[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 9816-9853]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                                  2010

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

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

  Pending:

       Ensign amendment No. 805, to require certain higher income 
     beneficiaries enrolled in the Medicare prescription drug 
     benefit to pay higher premiums, as is currently required for 
     physicians' services and outpatient services, and as proposed 
     in the

[[Page 9817]]

     budget of the U.S. Government most recently submitted by the 
     President.
       McCain amendment No. 882, in the nature of a substitute.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there is 
90 minutes of debate remaining on the resolution, of which 40 minutes 
is for the debate of amendment No. 882, offered by the Senator from 
Arizona, Mr. McCain.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am going to respond briefly to the 
Republican leader and then we will go to the McCain amendment.
  First of all, I have just listened to remarks that are an attempt to 
rewrite history. Trying to put this deficit and this debt at the door 
of our new President is simply misplaced. He inherited a debt that was 
doubled over the last 8 years, and most of my friends on the other side 
were silent sentinels as that debt grew and grew and grew. Most of them 
said nothing; worse, they supported the policies that created that 
doubling of the debt. Beyond that, they tripled foreign holdings of 
U.S. debt and left the country in the worst recession since the Great 
Depression. This President inherited a crisis in the financial markets, 
a crisis in housing, a fiscal crisis, and two wars.
  The budget that is before us is not as described by the Republican 
leader. The budget before us reduces the deficit by two-thirds over the 
5 years of its term. In fact, as a share of GDP--which most economists 
say ought to be the measuring point because it excludes inflation--we 
reduce the deficit by three-quarters, all while maintaining the 
President's key priorities of reducing our dependence on foreign 
energy. That is not just a Presidential priority, that is an American 
priority. If we are going to be strong in the future, we have to 
dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign energy.
  On education, there is a focus on excellence in education. If we are 
not the best educated, we are not going to be the strongest country in 
the world very long.
  The prospect of major health care reform, which is provided for in 
this budget, is the 800-pound gorilla. We are now spending $1 of every 
$6 in this country on health care. If we stay on the current trend, we 
will spend more than $1 of every $3 in this country on health care. 
That is utterly unsustainable.
  They describe the budget of the President as having all these tax 
increases. I would remind my colleagues that when the Congressional 
Budget Office scores the President's budget, they say there is $2.2 
trillion in tax cuts. If they look at the budget I have offered, which 
is a 5-year budget instead of a 10-year budget, it has $825 billion in 
tax cuts on a net basis. As I say, all while cutting the deficit in 
half, which was the President's goal. In the President's budget and the 
budget I have offered, we cut it by two-thirds.
  Now, on spending. Well, on spending, the hard fact is, the budget I 
have offered reduces deficits and debt by $608 billion compared to the 
President's budget, on a 5-year comparison to a 5-year comparison. We 
reduce it by $608 billion in the budget that is before us. And on 
spending, we increase domestic spending, on average, by 2\1/2\ percent 
a year. Believe me, I have heard lots of criticism from the left with 
respect to the fact that is not enough. But when you lose $2.3 trillion 
in revenue because of the new CBO forecast, we felt it was necessary to 
make adjustments in the President's budget while maintaining his 
priorities.
  Now, in terms of middle-class tax relief, which is contained in this 
budget, let me be clear that all the provisions from 2001 and 2003 are 
included in this budget. The 10-percent bracket, the child tax credit, 
the marriage penalty relief, the education incentives--all of it--is in 
this budget and an extension for the full 5 years.
  In addition, the President's Make Work Pay provision was previously 
provided for in the stimulus package for 2 years, and we provide the 
ability to extend that, if there are offsets. In addition, we have 
provided for alternative minimum tax reform, fully funded for 3 years. 
No other budgets in the last 5 years have done it for that long. It has 
always been a year-by-year fix.
  On estate tax reform, we take the provisions from 2009 and extend 
them for 2010--a $3.5 million exemption per person, $7 million per 
family. Instead of going back to $1 million in 2011, we continue that 
$3.5 million exclusion per person, $7 million per couple, adjusted for 
inflation.
  We also provide for the business tax provisions and the extenders 
fully paid for. That is a total of almost a trillion dollars of tax 
relief, offset by certain loophole closers to go after these abusive 
tax shelters--these offshore tax havens. We have the spectacle now of 
companies buying European sewer systems, not because they are in the 
sewer business but in order to depreciate them on their books for U.S. 
tax purposes. That is outrageous--United States companies buying 
European sewer systems so they can write them off on their books here, 
and then they lease them back to the European cities that built them in 
the first place.
  The guys who came up with these scams didn't limit themselves to 
sewer systems. They are doing the same thing with public buildings and 
city halls. We have companies that have bought city halls in Europe in 
order to depreciate them on their books in the United States and then 
lease the city halls back to the European countries that built them in 
the first place. Is that acceptable? I don't think so. The President in 
his budget and we in our budget say: Enough of that. Let's shut down 
these abusive tax shelters. Let's shut down these offshore tax havens, 
which our Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations tells us is costing 
us $100 billion a year.
  If anybody wonders about it, read the Stanford saga. Mr. Stanford was 
running these offshore tax havens; running billions of dollars through 
these offshore tax havens. Why? Why are they sending their money down 
to the Cayman Islands? Is it because they think the banks down there 
are more secure? Oh, no. They are sending their money down there to 
dodge the tax liability in the United States. That is the basis upon 
which Mr. Stanford sold his services.
  On a net basis, our budget has $825 billion in tax cuts. Again, on 
spending, domestic spending increased at an average rate of 2\1/2\ 
percent a year. That is pretty tough.
  In our proposal, in the budget before the body, there is no energy 
tax. There is none contained here. This reference to a national sales 
tax on energy, it is not in this budget proposal. It is not there. We 
have a reserve fund that permits the committees of jurisdiction to come 
up with a way of reducing our dependence on foreign energy. We have the 
ability for the committees of jurisdiction to write climate change 
legislation. But there is no endorsement of any specific plan in this 
budget around climate change that has been posited by others.
  I wish to make clear that this budget is responsible, it controls 
spending, it reduces the deficit by two-thirds, it extends the middle-
class tax cuts, and it adopts the President's priorities of reducing 
our dependence on foreign energy, putting a focus on excellence in 
education and providing the possibility of major health care reform. 
Those are the priorities of the American people, and they are contained 
in our budget.
  Our budget has made significant adjustments from the President's. 
Again, over 5 years, we have reduced the deficit and debt in the 
President's proposal by $608 billion.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.


                     Amendment No. 882, as Modified

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the McCain 
substitute amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the chairman 
in allowing me to do this modification. I am aware it could have been 
objected to, and I would like to say that the sense-of-the-Senate 
provision is removed because I believe that sense-of-

[[Page 9818]]

the-Senate resolutions are not done this year in the budget resolution. 
There was a formula glitch that affected some of the funding levels. We 
have corrected the problem in the modification. We have corrected 
budget authority and spending levels.
  I thank my friend for allowing me to make this modification.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment has been modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2010.

       (a) Declaration.--Congress declares that this resolution is 
     the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010 
     and that this resolution sets forth the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 2009 and 2011 through 2019.

       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
     concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Social Security.
Sec. 103. Major functional categories.

                        TITLE II--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 201. Deficit-reducing reserve funds for entitlement commissions--
              Social Security and Medicare & Medicaid.
Sec. 202. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for comprehensive healthcare 
              reform.
Sec. 203. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for America's veterans and 
              wounded servicemembers.
Sec. 204. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for energy security.
Sec. 205. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for tax code modernization.
Sec. 206. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for defense acquisition and 
              contracting reform.
Sec. 207. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for a bipartisan, comprehensive 
              investigation into the current financial crisis.

                       TITLE III--BUDGET PROCESS

                     Subtitle A--Budget Enforcement

Sec. 301. Discretionary spending limits, program integrity initiatives, 
              and other adjustments.
Sec. 302. Point of order against advance appropriations.
Sec. 303. Emergency legislation.
Sec. 304. Point of order against legislation increasing short-term 
              deficit.

                      Subtitle B--Other Provisions

Sec. 311. Oversight of government performance.
Sec. 312. Budgetary treatment of certain discretionary administrative 
              Expenses.
Sec. 313. Application and effect of changes in allocations and 
              aggregates.
Sec. 314. Adjustments to reflect changes in concepts and definitions.
Sec. 315. Exercise of rulemaking powers.
Sec. 316. Cost estimates for conference reports and other measures.
Sec. 317. Limitation on long-term spending proposals
Sec. 318. Revenues collected from closing the tax gap are used only for 
              debt reduction.
Sec. 319. Point of order to save Social Security first.
Sec. 320. Point of order against a budget resolution containing a debt-
              held-by-the-Public-to-GDP ratio that exceeds 65%.
Sec. 321. Point of order against a budget resolution containing deficit 
              levels exceeding 8% of GDP.

                TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

     SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

       The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of 
     fiscal years 2009 through 2014:
       (1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution:
       (A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $2,186,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,332,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,651,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,858,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013: $3,025,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014: $3,166,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,329,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,470,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,625,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,771,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,923,000,000,000
       (B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal 
     revenues should be changed are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $0
       Fiscal year 2010: -$3,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011: -$132,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012: -$228,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013: -$257,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014: -$269,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015: -$280,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016: -$291,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017: -$302,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018: -$313,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019: -$325,000,000,000
       (2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement 
     of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new 
     budget authority are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $3,672,991,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,843,271,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,733,991,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,700,845,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,828,619,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,951,763,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,044,960,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,167,613,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,238,948,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,319,833,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,472,009,000,000
       (3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of 
     this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget 
     outlays are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $3,360,034,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010: $2,971,983,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011: $2,875,771,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012: $2,752,996,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013: $2,846,991,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014: $2,943,836,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015: $3,027,078,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016: $3,150,051,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017: $3,214,230,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018: $3,289,783,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019: $3,445,611,000,000
       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: -$1,693,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010: -$1,190,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011: -$798,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012: -$502,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013: -$477,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014: -$484,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015: -$459,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016: -$503,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017: -$481,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018: -$484,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019: -$448,000,000,000
       (5) Public debt.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate levels of 
     the public debt are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $11,836,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010: $13,255,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011: $14,321,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012: $15,194,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013: $16,074,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014: $16,943,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015: $17,774,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016: $18,630,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017: $19,470,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018: $20,318,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019: $21,093,000,000,000
       (6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of 
     debt held by the public are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $7,496,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010: $8,686,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011: $9,484,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012: $9,986,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013: $10,464,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014: $10,948,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015: $11,407,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016: $11,910,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017: $12,391,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018: $12,875,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019: $13,323,000,000,000

     SEC. 102. SOCIAL SECURITY.

       (a) Social Security Revenues.--For purposes of Senate 
     enforcement under sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of revenues of the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $654,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010: $682,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011: $719,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012: $756,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013: $803,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014: $842,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015: $879,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016: $925,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017: $962,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018: $1,004,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019: $1,048,000,000,000
       (b) Social Security Outlays.--For purposes of Senate 
     enforcement under sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, the amounts of outlays of the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:
       Fiscal year 2009: $662,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010: $695,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011: $721,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012: $749,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013: $790,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014: $839,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015: $891,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016: $948,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017: $1,008,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018: $1,072,000,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019: $1,141,000,000,000

     SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

       Congress determines and declares that the appropriate 
     levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years 
     2009 through 2019 for each major functional category are:
       (1) National defense (050):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $689,926,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $666,842,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010:

[[Page 9819]]

       (A) New budget authority, $686,128,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $689,963,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $614,923,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $657,207,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $623,612,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $637,011,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $634,421,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $636,332,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $648,249,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $641,632,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $663,159,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $653,234,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $678,149,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $671,890,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $694,153,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $683,256,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $709,147,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $693,789,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $726,167,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $714,089,000,000
       (2) International Affairs (150):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,114,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $41,514,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $42,847,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $43,622,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,167,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $43,897,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,473,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $43,985,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $43,759,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $43,911,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,214,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $43,866,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,847,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $44,257,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $45,621,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $44,870,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $46,430,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $45,575,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $47,211,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $46,301,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,084,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $47,105,000,000
       (3) General science, space, and technology (250):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,264,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $30,855,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $29,780,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $31,707,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,007,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $31,161,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,231,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $30,214,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,432,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $30,312,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,758,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $30,584,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,703,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $30,417,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,748,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $31,359,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,319,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $31,984,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,872,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $32,446,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,484,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $33,028,000,000
       (4) Energy (270):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $44,998,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,350,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,568,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $8,974,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,582,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $11,303,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,459,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $11,999,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,319,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $7,091,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,175,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $2,082,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,212,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $3,214,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,325,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $3,512,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,478,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $3,765,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,567,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $3,905,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,595,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $4,502,000,000
       (5) Natural resources and environment (300):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,596,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $36,252,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,085,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $38,866,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,772,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $37,713,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,952,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $36,983,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,160,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $36,478,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,465,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $36,631,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,714,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $36,712,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,002,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $36,845,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,312,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $36,917,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,602,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $36,923,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $37,952,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $37,215,000,000
       (6) Agriculture (350):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,349,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $6,111,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,131,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $6,217,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,150,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $6,133,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,205,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $6,159,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,261,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $6,207,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,319,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $6,261,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,359,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $6,275,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,402,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $6,312,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,455,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $6,345,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,507,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $6,401,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,601,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $6,532,000,000
       (7) Commerce and housing credit (370):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $13,216,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $6,253,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,197,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $8,977,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,055,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $6,847,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,097,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $7,436,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,982,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $7,180,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,909,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $6,250,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,860,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,915,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,855,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,748,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,839,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,730,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,814,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,701,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,793,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,675,000,000
       (8) Transportation (400):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $79,061,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $85,668,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,312,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $92,847,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $30,717,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $93,051,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,140,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $92,082,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $31,544,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $92,110,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014:

[[Page 9820]]

       (A) New budget authority, $32,105,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $92,296,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $32,806,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $91,863,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $33,656,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $90,792,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $34,545,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $90,908,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $35,432,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $92,372,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $36,385,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $93,932,000,000
       (9) Community and regional development (450):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,006,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $26,252,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $14,959,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $26,337,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,070,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $24,669,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,179,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $21,493,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,277,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $18,981,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,435,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $17,445,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,662,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $16,156,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $15,932,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $15,504,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,215,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $15,664,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,481,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $15,911,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $16,787,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $16,153,000,000
       (10) Education, training, employment, and social services 
     (500):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $188,508,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $94,814,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $89,417,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $138,899,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,007,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $127,810,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $90,588,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $98,331,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $91,092,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $94,666,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $91,948,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $94,142,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $93,164,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $95,075,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $94,657,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $96,402,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $96,235,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $97,938,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $97,739,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $99,507,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $99,415,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $101,130,000,000
       (11) Health (550):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $75,483,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $57,635,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $56,948,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $64,243,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,413,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $62,603,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,881,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $59,451,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,305,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $57,913,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,971,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $58,176,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $59,879,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $58,713,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,974,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $59,583,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,124,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $60,662,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,242,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $61,727,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,465,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $62,697,000,000
       (12) Medicare (570):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,390,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,255,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,595,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,566,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,819,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,781,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,852,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,828,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,893,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,855,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,927,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,920,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,967,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,935,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,004,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,955,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,035,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,962,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,065,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,975,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,085,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,992,000,000
       (13) Income security (600):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $74,067,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $64,056,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,365,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $67,580,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,275,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $67,880,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,540,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $66,271,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,803,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $65,341,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $63,328,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $64,169,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,221,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $64,804,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $65,362,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $65,660,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $66,561,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $66,690,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,716,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $67,735,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $68,976,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $68,840,000,000
       (14) Social security (650):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,386,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,479,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,460,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,549,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,545,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,655,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,630,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,763,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,716,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,849,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,830,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,809,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $5,969,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $5,942,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,135,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $6,103,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,306,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $6,271,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,479,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $6,443,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $6,665,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $6,627,000,000
       (15) Veterans benefits and services (700):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $49,394,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $46,757,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $53,263,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $52,474,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,417,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $53,972,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $55,855,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $55,487,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $57,384,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $56,932,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $58,969,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $58,519,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $60,971,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $59,265,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $62,494,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $61,978,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $64,367,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $63,067,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018:

[[Page 9821]]

       (A) New budget authority, $65,404,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $65,012,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $67,415,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $65,345,000,000
       (16) Administration of justice (750):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $54,099,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $48,018,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $48,763,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $49,470,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,595,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $51,525,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,506,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $51,416,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,389,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $51,428,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,263,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $50,466,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,156,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $49,725,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,012,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $49,250,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,023,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $49,366,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,015,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $49,501,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $50,247,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $46,565,000,000
       (17) General government (800):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $24,562,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $18,861,000,000
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $18,976,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $19,896,000,000
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,286,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $20,181,000,000
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,598,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $20,541,000,000
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $19,915,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $20,781,000,000
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,320,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $20,662,000,000
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $20,828,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $20,951,000,000
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $21,426,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $21,366,000,000
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,039,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $21,854,000,000
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $22,668,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $22,427,000,000
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $23,330,000,000
       (B) Outlays, $22,873,000,000
       (18) Net Interest (900):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       (19) Allowances (920):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       (20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
       Fiscal year 2009:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2010:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2011:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2012:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2013:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2014:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2015:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2016:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2017:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2018:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0
       Fiscal year 2019:
       (A) New budget authority, $0
       (B) Outlays, $0

                        TITLE II--RESERVE FUNDS

     SEC. 201. DEFICIT-REDUCING RESERVE FUNDS FOR ENTITLEMENT 
                   COMMISSIONS--SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE & 
                   MEDICAID.

       (a) The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports that would provide 
     for a BRAC-like commission to review the current and long-
     term solvency of Social Security and a BRAC-like commission 
     to review the current and long-term solvency of Medicare and 
     Medicaid, by the amounts provided in such legislation for 
     those purposes, provided that such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit over either the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2009 through 2019.
       (b) These commissions will provide recommendations to 
     reduce mandatory spending by at least four percent over the 
     next five years, and seven percent over the next ten years.
       (c) For the purposes of this Resolution, for individuals 55 
     or older, Medicare will not be changed (other than means 
     testing for high-income beneficiaries under the prescription 
     drug benefit under Part D).

     SEC. 202. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR COMPREHENSIVE 
                   HEALTHCARE REFORM.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports that would address 
     health care costs, coverage, and care in the United States in 
     a manner that reduces the costs of health care, increases 
     access to health insurance, and improves the transparency of 
     the costs and quality for medical care, by the amounts 
     provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided 
     that such legislation would not increase the deficit over 
     either the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 
     2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 
     2019. The legislation may include tax provisions.

     SEC. 203. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR AMERICA'S VETERANS 
                   AND WOUNDED SERVICEMEMBERS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports that would expand 
     the number of disabled military retirees who receive both 
     disability compensation and retired pay, accelerate the 
     phase-in of concurrent receipt, and eliminate the offset 
     between Survivor Benefit Plan annuities and Veteran's 
     Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, by the amounts 
     provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided 
     that such legislation would not increase the deficit over 
     either the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 
     2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 
     2019.

[[Page 9822]]



     SEC. 204. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ENERGY SECURITY.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports that promote 
     energy security activities including, but not limited to, 
     increasing funding for waste storage alternatives, advanced 
     technology assessment and deployment for clean coal and 
     carbon capture and storage, and clean energy deployment 
     including increasing the use of nuclear power and 
     refurbishing the transmission grid, and allowing loans under 
     the Department of Energy's Innovative Technology Loan 
     Guarantee Program of up to $50,000,000,000 for the purposes 
     of constructing nuclear power generating units, by the 
     amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, 
     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2019.

     SEC. 205. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TAX CODE 
                   MODERNIZATION.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports that provide for 
     revenue-neutral income (including AMT revenue) and payroll 
     tax reform that makes the tax code fair, more pro-growth, 
     easier to administer, improves compliance and aids U.S. 
     international competitiveness, by the amounts provided in 
     such legislation for those purposes, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2019.

     SEC 206. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION 
                   AND CONTRACTING REFORM

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports that--
       (1) enhance the capability of the Federal acquisition or 
     contracting workforce to achieve better value for taxpayers;
       (2) reduce the use of no-bid and cost-plus contracts; or
       (3) reform Department of Defense processes for acquiring 
     weapons systems in order to reduce costs, improve cost and 
     schedule estimation, enhance developmental testing of 
     weapons, or increase the rigor of reviews of programs that 
     experience critical cost growth;

     by the amounts provided in such legislation for those 
     purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase 
     the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2009 through 2019.

     SEC. 207. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR A BIPARTISAN, 
                   COMPREHENSIVE INVESTIGATION INTO THE CURRENT 
                   FINANCIAL CRISIS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports for a select 
     senate committee to carry out a bipartisan, comprehensive 
     investigation into the underlying causes of the current 
     economic crisis, and recommend ways to avoid another crisis, 
     by the amounts provided in such legislation for those 
     purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase 
     the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2009 through 2019.

                      TITLE III--BUDGETARY PROCESS

                     Subtitle A--Budget Enforcement

     SEC. 301. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS, PROGRAM INTEGRITY 
                   INITIATIVES, AND OTHER ADJUSTMENTS.

       (a) Senate Point of Order.--
       (1) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider 
     any bill or joint resolution (or amendment, motion, or 
     conference report on that bill or joint resolution) that 
     would cause the discretionary spending limits in this section 
     to be exceeded.
       (2) Supermajority Waiver and Appeals.--
       (A) WAIVER.--This subsection may be waived or suspended in 
     the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of 
     the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (B) APPEALS.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of 
     the Chair relating to any provision of this subsection shall 
     be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or 
     joint resolution. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be 
     required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 
     point of order raised under this subsection.
       (b) Senate Discretionary Spending Limits.--In the Senate 
     and as used in this section, the term ``discretionary 
     spending limit'' means--
       (1) with respect to fiscal year 2009--
       (A) for the defense category $689,926,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $666,842,000,000 in outlays;
       (B) for the Veterans Affairs (VA) category $49,394,000,000 
     in new budget authority and $46,757,000,000 ; in outlays; and
       (C) for the nondefense/non-VA category $742,099,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $532,373,000,000 in outlays.
       (2) with respect to fiscal year 2010--
       (A) for the defense category $686,128,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $689,963,000,000 in outlays, as adjusted in 
     conformance with the adjustment procedures in subsection (c);
       (B) for the Veterans Affairs (VA) category $53,263,000,000 
     in new budget authority and $52,274,000,000 ; in outlays; as 
     adjusted in conformance with the adjustment procedures in 
     subsection (c); and
       (C) for the nondefense category $458,515,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $608,750,000,000 in outlays, as adjusted 
     in conformance with the adjustment procedures in subsection 
     (c).
       (3) with respect to fiscal year 2011 --
       (A) for the defense category $614,293,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $657,207,000,000 in outlays;
       (B) for the Veterans Affairs (VA) category $54,417,000,000 
     in new budget authority and $53,972,000,000 ; in outlays; and
       (C) for the nondefense/non-VA category $463,460,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $596,209,000,000 in outlays.
       (4) with respect to fiscal year 2012--
       (A) for the defense category $614,293,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $657,207,000,000 in outlays;
       (B) for the Veterans Affairs (VA) category $54,417,000,000 
     in new budget authority and $53,972,000,000 ; in outlays; and
       (C) for the nondefense/non-VA category $463,460,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $596,209,000,000 in outlays.
       (5) with respect to fiscal year 2013--
       (A) for the defense category $634,421,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $636,332,000,000 in outlays;
       (B) for the Veterans Affairs (VA) category $57,384,000,000 
     in new budget authority and $56,932,000,000 ; in outlays; and
       (C) for the nondefense/non-VA category $468,849,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $544,103,000,000 in outlays.
       (6) with respect to fiscal year 2014--
       (A) for the defense category $648,249,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $641,632,000,000 in outlays;
       (B) for the Veterans Affairs (VA) category $58,969,000,000 
     in new budget authority and $58,515,000,000 in outlays; and
       (C) for the nondefense/non-VA category $472,964,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $534,759,000,000 in outlays.
       (7) with respect to fiscal year 2015--
       (A) for the defense category $663,159,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $6653,234,000,000 in outlays;
       (B) for the Veterans Affairs (VA) category $60,971,000,000 
     in new budget authority and $59,265,000,000 in outlays; and
       (C) for the nondefense/non-VA category $478,347,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $535,954,000,000 in outlays.
       (8) with respect to fiscal year 2016--
       (A) for the defense category $678,149,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $671,890,000,000 in outlays;
       (B) for the Veterans Affairs (VA) category $62,494,000,000 
     in new budget authority and $61,978,000,000 in outlays; and
       (C) for the nondefense/non-VA category $486,111,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $539,261,000,000 in outlays.
       (9) with respect to fiscal year 2017--
       (A) for the defense category $694,153,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $683,256,000,000 in outlays;
       (B) for the Veterans Affairs (VA) category $64,367,000,000 
     in new budget authority and $63,067,000,000; in outlays; and
       (C) for the nondefense/non-VA category $493,916,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $545,501,000,000 in outlays.
       (10) with respect to fiscal year 2018--
       (A) for the defense category $709,147,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $693,789,000,000 in outlays;
       (B) for the Veterans Affairs (VA) category $65,404,000,000 
     in new budget authority and $65,012,000,000 in outlays; and
       (C) for the nondefense/non-VA category $501,500,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $553,275,000,000 in outlays.
       (11) with respect to fiscal year 2019--
       (A) for the defense category $726,167,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $714,089,000,000 in outlays;
       (B) for the Veterans Affairs (VA) category $67,415,000,000 
     in new budget authority and $65,345,000,000 in outlays; and
       (C) for the nondefense/non-VA category $509,864,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $558,866,000,000 in outlays.
       (c) Adjustments in the Senate.--
       (1) In general.--After the reporting of a bill or joint 
     resolution relating to any matter described in paragraph (2), 
     or the offering of an amendment thereto or the submission of 
     a conference report thereon--
       (A) the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     adjust the discretionary

[[Page 9823]]

     spending limits, budgetary aggregates, and allocations 
     pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, by the amount of new budget authority in that measure 
     for that purpose and the outlays flowing therefrom; and
       (B) following any adjustment under subparagraph (A), the 
     Senate Committee on Appropriations may report appropriately 
     revised suballocations pursuant to section 302(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to carry out this 
     subsection.
       (2) Adjustments to support ongoing overseas contingency 
     operations.--The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the 
     Budget may adjust the discretionary spending limits, 
     allocations to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, and 
     aggregates for one or more--
       (A) bills reported by the Senate Committee on 
     Appropriations or passed by the House of Representatives;
       (B) joint resolutions or amendments reported by the Senate 
     Committee on Appropriations;
       (C) amendments between the Houses received from the House 
     of Representatives or Senate amendments offered by the 
     authority of the Senate Committee on Appropriations; or
       (D) conference reports; making appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2010 for overseas contingency operations by the amounts 
     provided in such legislation for those purposes (and so 
     designated pursuant to this paragraph), up to 
     $130,000,000,000 in budget authority for fiscal year 2010 and 
     the new outlays flowing therefrom.
       (3) Revised appropriations for fiscal year 2010.--
       (A) In general.--If after adoption of this resolution by 
     the Congress, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) re-
     estimates the President's request for discretionary spending 
     in fiscal year 2010 at an aggregate level different from the 
     CBO preliminary estimate dated March 20, 2009, the Chairman 
     of the Senate Committee on the Budget may adjust the 
     discretionary spending limits, budgetary aggregates, and 
     allocations pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 by the amount of budget authority and 
     outlays flowing therefrom, to reflect the difference between 
     such re-estimate and the CBO preliminary estimate dated March 
     20, 2009.
       (B) Suballocations.--Following any adjustment under 
     subparagraph (A), the Senate Committee on Appropriations may 
     report appropriately revised suballocations pursuant to 
     section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to 
     carry out this paragraph.
       (d) Inapplicability.--In the Senate, subsections (a), (b), 
     (c), and (d) of section 312 of S. Con. Res. 70 (110th 
     Congress) shall no longer apply.

     SEC. 302. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In general.--
       (1) Point of order.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill, 
     joint resolution, motion, amendment, or conference report 
     that would provide an advance appropriation.
       (2) Definition.--In this section, the term advance 
     appropriation'' means any new budget authority provided in a 
     bill or joint resolution making appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2010 that first becomes available for any fiscal year 
     after 2010, or any new budget authority provided in a bill or 
     joint resolution making general appropriations or continuing 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2011, that first becomes 
     available for any fiscal year after 2011.
       (b) Exceptions.--Advance appropriations may be provided for 
     fiscal years 2011 and 2012 for programs, projects, 
     activities, or accounts identified in the joint explanatory 
     statement of managers accompanying this resolution under the 
     heading Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations'' in 
     an aggregate amount not to exceed $28,852,000,000 in new 
     budget authority in each year.
       (c) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--
       (1) Waiver.--In the Senate, subsection (a) may be waived or 
     suspended only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be 
     required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 
     point of order raised under subsection (a).
       (d) Form of Point of Order.--A point of order under 
     subsection (a) may be raised by a Senator as provided in 
     section 313(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (e) Conference Reports.--When the Senate is considering a 
     conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in 
     relation to, a bill, upon a point of order being made by any 
     Senator pursuant to this section, and such point of order 
     being sustained, such material contained in such conference 
     report shall be deemed stricken, and the Senate shall proceed 
     to consider the question of whether the Senate shall recede 
     from its amendment and concur with a further amendment, or 
     concur in the House amendment with a further amendment, as 
     the case may be, which further amendment shall consist of 
     only that portion of the conference report or House 
     amendment, as the case may be, not so stricken. Any such 
     motion in the Senate shall be debatable. In any case in which 
     such point of order is sustained against a conference report 
     (or Senate amendment derived from such conference report by 
     operation of this subsection), no further amendment shall be 
     in order.
       (f) Inapplicability.--In the Senate, section 313 of S. Con. 
     Res. 70 (110th Congress) shall no longer apply.

     SEC. 303. EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

       (a) Authority to Designate.--In the Senate, with respect to 
     a provision of direct spending or receipts legislation or 
     appropriations for discretionary accounts that Congress 
     designates as an emergency requirement in such measure, the 
     amounts of new budget authority, outlays, and receipts in all 
     fiscal years resulting from that provision shall be treated 
     as an emergency requirement for the purpose of this section.
       (b) Exemption of Emergency Provisions.--Any new budget 
     authority, outlays, and receipts resulting from any provision 
     designated as an emergency requirement, pursuant to this 
     section, in any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or 
     conference report shall not count for purposes of sections 
     302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 
     201 of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress) (relating to pay-as-
     you-go), section 311 of S. Con. Res. 70 (110th Congress) 
     (relating to long-term deficits), and sections 301 and 304 of 
     this resolution (relating to discretionary spending and 
     short-term deficits). Designated emergency provisions shall 
     not count for the purpose of revising allocations, 
     aggregates, or other levels pursuant to procedures 
     established under section 301(b)(7) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 for deficit-neutral reserve funds and 
     revising discretionary spending limits set pursuant to 
     section 301 of this resolution.
       (c) Designations.--If a provision of legislation is 
     designated as an emergency requirement under this section, 
     the committee report and any statement of managers 
     accompanying that legislation shall include an explanation of 
     the manner in which the provision meets the criteria in 
     subsection (f).
       (d) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``direct 
     spending'', ``receipts'', and ``appropriations for 
     discretionary accounts'' mean any provision of a bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that 
     affects direct spending, receipts, or appropriations as those 
     terms have been defined and interpreted for purposes of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (e) Point of Order.--
       (1) In general.--When the Senate is considering a bill, 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report, if a 
     point of order is made by a Senator against an emergency 
     designation in that measure, that provision making such a 
     designation shall be stricken from the measure and may not be 
     offered as an amendment from the floor.
       (2) Supermajority waiver and appeals.--
       (A) Waiver.--Paragraph (1) may be waived or suspended in 
     the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (B) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of 
     the Chair relating to any provision of this subsection shall 
     be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or 
     joint resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative vote of 
     three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and 
     sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling 
     of the Chair on a point of order raised under this 
     subsection.
       (3) Definition of an emergency designation.--For purposes 
     of paragraph (1), a provision shall be considered an 
     emergency designation if it designates any item as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to this subsection.
       (4) Form of the point of order.--A point of order under 
     paragraph (1) may be raised by a Senator as provided in 
     section 313(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (5) Conference reports.--When the Senate is considering a 
     conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in 
     relation to, a bill, upon a point of order being made by any 
     Senator pursuant to this section, and such point of order 
     being sustained, such material contained in such conference 
     report shall be deemed stricken, and the Senate shall proceed 
     to consider the question of whether the Senate shall recede 
     from its amendment and concur with a further amendment, or 
     concur in the House amendment with a further amendment, as 
     the case may be, which further amendment shall consist of 
     only that portion of the conference report or House 
     amendment, as the case may be, not so stricken. Any such 
     motion in the Senate shall be debatable. In any case in which 
     such point of order is sustained against a conference report 
     (or Senate amendment derived from such conference report by 
     operation of this subsection), no further amendment shall be 
     in order.
       (f) Criteria.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of this section, any 
     provision is an emergency requirement if the situation 
     addressed by such provision is--
       (A) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely useful or 
     beneficial);
       (B) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up 
     over time;

[[Page 9824]]

       (C) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring 
     immediate action;
       (D) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen, unpredictable, 
     and unanticipated; and
       (E) not permanent, temporary in nature.
       (2) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an aggregate 
     level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally 
     estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.
       (g) Inapplicability.--In the Senate, section 204(a) of S. 
     Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress), the concurrent resolution on 
     the budget for fiscal year 2008, shall no longer apply.

     SEC. 304. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION INCREASING 
                   SHORT-TERM DEFICIT.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate 
     to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report (except measures within the jurisdiction of 
     the Committee on Appropriations) that would cause a net 
     increase in the deficit in excess of $10,000,000,000 in any 
     fiscal year provided for in the most recently adopted 
     concurrent resolution on the budget unless it is fully offset 
     over the period of all fiscal years provided for in the most 
     recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal in the Senate.--
       (1) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended only 
     by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly 
     chosen and sworn.
       (2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain 
     an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order 
     raised under this section.
       (c) Determinations of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this 
     section, the levels shall be determined on the basis of 
     estimates provided by the Senate Committee on the Budget.
       (d) Sunset.--This section shall expire on September 30, 
     2018.
       (e) Inapplicability.--In the Senate, section 315 of S. Con. 
     Res. 70 (110th Congress), the concurrent resolution in the 
     budget for fiscal year 2009, shall no longer apply.

                      Subtitle B--Other Provisions

     SEC. 311. OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE.

       In the Senate, all committees are directed to review 
     programs within their jurisdiction to root out waste, fraud, 
     and abuse in program spending, giving particular scrutiny to 
     issues raised by Government Accountability Office reports. 
     Based on these oversight efforts and committee performance 
     reviews of programs within their jurisdiction, committees are 
     directed to include recommendations for improved governmental 
     performance in their annual views and estimates reports 
     required under section 301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 to the Committees on the Budget.

     SEC. 312. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN DISCRETIONARY 
                   ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

       In the Senate, notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 13301 of the Budget 
     Enforcement Act of 1990, and section 2009a of title 39, 
     United States Code, the joint explanatory statement 
     accompanying the conference report on any concurrent 
     resolution on the budget shall include in its allocations 
     under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     to the Committees on Appropriations amounts for the 
     discretionary administrative expenses of the Social Security 
     Administration and of the Postal Service.

     SEC. 313. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS 
                   AND AGGREGATES.

       (a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and 
     aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--
       (1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
       (2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
       (3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as 
     practicable.
       (b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised 
     allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments 
     shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in 
     this resolution.
       (c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this 
     resolution the levels of new budget authority, outlays, 
     direct spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, 
     deficits, and surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal 
     years shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by 
     the Senate Committee on the Budget.

     SEC. 314. ADJUSTMENTS TO REFLECT CHANGES IN CONCEPTS AND 
                   DEFINITIONS.

       Upon the enactment of a bill or joint resolution providing 
     for a change in concepts or definitions, the Chairman of the 
     Senate Committee on the Budget may make adjustments to the 
     levels and allocations in this resolution in accordance with 
     section 251(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 (as in effect prior to September 30, 
     2002).

     SEC. 315. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

       Congress adopts the provisions of this title--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate, 
     and as such they shall be considered as part of the rules of 
     the Senate and such rules shall supersede other rules only to 
     the extent that they are inconsistent with such other rules; 
     and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     the Senate to change those rules at any time, in the same 
     manner, and to the same extent as is the case of any other 
     rule of the Senate.

     SEC. 316. COST ESTIMATES FOR CONFERENCE REPORTS AND OTHER 
                   MEASURES.

       It shall not be in order to consider a conference report, 
     bill, or joint resolution unless an estimate of costs has 
     been printed in the Congressional Record at least one day 
     before its consideration.

     SEC. 317. LIMITATION ON LONG-TERM SPENDING PROPOSALS

       It shall not be in order to consider any bill or joint 
     resolution reported from a committee if such bill or 
     resolution is not accompanied by a cost estimate prepared by 
     the Congressional Budget Office on whether or not the measure 
     would cause a net increase in direct spending in excess of $5 
     billion in any of the four next five-year periods.

     SEC. 318. REVENUES COLLECTED FROM CLOSING THE TAX GAP ARE 
                   USED ONLY FOR DEBT REDUCTION.

       (a) Special Scorekeeping Rule in the Senate.--
       (1) Report to budget committee.--When a bill is cleared for 
     the President, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), 
     pursuant to section 202 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, and the Joint Committee on Taxation shall inform the 
     Chairman of the Committee on the Budget if that measure 
     contains provisions that increase revenues from closing the 
     tax gap. The report shall include the amount of revenue 
     raised each year including the current year, the budget year, 
     and for each of the 10 years following the current year.
       (2) Exclusion from pay-as-you-go scorecard.--Any revenue 
     raised from provisions to close the tax gap (as detailed in 
     the report described in (a)(1)) shall not count as offsets 
     for purposes of section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the FY 2008 
     Budget Resolution.
       (b) Criteria and Definitions.--
       (1) The tax gap is the difference between the revenue that 
     is owed to the federal government in accordance with existing 
     tax law and the revenue that is collected by the federal 
     government.
       (2) The tax gap is a combination of inadvertent errors and 
     deliberate evasion.
       (3) Revenues raised from changes to withholding or payment 
     reporting requirements are examples of efforts to close the 
     tax gap.
       (4) The tax gap is not about clarifying existing law in 
     order to close loopholes, broadening the tax base, raising 
     tax rates, or any other action that would change existing tax 
     law.

     SEC. 319. POINT OF ORDER TO SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY FIRST.

       (a) Point of Order in the Senate.--It shall not be in order 
     in the Senate to consider any direct spending legislation 
     that would increase the on-budget deficit above the amounts 
     provided for in this resolution in any fiscal year until the 
     President submits legislation to Congress and Congress enacts 
     legislation which would restore 75-year solvency to the Old-
     Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Funds as 
     certified by the Social Security Administration actuaries.
       (b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be 
     waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote 
     of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An 
     affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the 
     Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the 
     Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 
     point of order raised under this section.

     SEC. 320. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST A BUDGET RESOLUTION 
                   CONTAINING A DEBT HELD BY THE PUBLIC-TO-GDP 
                   RATIO THAT EXCEEDS 65%.

       (a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to 
     consider a concurrent resolution on the budget for the budget 
     year or any amendment, amendment between Houses, motion, or 
     conference report thereon that contains a ratio of debt held 
     by the public-to-Gross Domestic Product which exceeds 65% in 
     any year covered by the budget resolution.
       (b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal in the Senate.--
       (1) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be 
     required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of 
     the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.
       (c) Determination of Debt Levels.--For purposes of this 
     section, the debt level shall be determined by the Chairman 
     of the Senate Committee on the Budget on the basis of 
     estimates provided by the Congressional Budget Office.

     SEC. 321. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST A BUDGET RESOLUTION 
                   CONTAINING DEFICIT LEVELS EXCEEDING 8% OF GDP.

       (a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to 
     consider a concurrent resolution on the budget for the budget 
     year or any

[[Page 9825]]

     amendment, amendment between Houses, motion, or conference 
     report thereon that contains deficits as a percentage of the 
     Gross Domestic Product in excess of 8% in any year covered by 
     the budget resolution.
       (b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal in the Senate.--
       (1) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be 
     required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of 
     the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.
       (c) Determination of Deficit Levels.--For purposes of this 
     section, the deficit as a percentage of Gross Domestic 
     Product shall be determined by the Chairman of the Senate 
     Committee on the Budget on the basis of estimates provided by 
     the Congressional Budget Office.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Republican time be allocated as follows, between now and the time of 
the vote: that Senator Hutchison be allowed 5 minutes on the substitute 
amendment, Senator Graham 5 minutes, Senator Coburn 5 minutes, myself 5 
minutes, Senator Gregg 10 minutes, Senator Inhofe 3 minutes, Senator 
Sessions 5 minutes, Senator Chambliss 2 minutes, and Senator Wicker 2 
minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Texas, Mrs. Hutchison.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I, first, wish to thank Senator McCain 
for leading this effort to present an alternative because we all know, 
after looking at the Democratic budget and the Obama administration 
budget which produced the Democratic budget, that the debt is 
unsustainable. This is a budget that would double our debt in 5 years, 
and if it goes out to 10, it would triple our debt. As a matter of 
fact, it spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much.
  We have to start putting some common sense in this budget process or 
we are going to go into an abyss. We must take the reins of this budget 
and hold it back. Today, our debt-to-gross domestic product is 57 
percent. That is pretty high. The average over the last 50 years has 
been about 40 percent. This underlying budget today would take our 
debt-to-gross domestic product ratio to 80 percent. That is simply 
unsustainable on a long-term basis. During the Great Depression, during 
World War II, we saw numbers such as that, but you cannot sustain it 
over a long period of time. It was brought back down after World War II 
so that it was in the 30-percent range. Forty percent is optimum. We 
are at 57. We would go to 80 if we don't do something.
  That is why Senator McCain and those of us who are cosponsoring his 
substitute are trying to do the right thing. We are trying to produce 
an alternative that is responsible and takes care of the needs of our 
country at the same time.
  The key points of this substitute are that we would cap discretionary 
spending at baseline levels plus inflation, except for defense and 
veterans. That means every program we have can grow with inflation. You 
are not cutting anything from today, but you are allowing it to just 
grow by inflation, which will cap it--except for defense, which does 
increase, and our veterans, which does increase. We have increased our 
veterans, we have increased defense, we continue to do so because we 
know our duty to those who are serving our country and protecting our 
freedom.
  This substitute also extends the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. That means 
marriage penalty relief will be extended. It means we will not put a 
shock into the stock market by increasing the capital gains and 
dividends rates at a time when we want to shore up our stock market. 
The worst thing we can do is send a signal that those taxes are going 
to go up in 2 years when our economy is already flailing. It will lower 
everyone's tax burden--everyone's. It will keep that 10-percent rate 
instead of moving it up. It will keep everyone's tax burden lower.
  Marriage penalty relief is something I am going to offer an amendment 
on if this substitute does not pass because we need to make it 
permanent. The marriage penalty in this country, if we go back to the 
way it used to be, is over $1,000 a couple. Is this a country that 
wants to dissuade people from getting married? That is the core of our 
family support in this country. Our substitute will extend the tax 
cuts, including marriage penalty, including every bracket, and 
including capital gains and dividends, to encourage savings and shore 
up our stock market.
  It also takes the bigger picture view. This is a 10-year substitute, 
so it ensures that revenues collected from closing the tax gap would 
only be used for debt reduction. This is planning for the future. This 
is saying we are going to bring down that debt burden that is in the 
underlying bill before us. It will not be used to increase Federal 
spending because we are going to cap that at the baseline plus 
inflation. We are not going to hurt anyone. We are not going to also 
add to our debt. In fact, we would cut $4 trillion from the budget that 
is before us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Gillibrand). The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I hope my colleagues will look at this responsible 
alternative.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, the thing many of my colleagues don't 
know is, before I was a physician I was an accountant, and the thing 
about numbers is you can make them show anything you want. That, 
historically, is what Republicans and Democrats have done with budgets. 
They play games. The only year that counts is the next year, this next 
2010 fiscal year. That is the only thing that counts in terms of what 
they are going to do.
  The important thing before us ought to be the following: At the end 
of the budget that is offered by both President Obama and the majority, 
the deficit will be higher than it has ever been any time prior to this 
year, and it will not go down. It will never go down, in light of that, 
in terms of a sustainable level.
  The second point I want to make on this budget is this budget is a 
real budget that says to every American except our fighting men and 
women and our seniors and our veterans: Everybody has to sacrifice for 
us to get out of the mess we are in. The sacrifice will not necessarily 
be hard because of the tremendous amount of waste that is in the 
Federal Government right now. At a conservative minimum, 10 percent of 
everything we spend is pure waste or fraud. We will not do anything 
about it. One of the things with the McCain budget, the Republican 
budget, is that it will force us to do something about it.
  We take some of that $380 billion a year that is now defrauded of the 
Federal Government, or pure waste, and we will recapture that to do 
something positive. But the underlying point is, as Americans, if we 
are going to get out of the problems we are in, we cannot spend our way 
into prosperity, and we can't borrow our way out of debt. That is what 
this budget does. It attempts to grow Federal Government.
  The claim is that it only grows it 2 percent over 5 years. But when 
you look at the numbers in this budget, it grows at 7 percent in the 
next year, in terms of discretionary spending. Then all the pain is 
after that. We all know the reality of the Senate. There will not be 
any pain. It will be 7 percent the year after that. You watch what 
comes from the appropriators.
  The House budget has a 12-percent increase in it. The President's had 
an 11-percent increase. We can hear all these statements on the floor, 
but the No. 1 fact is, everybody in this country is going to have to 
sacrifice except those who have already sacrificed. If we do anything 
less than that, then what we are doing is sacrificing the future of our 
kids and our grandkids.
  In this budget we have a proposal that will pick up the 11 million 
Americans who are eligible for Medicaid who are not even getting health 
care now and, at the same time, save the States

[[Page 9826]]

$88 billion a year and save the Federal Government $40 billion a year 
and improve the health care of everybody on Medicaid today. That is 
$1.3 trillion of efficiency in health care that we will save. The 
States will love the plan.
  Does it fit into the overall plan of what we have now? Is it the only 
way we can do it? No. But the fact is, 40 percent of the doctors and 
caregivers in our country today will not even see a Medicaid patient. 
We are up to almost 20 percent not seeing a Medicare patient. We have 
to do something about that. But we don't need more money in health 
care; what we need is a more efficient market and common sense in the 
way we spend the money so we get great quality care at a fair price, 
which is not happening today.
  I hope my colleagues will consider the McCain budget because of the 
significant truth that underlies it, that everybody is going to have to 
sacrifice some. Everybody has to sacrifice if we are to get out of the 
mess we are in. You can be critical of it, but the fact is, there is no 
program, in terms of total dollars, that is going to see a marked 
decrease in terms of spending without getting exactly the same or 
better results.
  Our President said he wants a line-by-line review of every program, 
that he wants competitive bidding, he wants metrics. That is what we 
do. We actually do what the average American would do. We apply common 
sense to the way the Government spends money, and we look at it and say 
we cannot continue on the path we are on without bankrupting our kids.
  The very real possibility that out of the budget that is being 
presented today we will have a fiat currency or a currency that is 
inflated, which will devalue the assets of everybody in this country, 
is absolutely real and recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the Senator from Arizona for the time to speak on 
his budget, and I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, how much time is remaining on both 
sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 35 minutes and the 
Republicans also have 35 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask to be notified after 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so advise the Senator. The 
Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I thank the Chair. I appreciate the 
comments that have been made. I agree first with Senator Coburn's 
comments about our distinguished chairman's pride in spending less 
money than the Obama proposal called for for discretionary spending 
over 5 years. He said he saved $600 billion--and it should save some. 
However, President Obama's budget was an 11-percent increase.
  Senator Conrad came in with a 7-percent increase, which is huge in 
light of the money we are spending on top of that with the stimulus 
package we just passed; and at 7 percent, Government spending would 
double in 10 years. But the House is at 12 percent. So when the bill 
goes to conference, it is not going to be at 7, it is going to be at 
10, 11, maybe 12 percent.
  No. 2, his savings are projected in years 2, 3, 4 and 5, and as 
Senator Coburn said, when we come back next year, this body, if the 
same Members are here, is going to have another 7 percent or 10 
percent. The only one that counts is this year. So I do not believe we 
have a real change in this budget. I believe Mr. Orszag is correct--the 
President's budget manager--that this is 98 percent of what he asked 
for and he asked for a budget over 10 years that doubles the debt in 5 
years and triples it in 10. It triples the debt in 10. It is admitted 
by the President's own budget. It is in the numbers he sent to us. We 
are not making this up. That is No. 1.
  I have several amendments I will be calling to my colleagues' 
attention. One is the Comprehensive Outer Continental Shelf Study. We 
have no idea today how much oil and gas may be off our coasts, our 
Atlantic coast and Pacific coast. Particularly, the Atlantic States are 
eager to know what is out there and to consider whether they want to 
produce out there. I think it has great potential for America.
  Every barrel of oil and energy we can produce in the United States 
off our shores so we do not have to transfer our wealth to Saudi Arabia 
or Venezuela or places around the world but keep it here creating jobs 
and revenue is progress for America in a significant way. That is an 
amendment on which I hope we will have bipartisan support.
  Missile defense, I am working with Senator Lieberman on that. I am 
concerned there might be some belief that we can ease off the 
completion of missile defense. Our missile defense system now has 26 
launchers already built or contracted for; we want to do 44. After 
years and years of science and technology and investment, we are about 
to be able to complete a missile defense system that will make us all 
proud and can protect us from such things as a North Korean launch. If 
we don't get this system up like we need it, we will not be able to do 
that.
  I believe today our technology would knock down that missile if it 
reached the United States. We need to complete that program. If we slow 
it down, it will just drive up the cost even more. That is important.
  I am concerned about the history of this Congress when it deals with 
border security. We have voted repeatedly--the last big vote was 80 to 
19--to complete 700 miles of fencing and barriers on our border. The 
money often does not get appropriated, however. We vote and say we are 
for it, but when the chips are down the money doesn't get funded. This 
would call on us to complete the funding for that project. I think all 
of us would want to complete what we have started.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I want to say it is not impossible for 
us at least to move substantially toward a balanced budget. In the 
immediate years ahead it is going to be hard to get to a balanced 
budget. But the President's budget does not attempt to do so. In fact, 
in years 7 and 10 of his budget, his deficits are not going down. This 
is his own document he submitted to us--they are surging upward. In his 
10th year, the Congressional Budget Office says his deficit will be, in 
1 year, $1.2 trillion. That will be almost three times the highest 
deficit this country has ever had in its history.
  I thank Senator McCain and others who are working on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, how much time remains under my control?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 25 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, how much time is under the control of 
Senator McCain?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 10 minutes remaining on the McCain 
amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that the debate on the McCain 
amendment appear all as one piece in the Record. I think that will be 
better for those reading this at some point in the future, if someone 
does care to read it in the future. It will be better if we keep the 
McCain debate all together as one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. First, I thank and congratulate the Senator from Arizona 
for producing a budget and a budget alternative. That was not done on 
their side until he did it, and I commend him for it.
  I also commend him for producing a budget that in its overall totals 
is very close to the budget resolution I have advanced through the 
Budget Committee.

[[Page 9827]]

  In fact, if you compare Senator McCain's 5-year totals with my 5-year 
totals, compare his revenue to my revenue, his spending to my spending, 
they are 98 percent alike. In addition, the size of the deficit in 2014 
is virtually the same. Mine is 2.9 percent of GDP, his is 2.8. And the 
debt, mine is 98.7, his is 98.3, virtually identical in 2014.
  So there is some commonality here, and that is something perhaps we 
can build on. Of course, there are differences, and differences do 
matter. Largely they appear in two places. The Senator from Arizona 
appears to reduce mandatory spending by $350 billion over 5 years.
  But where does he do it? Does he show savings in Medicare? No. Does 
he show savings in Medicaid and the health care accounts? No. Does he 
show savings in Social Security? No. Does he show savings in 
agriculture? No. He does not do it in any of those places that are the 
major pots of money for mandatory spending. Instead, he takes all of 
the $350 billion in savings in Function 920. That is the general 
overhead function for all of those categories.
  So, in effect, what he has is an across-the-board cut in Medicare, 
Medicaid, Social Security, agriculture, and that is how this budget 
would work. I do not know if that is the intention, but that is what 
would happen.
  In fact, excluding debt service, 85 percent of the claimed savings 
are from function 920, no specific savings at all. Where are the 
remaining 15 percent of the savings? Largely, they are in the 
international affairs budget. Relative to the budget resolution before 
us, and that is before we adopted the Kerry amendment yesterday, he 
reduces spending on international accounts by $44 billion over the 5 
years. The Senator from Arizona assumes an increase of 1.3 percent in 
2010 and less than 1 percent over the remaining 5 years. That runs 
counter to what the Secretary of Defense has asked of us because he has 
asked that we plus-up the international accounts so that things that 
really ought to be done in the international accounts, instead of the 
Defense Department accounts, be shown there.
  Disturbingly, next year, when we will still be recovering from the 
worst recession since the Great Depression, the budget advanced by the 
Senator from Arizona would cut nondefense discretionary spending, 
compared to the resolution before us, by $23 billion. Those cuts would 
affect virtually every discretionary function, although not defense and 
not veterans. I commend him for holding them harmless, but that means 
everything else has to be cut more. That means education, the health 
care accounts--all of those would have to be cut.
  In terms of looking at a budget in a fair and balanced way, while I 
commend the Senator for producing a budget, it is a budget without 
detail, a budget without specificity, a budget that is almost ``paint 
your own picture.'' Because he has this $350 billion of savings in 
function 920, because he doesn't specify, that would have to be done 
across the board. That means all of these other functions--Medicare, 
Social Security, agriculture, all of the other mandatory accounts--
would have to take significant across-the-board cuts.
  I commend the Senator from Arizona for offering an alternative, but I 
think the difference between his plan and my plan in overall numbers is 
very small, but the differences that do exist matter a great deal.
  One other point I want to make: As with many of my GOP colleagues' 
amendments, the McCain amendment would create 60-vote points of order 
against future budget resolutions, threatening the ability to maintain 
the disciplines that come through the budget process. Caps on 
discretionary spending, allocations to committees, the supermajority 
points of order against excessive spending--all of that would be put at 
risk in the name of preventing the growth of deficits and debt. While I 
share the basic idea and the basic value of trying to control deficits 
and debt, as an unintended consequence, the cure here is worse than the 
disease. When the answer is to make it harder to do a budget 
resolution, you actually lose the disciplines we could employ in order 
to reduce the growth of deficits and debt.
  It is a curious thing, if one thinks about it. The way to prevent the 
growth of debt is not to do a budget or make it harder to do a budget. 
Unfortunately, around here one of the few things we have to discipline 
spending is a budget. That is where all the points of order lie when we 
go to the appropriations process. If it were successful, if you were 
able to prevent doing a budget resolution, you would then immediately 
go to appropriations bills and you would have no points of order, no 
60-vote hurdles against excessive spending. We want to think carefully 
whether that is the answer.
  My own view is, we would be much better off doing some kind of 
special process where all of the major players are at the table, 
everything is on the table, and we have a special process to get 
whatever plan they develop to the floor for an actual vote. My own 
belief is, after 22 years of this, the only real hope for changing the 
underlying policies, for disciplining entitlements, for fundamental tax 
reform, the only way to do that is some sort of special bipartisan 
process where everybody is at the table, everything is on the table, 
and the work of that group comes to the floor for a guaranteed vote. 
That is the best hope we have.
  With that, I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield myself a couple of minutes.
  First, the fundamental difference between the proposal before us and 
my proposal is that the budget as proposed has a growth in 2010 for 
nondefense spending of 8 percent, with about 1 percent growth in each 
of the following years from 2011 to 2014. That is an old gimmick. The 
budget proposal before us caps discretionary funding in 2010, which 
front-loads all the higher costs in the first year. Without caps in the 
outyears, we will find ourselves right back here next year listening to 
why the administration can't possibly live with an increase in 2011 of 
less than 1 percent as recommended in the budget.
  Mandatory spending is more than Social Security and Medicare. It is 
general sciences, space, energy, natural resources. Every estimate we 
have is that we could cut 10 percent immediately in unnecessary and 
wasteful spending and fraud across the board, including Medicare, 
including all of these other programs. We are asking Americans who are 
tightening their belts, we are asking every State legislature in 
America to make tough decisions, and we are not making those tough 
decisions. We are just going on as if it were business as usual. An 8-
percent increase in spending for 2010? Tell me one State legislature in 
America or any family in America that can afford an 8-percent increase 
in their budget. Only we can because we print money.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arizona 
yield 2 minutes to me to speak on the budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is allotted 2 minutes.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, as everyone knows, the chairman of 
the Budget Committee happens to be a dear friend of mine, a guy with 
whom I work on any number of issues on a regular basis. I empathize 
with him for having to take what I think has been generally recognized 
as a freewheeling spending budget coming from the White House and try 
to evolve that into something that is meaningful and much more 
responsible. Unfortunately, that is a difficult task. I don't think it 
has been done. I thought for a minute, in listening to the chairman of 
the committee speak about the McCain alternative, that perhaps he was 
going to support it. But I understand why he can't.
  There is one other major difference the Budget Committee chairman 
fails to point out between the President's budget and the Democratic 
budget we will be voting on, and it is a fundamental difference. The 
President's

[[Page 9828]]

budget and the Democratic budget focus on where we are going to spend 
money, versus the McCain budget which seeks to reduce Federal spending 
for the short term and the long term. The reason that is a fundamental 
difference is that when you look at the President's budget and you look 
at the Democratic budget, in the year 2019, for example, the amount of 
money that will be owed as interest on the debt will exceed the amount 
of money we are going to spend on discretionary defense. That is 
outrageous.
  I have four grandchildren. Two of them are brand new. They are the 
ones who will be charged with repaying this debt. By passing the 
Democratic budget and the President's budget, there is simply no way 
the grandchildren of all of us are ever going to be able to pay the 
money back.
  I urge support for the McCain alternative.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I didn't mention at the beginning of my response, but I wish to 
express my appreciation for the way the chairman, Senator Conrad, and 
Senator Gregg have handled this debate. People have had a good 
opportunity to express their views. The worst part, obviously, is 
coming up in about 20 minutes. Both the distinguished chairman and 
ranking member of the committee have handled the debate in a fashion 
better than I have ever seen in the past. I congratulate both of them 
for allowing virtually every Member of the Senate to express their 
views on this important issue.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I inquire if the Senator from Arizona 
wishes to go on his amendment. Do we still have Senator Graham?
  Mr. McCAIN. I think he is on his way.
  Mr. CONRAD. Could I say, I was told a number of years ago that one of 
our colleagues called in and said he was on his way, that he was at the 
airport, and then it turned out he was at the Philadelphia airport.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the chairman.
  I wish to remind my colleagues where we are. We have a national debt 
of $10.7 trillion. The budget that was proposed by the President was 
$3.6 trillion. What we are looking at is a debt of $10.7 trillion. The 
Fed just pumped $1.2 trillion into the economy. The TARP, Troubled 
Asset Relief Program, was $700 billion. We passed an omnibus bill of 
$410 billion. Prior to that, we passed a $1.1 trillion stimulus 
package. And to cap it all off, the Chinese own $2 trillion of our 
paper, of our debt.
  This is an unprecedented expenditure of the taxpayers' dollars, and 
with no way of paying for it. So these are extraordinary times, and we 
need to do extraordinary things. But let's try not to ignore what we 
are doing to future generations of Americans. Especially this time of 
year, I see lots of our citizens around the halls of Congress wearing 
badges and buttons and carrying signs and advocating for the causes and 
efforts they believe in. Generally speaking, those causes and efforts, 
in their view, require more of our tax dollars. I understand that. I 
appreciate it. And it is wonderful to see people exercising their right 
to petition Congress, which is guaranteed by the Constitution.
  But I do not see anybody who is in the halls of Congress for my kids 
and my grandkids and your kids and your grandkids. We are laying an 
astronomical debt on them, which they will have to pay for sooner or 
later. One of the ways to pay for it is to debase the currency and 
print money. The result of that is hyperinflation, which is the 
greatest enemy of the middle class, and we have seen that before in the 
1970s.
  So, yes, this is a tough budget I am talking about. Yes, these are 
caps on discretionary spending. Tell me of a family in America--
hardly--that is not having to put a cap on their spending. Tell me of a 
State legislature in America that is not having to put a cap on their 
spending because of enormous debts. My home State of Arizona is looking 
at a billion-dollar deficit. That is small compared to what is 
happening in California.
  Madam President, I ask for 2 additional minutes from Senator Gregg's 
time.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I yield the Senator 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. So my point here is--by the way, one of the areas I agree 
with both Senator Gregg and Senator Conrad is, we have to have a 
commission that meets and makes tough decisions on entitlements. We 
know entitlements cannot be sustained at their present level. And, of 
course, the first area we ought to look at is the $60 billion the 
inspector general has said is wasted in Medicare and Medicaid every 
year. But tough decisions have to be made.
  This is a tough budget proposal here. This is tough. It caps 
discretionary spending, except for defense and veterans. It increases 
defense spending. We are in two wars. We are in two wars, and I wish to 
give a little straight talk. In Afghanistan it is going to get worse 
before it gets better, and it is going to cost more of American blood 
and treasure.
  It reduces the deficit and debt more than the proposals offered by 
the Senate Budget Committee or the President, and I would point out 
that 10 years is what we have to plan for rather than 5. It addresses 
the critical problem of Social Security and Medicare solvency by the 
establishment--according to the proposal both by the chairman and 
ranking member--of BRAC-like commissions that would provide 
recommendations to reduce mandatory spending by at least 4 percent over 
the next 5 years.
  It addresses our critical energy goals, and it also extends the tax 
cuts. This is the wrong time to increase anyone's taxes. History shows 
us if we raise people's taxes in tough economic times, it exacerbates 
the economic problems.
  I do not pretend this is easy. I do not pretend this does not affect 
many Americans and their lives. But if we lay these multitrillion-
dollar debts on future generations of Americans, we have contradicted 
and betrayed the commitment this Nation has kept throughout our 
history; that is, that the next generation of Americans inherit a 
better Nation than the one we did.
  Madam President, I urge a vote for this amendment and this alternate 
budget proposal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, could the Chair inform us of the time 
remaining on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 9 minutes. 
The Senator from New Hampshire has 7\1/2\ minutes. The Senator from 
Oklahoma has 3 minutes. The Senator from South Carolina has 5 minutes. 
The Senator from Mississippi has 2 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I think I will take a bit of my time, 
then, as we await these other Senators. Perhaps the cloakroom could 
check on the availability of Senators who have time so we can use the 
time effectively and efficiently.
  With respect to Senator McCain's amendment, his substitute, I want to 
again indicate there is virtually no difference between the debt at the 
end of the 5 years under his amendment and the amendment that has come 
through the Senate Budget Committee. The debt as a share of GDP on the 
budget that is on the floor is 98.7 percent of GDP in 2014. In the 
substitute amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, it is 98.3 
percent. There is virtually no difference in the debt levels under the 
McCain amendment and the budget I have offered our colleagues.
  With respect to deficits, in 2014, the deficit as a share of GDP in 
the budget that is before us is 2.9 percent. Under the McCain 
amendment, it is 2.8 percent.
  So I say to my colleagues, if you rack up, if you look at his revenue 
compared to my revenue: 98 percent the same.

[[Page 9829]]

His spending versus my spending: 98 percent the same. Where have we 
heard that figure before?
  I think the point that needs to be made, though, is that there are 
differences, and the differences do matter. The big difference here is 
the Senator from Arizona saves $350 billion out of the mandatory 
accounts, but he does not say where. He does not say where. He does not 
say it is out of Medicare. He does not say it is out of Social 
Security. He does not say it is out of agriculture. He does not say it 
is out of the other mandatory accounts. He puts all $350 billion in 
section 920, which is an across-the-board cut in all of them--$350 
billion.
  Colleagues, if you want to be voting for cuts that could be $350 
billion in Medicare and Social Security, vote for the McCain 
alternative. If you do not think that is a real good idea, stick with 
the budget that is before us. Because we have been specific about where 
the revenues are, about where the spending is, and we have tried to be 
disciplined about getting down to virtually the same levels on deficits 
and debt that are in the McCain amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  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, if it is all right with the bill 
managers, I would ask for 7 minutes to speak in support of the McCain 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes under the order.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Five minutes. OK, thank you, Madam President.
  I stand today in support of an alternative budget that is being 
proposed by Senator McCain and others. This country is trying to write 
a budget for the American people. That should not be unknown to the 
American people. They are doing it every day. Every business is writing 
a budget. Every family is trying to plan a budget. The one thing 
families and businesses are doing is they are tightening their belts. 
Well, we are not. We are buying a bigger belt. We are buying a bigger 
suit.
  We are trying to mask the fact that we are grossly overburdened. The 
budget before us is better than President Obama's budget. But Peter 
Orszag of OMB says it is 98 percent the same. So we are tying to find a 
different path. You can evaluate the people running your country as to 
how they want to spend your money and how much.
  What we are proposing in this budget is to basically freeze domestic 
spending, except for defense and veterans--to do what you are doing, 
basically; that is, control your spending, to get by on the same amount 
of money, with allowing some growth in some needed areas, but to rein 
in what will be a dramatic increase over time of domestic spending. I 
think we can do that.
  We are spending trillions of dollars. We have trillions of dollars 
available to us. I know we could get by for another year or two on that 
same amount of money, allowing growth in certain key areas if we wanted 
to. But we don't have to. It is a choice we make. You don't have that 
choice. You can't go and print money. If you write a bad check, you go 
to jail; we call it good government. So you have choices. You have to 
make choices. We seem not to be bound by any choices.
  If you are going to build a budget from a Federal level, what is the 
most important thing? At home and in your business, you build a budget 
around the essentials of what your family needs and what your business 
needs. I think we should be building a budget around securing the 
Nation. Under the budget of President Obama, defense spending goes from 
4.7 percent of GDP--we are in Iraq and Afghanistan; there are all kinds 
of threats from Iran, North Korea, you name it; the world is a very 
dangerous place--and over 10 years, his defense budget takes spending 
down to 3 percent of GDP. I don't know what he is listening to in terms 
of intelligence reports, but I don't think this world is safe right 
now, and now is not the time to cut defense. The budget I am 
supporting, Senator McCain's alternative, does away with tax increases 
on the job creators. If you make over $250,000 a year, your taxes are 
going to go up by about 25 percent. At a time when we are trying to get 
people to expand their business--and I can tell my colleagues one 
thing, and John Kennedy understood this--if you raise taxes, people do 
less business. If you raise the capital gains rates from 15 to 20, 
people do less capital gains transactions because there is a penalty to 
engage in business activity. So now is not the time to raise taxes on 
anyone.
  We have to compete with China and India. When you pass on the cost of 
doing business--and that is what will happen--the American consumer 
suffers and the American business community is going to suffer because 
they are competing with people in a global economy who do not have all 
these tax burdens.
  The biggest problem this country faces in terms of long-term debt is 
Social Security and Medicare. These are entitlement programs. When you 
get retirement eligible under Social Security, you get a check based on 
your contributions. Nobody wants to allow that system to go bankrupt, 
but it is headed toward bankruptcy. Why? Because the amount of money 
coming in and the amount of money obligated do not match.
  When I was born in 1955, there were 15 workers for every retiree. 
Today there are three and in 20 years there will be two. People will 
not be able--two workers will not be able to meet the obligations that 
are owed through the Social Security system unless we act now. This 
budget puts aside a reserve program to deal with saving Social 
Security. Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid are a very large 
part of our budget, and they are on autopilot. I commend the President 
for wanting to do something in health care, but in his budget, he adds 
$1.6 trillion as a downpayment on health care reform.
  We already spend more money than any country in the world on health 
care. Rather than adding another $1 trillion into the system, let's see 
if we can better manage the money we have today. This budget puts a new 
earmark system in place so Senators and Congressmen cannot, in the 
middle of the night----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GRAHAM. This is an alternative that makes sense. This is an 
alternative that has to make the same choices you are making in the 
private sector. I hope the Congress will adopt this proposal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 875

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 875.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 875.

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

  (Purpose: To require information from the Board of Governors of the 
 Federal Reserve System about the use of emergency economic assistance)

       On page 48, line 24, insert ``including the identity of 
     each entity to which the Board has provided such assistance, 
     the value or amount of that financial assistance, and what 
     that entity is doing with such financial assistance,'' after 
     ``2008,''.

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, the American people are outraged by the 
greed, the recklessness, and the illegal behavior they have seen from 
the masters of the universe on Wall Street, who, through their 
outrageous behavior, these financial tycoons, many of whom have earned 
hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars in their 
career, have plunged our country and much of the world into a deep 
recession which has cost our people millions of jobs, which has cost 
people

[[Page 9830]]

their homes, which has cost people their savings, and which has led 
millions of Americans to wonder what kind of future their kids are 
going to have.
  All of this is not the result of an act of nature, it is the result 
of very definitive actions by a small number of people on Wall Street 
who have shown outrageous greed in their behavior. It goes without 
saying that we need a major investigation to understand how we got into 
this disaster, and what we are going to do to get out of it, and whom 
we are going to hold accountable.
  It goes without saying that we need to begin the process of 
reregulating Wall Street, bringing back Glass-Steagall, and making sure 
our taxpayers will never again be put in this position of having to 
bail out the greed on Wall Street. It goes without saying that we have 
got to address the issue of too big to fail, in my view--and I have 
said this many times--if an institution is too big to fail, it is too 
big to exist, and we begin should begin right now in starting the 
breakup of these mammoth financial institutions whose failure would 
cause systemic damage to our entire economy.
  It goes without saying that we have got to do more than worry about 
Wall Street, we have got to start worrying about Main Street and the 
middle class of this country. We need to pass strong mortgage reform 
legislation, as well as legislation to protect the American people, who 
are paying outrageously high interest rates on their credit cards.
  In that regard, I have introduced legislation, and hope to get it to 
the floor of the Senate before too long, which would put a cap of 15 
percent on the interest rates any credit card holder in this country 
would be charged.
  But those issues dealing with Wall Street and many more will have to 
wait for another day. Today, I am offering, along with Senators 
Feingold and Webb, a very simple, what I believe is a noncontroversial 
amendment, which I hope will have the support of every Member of this 
body.
  As you well know, the Congress voted to provide $700 billion in so-
called TARP funds to help bail out some of the major financial 
institutions in our country. I happen to have voted against that 
bailout. But what is very clear is that every penny of that TARP 
bailout money is now public.
  As part of that bailout legislation, what was mandated is that every 
financial institution that received 1 penny of the taxpayers' money 
would be listed on the Treasury Department Web site. And if any 
American wants to know where that $700 billion went, they can account 
for every nickel of that. That is the way it should be.
  On the other hand, what many people do not know is that the TARP 
funds, that $700 billion, were only one part of the bailout. What many 
people do not know is that the Federal Reserve has lent out over $2 
trillion to a number of financial institutions. But if you were to ask 
me or any Member of the Senate, any Member of Congress, any American, 
who received that money, what they will tell you is: We do not know. 
Over $2 trillion of taxpayer money has been placed at risk, but the 
American people do not know who received those funds, and what the 
exact contractual arrangements were.
  Anybody who believes in the concept of good government, anybody who 
believes in transparency, understands that is wrong, that is 
unacceptable, and that has got to change.
  Earlier this month, I had an opportunity to ask Ben Bernanke, who is 
the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, about this issue when he testified 
before the Budget Committee, of which I am a member.
  At that hearing, Chairman Bernanke told the Budget Committee that 
since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed has provided loans to 
``hundreds and hundreds of banks.'' But Mr. Bernanke declined to name 
any of those banks, how much assistance they were provided, or what, in 
fact, those banks are doing with the money that taxpayers gave them.
  What the Federal Reserve needs to understand is that this money does 
not belong to them, it belongs to the American people, and the American 
people have a right to know who the Fed is lending taxpayer money to, 
how much they are getting, and what the Fed is asking in return for 
this money. I cannot imagine anything that is more obvious, more common 
sense. How can you put $2.2 trillion of taxpayer money at risk and not 
know who is receiving that money? I think back now to the financial 
forms that Members of Congress have to fill out. People want to know, 
are we in a conflict of interest. We fill out those forms, they are 
made public. Our staff members fill out those forms. In many instances, 
when people are applying for Federal aid, they are forced to make 
public what they are asking for and how much. Some years ago, small 
farmers in the State of Vermont received some help from the Federal 
Government as part of the MILC program, if I recall correctly there. It 
was right in the newspaper, every nickel the struggling farmers were 
getting. Some of these farmers make $20,000, $25,000 a year. Some of 
them are on food stamps. It was, $8,399 goes to this farmer and that 
farmer. They were not happy about it. That is what the process was.
  So it seems to me that if small farmers in Vermont are going to see 
what they get from the Federal Government and hope to keep small farms 
alive in this country, I think that multibillion dollar financial 
institutions should also be asked to have what they received made 
public as well.
  The amendment I am offering today is a pretty simple one. It amends 
an amendment I offered. It was submitted in the Budget Committee. 
Specifically this amendment calls for increased transparency, including 
names, which institutions received assistance from the Fed, how much 
money they received, and what they are doing with this assistance.
  I sincerely believe that is not an issue of left versus right. In 
fact, some of the strongest supporters of this concept are very 
conservative people such as Ron Paul, a colleague of mine in the 
House--a former colleague--who supports this type of approach. A number 
of Republicans have spoken for increased transparency, as well as 
progressives.
  That is the issue. It is as simple and as clear as it can possibly 
be, that if taxpayers are going to be placed at risk by providing 
trillions of dollars in loans to large financial institutions, the 
American people have a right to know who is receiving that money, and 
what the terms are.
  This amendment, once again, is supported by Senator Feingold and 
Senator Webb. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Louisiana to discuss her amendment, not to call it up but to discuss 
her amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 931

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I rise to speak about amendment No. 931 which is at the 
desk, as modified. I will ask the chairman at a later time for it to be 
voted on and in order.
  I wanted to speak about an issue in the budget as we discuss the 
importance of laying out a framework for how we may allocate future 
revenues that come into our general fund from offshore oil and gas 
drilling.
  A couple of years ago, in 2006, Senator Domenici and I led a 
bipartisan effort to establish what I believe is a breakthrough process 
as we seek to build a system or a method of energy security for our 
Nation which would, as the debate is going on in the Congress, include 
more domestic oil and gas drilling and an expansion of our nuclear 
capability for the production of electricity. I am very hopeful about 
alternative energy--wind and solar. We also have some interesting 
experiments underway with geothermal and energy created by our tides. 
There are also exciting opportunities for new hydro projects. It is 
going to take all of the above to help our country maximize domestic 
energy sources.

[[Page 9831]]

  Representing the State of Louisiana, I am offering this amendment 
with the Senator from Alaska as well, Mr. Begich, who also represents a 
State that has contributed a great deal to conventional oil and gas 
production. It is important that the revenue streams associated with 
this production are shared equitably and fairly, not only with the 
Federal Treasury but with States that serve as platforms for this 
industry and with counties and, in the case of Louisiana, parishes that 
serve as platforms for this great industry.
  More than ever, people in businesses and residences, individuals and 
families are focused on the cost of energy and electricity, both on the 
electricity side and the transportation side. While we are not there 
yet, we are pushing forward with the President's new initiatives and 
agenda to find a way to make America more energy secure.
  In large measure, this debate has actually been led by the chairman 
of the Budget Committee, who is doing an outstanding job on the budget, 
but has also been flexing his muscle and lending his voice, and we are 
so grateful and appreciative, to pushing our country to energy 
security.
  I offer this amendment as a basis to establish a deficit-neutral 
reserve fund that will continue the precedent and practice that was set 
by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, which will set aside 50 
percent of future funds to be allocated in a budget-neutral fashion for 
revenue sharing for States and local governments, along with 
contributions out of that fund made to the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund and to investments in energy innovation--those three allocations 
of funding, whether it is for revenue sharing to establish a 
partnership with State and local governments, as we consider where else 
in America we can drill.
  This amendment does not say where we are going to drill. It does not 
authorize drilling. It says when those decisions are made that the 
revenues should be shared with State and local governments 
appropriately, to enter into strong, reliable partnerships and mutually 
beneficial partnerships for increased drilling domestically. I think 
this is a very smart way to proceed, and it has been voted for by over 
72 Members of this Senate, both Republicans and Democrats.
  In addition, we understand that a part of this money could be 
dedicated to conservation, land and water. It could also go to energy 
innovation, research, and development. So, again, it does not tie our 
hands to the specifics. It does not authorize any drilling that is not 
already authorized under the law. But it does establish a deficit 
reserve fund for us to act in the future.
  I understand my time has come to an end. I thank the chairman for his 
consideration. We will call this amendment up, No. 931, at the 
appropriate time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Louisiana for her leadership on these issues and for the good working 
relationship we have enjoyed. One thing I have learned about the 
Senator from Louisiana: She is persistent with a capital ``P.'' And I 
will tell you, if I wanted somebody to represent me here in this 
Capitol to get a result, I would pick her because never have I seen 
someone more indefatigable in defense of their State than the Senator 
from Louisiana, and I mean that with the highest praise.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. How much time is still pending for the various parties?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 5\1/2\ 
minutes, the Senator from New Hampshire has a total of 10 minutes, the 
Senator from Oklahoma has 3 minutes, and the Senator from Mississippi 
has 2 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. I see the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment to call up amendment No. 742.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Would the Senator restate 
the number.
  Mr. INHOFE. No. 742.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report----
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I object. We have a queue here. We have 
a unanimous consent agreement. It would be out of order to call up an 
amendment at this point.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me withdraw that unanimous consent 
request and let me comment about what this amendment is about. There 
was a misunderstanding. I thought this was going to be voice voted at 
some point, or accepted.
  It has been accepted on both sides. My cosponsor is Senator Akaka, 
who I think is down here now. I will briefly describe what it is and, 
hopefully, we will be able to get it in before the day is over.
  There is a little bit of a problem we have in health care for our 
veterans, in that quite often--in fact, 19 out of the last 22 years--
Congress has been unsuccessful in passing annual funding for veterans 
health care in time. Over the past 7 years, the VA has received its 
final budget at an average of 3 months after the beginning of the new 
year.
  There is a solution to this--this discontinuation of health care for 
our veterans--that doesn't cost anything, and that is what this bill is 
all about. It would allow us to have advanced appropriations for 
veterans health care. This is not unprecedented; it happens in other 
areas too.
  In October 2008, during his campaign, then-Senator Obama said:

       The way our Nation provides funding for VA health care must 
     be reformed . . . My administration will recommend passage of 
     advance appropriations legislation for the fiscal year 2010 
     appropriations cycle.

  So this is a recommendation that actually came from the 
administration. I am joined by several others, including Senator Akaka, 
who is, of course, the head of the Veterans' Committee.
  At the appropriate time, I wish to go ahead and get this through, and 
I will leave it up to the managers of the bill as to when that 
appropriate time will be.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I will yield myself a few minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, we had represented to our colleagues that 
we would begin voting at 11:30. We have an inordinate number of votes 
already in the queue. I hope people will appreciate the fact that the 
number of amendments pending right now is going to take us well into 
the evening tonight, headed toward midnight. I recognize everybody 
wants to get their amendment up, and that is their right, but I would 
simply counsel that if we are going to complete this bill--which 
probably I should not counsel for since I am not for it, but as a 
practical matter, if we are going to complete this bill, we need to be 
a little bit judicious as we ask for votes on amendments; otherwise, we 
will be here well into Friday, if not into Saturday at this rate.
  At this point, in order to recognize the fact that we are already 
behind schedule a little bit, I would suggest to the chairman that we 
yield back all time, even though I had a brilliant statement in 
opposition to the bill.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I wasn't able 
to speak on my amendment last night. I wonder if I could have the 
remaining time until 11:45 to speak on the amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. I do have 10 minutes left, so I will yield the Senator 5 
minutes.

[[Page 9832]]

  I, first, wish to take a minute, however, to say I appreciate Senator 
McCain's full substitute. I think it is a very positive substitute. It 
does what the American people need to have done. It controls spending 
in the outyears.
  The essence of the problem with the budget that has been brought 
forward by the President and by the Senator from North Dakota is that 
in the outyears, the debt explodes and it explodes as a result of an 
explosion in spending. Senator McCain has taken an aggressive effort to 
try to change that course of action so our kids have an affordable 
Government. I congratulate him for it.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, if the Senator from Nevada will withhold 
for 1 minute--and this time will not come out of his time--I think it 
is very important Senators understand that we have done a 5-year budget 
here. That is what we have done 30 of the 34 times Congress has done a 
budget under the Budget Act, including the last 5 years and including 2 
when the ranking member was the chairman. Now, why have we done 5-year 
budgets? It is because the projections beyond 5 years are notoriously 
unreliable. The ranking member himself has said that second 5 years is 
a guess. My own belief is the fact that President Obama came forward 
with a 10-year budget is a useful thing. We have that scored. We know 
what that does. We know what it does in the second 5 years. But 
Congress has almost always done 5-year budgets. Thirty of the thirty-
four times a budget has been written in Congress, it has been done on a 
5-year basis because the outyears are so notoriously unreliable.
  One other point I wish to make to colleagues. We now have over 100 
amendments pending. If everyone insists on their amendment, we can do 
three an hour, we will be here for 33 hours. It is in the hands of our 
colleagues. If everybody is going to insist on their amendment and a 
vote on their amendment, you can do the math. We can do three votes an 
hour, and we will be here for 33 hours. I hope my colleagues think 
carefully about that.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, 33\1/2\ hours.
  Mr. CONRAD. So 33\1/2\ hours. I stand corrected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.


                           Amendment No. 805

  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, my amendment which I have offered in the 
past, is a means testing of Medicare Part D, the prescription drug 
benefit.
  This Congress, under the leadership of President George W. Bush, 
offered seniors a brand new benefit: Prescription drug coverage. The 
problem with what this Congress did is that in this brand new benefit, 
we didn't take into account wealthier seniors who were getting a 
benefit from a system they never paid into. People pay taxes for 
Medicare Part A: Hospital coverage. That is what Part A is for. We 
currently means test and require seniors that have more means to pay 
part of the Part B premium, which covers doctors. Well, Part D is to 
cover prescription drugs. So what we are doing with this amendment is 
saying to seniors, that instead of a schoolteacher, firefighter or 
police officer, the middle-income folks out there having to pay higher 
taxes in order to pay for your prescription drugs, if you have the 
means, then you should pay for them.
  That is all this amendment does. The savings are contributed to 
deficit reduction.
  We are talking about the massive amount of debt this budget puts onto 
our children and our grandchildren. The Chinese, who are a big buyer of 
our debt, are questioning whether they want to continue to buy our 
debt. If that ever happens, if the Japanese, the Chinese, other 
sovereigns around the world, or if our own citizens quit buying our 
Treasury bills this country is in trouble. We should be looking at ways 
to lower our debt, to lower the amount of money we are borrowing from 
our children and grandchildren.
  This amendment saves about $3 billion. I realize it is small change, 
but that used to be a lot of money around here. In these tough economic 
times we should save money whenever we can. This means-testing of 
Medicare Part D is absolutely a place where we should start saving.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ENSIGN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. GREGG. I know the Senator mentioned this, but I wish to reinforce 
it. This was a proposal that came from President Obama's administration 
and it was in his budget; is that correct?
  Mr. ENSIGN. The Senator is correct, that the President of the United 
States did include means testing as a part of his budget, means testing 
for Part D. He did put that toward health care. There are many of us 
who believe we spend plenty of money on health care in this country; we 
just don't spend it in the right way. We have a sick care system that 
pays people, doctors, and hospitals once people get sick, but we don't 
do pay for better behavior in this country, such as not smoking.
  Safeway was in here talking to us about the program they implemented, 
and they actually give financial incentives for healthier living. They 
have actually been able to lower costs, compared to the rest of the 
United States, by 40 percent over the last 4 years. The United States 
does not need to spend more money on health care. We need to better 
allocate the money we are spending. That is why putting the savings 
from Medicare Part D toward deficit reduction is the responsible way to 
go.
  Let's take the $3 billion in savings, considered a pittance around 
here, and put it toward deficit reduction so we do not continue to put 
a huge burden on our children and our grandchildren.
  Lastly, when the President says: Let's means test Part D, I think we 
should do just that. When our children and our grandchildren are 
saying: Let's not have any more debt, let's not be burdened with huge 
taxes in the future, we should listen to them as well. We have a 
responsibility to do that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Montana is 
recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, this amendment sounds good on the 
surface, but, frankly, it will make health care reform more difficult. 
It is difficult enough as it is. This amendment will make it much more 
difficult.
  Some suggest that wealthier Americans should be ``means tested;'' 
that is, they should not get the same benefit under the Part D drug 
benefit as others. That is a policy that needs to be debated. I 
personally think that is something we should consider. After all, as 
the Senator from Nevada said, it is in the President's budget to means 
test Part D drug benefits.
  But that is not the point here. The point here is, do we want to help 
make health care reform easier or more difficult? The effect of the 
amendment is to reduce the Finance Committee's allocation in health 
care reform. That is going to make the Finance Committee's effort to 
get meaningful health care reform more difficult.
  I suggest we take up that issue--whether to means test Medicare or 
not--in the context of health care reform. Then the savings that would 
be achieved by means testing--if we enacted it--would go toward health 
care reform.
  The effect of the Senator's amendment is twofold. One is to suggest 
means testing Medicare Part D, which is in the President's budget, but 
the President doesn't want to use means testing to reduce spending on 
health care. He doesn't want that. So it would accomplish both 
purposes; that is, to be sure we meaningfully address means testing but 
in a way that doesn't hurt the efforts of health care reform.
  It makes much more sense to not adopt this amendment but take up the 
question of means testing in the context of health care reform, where 
it is part of many other components of health care reform, where the 
pieces will fit together in a way that makes more sense.
  I respectfully say this is not the place to consider means testing. 
It should be done in the context of health care reform. If we don't 
approve this amendment, then we can deal with this issue on health care 
reform.

[[Page 9833]]

  There are a lot of arguments for and against this. I take no firm 
position as chairman of the Finance Committee, but I believe the 
Senator's concept has merit. After all, it is in the President's 
budget, but it should not be done here, which has the effect of taking 
it out of the Finance Committee's allocation, which makes it more 
difficult for the Finance Committee to do its work on health care 
reform.
  I respectfully urge Senators to not support this amendment so we can 
make it easier to take up health care reform in a way that we can 
consider this policy as one of the many we take up on health care 
reform.
  Again, I urge that the amendment not be adopted so we can do our job.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, momentarily, we will go to a vote on the 
Ensign amendment.
  Before we do that, I ask unanimous consent that upon the use of all 
time remaining for debate on the budget resolution, the Senate then 
proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order 
listed; that each amendment be reported by number prior to the time for 
debate with respect to the amendment; that the previous order remaining 
debate time and vote time remain in effect; provided further, that if a 
budget point of order is raised against any amendment, then a motion to 
waive the applicable point of order be considered made, with the vote 
occurring on the motion to waive.
  The list of amendments is as follows: Ensign, No. 805; McCain, No. 
882, as modified; Dodd-Shelby, No. 913; Sanders, No. 875; Johanns, 
motion to recommit; Bennett, No. 759; Bennet, No. 799; Democratic side-
by-side amendment to the Vitter amendment; Vitter No. 787; Coburn, No. 
892; Casey, No. 755; Coburn, No. 893; Brown, No. 808; Graham, No. 910; 
Landrieu, No. 931, as modified, with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I wish to speak in support of the Ensign 
amendment. It should have been done long ago. There is no reason that 
people who are working in a restaurant or at Wal-Mart in New Hampshire 
should have to subsidize Warren Buffett's drugs, which is what happens 
under present law. There is no requirement that people who are wealthy 
have to pay anything on Part D premiums.
  I certainly hope we will approve the Ensign amendment.
  At this point, I suggest that we yield back all time.
  Mr. CONRAD. I am prepared to yield back all time.
  Mr. GREGG. We yield back all time, and we will go to the vote on the 
Ensign amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
805, offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 128 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

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

                                NAYS--58

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kennedy
     Murkowski
       
  The amendment (No. 805) was rejected.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, Senator Feinstein wishes to be 
recognized for the purpose of changing her vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.


                             Change of Vote

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I want to change my vote on rollcall 
No. 128. It was my intention to vote ``yes'' and I voted ``no.'' Since 
it will not change the outcome of the vote, I ask unanimous consent 
that my vote be changed to reflect a ``yea'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I announced this morning, though only 
Senator McConnell and I were on the floor, that today we are going to 
enforce the rule. This vote was turned in at 20 minutes. The 10-minute 
votes are going to be enforced. You have a 5-minute leeway. If you are 
not here exactly on time, the vote will be turned in. The clerks have 
been instructed of that fact.
  Senator McConnell and I believe we have to move this show along 
today. There is no reason to leave the Chamber. There is something to 
drink in the cloakroom and a sandwich if someone wants one, but let's 
cooperate and get this done today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, now that colleagues are in the Chamber, 
we will give you a status update. We now have over 100 amendments 
pending. We can do three an hour. If we hold on that, and everybody 
insists on a vote on their amendment, we will be here for at least 33 
hours.
  I implore colleagues on both sides, if you can take a voice vote on 
your amendment, please be willing to do that. So I ask colleagues, if 
you can take a voice vote on your amendment or if you can hold off to 
another day, please do so; otherwise, we will be here clear through 
tomorrow.
  Mr. GREGG. The next amendment is Senator McCain, I believe.


                     Amendment No. 882, as Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 882, as modified, offered by the Senator from Arizona, 
Mr. McCain.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, this proposal caps discretionary funding 
at a baseline level plus inflation, a dramatic difference between this 
proposal and the Senate budget committee proposal. The proposal by 
Senator Conrad increases domestic spending by 8 percent for 2010 and 
then 1 percent in the years following.
  We all know that is unrealistic. And we all know we will be back here 
next year with another 8 percent increase in domestic spending. It is 
time for some tough love. This is what this budget proposal is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the chairman's mark that was referenced 
increases discretionary spending not by 8 percent but by 5.3 percent. 
That is all domestic discretionary spending is increased--by 5.3 
percent. It averages nondefense discretionary spending at a 2\1/2\-
percent increase over the 5 years.

[[Page 9834]]

  The McCain offer and the chairman's mark are almost identical with 
respect to deficit levels and debt levels. In 2014, the debt is 98.3 
percent of GDP under the McCain amendment; 98.7 percent under the 
Chairman's mark--virtually no difference.
  But there are differences. He takes $350 billion in savings out of 
mandatory programs and doesn't specify whether it comes out of Social 
Security or Medicare or agriculture--$350 billion. Where does it land?
  If you want to risk cutting Social Security and Medicare by $350 
billion, vote for the McCain substitute. If not, vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 882, as modified.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 129 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

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

                                NAYS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     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)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 882), as modified, was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 913

  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, next in order is the Dodd-Shelby 
amendment, No. 913.
  Senator Dodd?
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself 
and Senator Shelby. This amendment calls for increased transparency and 
disclosure at the Federal Reserve Bank in order to understand better 
the risks the Fed is taking onto its balance sheets. It also calls for 
a further evaluation of the costs of the existing Federal Reserve Bank 
system, which has not been done before.
  Our colleagues from Vermont and Kentucky will offer an amendment 
after our amendment is offered. There is a distinction between these 
two. The amendment offered by the Senators from Vermont and Kentucky 
goes one step further than ours. Presently--and it has been the case 
for years and years--you do not reveal the names of the companies that 
show up at the discount window. There is a reason for that. The reason 
is obviously to avoid potential runs on those institutions. Our 
amendment does not require the disclosure of those companies names. We 
call for transparency, disclosure of the items I mentioned, the 
collateral that the Fed is taking, but we stop short of insisting upon 
naming the people who show up at the discount window. That is a 
fundamental distinction which our colleagues will have to decide on 
which course to follow.
  We think there is some danger in going the route our colleagues from 
Vermont and Kentucky are proposing. If we end up naming those names, 
you could well trigger runs on those institutions, and that could end 
up costing the taxpayer a lot more. The Dodd-Shelby amendment improves 
disclosure and transparency at the Federal Reserve but does not risk 
the problems associated with the other amendment. We urge our 
colleagues to support our amendment.
  I call up the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself and 
     Mr. Shelby, proposes an amendment numbered 913.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for enhanced oversight of the Board of Governors 
of the Federal Reserve System concerning the use of emergency economic 
                              assistance)

       On page 48, line 21, strike ``banks'' and all that follows 
     through ``purposes,'' on line 25 and insert the following 
     ``banks, to include (1) an evaluation of the appropriate 
     number and the associated costs of Federal reserve banks; (2) 
     publication on its website, with respect to all lending and 
     financial assistance facilities created by the Board to 
     address the financial crisis, of (A) the nature and amounts 
     of the collateral that the central bank is accepting on 
     behalf of American taxpayers in the various lending programs, 
     on no less than a monthly basis; (B) the extent to which 
     changes in valuation of credit extensions to various special 
     purpose vehicles, such as Maiden Lane I, Maiden Lane II, and 
     Maiden Lane III, are a result of losses on collateral which 
     will not be recovered; (C) the number of borrowers that 
     participate in each of the lending programs and details of 
     the credit extended, including the extent to which the credit 
     is concentrated in one or more institutions; and (D) 
     information on the extent to which the central bank is 
     contracting for services of private sector firms for the 
     design, pricing, management, and accounting for the various 
     lending programs and the terms and nature of such contracts 
     and bidding processes,''.

  Mr. DODD. I do not see Senator Shelby in the Chamber.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who 
yields time in opposition?
  Mr. CONRAD. Senator Sanders will have the time in opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. SANDERS. The Dodd-Shelby amendment is a very good step forward in 
terms of long-overdue transparency of the Fed. I compliment both 
Senators for their effort, and I support their amendment.
  Unfortunately, this amendment, as Senator Dodd has just told us, does 
not go far enough. The bottom line is that the Fed has lent out some 
$2.2 trillion, and the American people and the Members of Congress do 
not know which financial institutions have received that money or what 
the exact terms of those transactions are. I think it is basically 
absurd that $2.2 trillion is at risk without us knowing who has 
received that money.
  I support the Dodd-Shelby amendment, and in a moment I will ask for 
support for the Sanders-Feingold-Webb amendment as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 913.
  Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy), is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 130 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin

[[Page 9835]]


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

                                NAYS--2

     Alexander
     Gregg
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 913) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 875

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote on amendment No. 
875, offered by the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Sanders.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Bunning be added as a cosponsor. I will yield 30 seconds to him and 10 
seconds to Senator Webb, who is a very quick speaker.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. The taxpayers of this country, through the Fed, have 
lent $2.2 trillion to a number of financial institutions. We do not 
know who these institutions are or what they received. This is totally 
absurd. We need to name the names. That is what this amendment is 
about.
  I yield to Senator Bunning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, this is a transparency amendment that 
allows the Fed, forces them, to reveal what banks have received over $2 
trillion in assistance. That is what the amendment says. That is what 
it does.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WEBB. I ask my colleagues to consider 10 words: The American 
people deserve to know where their money went.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I share Senator Sander's concern 
regarding the transparency of these programs. We all do. We just voted 
on the Dodd-Shelby amendment--96 to 2, it passed, I believe.
  As Senator Dodd has pointed out, however, disclosing the names of the 
companies may create financial instability by unnecessarily raising 
concerns about institutions that accessed these facilities, something 
we should try to avoid. I believe the Senate has already spoken, and we 
certainly do not need this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
875.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of New Mexico). Are there any other 
Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 131 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Akaka
     Begich
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Sessions
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--39

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Corker
     Dodd
     Enzi
     Gillibrand
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Udall (CO)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 875) was agreed to.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the reason this vote took a little longer is 
because people, even though it is a 10-minute vote, waited until the 
last minute to come and vote or to change their vote. It is making it 
extremely difficult for the people at the desk to do this. There was a 
mistake made because people were switching votes, so it took a lot 
longer.
  If everyone would stay as close as they can to get the votes out of 
the way and not wait until the last minute--the Republican cloakroom, 
we have sent pages back to try to find Members, and to the Democratic 
cloakroom as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.


                    Senator Grassley's 10,000th Vote

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, our good friend from Iowa, Senator 
Grassley, has cast his 10,000th vote. Senator Grassley has been a 
distinguished Member of this body for 29 years and, in my view, the 
Nation is always a lot better off when people are paying very close 
attention to Chuck Grassley.
  Over the course of the past two centuries, nearly 2,000 men and women 
have served in the Senate. Fewer than 30 have cast more votes than 
Chuck Grassley. Only one other Senator from Iowa has served longer. 
This year Senator Grassley will mark 50 years of public service to the 
people of the Hawkeye State. While some Members of Congress have a 
tendency to lose touch with their constituents, Senator Grassley has 
always worked hard to make sure he never did. He has made it his 
business to stay connected to the folks back home by holding at least 
one townhall meeting a year in all of Iowa's 99 counties and by 
responding to every letter, postcard, e-mail, and phone call his office 
receives from Iowans.
  He also stays close to the land by working his family farm, even 
while he keeps up with his duties in Washington. Chuck Grassley may be 
a U.S. Senator, but he has always preferred to be known as ``a farmer 
from Butler County.'' Visitors to the Grassley farm say it is not 
uncommon to see Senator Grassley pulling a cell phone out from under 
his baseball cap while riding on his tractor. Remind me never to borrow 
Senator Grassley's cell phone.
  A 1955 graduate of the University of Northern Iowa, Senator Grassley 
ran for the Iowa House at the age of 23 and lost. But this is a man, 
the Des Moines Register once wrote, for whom the word ``dogged'' was 
invented. Three years later, at age 25, he won that seat in the House, 
and Iowa voters have been reelecting him ever since, including five 
terms in the Senate.
  Over the years, Senator Grassley has distinguished himself for his 
tenacity and his commitment to the public interest. Whistleblower 
amendments that he has sponsored have recovered $18 billion to the U.S. 
Treasury. He has kept a watchful eye on spending at the

[[Page 9836]]

Pentagon and, as the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, he 
has been an equal opportunity foe of loopholes, closing them to 
corporations and individuals alike. He has also done the hard work of 
following up on these and other accountability measures he has authored 
over the years.
  Senator Grassley has a lot to be proud of in his career. He and 
Barbara are also rightly proud of their 54 years of marriage, their 
five children, and nine grandchildren. Chuck couldn't have foreseen 
such an eventful life when he and Barbara met, and Barbara probably 
certainly didn't expect that 30 years of marriage would pass before she 
finally got her diamond engagement ring. We all know it is probably 
because Chuck didn't want to spend that money.
  Senator Grassley has been a farmer, a father, a government watchdog, 
a steward of the Nation's finances; in short, he is a real statesman. 
The Senate would not be the same without him, and the Nation, I firmly 
believe, would be a lot worse off without the remarkable service of 
Chuck Grassley. Senator, congratulations.
  (Applause, Members rising.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I join the Republican leader in 
congratulating Chuck Grassley, our friend, on casting his 10,000th 
vote. Chuck was born in the city of New Hartford--but not Connecticut--
Iowa, where he and his wife Barbara raised their five children. They 
reside there today. After graduating Iowa State Teachers College, he 
earned a doctorate from the University of Iowa.
  I have referred to Senator Grassley on a number of occasions as 
Chuck, Senator, Hey You, but now Dr. Grassley. Everyone should 
understand that.
  Chuck, in addition to his education excellence, worked as an assembly 
line laborer before he was elected to the Iowa House of Representatives 
and later to the United States Congress. He has been in the Senate 
since 1980. Chuck quickly became known as a friend to taxpayers and a 
foe to government waste.
  As former chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, on which I served 
under him, Senator Grassley worked to expose the neglectful practices 
of many of America's nursing homes, and certainly Senator Grassley was 
a catalyst for change. To ensure that government workers feel free to 
shine a light on corruption and misappropriation of public funds, Chuck 
Grassley coauthored the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989.
  As former chairman and now ranking member of the Finance Committee, 
Senator Grassley has worked with Members of both sides of the aisle to 
find bipartisan solutions to put taxpayers first.
  He is a man of his word, and once he tells you what he has agreed to 
do, he goes to the wall. I have found that on a number of different 
issues working with him.
  Senator Grassley is a leader on health care issues. Senator Grassley 
reached across the aisle to coauthor legislation with Senator Kennedy 
12 years ago that provides middle-class families with the opportunity 
to buy into Medicare for children with special needs.
  I particularly appreciate Senator Grassley's longstanding commitment 
to developing clean, homegrown renewable energy.
  In addition to his leadership on a broad spectrum of national issues, 
Iowans depend on Chuck Grassley for his responsiveness to constituent 
services. He has accomplished the remarkable feat of visiting each one 
of Iowa's 99 counties--that is so hard for me to comprehend. The State 
of Nevada, as big as it is, only has 17 counties. Iowa has 99 counties, 
and he has visited those counties every year at least once since he was 
first elected to the Senate.
  Chuck and Barbara, as Senator McConnell has mentioned, are the 
parents of five children: Lee, Wendy, Robin, Michele, and Jay.
  An accomplishment for sure--10,000 votes cast in the U.S. Senate. It 
is a remarkable accomplishment. But as I look at his record, I think 
one of his greatest accomplishments is the fact that the Senator from 
Iowa will achieve, this year, his 55th wedding anniversary with 
Barbara.
  Congratulations, Chuck.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I join with the entire Senate family in 
congratulating my colleague, my good friend, and the senior Senator 
from Iowa, on casting his 10,000th vote in the Senate. This is a truly 
remarkable milestone, but even more remarkable is the fact that Senator 
Grassley has cast nearly 6,000 votes without missing a vote. It has 
been 16 years since Senator Grassley has missed a vote. The last time 
he missed a vote, he had to be in Iowa during that terrible flooding we 
had in 1993. So he has not missed a vote since. It has been 16 years 
that Senator Grassley has not missed a vote.
  I note for the record that Cal Ripken, the great shortstop and third 
baseman for the Baltimore Orioles, went 16 years without missing a 
game, and they called him the Iron Man. So now Senator Grassley has 
gone 16 years without missing a vote, so I guess now we can call him 
the Iron Man of the U.S. Senate.
  But the measure of a Senator is not just how many votes he or she 
casts, it also includes what he or she accomplishes off the floor of 
the Senate. That is also where Senator Grassley has truly distinguished 
himself in this body over the last 28 years.
  Count me as one of those who believes the executive branch of this 
Government has gotten too powerful, has arrogated too much power to 
themselves in relation to the legislative branch.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, yes.
  Mr. HARKIN. And it is a power they flaunt. I do not care whether it 
is a Democratic administration or a Republican administration. I 
daresay no Senator is more dedicated to providing rigourous, relentless 
oversight of executive branch agencies--whether during Republican 
administrations or Democratic administrations--than Senator Grassley. 
Senator Grassley's dedication to the oversight function has been 
exemplary, a model every Senator ought to strive to emulate.
  Chuck Grassley and I have served together in the Congress since we 
were both elected the same year in 1974. We took our oaths of office on 
the same day in the House in 1975. Of course, he preceded me to the 
Senate. He came to the Senate in 1981. I followed him here in 1985. 
Well, we belong to different parties, but I like to think we share a 
down-to-earth, commonsense Iowa way of looking at the world. I value 
his friendship and his counsel. I have the highest respect for his work 
here in the Senate and his work in Iowa on behalf of all Iowans.
  So, again, I join my colleagues in congratulating my colleague, my 
friend, and the senior Senator from Iowa on this remarkable milestone.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have lined up to speak. So many of us 
want to congratulate the esteemed Senator from Iowa. I congratulate him 
on his 10,000th vote.
  Many of you know Chuck and I get together once a week. We started 
this practice at least 8 or 9 years ago, and sometimes he is chairman, 
sometimes I am chairman; chairman or ranking member, vice versa, back 
and forth. We meet every Tuesday at 5 o'clock in the afternoon, and we 
have done this for 8 years. Maybe we have missed five or six or seven 
times, but constantly, consistently we get together to go over matters, 
minimize misunderstandings, and so forth. Lately, the last couple, 3 
years, the meetings have been in my office. I have a little bit bigger 
conference room. That is not the real reason, though. The real reason 
is, as Chuck always reminds me, in my office the coffee is free, so it 
is much better to meet in my office.
  All of you who know Chuck know he passes the airport test; that is, 
if you are ever stranded in an airport for 10 or 12 hours and you are 
sitting next to

[[Page 9837]]

somebody, you get to like the person or you do not get to like the 
person. Chuck more than passes the airport test. The more you get to 
know Chuck Grassley, the more you will like him. It is his decency, his 
honesty. He is unpretentious. It is his basic Iowa grassroots 
personality. It means so much to me, in spending so much time with him. 
The only time our meetings are cut short, I might say, is when Chuck 
has to dash out and get on the radio and talk to people back home in 
Iowa; otherwise, Chuck stays throughout the meeting. The people in Iowa 
mean so much to him.
  I might also say that we know how much he protects taxpayers' 
interests. It has been mentioned--whistleblower legislation, which he 
promotes so aggressively. He is also downright parsimonious himself. He 
turns the balance of his office budget back to the taxpayers. Every 
year, he returns a good portion back to the taxpayers. He also, I might 
say, promotes ethanol for several reasons. One, it is good for Iowa. 
But he also contributes to the reduction of fossil fuel consumption. 
When he comes back home from plowing his field, he is on his tractor, 
and he coasts downhill the last mile to save a few pennies of diesel 
fuel. He does. I checked that out a short while ago. Yes, he does that 
just to save a few pennies of diesel fuel.
  Anyway, I want to tell you how much I appreciate him. He is one of my 
very best friends.
  I think the measure of a Senator really is whether he or she is 
popular in two different areas, with two different audiences. First is 
the people back home--how popular is a Senator back home? The second 
is, how popular is he or she with his or her colleagues? There are two 
separate audiences. There are two separate criteria. Clearly, Chuck is 
popular in both areas. He is very popular in Iowa. The people of Iowa 
love him. The people, Members of the Senate love him. He is one heck of 
a guy, and I just feel so honored to be able to serve with Chuck on the 
Finance Committee, but also, more importantly, he is a very good friend 
here in the Senate.
  So I congratulate you, Chuck.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, do you know what, so many of you stayed 
around. I do not know how many times I have heard of other Senators 
having voted 10,000 or 12,000 times and I probably did not stay around, 
and I probably have not earned what you have said about me because I 
did not pay that much attention to the rest of you who have gone 
before. So let me apologize for that, and I will bet next time I will 
stay around.
  So I am not flying under false colors, I would like to say a couple 
things. One person spoke about my being a farmer, and that is 
absolutely right. I am. But I can tell you this, that when you get a 
25-year-old grandson, grandfathers are not as important in the farming 
operation as you would like to be. So I consider myself now more of a 
hired man for Robin Grassley and Pat Grassley than I am a family 
farmer. But I still am a crop sharer with my son, and I market my own 
crops, and I am there to help put the crop in when they need me--and 
wish they needed me more--and help get the crop out, and wish they 
needed me more. So I do appreciate that.
  As much as I would like to be called Dr. Grassley--you can get that 
impression maybe because I did do 2 years of graduate work beyond my 
master's degree, but I did not quite finish it because I was elected to 
the State legislature and I never went back to the University of Iowa 
to finish it, and I kind of regret that. But I did not get back.
  Mr. REID. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, I will yield.
  Mr. REID. I am sorry. That was something that was prepared for me. 
You always reminded me of having a Ph.D.
  Anyway, here is the story. Somebody like you or me is going to go 
give a speech--and they give us these speeches, and we walk out and 
give them--and he is about halfway through his speech, and he comes to 
a page that is blank, and he says: You are on your own, you SOB. So 
that is kind of like this. I will check with my staff to make sure they 
do not make a mistake like that again.
  (Laughter.)
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Well, it is one of these cases where I passed the 
French test, and I was ready to write a dissertation, and I never quite 
got around to it.
  One other thing I would like to say is, obviously, thank you for the 
recognition. I enjoy my job in the Senate very much. I guess if you 
vote 10,000 times, you are just doing what we are paid to do.
  It is a wonderful experience serving here in the Senate. And I think 
I can say--as Senator Baucus has inferred, I hope I am liked by 
everybody. I like every one of you. I do not know any of you who 
consider me an enemy. And if you do, I do not want to know who you are.
  (Laughter.)
  If you wonder why there is some emphasis upon voting, people in this 
country are very cynical about those of us in elected office. I think: 
What can you do to reduce cynicism? And I thought a long time ago, 
sitting in a restaurant one time--and probably nobody at that time knew 
who I was. I overheard them saying something like: Well, it must be 
election time; the politicians are in town.
  I heard that 30 years ago, and I made up my mind that at least one 
way I was going to try to overcome that for politicians generally was 
to make sure the process of representive government works. So when I 
was elected to the Senate, it was not something I promised the people 
of Iowa, it was just something I promised myself: that I am going to go 
to every county every year to hold at least one town meeting so that 
person who was griping about only seeing a politician at election time 
could not say that about Chuck Grassley, and I hope in the process it 
has raised the respect people have for those of us who are elected.
  The other thing about voting as often as I do here in the Senate, it 
is an opportunity to let people know when you are in session, you are 
here working. And when we are not in session, I am back in Iowa with my 
people. It is an opportunity to kind of quantify what our job is all 
about and to get over this business of people who, I think, think we 
are only here in Washington sitting around with our feet up on our desk 
waiting to take a phone call from somebody--that we are actually doing 
something. This is one way--maybe a very elementary way, but sometimes 
that is the way you have to explain government to the American people--
that we are on the job, doing our job, and when we are not here, we are 
at home making the process of representative government work.
  So I very much appreciate the kind words that have been said. And I 
did not record them, but if I did, I would play them back during 
election time.
  Thank you very much for the honor.
  I would yield to the Senator--oh, the Senator from Illinois said 
something nice about me one time, and I did use it in my literature. 
And some people of his party got on him: Why are you doing that?
  Well, I think he said: It was true.
  And he came to me one time and he said: Will you say something nice 
about me? I could put it in my literature.
  And I gave him a slip of paper that said: He is not as bad as you 
think he is.
  I yield the floor.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Motion To Recommit

  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I have at the desk a motion, and I would 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Johanns] moves to recommit 
     S. Con. Res. 13 to the Committee on the Budget with 
     instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days 
     making the following changes:

  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the motion be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 9838]]

  The motion is as follows:

       (1) Amend levels in the resolution as to report back a 
     resolution with an aggregate level of budget authority (and 
     associated outlays) for nondefense, nonveterans discretionary 
     accounts for fiscal year 2010 at the level enacted for fiscal 
     year 2009 level, increased by the rate of inflation for 2010 
     as projected by the Congressional Budget Office.
       (2) Amend spending levels in the resolution so as to report 
     back a resolution with aggregate spending levels for 
     discretionary nondefense, nonveterans spending for each 
     subsequent fiscal year in the budget window so as not to 
     exceed the immediately previous fiscal year spending level 
     for discretionary nondefense, nonveterans spending, increased 
     by the rate of inflation for the applicable year as projected 
     by the Congressional Budget Office.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided on the 
motion.
  Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, the budget before us increases nondefense 
discretionary spending by $42 billion over last year's levels.
  Here is what my motion does. It would limit the overall increase in 
the budget to CBO's projected rate of inflation for nondefense, 
nonveterans spending. This motion will save $36 billion in 2010 and 
$194 billion over the 5-year budget window.
  My motion only affects aggregate spending so it allows some programs 
to be larger than the rate of inflation; thus, any claim that it is 
unfair to one particular group would be inaccurate. The motion allows 
the committee to take a scalpel to the budget, which is exactly what 
the President called for. If not, our country continues to be in a dire 
situation. This helps deal with the spending piece of this.
  This motion will allow us to take a step back from bloated spending 
and step forward to fiscal responsibility.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. JOHANNS. I urge my colleagues to vote yes and I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, in more normal times, this is an amendment 
I might well support, but these are not normal times. We are faced with 
the steepest economic decline since the Great Depression. The 
underlying budget mark already cuts nondefense discretionary spending 
by more than $160 billion. This would cut another $120 billion, much of 
it front end loaded, at the worst possible time for economic recovery.
  One other point I would make. We have more than 200 amendments 
pending now--more than 200. If the Senator's amendment were to pass--
this is a motion to recommit the budget resolution to the committee. If 
anybody wants to repeat the entire exercise of this week, the week we 
get back, I recommend you vote for the Senator's amendment. If you 
prefer to end this today, I recommend you vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 132 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

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

                                NAYS--55

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to inform colleagues that when I 
said earlier we had 100 amendments pending, I was half right. That was 
last night. As of now, we have over 230 amendments pending. If you 
divide 230 by 3, that is almost 80 hours--about 76, 77 hours. That 
would mean we would be here all day today, tomorrow, and all day 
Saturday. If everybody sticks to their amendment, that is what is going 
to happen.
  I hope people in the calmness of the moment will think about other 
options. No. 1, if you will accept a voice vote--Senator Gregg and I 
are trying to work things out on amendments that could be accepted. If 
not, if you would withhold until there is another vehicle--and there 
will be a lot of vehicles this year. Really, we have been doing this 
for a lot of years. Amendments have sprouted here. I hope people will 
think: Do we want to do this for 3 days straight?


              Amendments Nos. 759, 799, 949, 755, and 808

  We have an agreement to take several amendments here by unanimous 
consent. They are: Bennett No. 759; Bennet No. 799; Democratic side-by-
side to Vitter; Casey No. 755, and Brown No. 808. I ask unanimous 
consent that these amendments be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 759

    (Purpose: To prohibit changing current tax laws for charitable 
  contribution tax deductions to pay for modernizing the health care 
                                system)

       On page 31, line 9, after ``purposes,'' insert ``provided 
     that such legislation would not result in diminishing a 
     taxpayers' ability to deduct charitable contributions as an 
     offset to pay for such purposes, and'',


                           amendment no. 799

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to address the 
systemic inequities of Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement that lead to 
 access problems in rural areas, including access to primary care and 
outpatient services, hospitals, and an adequate supply of providers in 
                             the workforce)

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

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ADDRESS THE SYSTEMIC 
                   INEQUITIES OF MEDICARE AND MEDICAID 
                   REIMBURSEMENT THAT LEAD TO ACCESS PROBLEMS IN 
                   RURAL AREAS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports that would address 
     the systemic inequities of Medicare and Medicaid 
     reimbursement that lead to access problems in rural areas, 
     including access to primary care and outpatient services, 
     hospitals, and an adequate supply of providers in the 
     workforce, by the amounts provided in such legislation for 
     those purposes, provided that such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit over either the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2009 through 2019.


                           amendment no. 755

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide for 
 accelerated carbon capture and storage and advanced clean coal power 
    generation research, development, demonstration, and deployment)

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

[[Page 9839]]



     SEC. 2__. DEFICIT NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PROVIDE FOR 
                   ACCELERATED CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE AND 
                   ADVANCED CLEAN COAL POWER GENERATION RESEARCH, 
                   DEVELOPMENT, DEMONSTRATION, AND DEPLOYMENT.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other levels and limits in this 
     resolution by the amounts provided by a bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that 
     would accelerate the research, development, demonstration, 
     and deployment of advanced technologies to capture and store 
     carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants and 
     other industrial emission sources and to use coal in an 
     environmentally acceptable manner.
       (b) Deficit Neutrality.--Subsection (a) applies only if the 
     legislation described in subsection (a) would not increase 
     the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2019.


                           amendment no. 808

   (Purpose: To provide for legislation that removes Social Security 
numbers from Medicare cards and to pay for such legislation by reducing 
           waste, fraud, and abuse in other federal programs)

       On page 20, line 24, increase the amount by $5,000,000.
       On page 20, line 25, increase the amount by $5,000,000.
       On page 21, line 3, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 21, line 4, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 21, line 7, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 21, line 8, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $5,000,000.
       On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $5,000,000.
       On page 28, line 2, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 28, line 6, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to make it clear that the side by 
side to the Vitter amendment we approved by voice vote is No. 949.
  With that, the next amendment up is the Vitter--I suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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, on the Bennett amendment No. 759, Senator 
Bennett of Utah wishes to be recognized for a brief statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I understand from the distinguished 
Budget Committee chairman that they have accepted this amendment by 
unanimous consent. Therefore, I congratulate them on their wisdom and 
thank them.
  This is a serious amendment, which I hope will survive conference. I 
am glad to have it accepted. It deals with the tax treatment of 
charitable contributions. I am happy to have it accepted by the other 
side so that the Senate is on record saying they want the President's 
budget not to change the tax treatment of charitable contributions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Bennett amendment would express the 
importance of taxpayers' ability to take deductions for contributions 
to charity. It is also important to recognize that this amendment is 
not inconsistent with either current law or the President's budget.
  This amendment is also consistent with the votes that we took last 
week when we affirmed our support for charitable contributions.
  I urge the Senate to adopt the amendment.


                           Amendment No. 949

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on an amendment that we just adopted by 
voice vote, the Reed amendment No. 949, there is a misunderstanding. 
There was not unanimous consent. So I think in fairness we ought to go 
back to that amendment and have Senator Reed offer it.
  I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the adoption of the Reed amendment 
No. 949.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. That would be the pending amendment, No. 949, and Senator 
Reed would be recognized to offer the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, my amendment would focus on the issue I 
think we are all concerned about, and it would be a counterpoint to 
Senator Vitter's amendment, and that would be the administration of the 
Troubled Asset Relieve Program. My amendment would create a reserve 
fund, which would focus the remaining resources in the TARP fund on 
supporting small businesses, saving homeowners from foreclosure, 
helping the bond market, and making credit more widely available. It 
would also strengthen the oversight entities, the Special Inspector 
General, the Congressional Oversight Panel, and the Government 
Accountability Office.
  Senator Vitter's amendment purports to take back the money by 
striking certain functions, such as function 370. But that function 
also has the funding for the FHA, the Rural Housing Program, and the 
Small Business Administration. In effect, we will not be taking away 
the TARP money, we will be challenging these other programs to find 
funds.
  I urge adoption of my amendment and the rejection of Senator Vitter's 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Has the Senator offered the amendment?
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I offer it at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 949.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide for the expenditure of the remaining Troubled 
        Asset Relief Program funds for the benefit of consumers)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. EXPENDITURE OF REMAINING TARP FUNDS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports that reaffirm that 
     the remaining Troubled Asset Relief Program funds shall be 
     used to save homes, save small businesses, help the municipal 
     bond market, make credit more widely available, and provide 
     additional resources for the Special Inspector General for 
     the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Congressional 
     Oversight Panel, and the Government Accountability Office for 
     vigorous audit and evaluation of all expenditures and 
     commitments made under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, by 
     the amounts provided in that legislation for those purposes, 
     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2019.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, next after this amendment is my amendment. 
It would return TARP funds not already out the door, except for the 
$100 billion set aside for buying toxic assets, which is exactly what 
TARP was supposed to be about. But it ends everything else and invites 
the Obama administration to come back to us regarding other programs.
  The Reed amendment reaffirms TARP as it has been executed. So if you 
like everything that has been done under TARP and how it has been done, 
that model and program changing every other week, vote for the Reed 
amendment and reaffirm TARP as it is. If you think a change and focus 
needs to be brought to TARP, vote for the Vitter amendment, which is 
next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 949.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

[[Page 9840]]

  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 133 Leg.]

                               YEAS---56

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

                                NAYS--42

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 949) was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request that I 
wish to propound on the next group of amendments before we go to the 
Vitter amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following group of amendments be the 
next to be considered; that the provisions of the previous order 
regarding debate time, vote time, and budget points of order remain in 
effect for the duration of consideration of amendments to the budget 
resolution; and that the amendments be considered in the order listed. 
This is the order proposed: Senator Hutchison amendment No. 866; 
Menendez amendment No. 921; Coburn amendment No. 895; Brownback 
amendment No. 841; Graham amendment No. 898; Boxer amendment No. 953; 
Reid amendment No. 730; Hutchison amendment No. 868; Snowe amendment 
No. 773; Senators Murray and Bond amendment No. 880; Thune amendment 
No. 803; Barrasso-Wyden--I do not have a number on that amendment; a 
Democratic side by side to Bennett of Utah on spending stimulus; 
Bennett of Utah amendment No. 954; a Democratic side by side to the 
Enzi trigger; Enzi No. 824; Conrad or his designee side by side on AMT; 
and Grassley on AMT.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, we do not have copies of 
the side by sides. I suggest we hold those four that are involved until 
we get a copy of the side by sides. That would be the Democratic side 
by side to Bennett, the Bennett, the Democratic side by side to Enzi, 
and the Enzi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I alter the unanimous consent request so 
that the last four amendments in that request not be included. I also 
want to clarify that Brownback is No. 840.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, the wrong number was 
announced on Brownback. The number is 840.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is what I just did.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 787

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I now present the Vitter amendment. It is 
very simple. It says that the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, will 
actually be about troubled asset relief. It returns the other money not 
reserved for troubled asset relief to the Treasury for debt reduction, 
$136 billion of debt reduction.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Has the Senator offered the amendment?
  Mr. VITTER. I offer the amendment at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 787.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To end $272 billion in spending on bailouts under TARP and 
               reduce record deficits and levels of debt)

       On page 4, line 13, decrease the amount by 
     $116,626,400,000.
       On page 4, line 14, decrease the amount by $23,103,200,000.
       On page 4, line 15, decrease the amount by $4,939,200,000.
       On page 4, line 16, decrease the amount by $7,053,600,000.
       On page 4, line 17, decrease the amount by $9,575,200,000.
       On page 4, line 18 decrease the amount by $12,156,800,000.
       On page 4, line 22, decrease the amount by 
     $116,626,400,000.
       On page 4, line 23, decrease the amount by $23,103,200,000.
       On page 4, line 24, decrease the amount by $4,939,200,000.
       On page 4, line 25 decrease the amount by $7,053,600,000.
       On page 5, line 1, decrease the amount by $9,575,200,000.
       On page 5, line 2, decrease the amount by $12,156,800,000.
       On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $116,626,400,000.
       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $23,103,200,000.
       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $4,939,200,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $7,053,600,000.
       On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $9,575,200,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $12,156,800,000.
       On page 5, line 16, decrease the amount by 
     $116,626,400,000.
       On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by 
     $139,729,600,000.
       On page 5, line 18, decrease the amount by 
     $144,668,800,000.
       On page 5, line 19, decrease the amount by 
     $151,722,400,000.
       On page 5, line 20, decrease the amount by 
     $161,297,600,000.
       On page 5, line 21, decrease the amount by 
     $173,454,400,000.
       On page 5, line 24, decrease the amount by 
     $116,626,400,000.
       On page 5, line 25, decrease the amount by 
     $139,729,600,000.
       On page 6, line 1, decrease the amount by $144,668,800,000.
       On page 6, line 2, decrease the amount by $151,722,400,000.
       On page 6, line 3, decrease the amount by $161,297,600,000.
       On page 6, line 4, decrease the amount by $173,454,400,000.
       On page 15, line 17, decrease the amount by 
     $116,000,000,000
       On page 15, line 18, decrease the amount by 
     $116,000,000,000.
       On page 15, line 21, decrease the amount by 
     $20,000,0000,000.
       On page 15, line 22, decrease the amount by 
     $20,000,000,000.
       On page 26, line 20, decrease the amount by $626,400,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $626,400,000.
       On page 26, line 24, decrease the amount by $3,103,200,000.
       On page 26, line 25, decrease the amount by $3,103,200,000.
       On page 27, line 3, decrease the amount by $4,939,200,000.
       On page 27, line 4, decrease the amount by $4,939,200,000.
       On page 27, line 7, decrease the amount by $7,053,600,000.
       On page 27, line 8, decrease the amount by $7,053,600,000.
       On page 27, line 11, decrease the amount by $9,575,200,000.
       On page 25, line 12, decrease the amount by $9,575,200,000.
       On page 27, line 15, decrease the amount by 
     $12,156,800,000.
       On page 27, line 16, decrease the amount by 
     $12,156,800,000.

  Mr. VITTER. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield time in opposition to Senator Reed 
of Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Rhode Island is 
recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Reed amendment, which we just adopted, 
focuses the remaining TARP funds on

[[Page 9841]]

functions that are critical to the economic progress of the country--
keeping people in homes, providing help for small business, supporting 
the traditional bond market, making credit more widely available. The 
restriction of these funds proposed by Senator Vitter will undercut 
these objectives. In addition, the Reed amendment has strengthened the 
oversight responsibilities.
  Secretary Geithner has just announced a program that will focus on 
these toxic assets. Keeping these TARP funds, I believe, will give the 
Treasury the flexibility to make that program work more effectively, 
and I oppose the Vitter amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has 35 seconds.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, the program which Secretary Geithner has 
actually announced about toxic assets is protected even under my 
amendment. What my amendment says is that we are not any longer going 
to allow the Treasury to do other things on an ad hoc basis, making it 
up as they go along every week.
  In the process, we would reduce the debt of this country by at least 
$136 billion under this amendment. I urge support for the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 787.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 28, nays 70, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 134 Leg.]

                                YEAS--28

     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     McCain
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--70

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Corker
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 787) was rejected.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The senior Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I call up amendment No. 910.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator allow us to do a unanimous consent?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I will.


                      Amendments Nos. 892 and 893

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Coburn 
amendment No. 892 and Coburn amendment No. 893 be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (No. 892 and No. 893) were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 892

 (Purpose: To end bogus bonuses awarded to contractors and government 
executives responsible for over budget projects and programs that fail 
                to meet basic performance requirements)

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

     SEC. 216. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR PROHIBITING 
                   UNDESERVED CONTRACTING PERFORMANCE BONUSES.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports that would 
     prohibit federally funded bonuses awarded to contractors and 
     government executives responsible for over budget projects 
     and programs that fail to meet basic performance 
     requirements, by the amounts provided in that legislation for 
     that purpose, provided that such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit over either the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2010 through 2019.


                           amendment no. 893

 (Purpose: To support President Obama in his effort to go line by line 
  through the Federal Budget in order to help him eliminate wasteful, 
                 inefficient, and duplicative programs)

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

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-REDUCTION RESERVE FUND TO ENSURE THE PLEDGE 
                   OF PRESIDENT OBAMA TO ELIMINATE WASTEFUL, 
                   INEFFICIENT, AND DUPLICATIVE PROGRAMS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports that achieves 
     savings by going through the Federal Budget line by line, as 
     President Obama has called for, to eliminate wasteful, 
     inefficient, and duplicative spending by requiring--
       (1) the head of every department and agency to provide a 
     report to Congress within 90 days after the date of enactment 
     of this resolution on programs that are duplicative, 
     inefficient, or failing, with recommendations for elimination 
     and consolidation of these programs,
       (2) the Office of Management and Budget to provide a report 
     to Congress within 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     this resolution on programs that are duplicative government-
     wide, with recommendations for elimination or consolidation 
     of these programs, and
       (3) every standing committee of the Senate to conduct at 
     least one oversight hearing each fiscal year in order to 
     identify wasteful, inefficient, outdated, and duplicative 
     programs that could be eliminated and consolidated,

     by the amounts provided in such legislation for those 
     purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase 
     the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2009 through 2019.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coburn for his courtesy 
and say he has set a very good example for other Members, a very good 
example.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 910

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, since I am not a squish like Senator 
Coburn, I am going to go ahead.
  My amendment is straightforward. This amendment creates a budget 
point of order on legislation that increases the cost of energy for 
middle-class families. Why are we doing this? The climate change 
proposal that was in the President's budget would create a massive tax 
increase on anybody who uses energy, and that would be every American 
middle-class family, which already has a tough time getting by. This 
would be a point of order against any bill that would raise the cost of 
energy on our middle-class families who are struggling to get by.
  I ask the Senate to rally around this concept. We can deal with 
climate change without passing a $3,000-per-household energy tax on the 
families of America who are having a hard time paying their bills.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from South Carolina offering 
the amendment?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. I am sorry. I thought we had done that. Everything I 
said still goes.

[[Page 9842]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Graham] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 910.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To protect middle-income taxpayers from a national energy 
                                  tax)

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

     SEC. _. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT IMPOSES A 
                   NATIONAL ENERGY TAX ON MIDDLE-INCOME TAXPAYERS.

       (a) In General.--After a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget is agreed to, it shall not be in order in the senate 
     to consider any bill, resolution, amendment between Houses, 
     motion, or conference report that includes a National energy 
     tax increase which would have widespread applicability on 
     middle-income taxpayers.
       (b) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (1) Middle income taxpayers.--The term ``middle-income'' 
     taxpayers means single individuals with $200,000 or less in 
     adjusted gross income (as defined in section 62 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986) and married couples filing 
     jointly with $250,000 or less in adjusted gross income (as so 
     defined).
       (2) Widespread applicability.--The term ``widespread 
     applicability'' includes the definition with respect to 
     individual income taxpayers in section 4022(b)(1) of the 
     Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 
     1998.
       (3) National energy tax increase.--The term ``National 
     energy tax increase'' means any legislation that the 
     Congressional Budget Office would score as leading to an 
     increase in the costs of producing, generating or consuming 
     energy.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it is my intention to vote for this 
amendment. I ask the Senator from South Carolina, would the Senator 
from South Carolina, in a moment of comity and weakness, be willing to 
accept a voice vote?
  Mr. GRAHAM. No.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thought that might be the answer. All right. My 
intention is to vote for the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 135 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

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

                                NAYS--33

     Akaka
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cardin
     Carper
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (no. 910) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 931, as Modified

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the next amendment is the Landrieu 
amendment with 2 minutes equally divided.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this amendment seeks to establish a 
deficit-neutral reserve fund based on the current law supporting 
revenue sharing for coastal States contributions to the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund and a fund for innovative energy technology.
  It would save up to, which is the current law today, which 26 
Senators voted on, up to 50 percent which can be set aside from future 
oil and gas revenues for revenue sharing for coastal States for the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund and for funds to be created to invest 
in alternative energy technologies.
  This is something that has been debated in the Senate but has been 
broadly supported by Republicans and Democrats. There has been some 
opposition. I suspect there may be some today. But there has been broad 
bipartisan support for revenue sharing for coastal States contributions 
to the Land and Water Conservation Fund and alternative energy sources.
  This does not change the current law, it does not direct drilling 
anywhere in the country that does not already exist. That is the 
essence of the amendment I offer with myself and Senator Begich from 
Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu], for herself and 
     Mr. Begich, offers an amendment numbered 931, as modified.

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

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

     SEC. 2___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR OUTER CONTINENTAL 
                   SHELF OIL AND NATURAL GAS LEASING REVENUES.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this resolution 
     by the amounts provided by a bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion, or conference report that would provide 
     that up to 50 perecent of any revenues collected by the 
     United States from oil and natural gas leases in the outer 
     Continental Shelf shall be--
       (1) distributed among coastal energy producing States; and/
     or
       (2) allocated for--
       (A) the conduct of innovative alternative energy research; 
     and
       (B) supporting parks and wildlife.
       (b) Deficit Neutrality.--Subsection (a) applies only if the 
     legislation described in subsection (a) would not increase 
     the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2019.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is not an insignificant amendment. It 
is not small change. It has very significant consequences to all 
States. A very small number of States, a handful, will get a big 
windfall. All of the rest of the States will have money otherwise 
raised from OCS--raised from revenues from mineral leasing royalties 
not go to them at all.
  Currently, revenue goes to all 50 States. There is a small carving 
out for some of the coastal States and Florida. This amendment says: 
All the revenue raised, all the coastal revenue goes to only those few 
coastal States, which means revenue would not go to the other States 
that benefit currently from oil and gas leasing revenue.
  The other big consequence is, this is a big tax increase. It is a 
revenue-neutral provision. That means it is $110 billion, 
conservatively, over 10 years, which means we have to raise taxes $110 
billion to pay for giving money to a small handful of States and take 
it away from the majority of the States.
  I strongly urge members not to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alabama (Mr. Sessions).

[[Page 9843]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 136 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Barrasso
     Begich
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Shelby
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker

                                NAYS--60

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kennedy
     Sessions
       
  The amendment (No. 931), as modified, was rejected.


                             Change of Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Roberts has a unanimous consent 
request on a change of vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished Senator and nattily dressed 
chairman of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. President, on rollcall vote 136, I voted ``nay.'' It was my 
intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to change my vote, since it will not affect the outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would say to colleagues, I do not know 
what it is about this year, but the hole just keeps getting deeper. We 
still have over 200 amendments, and nobody seems to be much interested 
in kind of being collegial here and allowing us to get to some kind of 
reasonable list. Now, 200 amendments pending, 3 an hour--that is almost 
70 hours. That is 3 days. So please work with us and be willing to take 
voice votes. When we have amendments that are being adopted 
overwhelmingly, you know, really, do we really intend to stay here for 
3 days? I hope not.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following be the next 
group of amendments to be considered; that the provisions of the 
previous order regarding debate time, vote time, and budget points of 
order remain in effect for the duration of consideration of amendments 
to the budget resolution; that the amendments be considered in the 
order listed: Hutchison No. 866, Menendez No. 921, Coburn No. 895, 
Brownback No. 840--we have done this? Well, this is good. We are making 
progress.
  Mr. GREGG. What about voice votes?
  Mr. CONRAD. 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.


                 Amendments Nos. 921, 895, 880, and 788

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have four amendments in this list that 
we could agree to: Menendez No. 921; Coburn No. 895, Murray-Bond No. 
880, and Barrasso-Wyden--do we have a number on that?
  Mr. GREGG. No. 788.
  Mr. CONRAD. No. 788.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that they be agreed 
to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those four 
amendments be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BUNNING. What are the four amendments, please?
  Mr. CONRAD. Menendez No. 921, Coburn No. 895, Murray-Bond No. 880, 
Barrasso-Wyden No. 788.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 921, 895, 880, and 788) were agreed to, as 
follows:


                           amendment no. 921

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the Violence 
    Against Women Act (VAWA) and the Family Violence Prevention and 
           Services Act (FVPSA), and other related programs)

       On page 49, after line 3, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE VIOLENCE 
                   AGAINST WOMEN ACT (VAWA) AND THE FAMILY 
                   VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND SERVICES ACT (FVPSA), 
                   AND OTHER RELATED PROGRAMS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports that provide 
     resources for programs administered through the Violence 
     Against Women Act and the Family Violence Prevention and 
     Services Act, and other related programs, by the amounts 
     provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided 
     that such legislation would not increase the deficit over 
     either the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 
     2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 
     2019.


                           amendment no. 895

 (Purpose: To provide a deficit-neutral reserve fund to end abusive no-
  bid contracts by requiring all Federal contracts over $25,000 to be 
                           competitively bid)

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

     SEC. 216. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ENDING ABUSIVE NO-
                   BID CONTRACTS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports that would end 
     abusive no-bid contracts by requiring all Federal contracts 
     over $25,000 to be competitively bid, by the amounts provided 
     in that legislation for that purpose, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2010 through 2019.


                           amendment no. 880

 (Purpose: To create a deficit-neutral reserve fund for legislation to 
    enable States to establish or expand quality programs of early 
                       childhood home visitation)

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

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR HOME VISITATION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports that provide funds 
     to States to establish or expand quality programs of early 
     childhood home visitation that increase school readiness, 
     child abuse and neglect prevention, and early identification 
     of developmental and health delays, including potential 
     mental health concerns, and that--
       (1) serve pregnant women, or parent's or other primary 
     caregivers and their children under the age of entry into 
     kindergarten through quality programs of early childhood home 
     visitation;
       (2) are delivered by nurses, social workers, child 
     development specialists, or other well-trained and competent 
     staff, as demonstrated by education or training and the 
     provision of ongoing specific training and supervision in the 
     model of service being delivered;
       (3) have outcomes and research standards that--
       (A) demonstrate ongoing positive outcomes for children, 
     parents and other primary caregivers that enhance child 
     health and development;
       (B) conform to a clear consistent home visitation model 
     that has been in existence for at least 3 years and that--
       (i) is research-based, grounded in relevant empirically-
     based knowledge;
       (ii) is linked to program determined outcomes;
       (iii) is associated with a national organization or 
     institution of higher education that

[[Page 9844]]

     has comprehensive home visitation program standards that 
     ensure high quality service delivery and continuous program 
     quality improvement; and
       (iv) has demonstrated significant positive outcomes when 
     evaluated using well-designed and rigorous randomized 
     controlled or well-designed and rigorous quasi-experimental 
     research designs, and the evaluation results have been 
     published in a peer-reviewed journal; and
       (4) show, establish, or propose linkages to high quality 
     early learning opportunities;

     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2019.


                           amendment no. 788

(Purpose: To fund the account Hazardous Fuel Reduction on Federal Lands 
 (within Function 300) at the level authorized in the Healthy Forests 
                        Restoration Act of 2003)

       On page 13, line 21, increase the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 13, line 22, increase the amount by $140,000,000.
       On page 14, line 1, increase the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $140,000,000.
       On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $60,000,000.

                           amendment no. 788

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that Senator Barrasso 
and I have offered to fully fund the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, 
by providing an additional $200 million for this purpose. I am very 
pleased that my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley, has also joined 
us in this amendment as well as Senators Crapo, Kyl, Enzi, Bennett and 
Hatch.
  Significantly, this amendment would provide for full funding for this 
legislation for the first time since its passage. I helped author the 
Healthy Forests Restoration Act in 2003--a bipartisan bill that I 
worked on with a number of my colleagues to help address serious forest 
health issues and a significant backlog of hazardous fuels that have 
been building up on our national forests.
  When Congress passed the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, HFRA, 
Congress authorized $760 million in new money to complete hazardous 
fuel reduction work on 20 million acres. Yet in each of the past years 
the Bush administration's budget request has fallen short, in my 
estimation by well over $600 million less than Congress authorized. 
Because the Healthy Forests Restoration Act was never fully funded in 
the prior administration, it has never really had the chance to work. 
Our amendment would ensure that rural communities will finally get the 
resources they were promised. These funds will put these communities on 
a path to preventing wildfires and bringing jobs back to the forest.
  In hearings before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 
previous administration leaders assured me that even in the face of 
such severe budget cuts, they could get the work done, possibly within 
8 to 10 years. Yet in hearings before the committee we also heard 
witnesses from the GAO and USDA inspector general's office testify that 
the agencies were falling far short of meeting this mandate and that 
hazardous fuels were building up in our forests as much as three times 
faster than the agencies could remove them.
  When you come from a State like mine, where the Federal Government 
owns so much of the land, the health of those public forests is a very 
serious issue--one with life or death consequences for communities that 
are next to these forests and could become raging infernos in the next 
fire season.
  We can no longer dawdle on completing the thinning work that urgently 
needs to be performed on our Nation's forests. This work would also 
provide jobs thinning overstocked forests in rural communities, while 
reducing the threat of wildfires.
  Those wildfires are getting more and more costly to fight and 
consuming more and more of the budget of our public lands agencies. It 
simply doesn't make sense to not spend the money on preventing the 
fires and then turn around during the fire season and watch the 
millions of dollars flow freely while people's homes and livelihoods go 
up in smoke.
  Full funding of the HFRA would also allow for funding to communities 
so they can implement ``community wildfire protection plans'' developed 
in areas that are part of ``wildland urban interface'' and living on 
the edge of our public forests.
  I hope my colleagues will support this commonsense amendment and get 
the Healthy Forests Act back on track.


                     Amendment No. 840, as Modified

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a 
modification to the desk on behalf of Senator Brownback to his 
amendment No. 840.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.


                           Amendment No. 866

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, that takes us to the Hutchison amendment, 
No. 866.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, my amendment would create a point of 
order against any legislation that would impose or increase the 
marriage penalty tax. We have worked very hard in Congress to eliminate 
the marriage penalty, which we have not been able to do completely, but 
we have mitigated it, lowered it significantly.
  Before we addressed this issue, the marriage penalty was an average 
of $1,100 per couple; that is, two single people getting married caused 
them to have to pay $1,100 more in taxes because of the marriage 
penalty in the Tax Code. We have mitigated that to a great extent.
  This amendment would create a point of order against any legislation 
that would impose or increase the marriage penalty. We all know we 
should not in any way discourage marriage in this country. We have been 
able to do that. I think we need to stick with it, and this is the way 
to do it.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself, Mr. 
     Martinez, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Brownback, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 866.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide a point of order against legislation that has the 
effect of imposing a greater tax liability on taxpayers who are married 
        than if such taxpayers had filed individual tax returns)

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

     SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER ON LEGISLATION THAT IMPOSES A 
                   MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, it shall not be in order, 
     to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report that includes any provision which imposes 
     or increases a marriage tax penalty.
       (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``marriage 
     penalty'' means any provision under which the Federal income 
     tax liability of taxpayers filing a joint return under 
     section 6013 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is greater 
     than such tax liability of such taxpayers if such taxpayers 
     were unmarried and had filed individual tax returns under 
     section 1(c) of such Code.
       (c) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended only 
     by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, dully 
     chosen and sworn.
       (d) Appeals.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be 
     required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 
     point of order raised under this section.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I support the Hutchison amendment. I think 
there is strong support on this side.
  Would the Senator be willing to take a voice vote?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Texas.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Hutchison amendment No. 866 be 
agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back time?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 866) was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 840, as Modified

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, that takes us to Brownback amendment No. 
840. Senator Brownback would describe that amendment. This is a similar 
circumstance. There is strong support on

[[Page 9845]]

this side toward the Senator's amendment, and we could take it on a 
voice vote if the Senator would be willing to do that.
  If the Senator would take a moment to describe his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I would be happy to take a moment to 
describe the amendment. And if by going by voice vote it is more likely 
to stay in conference, I would be happy to do a voice vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. It is amazing how that will improve the chances.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Well, I am quite excited about that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 840, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide funds for a Commission on Budgetary Accountability 
                    and Review of Federal Agencies)

       On page 25, line 24, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 25, line 25, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 26, line 3, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 26, line 4, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 26, line 7, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 26, line 8, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 26, line 11, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 26, line 15, increase the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 26, line 16, increase the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 10, line 20, decrease the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 10, line 21, decrease the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 10, line 24, decrease the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 10, line 25, decrease the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 11, line 3, decrease the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 11, line 4, decrease the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 11, line 7, decrease the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 11, line 8, decrease the amount by $ 8,000,000.
       On page 11, line 11, decrease the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 11, line 12, decrease the amount by $4,000,000.

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, colleagues, this is an amendment that 
passed last year. It creates a commission, an independent commission, 
to review all of Federal spending, make recommendations to the body, 
and then requires a vote on those recommendations whether to continue 
the program or discontinue it. It is a way for us to get at failed 
programs. It is a way for us to get at inefficient programs or programs 
that have accomplished their purposes.
  This is at the core of what so many people want to see us do; that 
is, to get our spending under control so we can spend on higher 
priority categories. That is what this amendment would do, and it does 
it in a fashion and in a way that we have seen before that has worked 
on eliminating wasteful Government spending.
  This has had broad bipartisan support in the past. I would hope we 
could accept it and it could stay in the overall budget in conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have strong support for the amendment 
on this side. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing none, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 840), as modified, was agreed to.


                      Amendment No. 898 Withdrawn

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of 
Senator Graham, to withdraw amendment No. 898.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. Without objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 953, as Modified

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, that takes us to the Boxer amendment, No. 
953, afterschool reserve fund.
  Senator Boxer.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to the Senators, thank you so much, Senator Conrad 
and Senator Gregg. I say thank you very much to Senator Ensign. He and 
I have been working on afterschool for many years.
  This is a Boxer-Ensign amendment. There is a modification at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] for herself and 
     Mr. Ensign, proposes an amendment numbered 953, as modified.

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

 (Purpose: To add a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the 21st Century 
            Community Learning Centers afterschool program)

       At the end of Title II, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR 21ST CENTURY 
                   COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other levels and limits in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports that would increase funding 
     for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program by 
     the amounts provided in such legislation for such purpose, 
     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2019.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are not adding a penny. We are just 
saying, within the amounts that are in the education budget, to fully 
fund afterschool programs. We all know it helps our kids, and there are 
millions on the list. Senator Ensign explained many times--he wanted to 
speak here today, but he is not on the floor--that afterschool programs 
really saved his life when he was a young child.
  So I hope this amendment will be accepted.
  I thank my colleagues, and I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote, if we could do 
that.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if the Senator would be willing to let us 
pass over this amendment for a minute, we have some questions on our 
side, and hopefully we can clear them up.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am sorry?
  Mr. GREGG. We have some questions on our side. Hopefully, we can 
clear them up. I ask the Senator, can we move on to the next amendment 
and move back to yours?
  Mrs. BOXER. Of course. Senator Ensign thought it was all taken care 
of, so he is off the floor. Maybe we can get him back out here. Thank 
you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is set aside.


                           Amendment No. 730

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, that takes us to Reid amendment No. 730, 
and the leader is here.
  Senator Reid.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, prior to the Tax Reform Act of 1986, 
individuals were entitled to deduct State and local sales taxes. When 
the deduction was repealed, it put taxpayers in States without an 
income tax, such as Nevada, Washington, and others, at a disadvantage. 
It took us 22 years before fairness was restored when the deduction was 
reinstated in 2004. The problem is that deduction is not a permanent 
part of the law.
  The amendment I have filed with Senators Ensign, Cantwell, Murray, 
Nelson, Hutchison, and others fixes that by establishing a reserve fund 
for legislation making the deduction permanent. Based on all the 
information we have, this would affect lots of people--almost half a 
million in Nevada. At a time when families are struggling to make ends 
meet, every penny counts.

[[Page 9846]]

  I would accept a voice vote on this amendment, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have just been informed that the 
matching amendment to the Reid amendment may be withdrawn. They are 
working on that right now. So that would mean a vote on the Reid 
amendment and the Hutchison amendment may not be necessary.


                     Amendment No. 953, as Modified

  So, Mr. President, I ask that we now return to the Boxer amendment 
because we have reached conclusion on that. We know it will require a 
vote. If the Senator would be so inclined, we could return to that 
amendment and go to a vote.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator has used her minute.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Colleagues, if I could ask to be heard for one more 
moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you.
  I simply want to say that we are a little caught off guard here 
because we were told this was cleared on the Republican side. This is a 
Boxer-Ensign amendment. It does not add one penny to the deficit. It 
does not change anything. It just says, within the funding for 
education, let's fully fund afterschool programs because we have so 
many kids who are waiting to get into those programs. I am hopeful we 
will have a strong bipartisan vote for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
953, as modified. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 9, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 137 Leg.]

                                YEAS--89

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

                                NAYS--9

     Bunning
     Coburn
     DeMint
     Gregg
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     McCain
     Sessions
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 953), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, if we are really going to have recorded 
rollcall votes--what was the final tally--on votes that are 89 to 9, we 
are going to be here a very long time.
  Honestly, I have been doing this for 22 years. I don't know if I have 
ever seen a year where colleagues just seem to be absolutely insistent 
on having rollcall votes on things that are going to keep us here a 
very long time. We cannot make people give up their votes or take voice 
votes. But at some point there has to be a serious consideration. Is 
this what we are really going to do to each other? Are we going to be 
here for 70 hours? That is where we are headed.
  With that, we can go to the Snowe amendment--or has the Hutchison-
Reed amendment been resolved? We should pass over that and go to 
Senator Snowe's amendment. She is right here. If the Senator would 
explain her amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 773

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 773.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Snowe] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 773.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide for 
  the extension of the top individual tax rates for small businesses 
                              after 2010)

       At the end of title II, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PROVIDE FOR THE 
                   EXTENSION OF THE TOP INDIVIDUAL TAX RATES FOR 
                   SMALL BUSINESSES.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports that maintains the 
     rates of tax under section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 for the highest two rate brackets at 33 percent and 35 
     percent, respectively, for individuals who receive more than 
     50 percent of income from a small business concern (as 
     defined under section 3 of the Small Business Act), by the 
     amounts provided by that legislation for those purposes, 
     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2019.

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, my amendment would create a deficit-neutral 
reserve fund for the tax cuts of 2001 to extend those tax rates to 
small businesses that earn 50 percent of their income from small 
business.
  If we fail to do that, we can expect small businesses to see their 
taxes rise by 9 percent by allowing those rates to go up from 33 
percent to 36 percent, and 36 percent to 39.6 percent. Why would we 
want to impose a tax on the very entities that we are depending upon to 
lead us out of this economic morass by increasing their taxes?
  Just this week, the Joint Tax Committee indicated there are 6.5 
percent of those small businesses that earn over $250,000, which is 
three times the original estimate by those who were opposed to this 
amendment. Let me say that the Small Business Administration said 93 
percent of all small business owners file an individual tax return. The 
Treasury Department has indicated that 9 percent earn 70 percent of the 
income in this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask the Senator if she is willing to 
take this on a voice vote?
  Ms. SNOWE. I am.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
773, offered by the Senator from Maine.
  The amendment (No. 773) was agreed to.


Amendments Nos. 816, 885, 872, 827, 764, 788, 795, 817, 837, 818, 874, 
                  839, 877, 797, 802, and 826 En Bloc

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are now ready to offer a draft 
managers' package No. 1.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments 
be considered en bloc and adopted en bloc, and that the motions to 
reconsider be considered made and laid on the table. The amendments are 
as follows:
  Boxer, No. 816, dependent care; Bennett of Utah, No. 885, DOE 
pensions; Dodd, No. 872, firefighter grants; Collins, No. 827; Carper, 
No. 764; Barrasso, No. 788; Pryor, No. 795; Bunning, No. 817; Dorgan, 
No. 837; Bunning, No. 818; Landrieu, No. 874; Roberts, No. 839; Reed of 
Rhode Island, No. 877; Burr, No. 797; Pryor, No. 802, and Enzi, No. 
826.
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, has the Senator considered 
my

[[Page 9847]]

amendment No. 742, which is accepted on both sides to my knowledge? 
Senator Akaka and I put it forward, having to do with the health care 
of veterans. Nobody has objected to it.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is being considered in the next tranche. We are 
working on that right now.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 816

   (Purpose: To provide access to affordable, quality child care for 
 middle class families by making improvements in the employer-provided 
          child care credit and the dependent care tax credit)

       On page 38, line 19, after ``refundable tax relief'' insert 
     ``and enhancement of the employer-provided child care credit 
     and enhancement of the dependent care tax credit''.


                           amendment no. 885

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to cover the full 
     cost of pension obligations for employees of laboratories and 
environmental cleanup sites under the jurisdiction of the Department of 
                                Energy)

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

     SEC. 2___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR PENSION COVERAGE 
                   FOR EMPLOYEES OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 
                   LABORATORIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP SITES.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this resolution 
     by the amounts provided by a bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion, or conference report that would authorize 
     funding to cover the full cost of pension obligations for 
     current and past employees of laboratories and environmental 
     cleanup sites under the jurisdiction of the Department of 
     Energy (including benefits paid to security personnel) in a 
     manner that does not impact the missions of those 
     laboratories and environmental cleanup sites.
       (b) Deficit Neutrality.--Subsection (a) applies only if the 
     legislation described in subsection (a) would not increase 
     the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2019.


                           amendment no. 872

   (Purpose: To add a deficit-neutral reserve fund for provisions of 
        critical resources to firefighters and fire departments)

       At the end of Title II, insert the following:

     SEC.__. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR PROVISION OF 
                   CRITICAL RESOURCES TO FIREFIGHTERS AND FIRE 
                   DEPARTMENTS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other levels and limits in this resolution 
     for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, 
     motions, or conference reports that would provide 
     firefighters and fire departments with critical resources 
     under the Assistance to Firefighters Grant and the Staffing 
     for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Firefighters Grant 
     of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the amounts 
     provided in such legislation for 1 such purpose, provided 
     that such legislation would not increase the deficit over 
     either the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 
     2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 
     2019.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 827

   (Purpose: To modify the provision relating to the deficit-neutral 
reserve fund for clean energy legislation to include industrial energy 
                          efficiency programs)

       On page 33, line 4, insert ``(including through industrial 
     energy efficiency programs)'' after ``and efficiency''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 764

    (Purpose: To establish a deficit-reduction reserve fund for the 
             elimination and recovery of improper payments)

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

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-REDUCTION RESERVE FUND FOR THE ELIMINATION 
                   AND RECOVERY OF IMPROPER PAYMENTS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the aggregates, allocations, functional totals, and 
     other appropriate levels and limits in this resolution upon 
     enactment of legislation that achieves savings by requiring 
     that Federal departments and agencies eliminate improper 
     payments and increase the use of the recovery audits and uses 
     such savings to reduce the deficit, by the amount of such 
     savings, provided that such legislation would decrease the 
     deficit.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 795

     (Purpose: To modify a deficit neutral reserve fund to ensure 
        improvement of infrastructure related to flood control)

       On page 37, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
       (d) Flood Control Projects.--The Chairman of the Senate 
     Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations of a 
     committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels and limits in this resolution for one or more bills, 
     joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports 
     that provide for levee modernization, maintenance, repair, 
     and improvement, by the amounts provided in that legislation 
     for those purposes, provided that such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit over either the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2009 through 2019.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 817

 (Purpose: To provide a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the repeal of 
    the 1993 increase in the income tax on social security benefits)

       At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE REPEAL OF THE 
                   1993 INCREASE IN THE INCOME TAX ON SOCIAL 
                   SECURITY BENEFITS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this 
     resolution by the amounts provided by a bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that 
     would repeal the 1993 increase in the income tax on social 
     security benefits, provided that such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit over either the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the total of 
     fiscal years 2009 through 2019.


                           amendment no. 837

   (Purpose: To increase funding for organ transplantation and organ 
donation activities at the Health Resources and Services Administration 
                       by $10 million in FY 2010)

       On page 19, line 24, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 19, line 25, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 20, line 4, increase the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 20, line 8, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 20, line 12, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 28, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,000,000.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 818

(Purpose: To provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide for 
    legislation to increase the amount of capital losses allowed to 
                              individuals)

       At the end of title II, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR LEGISLATION TO 
                   INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL LOSSES ALLOWED 
                   TO INDIVIDUALS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports that increases the 
     amount by which a capital loss of an individual is allowed, 
     by the amounts provided by that legislation for those 
     purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase 
     the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2009 through 2019.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 874

(Purpose: To provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund for foster care 
                           financing reform)

       At the end of title II, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR FOSTER CARE 
                   FINANCING REFORM.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports that would--
       (1) change the Federal foster care payment system from a 
     system that supports programs to one that supports children, 
     whatever their best placement may be, and one that promotes 
     permanency for children;
       (2) when it is determined to be in the best interests of 
     the child, promote and improve family support, family 
     preservation, including residential family treatment for 
     families suffering from substance abuse and addiction, and 
     time-limited family reunification services;
       (3) provide for subsidies and support programs that are 
     available to support the needs of the children prior to 
     removal, during removal, and post placement, whether through 
     reunification, adoption, kinship adoption, or guardianship;
       (4) promote innovation and best practice at the State 
     level; and
       (5) guarantee that public funds are used to effectively 
     meet the needs of children who have been abused or neglected;
     by the amounts provided in such legislation for those 
     purposes, provided that such legislation would not increase 
     the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2009 through 2019.

[[Page 9848]]




                           AMENDMENT NO. 839

  (Purpose: To fully fund the small business child care grant program 
 under section 8303 of the Small Business and Work Opportunity Act of 
                                 2007)

       On page 21, line 24, increase the amount by $20,000,000.
       On page 21, line 25, increase the amount by $15,200,000.
       On page 22, line 3, increase the amount by $20,000,000.
       On page 22, line 4, increase the amount by $19,800,000.
       On page 22, line 7, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 22, line 8, increase the amount by $12,400,000.
       On page 22, line 12, increase the amount by $2,500,000.
       On page 22, line 16, increase the amount by $100,000.
       On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $20,000,000.
       On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $15,200,000.
       On page 28, line 2, decrease the amount by $20,000,000.
       On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $19,800,000.
       On page 28, line 6, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $12,400,000.
       On page 28, line 11, decrease the amount by $2,500,000.
       On page 28, line 15, decrease the amount by $100,000.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 877

 (Purpose: To ensure that the deficit-neutral reserve fund for higher 
education may be used for Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership 
                               programs)

       On page 34, line 13, insert ``such as by investing in 
     programs such as the programs under subpart 4 of part A of 
     title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070c 
     et seq.),'' after ``students,''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 797

   (Purpose: To develop biodefense medical countermeasures by fully 
  funding the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority 
               (BARDA) in a fiscally responsible manner)

       On page 19, line 24, increase the amount by $850,000,000.
       On page 19, line 25, increase the amount by $170,000,000.
       On page 20, line 4, increase the amount by $476,000,000.
       On page 20, line 8, increase the amount by $136,000,000.
       On page 20, line 12, increase the amount by $51,000,000.
       On page 20, line 16, increase the amount by $17,000,000.
       On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $850,000,000.
       On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $170,000,000.
       On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $476,000,000.
       On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $136,000,000.
       On page 28, line 11, decrease the amount by $51,000,000.
       On page 28, line 15, decrease the amount by $17,000,000.


                           amendment no. 802

 (Purpose: To provide a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the Veterans 
   Health Administration to ensure that the supply of appropriately 
 prepared health care professionals is available to meet the needs of 
                  the Veterans Health Administration)

       At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 216. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR HEALTHCARE 
                   PROFESSIONALS FOR THE VETERANS HEALTH 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports that would--
       (1) increase the number of healthcare professionals in the 
     Veterans Health Administration to meet the needs of the 
     expanding number of veterans and to fill healthcare 
     professional positions in the Veterans Health Administration 
     that are currently vacant; and
       (2) provide enhanced incentives for healthcare 
     professionals of the Veterans Health Administration who serve 
     in rural areas;

     by the amounts provided in that legislation for that purpose, 
     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over either the total of the period of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years of 
     2009 through 2019.


                           amendment no. 826

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to repeal certain 
        deductions from mineral revenue payments made to States)

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

     SEC. 2___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO REPEAL DEDUCTIONS 
                   FROM MINERAL REVENUE PAYMENTS TO STATES.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the 
     allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this resolution 
     by the amounts provided by a bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion, or conference report that would repeal the 
     requirement to deduct certain amounts from mineral revenues 
     payable to States under the heading ``administrative 
     provisions'' under the heading ``Minerals Management 
     Service'' under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR'' of 
     title I of the Department of the Interior, Environment, and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-8).
       (b) Deficit Neutrality.--Subsection (a) applies only if the 
     legislation described in subsection (a) would not increase 
     the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2019.


                           amendment no. 872

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am in strong support of the Dodd-
Lieberman-Collins amendment.
  A decade ago, many of us in this body worked together to create the 
FIRE Grant Program--the goal of which was simple, but essential: It 
gives local fire departments the ability to purchase new equipment and 
initiate education and training programs.
  Soon after we wrote that bill, we were reminded why it was so 
desperately needed--the Worcester Cold Storage blaze on December 3, 
1999, that left 17 children without their fathers.
  That story reminds us of the price our fire fighters pay every day to 
keep our communities safe.
  We also wrote the SAFER Act to put an additional 75,000 firefighters 
on the job.
  Today, the FIRE Act provides the single largest stream of Federal 
funding to communities to train and equip firefighters. Along with the 
SAFER Act, it has already provided more than $3 billion in grants to 
help hire, train, and equip firefighters.
  In essence, these historic pieces of legislation have made the 
Federal Government a partner with our Nation's firefighters.
  But to make that partnership as strong as it needs to be to keep our 
communities safe, we need to ensure that the Federal Government 
provides the necessary resources. We need to fund those programs.
  In fiscal year 2009, the FIRE and SAFER Programs were funded at $565 
million and $210 million respectively. FIRE is authorized through this 
fiscal year and will be reauthorized later this year, while SAFER is 
scheduled for reauthorization next year.
  Our amendment will simply ensure there is adequate funding for the 
FIRE and SAFER Programs for fiscal years 2010 to 2014.
  Economic recovery depends on safe and secure communities.
  Just recently, East Hartford was forced to eliminate 19 municipal 
jobs, including firefighters. Farmington is trying to budget for 
replacing decade old fire engines, while Torrington and Greenwich are 
deciding whether they will be able to repair and build a new firehouse. 
This is happening in fire departments across my State.
  We already made great strides with the economic recovery package 
providing $210 million to help America's first responders. But with 
this amendment, we can ensure that one thing that will not be left 
behind during this economic downturn is the safety of our communities.
  And so I thank my colleagues and urge them to support this amendment.


                           amendment no. 874

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this amendment would create a deficit 
neutral fund in order to provide for reform of the current foster care 
system.
  The foster care system is broken tremendously overburdened and needs 
to be fixed.
  The system is understaffed and under trained. Children linger too 
long before securing a safe and permanent home. More funding could be 
available for family reunification services. Administrative funds could 
be used more efficiently.
  Data collection is insufficient. The foster care financing structure 
is antiquated and inflexible and prevents states from responding to a 
variety of challenges.
  We need to replace the old system with one that improves the foster 
care payment structure to support children rather than programs, 
promotes and improves family preservation and ensures that public funds 
are used effectively.

[[Page 9849]]

  Our amendment sets us on a course to make these vital improvements to 
the foster care system.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Landrieu-Grassley amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, that is very helpful. That cleared a lot 
of amendments on both sides. I now go to Senator Hutchison for the 
purpose of withdrawing her amendment.


                      Amendment No. 868 Withdrawn

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment No. 868. I do 
support Senator Reid's amendment. It is important.


                      Amendment No. 868 Withdrawn

  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. That is very gracious of her. We 
could go to the Reid amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that Reid amendment No. 730 be adopted.
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, I want to 
point out that in New Hampshire we have no sales or income tax. If 
people want to escape these taxes, they should come to New Hampshire.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I renew my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 730) was agreed to, as follows:

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to permanently 
         extend the deduction for state and local sales taxes)

       At the end of Title II, insert the following:

     SEC. __ . RESERVE FUND TO PROMOTE TAX EQUITY FOR STATES 
                   WITHOUT PERSONAL INCOME TAXES.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the aggregates, allocations, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint 
     resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports that 
     would provide for the permanent extension of the deduction 
     for state and local sales taxes, by the amounts provided in 
     such legislation for those purposes, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2019.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, that takes us to the Thune amendment No. 
803.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 803

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] for himself, Mr. 
     Bennett, and Mr. Ensign, proposes an amendment numbered 803.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To protect charitable giving by ensuring that organizations 
 that provide important religious, educational, cultural, health care, 
 and environmental services are not negatively impacted by changes to 
       the Federal income tax deduction for charitable donations)

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

     SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER ON LEGISLATION THAT INCREASES REVENUE 
                   ABOVE THE LEVELS ESTABLISHED IN THE BUDGET 
                   RESOLUTION.

       (a) In General.--After a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget is agreed to, it shall not be in order in the Senate 
     to consider any bill, resolution, amendment between Houses, 
     motion, or conference report that would cause revenues to be 
     more than the level of the revenues set forth, prior to any 
     adjustment made pursuant under any reserve fund, for that 
     first fiscal year or for the total of that fiscal year and 
     the ensuing fiscal years in the applicable resolution for 
     which allocations are provided under section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--
       (1) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the 
     Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 
     point of order raised under this section.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, my amendment is very straightforward. It 
creates a budget point of order against any legislation that would 
raise revenue from a reduction in the tax deduction for charitable 
donations.
  What the Senator from North Dakota is going to say is that it is not 
included in his budget. As we know, this is a long process, and we also 
know the President, in his budget, included a proposal that would 
reduce the amount people could claim as a tax benefit for a charitable 
donation.
  Again, we don't know what is going to happen from this point forward 
in the budget process. This could go into conference, and a provision 
like this could be added. Again, this places a point of order against 
any legislation that would raise revenue from the tax deduction for 
charitable giving.
  Americans gave $300 billion in 2007 to charitable causes, which is 
equal to 2 percent of our GDP.
  A Washington Post article said this:

       Diana Aviv, [president of Independent Sector, a national 
     membership organization of charities] said any decrease in 
     charitable giving caused by Obama's proposal, no matter how 
     small, would be `seen as a stake in the heart.' ''--``With 
     all other means of income down, the idea that there will be 
     another potential cut to the income of those nonprofit 
     organizations feels catastrophic,'' Aviv said. ``It is 
     utterly unacceptable.''

  I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, would the Senator accept a voice vote? It 
would help a great deal in terms of moving the agenda and in terms of 
the disposition of the chairman on results out of the conference 
committee.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as much as I appreciate the generosity of 
the Senator in offering me that opportunity, I think this is an 
important issue. I think the Senate needs to be on record.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  All time is yielded back.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Specter) would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 138 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

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

                                NAYS--3

     McCaskill
     Sanders
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kennedy
     Specter
       
  The amendment (No. 803) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 824

  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I propose we go next to Enzi amendment 
No. 824. It has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, built into this budget is an assumption 
that the 33 percent and 35 percent tax

[[Page 9850]]

brackets would be allowed to expire. As a result, many individuals and 
small businesses would see their taxes rise substantially in the very 
near future.
  The Administration has been quick to explain that the tax hike 
wouldn't take effect until January 2011 after the economy has 
rebounded. But no one can be sure when our economy will turn the corner 
and the administration's economic assumptions have been criticized as 
being more optimistic than most.
  While I do not support raising taxes--especially in this economic 
climate--I realize I am in the minority in this Chamber. So I am here 
now to offer my friends across the aisle a chance to improve this 
budget resolution.
  My amendment would block any tax increase until the economy has 
recovered. A sure sign of recovery would be a reduction in the 
unemployment rate to 5.8 percent, a level many private sector 
economists associate with a fully productive economy.
  Common sense tells us that employment is a key indicator of our 
economy's strength and potential for growth. The organization formally 
tasked with identifying U.S. recessions, the National Bureau of 
Economic Research--NBER--used job numbers to determine the start date 
of our current recession and it is only right to use job numbers as a 
signal that it has ended.
  I don't support the tax increases in this budget, but if the majority 
in this Chamber insists on moving forward with higher taxes, they 
shouldn't do it while the economy is mired in recession.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we adopt 
the Enzi amendment No. 824.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 824) was agreed to, as follows:

(Purpose: To protect taxpayers and businesses from the job-killing and 
  growth-stunting impact of tax increases imposed while the domestic 
                         economy is in crisis)

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

     SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER ON LEGISLATION THAT INCREASES TAXES 
                   DURING ANY PERIOD WHEN THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS 
                   IN EXCESS OF 5.8 PERCENT.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, it shall not be in order, 
     to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report during any period in which the unemployment 
     rate in the United States (as measured by the most recent 
     Bureau of Labor Statistics' Current Population Survey and 
     based on the national seasonally adjusted rate for persons 
     age 16 and over) exceeds 5.8 percent if such bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report increases 
     taxes.
       (b) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended only 
     by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly 
     chosen and sworn.
       (c) Appeals.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be 
     required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 
     point of order raised under this section.

  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I especially thank Senator Enzi, who 
demonstrates once again why everybody regards him as a gentleman here. 
I appreciate his being gracious.
  Madam President, that takes us next to the Conrad AMT amendment, 
which I will not pursue, and we will go directly to the Grassley 
amendment on the alternative minimum tax.


                           Amendment No. 950

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 950.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To ensure that millions of middle-income families do not face 
   an alternative minimum tax increase in 2013 and 2014 and that the 
    budget resolution honestly and accurately reflects that result)

       On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $8,608,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by 
     $105,822,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $8,608,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $105,822,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $179,046,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $2,901,367,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $179,046,000.
       On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $2,901,367,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $8,787,046,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by 
     $108,723,367,000.
       On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by $8,787,046,000.
       On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by 
     $117,510,413,000.
       On page 6, line 3, increase the amount by $8,787,046,000.
       On page 6, line 4, increase the amount by $117,510,413,000.
       On page 27, line 11, increase the amount by $179,046,000.
       On page 27, line 12, increase the amount by $179,046,000.
       On page 27, line 15, increase the amount by $2,901,367,000.
       On page 27, line 16, increase the amount by $2,901,367,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the chairman's resolution patches the 
AMT for 2010 through 2012. Now, that is good, but it is not good 
enough. Since we have a 5-year window, we should patch AMT for all 5 
years. My amendment is to make sure that AMT is patched 2013 and 2014 
so that the entire 5-year period has an AMT patch.
  This would provide tax relief to 18 million families at a cost of 
$114 billion. This patch is essential to honest budgeting because we 
all know that the AMT will eventually pass without being patched. This 
amendment also helps families plan their financial affairs properly, 
rather than leave them guessing as to what their future tax burden will 
be.
  Also, by giving greater stability to this area of the tax law, tax 
professionals will administer the law better, leading to better 
compliance and a smaller tax gap.
  I ask support for this amendment to patch AMT for 2013 and 2014, and 
I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, we already have 3 full years of 
alternative minimum tax protection in the chairman's mark--3 full 
years. We have never had that much before in any resolution.
  The amendment of the Senator would add $117 billion to the debt. 
After we lost $2 trillion in the CBO forecast, we had to insist that 
some additional things be paid for. I urge my colleagues to defeat the 
Grassley amendment and understand we have 3 full years of alternative 
minimum tax protection in the chairman's mark.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 950.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 139 Leg.]

                                YEAS--40

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

                                NAYS--58

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley

[[Page 9851]]


     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 950) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that under the 
rules we have been operating on for each of the tranches, that we next 
go to Inhofe No. 742; followed by Sanders, No. 811; followed by 
Stabenow, No. 879; followed by Bond, No. 926; followed by Coburn, No. 
894; followed by Bennett, No. 954.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, that would take us next to the Inhofe 
amendment. If the Senator would describe his amendment.


                           Amendment No. 742

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment No. 742 be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 742.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for advance appropriations for medical care for 
          veterans through the Department of Veterans Affairs)

       On page 57, strike line 23 and insert the following:

     casting; and
       (3) for the Department of Veterans Affairs for the Medical 
     Services, Medical Administration, Medical Facilities, and 
     Medical and Prosthetic Research accounts of the Veterans 
     Health Administration.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, this is one of the rare amendments we 
have that is not going to cost anything but makes a rearrangement in 
the flow of funding. One of the problems we are having now is that in 
19 out of the last 22 years, Congress has been unsuccessful in passing 
annual funding for veterans health care. In fact, over the last 7 
years, there has been a delay averaging 3 months in the funding flow 
for the care of veterans.
  This can be corrected. What this amendment does, it offers a solution 
by providing advance appropriations for veterans health care. It does 
not mean it increases the cost. It means it actually comes in--and this 
is used in some other areas of Government. In fact, it is interesting 
that in October of 2008, then-Senator Obama, a candidate, said:

       The way our Nation provides funding for VA health care must 
     be reformed. . . . My administration will recommend passage 
     of advance appropriations legislation . . .

  For this purpose.
  Senator Danny Akaka is a cosponsor on this. I ask it be accepted. I 
do not need a rollcall.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator from Oklahoma be agreeable to a voice 
vote on this amendment?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that we accept the Inhofe 
amendment, No. 742.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 742) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 811

  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, that takes us then next to the Sanders 
amendment, No. 811.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 811.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund to establish a 
              national usury law, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL 
                   USURY LAW.

       The chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the aggregates, allocations, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint 
     resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports to 
     establish a national usury law, provided that such 
     legislation does not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2019.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, this amendment, No. 811, would simply 
establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to establish a national usury 
law. Establishing a national usury law is not a radical concept. About 
half the States in our country have usury laws now, capping interest 
rates on their books. Unfortunately, the State usury laws were made 
meaningless by a 1978 Supreme Court decision that allowed national 
banks to charge whatever interest rates they wanted if they move to 
States without an interest rate cap.
  The bottom line is people all over this country are tired of bailing 
out banks and then paying 25 or 30 percent interest rates on their 
credit cards. That is wrong. We need a national usury rate, and this 
amendment would begin the process of establishing one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, obviously, this is not the appropriate 
vehicle to legislate a national usury law. Even if a national usury law 
made sense, which it does not, because this is clearly a States rights 
issue, I am not sure what we would use here. Would we use the Koran or 
the Bible for setting this?
  Let's be honest, a national usury law is not a good idea. Its time 
has not come and this amendment should be defeated.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 31, nays 67, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 140 Leg.]

                                YEAS--31

     Begich
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cardin
     Casey
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Udall (NM)
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--67

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 811) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                             Change Of Vote

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, thank you very much. And I thank the 
manager of the bill.
  I would like to change my vote on rollcall vote No. 140. It was my 
intention to vote ``nay,'' and I voted ``yea.'' I voted ``yea'' when I 
was presiding. I ask unanimous consent that my vote be changed to 
reflect a ``nay'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page 9852]]

  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, just for the information of colleagues, 
very soon we are going to need to take a break. Floor staff have not 
eaten; they have not had a break. So we are going to have to take a 
break.
  Before we do that, I would like to dispose of the remaining 
amendments in this tranche, and I would ask Senator Bond if we would be 
willing to take a voice vote on his amendment if Senator Stabenow would 
take a voice vote on hers?
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I will respond by saying that we on this 
side would like to have a vote on the point of order on the climate 
legislation.
  Mr. CONRAD. So I take that as----
  Mr. BOND. No.
  Mr. CONRAD. Well, OK. That means two more votes. I do not know how 
many times we voted on this already. But if people are insistent on 
having votes, we will get to stay here.
  Mr. DORGAN. Would the chairman of the committee yield? Is it not the 
case that most of the amendments, perhaps 90 percent of the amendments 
we have voted on today, would have no real policy implications?
  Mr. CONRAD. That is probably a pretty fair estimate. The Budget 
Committee does not have the authority to tell committees of 
jurisdiction the specifics of legislative outcomes. These are message 
amendments, and the truth is, we all do it. We do it on both sides. But 
I have to say to my colleagues, it has run amok this year. For some 
reason this year we have hundreds of amendments out there, and people 
are just stuck. Even when they could get a voice vote and it pass, they 
still want votes. We have had votes that were nine in opposition. But 
that is a Senator's right.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator would yield further for a question, might 
it not be advisable, given the fact that most amendments have no policy 
implications at all, if they are made to the Budget Act, just to accept 
all amendments en bloc by UC and discard all of those without merit 
once you get to conference?
  Mr. CONRAD. The problem is, that would take unanimous consent. It is 
very clear we cannot get unanimous consent.
  Is Senator Coburn in the Chamber? I ask unanimous consent that we set 
aside for a moment the Stabenow and Bond amendments for the purpose of 
going to the Coburn amendment because I am told that Senator Coburn 
would be willing to take a voice vote; is that correct?
  Mr. COBURN. I would take it by unanimous consent.
  Mr. CONRAD. Even better. I ask unanimous consent that the Coburn 
amendment, No. 894, be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 894) was agreed to, as follows:

(Purpose: To provide a deficit-neutral reserve fund to set performance 
           standards to identify failing Government programs)

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

     SEC. 216. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR SETTING 
                   PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TO IDENTIFY FAILING 
                   GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, 
     amendments, motions, or conference reports that would develop 
     performance measures for each program receiving Federal 
     assistance under their jurisdiction, by the amounts provided 
     in that legislation for that purpose, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over either the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the 
     period of the total of fiscal years 2010 through 2019.

                           Amendment No. 879

  Mr. CONRAD. I thank our colleague. That takes us back to Stabenow 
amendment No. 879.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow], for herself, Mr. 
     Brown, Mrs. Boxer, and Mrs. Shaheen, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 879.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To modify the authorization for climate change legislation)

       On page 33, line 20, strike ``or help'' and insert ``create 
     new jobs in a clean technology economy, strengthen the 
     manufacturing competitiveness of the United States, diversify 
     the domestic clean energy supply to increase the energy 
     security of the United States, protect consumers (including 
     policies that address regional differences), provide 
     incentives for cost-savings achieved through energy 
     efficiencies, provide voluntary opportunities for agriculture 
     and forestry communities to contribute to reducing the levels 
     of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and help''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 1 minute.
  Ms. STABENOW. We have had a number of votes that indicated what we 
should not do as it relates to a climate change policy. This is about 
what we should do. I believe, just as with any piece of legislation, if 
it is done right, it can be very positive.
  I believe it can be about creating jobs and revitalizing the economy. 
I would like to thank Senators Brown, Boxer, and Shaheen for supporting 
this amendment which lays out a framework for a balanced climate change 
policy to create jobs and a clean technology economy, strengthening 
manufacturing competitiveness, diversifying domestic clean energy 
supplies, protecting consumers, including policies that address 
regional differences, provide incentives for cost savings achieved 
through energy efficiencies, and allowing voluntary opportunities for 
agriculture and forestry to participate in this process of lowering 
greenhouse gases.
  I ask for support from my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. GREGG. Would the Senator take a voice vote?
  Ms. STABENOW. My question, I guess, through the Chair would be, is 
Senator Bond also willing to take a voice vote on his amendment?
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, my amendment shoots with real bullets. It 
provides a Budget Act point of order for any climate change legislation 
that brings in more revenue than that set forth in the budget 
resolution.
  So it does--if that will be accepted by voice vote, it is creating a 
new Budget Act point of order. We would like a vote. But it does have 
real teeth.
  Mr. CONRAD. I would just say to the Senator, we would be willing to 
take yours on a voice vote, Senator Stabenow's on a voice vote, then go 
to the Bennett for a vote. And we could take a break because people 
have not had a break.
  We have voted on this over and over and over. I do not think the 
record could be more clear.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, assuming a voice vote means approval, I 
am willing to take a voice vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is in a separate category. We will have a vote on 
yours.
  Mr. GREGG. We will vote on both.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 879.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 25, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 141 Leg.]

                                YEAS--73

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burr
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez

[[Page 9853]]


     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--25

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bunning
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 879) was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________