people she has working for 
her; and on my side, Cheri Reidy, Jim Hearn, Allison Parent, and all 
the other folks who spend hundreds of hours, especially during this 
very intense period as we run up to the final passage of this extremely 
important piece of legislation. Their commitment, their professionalism 
is what allows this Congress to function well, and we very much 
appreciate it.
  I could go on at some length on the issue of the budget, but I think 
people have probably heard enough of myself on this issue--although I 
wouldn't want to say that--and I know I would love to hear the chairman 
further discuss this, and he would love to hear myself further discuss 
it, but it is probably time to move it along and allow the chips to 
fall where they may. I would suggest we yield back all time and we vote 
at 5:30.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we would be agreeable on our side. Again,

[[Page 11028]]

I wish to thank the ranking member for his graciousness throughout this 
process and for organizing the work of the committee and the work on 
the floor in a way that I think does reflect well on this body and 
certainly well on the committee. This is the way the Senate should 
function. We debate vigorously, but at the end of the day, we get the 
job done in a way that assures that the American people can feel both 
sides have been represented with vigor. That has certainly been the 
case today.
  I thank the Chair, I yield the floor, 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. 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 ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 p.m. 
today, the Senate proceed to a vote on adoption of the conference 
report to accompany S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent budget resolution, 
with all statutory time yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is in order to ask for the yeas, I 
understand. I do ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  Under the previous order, the question is on the adoption of the 
conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 13.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Sessions) would have voted: ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 173 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

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

                                NAYS--43

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     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
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Kennedy
     Rockefeller
     Sessions
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on 
the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues for the way 
the debate was conducted. I especially thank those who voted for the 
conference report. We are missing a number of Senators, and we hope for 
their speedy recovery, Senator Kennedy and Senator Rockefeller. We also 
very much appreciate the extraordinary work of staffs on both sides. I 
again thank the ranking member of the committee for his continuing 
courtesy and professionalism.

                          ____________________