[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 9853-9879]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                            2010--Continued

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. 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. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 926

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 926 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 926.

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

 (Purpose: To protect workers from significant job loss by providing a 
   point of order against climate change or similar legislation that 
 raises Federal revenues to such an extent that it causes significant 
 job loss in manufacturing- or coal-dependent U.S. regions such as the 
                    Midwest, Great Plains or South)

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

     SEC.___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT CAUSES 
                   SIGNIFICANT JOB LOSS.

       (a) In General.--After a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget is agreed to, it shall not be in order in the Senate 
     to consider any bill, resolution, amendment between Houses, 
     motion, or conference report that--
       (1) would cause revenues to be more than the level of 
     revenues set forth for that first fiscal year or for the 
     total of that fiscal year and the ensuing fiscal years in the 
     applicable resolution for which allocations are provided 
     under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 
     and (2) would cause significant job loss in manufacturing- or 
     coal-dependent regions of the United States such as the 
     Midwest, Great Plains or South.
       (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. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment provides a new point of order 
to prevent climate change legislation from raising more revenue than in 
the resolution, killing jobs in the coal and manufacturing-dependent 
regions of the United States, such as the Midwest, the Great Plains, 
and the South.
  There is no question climate change legislation will raise trillions 
of dollars in Federal revenue through its Government auction of carbon 
allowances.
  President Obama said ``electricity rates would necessarily 
skyrocket.''
  This new energy tax will kill jobs in energy-intensive sectors such 
as manufacturing, auto assembly, steel, cement, plastics, glass, and 
fertilizer.
  Experts predicted last year's Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill 
would have killed 3 million to 4 million jobs. The Northeast and west 
coast will avoid the full impacts because they rely on lower carbon 
natural gas to generate electricity. However, climate legislation will 
hit hard the coal and manufacturing-dependent Midwest, Great Plains, 
and South.
  I ask my colleagues to protect our workers by supporting this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Michigan, 
Ms. Stabenow, who had the time in opposition, I wish to indicate that 
what the Senator is talking about is not part of the chairman's mark. 
The chairman's mark provides an energy initiatives reserve fund. It is 
entirely up to the committees of jurisdiction what legislation they 
write to reduce our dependence on foreign energy, to deal with global 
climate change. This resolution makes absolutely no determination about 
what those committees will report. The effect of this amendment, to me, 
is a nullity because it is creating a budget point of order against 
something that does not exist in the chairman's mark.
  I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, on behalf of Senator 
Stabenow.
  Mr. BOND. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The yeas and nays were previously 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 result was announced--yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:

[[Page 9854]]



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 142 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

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

                                NAYS--44

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 926) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. 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.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). 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, the next amendment to be dealt with is 
Bennett amendment No. 954.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                     Amendment No. 954, as Modified

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I call up amendment 954, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 954, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To save the American taxpayer over $150,000,000,000 by 
  adjusting spending levels beyond fiscal year 2010 to compensate for 
   spending from the stimulus bill in the corresponding fiscal years)

       On page 4, line 15, decrease amount by $76,325,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, decrease amount by $38,065,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, decrease amount by $22,872,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, decrease amount by $12,787,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, decrease amount by $76,325,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, decrease amount by $38,065,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, decrease amount by $22,872,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, decrease amount by $12,787,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, decrease amount by $76,325,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease amount by $38,065,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, decrease amount by $22,872,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease amount by $12,787,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, decrease amount by $76,325,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, decrease amount by $114,390,000,000.
       On page 5, line 20, decrease amount by $137,262,000,000.
       On page 5, line 21, decrease amount by $150,049,000,000.
       On page 6, line 1, decrease amount by $76,325,000,000.
       On page 6, line 2, decrease amount by $114,390,000,000.
       On page 6, line 3, decrease amount by $137,262,000,000.
       On page 6, line 4, decrease amount by $150,049,000,000.
       On page 9, line 24, decrease amount by $960,000,000.
       On page 9, line 25, decrease amount by $960,000,000.
       On page 10, line 3, decrease amount by $634,000,000.
       On page 10, line 4, decrease amount by $634,000,000.
       On page 10, line 7, decrease amount by $277,000,000.
       On page 10, line 8, decrease amount by $277,000,000.
       On page 10, line 11, decrease amount by $104,000,000.
       On page 10, line 12, decrease amount by $104,000,000.
       On page 10, line 24, decrease amount by $162,000,000.
       On page 10, line 25, decrease amount by $162,000,000.
       On page 10, line 3, decrease amount by $114,000,000.
       On page 10, line 4, decrease amount by $114,000,000.
       On page 10, line 7, decrease amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 10, line 8, decrease amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 11, line 25, decrease amount by $1,095,000,000.
       On page 12, line 1, decrease amount by $1,095,000,000.
       On page 12, line 4, decrease amount by $750,000,000.
       On page 12, line 5, decrease amount by $750,000,000.
       On page 12, line 8, decrease amount by $174,000,000.
       On page 12, line 9, decrease amount by $174,000,000.
       On page 12, line 12, decrease amount by $63,000,000.
       On page 12, line 13, decrease amount by $63,000,000.
       On page 13, line 25, decrease amount by $13,760,000,000.
       On page 14, line 1, decrease amount by $13,760,000,000.
       On page 14, line 4, decrease amount by $11,759,000,000.
       On page 14, line 5, decrease amount by $11,759,000,000.
       On page 14, line 8, decrease amount by $7,728,000,000.
       On page 14, line 9, decrease amount by $7,728,000,000.
       On page 14, line 12, decrease amount by $5,419,000,000.
       On page 14, line 13, decrease amount by $5,419,000,000.
       On page 14, line 25, decrease amount by $5,685,000,000.
       On page 14, line 1, decrease amount by $5,685,000,000.
       On page 14, line 4, decrease amount by $4,111,000,000.
       On page 14, line 4, decrease amount by $4,111,000,000.
       On page 15, line 8, decrease amount by $2,286,000,000.
       On page 15, line 9, decrease amount by $2,286,000,000.
       On page 15, line 12, decrease amount by $468,000,000.
       On page 15, line 13, decrease amount by $468,000,000.
       On page 15, line 25, decrease amount by $5,584,000,000.
       On page 16, line 1, decrease amount by $5,584,000,000.
       On page 16, line 4, decrease amount by $4,284,000,000.
       On page 16, line 5, decrease amount by $4,284,000,000.
       On page 16, line 8, decrease amount by $3,047,000,000.
       On page 16, line 9, decrease amount by $3,047,000,000.
       On page 16, line 12, decrease amount by $531,000,000.
       On page 16, line 13, decrease amount by $531,000,000.
       On page 16, line 25, decrease amount by $8,785,000,000.
       On page 17, line 1, decrease amount by $8,785,000,000.
       On page 17, line 4, decrease amount by $7,035,000,000.
       On page 17, line 5, decrease amount by $7,035,000,000.
       On page 17, line 8, decrease amount by $6,052,000,000.
       On page 17, line 9, decrease amount by $6,052,000,000.
       On page 17, line 12, decrease amount by $5,422,000,000.
       On page 17, line 13, decrease amount by $5,422,000,000.
       On page 19, line 3, decrease amount by $29,963,000,000.
       On page 19, line 4, decrease amount by $29,963,000,000.
       On page 19, line 7, decrease amount by $4,011,000,000.
       On page 19, line 8, decrease amount by $4,011,000,000.
       On page 19, line 10, decrease amount by $262,000,000.
       On page 19, line 11, decrease amount by $262,000,000.
       On page 20, line 3, decrease amount by $6,421,000,000.
       On page 20, line 4, decrease amount by $6,421,000,000.
       On page 20, line 7, decrease amount by $3,157,000,000.
       On page 20, line 8, decrease amount by $3,157,000,000.
       On page 20, line 11, decrease amount by $842,000,000.
       On page 20, line 12, decrease amount by $842,000,000.
       On page 20, line 15, decrease amount by $183,000,000.

[[Page 9855]]

       On page 20, line 16, decrease amount by $183,000,000.
       On page 23, line 3, decrease amount by $133,000,000.
       On page 23, line 4, decrease amount by $133,000,000.
       On page 23, line 7, decrease amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 23, line 8, decrease amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 23, line 11, decrease amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 23, line 12, decrease amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 24, line 3, decrease amount by $297,000,000.
       On page 24, line 4, decrease amount by $297,000,000.
       On page 24, line 7, decrease amount by $133,000,000.
       On page 24, line 8, decrease amount by $133,000,000.
       On page 25, line 3, decrease amount by $848,000,000.
       On page 25, line 4, decrease amount by $848,000,000.
       On page 25, line 7, decrease amount by $649,000,000.
       On page 25, line 8, decrease amount by $649,000,000.
       On page 25, line 11, decrease amount by $750,000,000.
       On page 25, line 12, decrease amount by $750,000,000.
       On page 26, line 3, decrease amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 26, line 4, decrease amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 26, line 7, decrease amount by $1,196,000,000.
       On page 26, line 8, decrease amount by $1,196,000,000.
       On page 26, line 11, decrease amount by $1,024,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease amount by $1,024,000,000.
       On page 26, line 15, decrease amount by $504,000,000.
       On page 26, line 16, decrease amount by $504,000,000.
       On page 27, line 3, decrease amount by $857,000,000.
       On page 27, line 4, decrease amount by $857,000,000.
       On page 27, line 7, decrease amount by $457,000,000.
       On page 27, line 8, decrease amount by $457,000,000.
       On page 27, line 11, decrease amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 27, line 12, decrease amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 27, line 15, decrease amount by $93,000,000.
       On page 27, line 16, decrease amount by $93,000,000.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have not seen the modification.
  Mr. BENNETT. I have only one copy which I gave the clerk. We found 
that some of the numbers had been omitted.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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, Senator Bennett can conclude his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, according to CBO, the stimulus bill will 
spend over $150 billion between fiscal years 2011 and 2014. My 
amendment will remove that amount from this budget resolution because 
it seems to me we do not need to fund the same things twice.
  By reducing the proposed spending amounts in the budget resolution, 
Congress will be recognizing that we have already passed money to spend 
in that area. For those who say, yes, but the stimulus is different, we 
are all hoping that the need for stimulus will be passed by the time we 
get to 2014 and it will not be stimulative but, rather, inflationary. 
It is for that reason that I offer the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator's amendment would eliminate 20 
percent of the economic recovery package we passed weeks ago. The 
Senator's amendment would cut defense by over $2 billion, would cut 
veterans by over $400 million, would cut areas in education, health, 
and infrastructure.
  If there is one thing that united this body, it was investments in 
infrastructure, much of what would be cut under this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The 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 result was announced--yeas 42, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 143 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

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

                                NAYS--56

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 954 was rejected.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are now making significant progress on 
putting together a managers' package and on putting together those 
amendments that will require a vote. We still have a certain amount of 
clearing to be done in order to be ready to go to those final lists and 
get them locked in, but that work is going on right now between the two 
sides.
  Let me just give a status report, if I could. We are down to about 55 
amendments. That is pretty good, given the fact we started at 231. But 
55 at 3 an hour would be another 18 hours. So the word needs to go out 
that we are asking colleagues who can withhold on amendments that they 
have filed to use them for a later date. Those who would be willing to 
accept a voice vote, if they could make certain our staffs are notified 
of that, we will then be able to proceed in the most efficient way 
possible.
  Mr. President, we also should notify Members that at 8 p.m., give or 
take a few minutes, we intend to vote on the amendment on estate tax. 
That is the Lincoln-Kyl amendment. We just want to give people a heads-
up that the amendment will be voted on at about that time--roughly 8 
p.m., give or take.
  With that, 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, we need to alert colleagues that we really 
need them, if they have amendments, to be on the floor or in the 
cloakroom. We have amendments that we are ready to go to, but we can't 
find the Senators. So let me just tell you, if we can't find the 
Senators, they are going to lose their chance to offer their amendment. 
We are going to give a 5-minute grace period, but if Senators have 
amendments, they have to be in a place where we can reach them.


 Amendment Nos. 889, 881, 955, 809, 912, 794, 876, 899, 883, 970, 820, 
                         887, 917, 838, and 916

  Mr. President, we are ready to go to the next managers' package.

[[Page 9856]]

  I ask unanimous consent that the managers' package be considered en 
bloc and agreed to en bloc. It includes the following: Klobuchar 
amendment No. 889, Dorgan amendment No. 881, Dodd amendment No. 955, 
Brown amendment No. 809, Begich amendment No. 912, Pryor amendment No. 
794, Lincoln-Snowe amendment No. 876, Lincoln-Snowe amendment No. 899, 
Collins amendment No. 883, Hatch amendment No. 970, Enzi amendment No. 
820, Klobuchar amendment No. 887, McCaskill amendment No. 917, Dorgan 
amendment No. 838, and Tester amendment No. 916.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would like to clarify that it is 
Enzi amendment No. 820?
  Mr. CONRAD. Enzi. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? There is no objection, and 
it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, en bloc, as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 889

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to expedite 
 research at the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection 
  Agency on the viability of the use of higher ethanol blends at the 
                         service station pump)

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

     SEC. 2___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO EXPEDITE RESEARCH 
                   ON VIABILITY OF USE OF HIGHER ETHANOL BLENDS AT 
                   SERVICE STATION PUMP.

       (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 expedite 
     research at the Department of Energy and the Environmental 
     Protection Agency on the viability of the use of higher 
     ethanol blends at the service station pump.
       (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. 881

 (Purpose: To provide for the use of the deficit-neutral reserve fund 
    for tax relief to extend and expand the charitable IRA rollover)

       On page 38, line 19, insert ``, such as enhanced charitable 
     giving from individual retirement accounts, including life-
     income gifts,'' before ``or refundable tax relief''.


                           amendment no. 955

 (Purpose: To increase funding for the Maternal and Child Health Block 
 Grant within the Health Resources and Services Administration by $188 
                          million in FY 2010)

       On page 19, line 24, increase the amount by $188,000,000.
       On page 19, line 25, increase the amount by $56,000,000.
       On page 20, line 4, increase the amount by $81,000,000.
       On page 20, line 8, increase the amount by $34,000,000.
       On page 20, line 12, increase the amount by $13,000,000.
       On page 27 line 23, decrease the amount by $188,000,000.
       On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $56,000,000.
       On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $81,000,000.
       On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $34,000,000.
       On page 28, line 11, decrease the amount by $13,000,000.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 809

 (Purpose: To modify the deficit-neutral reserve fund for Clean Energy 
to create jobs and strengthen American manufacturing competitiveness by 
    establishing clean renewable energy manufacturing supply chains)

       On page 33, line 2, after ``development,'', insert 
     ``strengthen and retool manufacturing supply chains,''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 912

(Purpose: To include in the deficit-neutral reserve fund for America's 
 veterans and wounded servicemembers funding authority for retirement 
benefits for members of the Alaska Territorial Guard who served during 
                        and after World War II)

       On page 41, line 24, insert after ``Indemnity 
     Compensation,'' the following: ``provide for the payment of 
     retired pay for members of the Alaska Territorial Guard who 
     served in the Alaska Territorial Guard during and after World 
     War II,''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 794

  (Purpose: To establish deficit-neutral reserve funds to enhance and 
  coordinate drug control efforts among Federal, State, and local law 
 enforcement agencies through the expansion of the High Intensity Drug 
 Trafficking Areas program and increased drug interdiction funding at 
                  the Department of Homeland Security)

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

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUNDS TO ENHANCE DRUG-
                   CONTROL EFFORTS WITHIN OUR COMMUNITIES AND 
                   ALONG OUR BORDERS.

       (a) HIDTA.--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 
     increase the number of counties designated as High Intensity 
     Drug Trafficking Areas to provide coordination, equipment, 
     technology, and additional resources to combat drug 
     trafficking and its harmful consequences in critical regions 
     of the United States 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) Drug Smuggling.--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 
     increase drug interdiction funding at the Department of 
     Homeland Security to combat drug smuggling across 
     international borders 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. 876

    (Purpose: To ensure that health coverage is affordable to small 
           businesses and individuals who are self-employed)

       On page 30, line 10, strike ``, households'' and insert 
     ``(in particular to small business and individuals who are 
     self-employed), households''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 899

  (Purpose: To provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund to promote 
   individual savings and financial security, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO PROMOTE INDIVIDUAL 
                   SAVINGS AND FINANCIAL SECURITY.

       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 that 
     promote financial security through financial literacy, 
     retirement planning, and savings incentives, including 
     individual development accounts and child savings accounts, 
     provided that such legislation does not increase the deficit 
     over either the period of the total fiscal years 2009 through 
     2014 or the period of the total fiscal years 2009 through 
     2019.


                           amendment no. 883

 (Purpose: To ensure that the deficit-neutral reserve fund for higher 
   education may be used for Federal TRIO programs and Gaining Early 
          Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs)

       On page 34, line 13, insert ``such as by investing in 
     programs such as the programs under chapters 1 and 2 of 
     subpart 2 of part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 et seq., 1070a-21 et seq.),'' 
     after ``students,''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 970

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to support the 
                     National Health Service Corps)

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

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE NATIONAL HEALTH 
                   SERVICE CORPS.

       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 the 
     National Health Service Corps with $235,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 2010, by the amount provided in that legislation for 
     those purposes, provided that such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit over either the period of the total for 
     fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the total for 
     fiscal years 2009 through 2019.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 820

 (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to improve the 
                   animal health and disease program)

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

     SEC. 2___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO IMPROVE ANIMAL 
                   HEALTH AND DISEASE PROGRAM.

       (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

[[Page 9857]]

     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that 
     would ensure that the animal health and disease program 
     established under section 1433 of the National Agricultural 
     Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 3195) is fully funded.
       (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. 887

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to promote 
  payment policies under the Medicare program that reward quality and 
     efficient care and address geographic variations in spending)

       On page 32, line 10, after ``increases;'' insert ``or'' and 
     the following:
       (4) promote payment policies under the Medicare program 
     that reward quality and efficient care and address geographic 
     variations in spending;


                           AMENDMENT NO. 917

(Purpose: To expand the matters covered by the deficit-neutral reserve 
          fund for defense acquisition and contracting reform)

       On page 43, after line 24, add the following:
       (4) reduce the award of contracts to contractors with 
     seriously delinquent tax debts;
       (5) reduce the use of contracts, including the continuation 
     of task orders, awarded under the Logistics Civil 
     Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) III;
       (6) reform Department of Defense processes for acquiring 
     services in order to reduce costs, improve costs and schedule 
     estimation, enhance oversight, or increase the rigor of 
     reviews of programs that experience critical cost growth;
       (7) reduce the use of contracts for acquisition, oversight, 
     and management support services; or
       (8) enhance the capability of auditors and inspectors 
     general to oversee Federal acquisition and procurement;


                           AMENDMENT NO. 838

 (Purpose: To ensure full funding for Adam Walsh Act programs, with an 
                                offset)

       On page 24, line 24, increase the amount by $23,000,000.
       On page 24, line 25, increase the amount by $16,000,000.
       On page 25, line 4, increase the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 25, line 8, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 25, line 12, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $23,000,000.
       On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $16,000,000.
       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 916

     (Purpose: To increase funding for veterans beneficiary travel 
              reimbursement mileage rate, with an offset)

       On page 23, line 24, increase the amount by $133,000,000.
       On page 23, line 25, increase the amount by $133,000,000.
       On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $133,000,000.
       On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $133,000,000.


                           Amendment No. 881

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to express my concerns about the 
Dorgan-Snow amendment No. 881.
  The IRA rollover was first enacted as temporary provision in the 
Pension Protection Act which I championed in 2006. Rollovers to grant-
making charitable organizations with some element of donor control, 
such as private foundations, donor advised funds, and supporting 
organizations, were specifically prohibited. These entities were 
specifically prohibited from receiving rollover funds because I wanted 
to make sure that the money would actually get to charities doing work 
on the frontlines rather than sit in a donor-controlled account.
  The provision has become one of the annual ``tax extender'' 
provisions. So under current law, which expires December 31, 2009, an 
individual may rollover up to $100,000 from their IRA to a public 
charity but not to one of the prohibited entities. Amendment No. 881 to 
the budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 13, promotes the extension of 
current-law regarding IRA rollovers to charity, which I also support.
  However, the amendment also promotes an expansion of the provision by 
allowing split-interest trusts to receive IRA rollover contributions. 
Split-interest trusts are more worrisome than those that are currently 
prohibited from receiving IRA rollover contributions. These trusts 
allow donors to retain an income stream from the contributed assets for 
a defined period. So, just like with donor-advised funds and supporting 
organizations, the contribution does not result in an immediate benefit 
to a charity actually providing services while the donor receives 
significant tax benefits at the time of the contribution.
  The cost of extending current law through 2009 was almost $1 
billion--expanding the IRA rollover provision to allow more entities to 
receive them would increase the cost. Before we do that, I believe we 
should make sure that grant-making entities, including split-interest 
trusts, are accountable for paying out minimum amounts to actual 
charities before we allow them to receive IRA rollovers.
  I understand that Senator Dorgan is willing to work with me and my 
staff if and when Senator Baucus and I consider an expansion of the IRA 
rollover provision in the Finance Committee. In light of this good 
faith offer, I will not object to the unanimous consent request for 
this amendment today and look forward to working with Senator Dorgan to 
resolve our differences.


                           Amendment No. 876

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senate amendment 
No. 876, which I have cosponsored with my colleague Senator Lincoln. 
Our bipartisan amendment would simply clarify that a deficit-neutral 
reserve that would transform the health system will specifically 
address the needs of small businesses and the self-employed. More than 
half--52 percent--of our nation's uninsured either work for a small 
business or are dependent on someone who does. Yet remarkably, this 
budget resolution fails to even mention the crucial priority of small 
business health insurance reform.
  As former chair and now ranking member of the Senate Committee on 
Small Business and Entrepreneurship, one of the top issues facing small 
business continues to be access to affordable health insurance. Since 
2000, health insurance premiums have increased by 89 percent--far 
outpacing inflation and wage gains, and only 49 percent of our Nation's 
smallest employers, with less than 10 employees, are now able to offer 
health insurance to their employees as a workplace benefit.
  Further compounding the crisis, small businesses are trapped in 
dysfunctional markets that possess little, if any, meaningful 
competition among insurers. Just last month, the Government 
Accountability Office released a report that I requested, along with 
Senators Bond, Durbin, and Lincoln, which highlighted an alarming trend 
of consolidation in the state small group insurance markets. For 
example, the combined market share of the five largest carriers 
represented 75 percent or more in 34 of 39 States surveyed, compared to 
26 States in 2005. Large insurers dominated over 90 percent of the 
market in 23 States, including Maine, where five insurers now control 
96 percent of the market.
  The sad truth remains that small business insurance markets continue 
to lack competition among insurers. No competition means higher costs, 
and higher costs translate to no health insurance.
  That is why I will soon reintroduce, with Assistant Majority Leader 
Durbin and Senator Lincoln, the Small Business Health Options Program--
SHOP--Act, a bipartisan measure that has generated a broad array of 
support, including NFIB, the National Association of Realtors, SEIU, 
AARP, and Families USA. Our bipartisan measure would inject competition 
into reformed state insurance markets, allow small businesses and the 
self employed to pool together nationally, and provide a targeted tax 
credit to small business owners. I firmly believe that the policies in 
the SHOP Act, including fairer insurance ``rating'' rules that are not 
based on an individual's health status, must be included in the broader 
health reform debate that is underway in Congress.
  I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of aisle to support this 
non-controversial amendment, which would

[[Page 9858]]

clarify that when Congress passes broader health reform and universal 
coverage this year, it will fully consider the issue of small business 
health insurance reform.


                           Amendment No. 899

  I rise as a cosponsor to support amendment No. 899 introduced by my 
colleague Senator Blanche Lincoln that creates a deficit neutral 
reserve fund to promote financial security through financial literacy, 
retirement planning, and savings incentives, including individual 
development accounts and child savings accounts. I am proud that we 
have worked together on the issue of financial security and financial 
literacy over the last several years, in particular on the issue of 
individual development accounts, IDAs, that will allow low-income 
individuals to pay for education expenses, first-time homebuyer costs, 
and business capitalization or expansion costs.
  I join Senator Lincoln in support of this crucial amendment because 
we must boost savings in the United States, as a sound national savings 
policy is essential to helping Americans build a better future for 
themselves. Higher rates of saving can also strengthen the national 
economy. A paradox of the current economic recession is that our 
national savings rate has risen as Americans prepare for possible bad 
times ahead. Personal saving, as a percentage of disposable personal 
income, was 4.2 percent in February. It was 4.4 percent in January. The 
last time the saving rate exceeded 4.0 percent two straight months was 
August and September 1998, up 4.3 percent and 4.2 percent, 
respectively.
  It was more than 10 years ago the last time we had a savings rate 
above 4 percent. I am glad to see it happening, but we need to increase 
education on financial security so that Americans have a cushion to get 
through difficult economic times. I thank the new Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions and Family Policy for adding 
me as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank all our colleagues for cooperating 
on these managers' packages. We are working to clear additional 
amendments right now. I think at this point, until Senator Gregg 
returns, we need to note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 957

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the next amendment that requires a vote is 
the Lautenberg amendment as it affects Amtrak. The Senator is not quite 
ready. We will give him a minute to do that.
  While we are waiting, let me indicate to colleagues, we need Senators 
who have amendments to be here or to be in the cloakroom. We have dead 
time here because, for amendments that are going to require a vote, 
Senators who are insisting on votes are not here. That is not going to 
work.
  We have now worked on another group of amendments. Momentarily we 
will be prepared to offer another managers' amendment. I remind 
colleagues that the estate tax amendment of Senator Lincoln and Senator 
Kyl will be voted on about 8 o'clock. We need to keep that in mind as 
we plan the time.
  I say to the Senator, we are ready to accept that amendment by 
unanimous consent. If the Senator wishes to speak, he could, for a 
minute, or we could take the amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to offer a straightforward 
amendment that recognizes that investments in our transportation 
infrastructure system must be a priority for our country. The amendment 
would simply add transportation, including passenger and freight rail, 
as an eligible project under the ``Investments in America's 
Infrastructure'' reserve fund. It is already included in the budget.
  Our highways and skyways are so congested and crowded that passengers 
and freight are routinely delayed. The estimates show these problems 
will only get worse with the growth of freight traffic, expected to 
double its size by 2025. Railroads are the one mode of transportation 
that can grow to help alleviate the congestion.
  Amtrak needs more and better passenger and freight rail service. I 
ask support for this amendment.
  I call up the amendment and ask for its immediate consideration, 
amendment No. 957.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 957.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To include funding for freight and passenger rail in the 
       deficit-neutral reserve fund for investments in America's 
                            infrastructure)

       On page 35, line 18, insert ``transportation, including 
     freight and passenger rail,'' after ``energy, water,''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are prepared to take that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing on the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 957) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 934

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Cornyn is prepared with an 
amendment. Would the Senator describe his amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 934 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 934.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To increase transparency by requiring five days of public 
          review of legislation before passage by the Senate)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC.  _. REQUIREMENT THAT LEGISLATION BE AVAILABLE AND SCORED 
                   5 DAYS BEFORE A VOTE ON PASSAGE.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, it shall not be in order, 
     to vote on final passage on any bill, joint resolution, or 
     conference report unless the text and a budget score from the 
     Congressional Budget Office of the legislation, are available 
     on a publicly accessible Congressional website five days 
     prior to the vote on passage of the legislation.
       (b) 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.
       (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. CORNYN. Mr. President, my amendment would pose a 60-vote point of 
order against a bill that had not been made available for public review 
along with the score of the Congressional Budget Office on a 
congressional Web site for at least 5 days.
  As everyone will recall, the President himself said this was his 
goal, to offer greater transparency, hence greater accountability, and 
thus instill greater confidence in the people and their Government. 
Unfortunately, that pledge has been violated more times than it has 
been honored, and in our rush to pass the stimulus bill that was 
circulated--the conference report--at 11 o'clock on a Thursday night, 
we were required to vote on it less than 24 hours later and thus the 
uproar over the AIG bonuses ensued because, frankly, Members of the 
Senate did not know what they were voting on and could not know what 
they were voting on without this kind of transparency.
  I commend this to my colleagues. It is consistent with what the 
President has advocated and I think it is a good way to do business.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would ask the Senator from Texas, would 
he be willing to allow us to take this on a voice vote or by unanimous 
consent?
  Mr. CORNYN. I would say to the distinguished chairman of the Budget 
Committee, I have three amendments which I have on the dock. This is 
the only one of those three that I would like to have a record vote on.
  Mr. CONRAD. Can I put this another way? This amendment is not 
germane.

[[Page 9859]]

So we can have a vote on it, it probably will not succeed, or we could 
voice vote it and you would succeed.
  Mr. CORNYN. Well, we have had this proposition tendered before. I 
realize that in all likelihood this amendment would be stripped out in 
conference behind closed doors. I do not think that is particularly an 
honest way to deal with these important issues--to say yes on the floor 
and then to strip them out behind closed doors and to act like we are 
being consistent and not hypocritical.
  I understand what the chairman has to do. He will do what he has to 
do. But I would like a record vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator certainly has that right. Let 
me raise the germaneness point of order.
  Let me ask the Parliamentarian, is the amendment of the Senator 
germane?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the opinion of the Chair, it is not 
germane.
  Mr. CONRAD. I raise the germaneness point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to waive the point of order.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The 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 yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 144 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     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
     Klobuchar
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--52

     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
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     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 PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 
52. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Next up is Senator Wicker.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                           Amendment No. 798

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 798 and ask for 
its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 798.

  Mr. WICKER. 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 ensure that law abiding Amtrak passengers are allowed to 
         securely transport firearms in their checked baggage)

       On page 37, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
       (d) Allowing Amtrak Passengers to Securely Transport 
     Firearms on Passenger Trains.--None of amounts made available 
     in the reserve fund authorized under this section may be used 
     to provide financial assistance for the National Railroad 
     Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) unless Amtrak passengers are 
     allowed to securely transport firearms in their checked 
     baggage.

  Mr. WICKER. The amendment is very simple and straightforward. It aims 
to ensure that gun owners and sportsmen are able to transport securely 
firearms aboard Amtrak trains in checked baggage, a practice that is 
done thousands of times a day at airports across the country. I 
emphasize that this amendment deals with checked, secured baggage only. 
It would return Amtrak to a pre-9/11 practice. It does not deal with 
carry-on baggage. Unlike the airline industry, Amtrak does not allow 
the transport of firearms in checked bags. This means that sportsmen 
who wish to use Amtrak trains for hunting trips cannot do so because 
they are not allowed to check safely a firearm. I emphasize, this bill 
deals with checked, secure luggage, not carry-on luggage. It would 
apply to Amtrak the same as airlines.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield the time in opposition to the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I object to this disruptive amendment offered by the 
Senator from Mississippi. He wants to enable the carrying of weapons, 
guns, in checked baggage. One doesn't have to be very much concerned 
about what we are doing when they look at the history of attacks on 
railroads in Spain and the UK and such places.
  This amendment has no place here interrupting the budgetary 
procedure. The pending amendment is not germane and, therefore, I raise 
a point of order that the amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  Mr. GREGG. Is the germaneness well taken on this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act in relation to the Wicker amendment No. 798.
  Mr. GREGG. I didn't even make the motion to waive, but I am happy to 
have the question be on the motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, that motion is 
automatic.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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 yeas and nays resulted--yeas 63, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 145 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sanders
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Wicker

                                NAYS--35

     Akaka
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed

[[Page 9860]]


     Rockefeller
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Kennedy
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 63, the nays are 
35. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Next up----
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if the motion was agreed to, then we have 
to vote on the amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Why don't we just take it on a voice vote?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes. I ask unanimous consent.
  Mr. CONRAD. I think we have to do it by voice.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 798) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. 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, Senator Lieberman is next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 904

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I call up 
amendment No. 904.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 904.

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

(Purpose: To add a deficit-neutral reserve fund to reduce the strain on 
 United States military personnel by providing for an increase in the 
   end strength for active duty personnel of the United States Army)

       At the end of title II, insert the following:

     SEC. 216. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INCREASE IN THE 
                   END STRENGTH FOR ACTIVE DUTY PERSONNEL OF THE 
                   ARMY.

       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 reduce the strain 
     on the United States Armed Forces by authorizing an increase 
     in the end strength for active duty personnel of the Army to 
     a level not less than 577,400 persons, 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.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am honored to be joined in 
introducing this amendment by my colleagues, Senators Cornyn, Thune, 
and the distinguished occupant of the chair, Senator Begich. This 
amendment would ease the strain on the U.S. Army which today is 
carrying the bulk of the battle in Iraq and Afghanistan for us by 
establishing a deficit-neutral reserve fund to increase Army Active-
Duty end strength by 30,000 personnel.
  Although we have depleted the so-called Grow the Force initiative and 
the Army is now at an end strength of 547,000, the so-called well time 
for our soldiers has not improved. They still have little more than 1 
day at home for every day they spend in the theater. Our soldiers and 
their families----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Our soldiers continue to serve under an unacceptable 
strain. I ask my colleagues to ease that strain by adopting this 
amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are prepared to take that on a voice 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 904) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 746

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the next amendment is from Senator Udall 
of Colorado. If he could describe it in 30 seconds.
  Mr. Udall of Colorado. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Ensign 
for joining me in this amendment. This is a deficit-neutral reserve 
fund amendment that would help prevent forest fires. Our State budgets 
are facing economic wildfires. This would help State and private lands 
reduce fuel loads so we can prevent catastrophic forest fires. Let's 
stand with Smokey the Bear. Let's prevent forest fires. Vote for this 
amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Udall, I call up his 
amendment No. 746.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. UDALL] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 746.

  Mr. CONRAD. 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 establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for wildland fire 
                         management activities)

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

     SEC. 2___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR WILDLAND FIRE 
                   MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.

       (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--
       (1) allow wildland fire management funds for hazardous 
     fuels reduction and hazard mitigation activities in areas at 
     high risk of catastrophic wildfire to be distributed to areas 
     demonstrating highest priority needs, as determined by the 
     Chief of the Forest Service; and
       (2) provide that no State matching funds are required for 
     the conduct of activities described in paragraph (1).
       (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.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are prepared to take this amendment on 
a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 746) was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, next we go to the Lincoln-Kyl amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 873

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, before I begin, I wish to say a word of 
thanks to Chairman Conrad, who has done a tremendous job providing 
great leadership. He and his staff have done a wonderful job reflecting 
the President's priorities and, more importantly, putting balance to 
the budget before us.
  Because my time is limited, I wish to take a moment to read to you a 
few excerpts from an editorial that appeared in the Arkansas Democrat-
Gazette earlier this year. It was submitted by a member of a family who 
runs a timber operation in southwest Arkansas and that has been in the 
family since 1907. He said:

       The estate tax kills jobs. It kills companies that provide 
     jobs. In the process it kills

[[Page 9861]]

     towns and communities, particularly those in rural areas 
     dependent upon the land and local industry.

  Five times this man's family has been subjected to the estate tax--
five times.
  He goes on:

       Between the 1950s and 1980s, vast amounts of money--tens of 
     millions of dollars--were raised to pay the tax. Lands were 
     clear cut, mills liquidated, communities destroyed. . . .The 
     next hit will be too great.

  Think about this type of family business. They have grown their 
business, reinvested in it over a century's worth of time, put almost 
all their profits back into it, and now this particular company employs 
over 1,000 Arkansans and has multiple mills that are worth a good bit 
of money--millions of dollars.
  This amendment provides real relief to our family-owned businesses. 
In a time when our Government has handed out billions upon billions to 
failed Wall Street banks, it is time we provide a little relief to our 
businesses on Main Street that are in need of help right now. These are 
people who employ more than half the workers in Arkansas. These are the 
people who, if we reform the estate tax, will invest in their 
businesses and create more jobs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I ask my colleagues to look at this seriously and 
realize we are not protecting the ultrawealthy. We are working for 
small businesses, family businesses in each and every one of our 
States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). I remind the Senator that the 
amendment has not been called up.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 873.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln], for herself, Mr. 
     Kyl, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Pryor, Mr. 
     Roberts, Mrs. Landrieu, and Mr. Enzi, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 873.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To create a deficit-neutral reserve fund for estate tax 
                                relief)

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

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ESTATE TAX RELIEF.

       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 estate tax reform legislation establishing--
       (1) an estate tax exemption level of $5,000,000, indexed 
     for inflation,
       (2) a maximum estate tax rate of 35 percent,
       (3) a reunification of the estate and gift credits, and
       (4) portability of exemption between spouses, and

     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.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wish to remind all colleagues that the 
chairman's mark takes the estate tax exemption from $1 million per 
person in 2011 to $3.5 million, $7 million a couple. The proposal by 
the Senator from Arkansas would take it to $5 million, and $10 million 
a couple, reduces the rate from 45 percent to 35 percent. It is in a 
deficit-neutral reserve fund. The cost of this amendment from 2012 to 
2021, when it is fully effective, is over $100 billion. Where does the 
money come from? Either by cutting spending somewhere else or raising 
other taxes.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wish to proceed for a few moments on 
my leader time. I am speaking in effect for Senator Kyl, who has been 
our leader on the issue of the death tax for many years.
  The Lincoln-Kyl amendment, on which we are about to vote, would 
decrease the burden on those who get hit with the death tax by 
increasing the exemption by $1.5 million to $5 million and by reducing 
the rate of taxation down by 10 percent to 35 percent.
  No one should have to be taxed on their assets twice, and no one 
should have to visit the tax man and the undertaker on the same day. It 
is the Government's final outrage. But if we can't repeal this tax, 
then we should at least lower it at a time when Americans are already 
burdened by shrinking retirement savings.
  This budget, in keeping with the administration's plan, seeks to keep 
the death tax exemption at $3.5 million and the tax rate at 45 percent. 
By offering an amendment that would lower the rate and the exemption, 
Senators Kyl and Lincoln are offering crucial support and protection to 
small businesses, family ranchers, and farms.
  This amendment has wide bipartisan support, including Senators 
Nelson, Pryor, and Landrieu--all on the Democratic side--and Senators 
Grassley, Roberts, Enzi, and Collins on the Republican side. It also 
has strong support from the small business community, which desperately 
needs relief at the current moment. It would spur economic growth, 
which we need, and it makes good overall economic sense since the death 
tax costs more to comply with than it raises in revenue.
  The Lincoln-Kyl amendment is important, it is timely, and I strongly 
urge its support.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the distinguished majority leader, my 
friend, Senator Reid quoted me by name in his remarks in opposition to 
the Lincoln-Kyl amendment.
  The distinguished leader quoted me as describing death tax relief 
legislation as ``unseemly.''
  Since that quote was used to argue against Senator Lincoln's 
amendment, which I support, I thought it important to respond to the 
distinguished leader and set the record straight.
  The distinguished leader is correct. I did say, at that time shortly 
after the Katrina hurricane hit, that proceeding to death tax relief 
would be ``unseemly.''
  It is important for everyone to understand the context of that 
statement. It was made shortly after the terrible hurricane hit the 
gulf states. At that time, the Senate was about to reconvene after the 
August recess. The pending business was a cloture motion on the motion 
to proceed to a House bill that provided death tax relief.
  The majority leader, Senator Frist, had filed the cloture motion 
before the Senate departed for the August recess. Of course, that 
procedural action occurred weeks before the hurricane hit. When asked 
about the Senate schedule, I responded that proceeding to the death tax 
bill, and, thereby not dealing with the hurricane victims, would be 
unseemly.
  The distinguished leader's comments caused me to recall how the 
finance Committee, which I chaired at the time, dealt with Katrina.
  Senator Frist did the right thing and set the Senate in motion to 
deal with the hurricane victims. The Finance Committee acted with 
lightning speed on a bipartisan basis, and in concert with the House, 
to deliver relief to hurricane victims. I was quite proud of our 
efforts to help people in need. That was the first Katrina tax relief 
bill.
  The second Katrina tax relief bill, unfortunately, took a lot longer 
to do. Some on the other side saw the Katrina bill as a chance to enact 
a National agenda of greatly enhancing social programs. I did not 
question their motives at the time and do not now. But, the bottom line 
was that this attempt to leverage a crisis for a National agenda, 
significantly delayed our efforts to rebuild the hard-hit gulf zone.
  As the distinguished leader will recall, the gulf state Senators, led 
by Senator Lott, forced the Senate to focus on helping their states 
rebuild and recover. A similar effort was underway in the House.
  Fortunately, the efforts of the bipartisan group of gulf state 
Senators caused the leadership on the other side to abandon their 
efforts to leverage the hurricane disaster for a National agenda. No 
one accused the leadership on the other side of being unseemly.
  Senator Frist did the right thing and focused on the hurricane 
victims. The leadership on the other side did the

[[Page 9862]]

right thing and focused on bipartisan hurricane relief efforts.
  There is a lesson in this history for all of us. Do not try to 
leverage a crisis for unrelated purposes.
  Senator Lincoln's amendment was not ``unseemly.'' To use my reaction 
to a question about the Senate schedule is to miss the point I was 
making The Lincoln/Kyl amendment is a reasonable effort to find a 
bipartisan compromise on a time-sensitive tax issue. It is an effort to 
enable a solution to a problem that vexes family farmers and small 
businesses. The amendment's purpose and substance are the opposite of 
unseemly. The Lincoln/Kyl amendment is ``decorous.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will use my leader time. This chart says 
it all. In February, 651,000 Americans lost their jobs. Five million 
Americans have lost their jobs this past year--5 million. Our 
unemployment rate currently stands at 8.1 percent. Nevada's 
unemployment is 10 percent, but Nevada is not the highest. We have some 
States that are far more than 10 percent unemployed. Three million more 
children will likely be living in poverty by the end of this year. The 
net worth of American households dropped by a combined total of $11 
trillion last year--$11 trillion.
  These statistics tell a story--a very clear story--but what is even 
clearer is the suffering every American sees and feels every day.
  Families whose incomes have fallen are now concerned that they won't 
be able to make their next mortgage payment. Students at this time of 
the year should be overjoyed with receiving acceptance to go to 
college, but because of what is happening at home--their dad or mom has 
lost a job--they can't go to college. Workers who have given decades of 
loyal service at the office or factory realize now they can't retire 
because their pensions are gone and their retirement savings have 
disappeared. Senior citizens on a fixed income used to have to make a 
decision as to whether it would be medicine or food. Now many seniors 
don't have the choice for either.
  We know what caused this crisis: 8 years of fiscal policies under the 
previous administration and its allies in Congress who gave away the 
store at the expense of the rest of America.
  President Obama inherited a crisis that no President should have to 
inherit or fix. Instead of focusing full time on the future, he and we 
in Congress must first clean up the devastating mistakes of the past. 
We can only turn the page from the recession to recovery if we watch 
every single taxpayer dollar the way families watch every dollar in 
their budget. Every dollar counts.
  That is why it is so stunning, so outrageous, that some would choose 
this hour of national crisis to push an amendment to slash the estate 
tax for the superwealthy. This isn't for the wealthy; this is for the 
superwealthy. Yet that is what we see here today.
  The proposal now before us would take $100 billion of American 
taxpayer money--actually, it is more than that--more than $100 billion 
of taxpayer money over the next few years and spend it on slashing 
taxes on the estates of the wealthiest two-tenths of 1 percent of 
Americans. So 99.8 percent of Americans would derive no benefit--none. 
In fact, 99.8 percent of Americans would actually see their tax dollars 
redirected to the estates of those who are at the very top of the 
economic food chain.
  Here is what one newspaper said today:

       The proverbial millionaires next door--the plumbers, 
     contractors, and accountants who amass substantial wealth 
     through hard work and modest living--are not the intended 
     beneficiaries of the proposed cut. The Obama budget already 
     takes care of them. That means 99.8 percent of estates will 
     never, ever pay a penny of estate tax.

  Here is what another newspaper said today, entitled ``More Tax Cuts 
for the Rich":

       The hypocrisy here is breathtaking. More fundamentally, it 
     is hard to stomach those who argue for more tax cuts--and 
     then bemoan the failure to stanch rising deficits. A vote for 
     this amendment, at this time of so much red ink and so much 
     suffering, would reflect the most skewed of priorities.

  This is only a couple of the Americans all over America today trying 
to understand what is going on in Washington.
  In recent years, Congress has already reduced tax rates on the 
ultrawealthy estates. In fact, the Tax Policy Center calculates that a 
$20 million estate right now--now--will pay an effective tax rate of 23 
percent. Nurses pay more than that, schoolteachers pay more than that, 
and secretaries pay a higher tax rate than that, but we say for an 
estate of $20 million, 23 percent is OK. That is what the Tax Policy 
Center calculates.
  But for the proponents of the amendment now before us, that is not 
good enough. So they propose that we spend $100 billion on a tax cut 
for the top two-tenths of 1 percent. Proponents of this legislation say 
they will find offsets for this $100 billion giveaway that will make it 
deficit neutral. Think about that. Deficit neutral. That means you have 
to get offsets.
  Where are we going to get offsets? They have to come from somewhere. 
They are not coming from the sky. Are we going to take them from 
Medicare? From Senator Inouye's defense budget? From the Peace Corps? 
From education?
  Even in the best of times, there is no question that we could find a 
better use for an extra $100 billion. We could put new textbooks in 
classrooms. We could build better renewable energy transmission lines. 
We could provide health care to more working families. If it got out of 
hand, we could do what we did in the last years of the Clinton 
administration: Reduce the debt.
  I can think of no way to describe this amendment other than stunning 
hypocrisy.
  Many of the very same Republicans who held hands with President Bush 
as he squandered a record budget surplus and turned it into a record 
deficit suddenly claim to be ``deficit hawks.'' They tell us we cannot 
invest in the middle class--the very people their disastrous policies 
have harmed.
  These same Republicans tried to stop us from providing health 
insurance to millions of children of low-income families, so that these 
kids could go to a doctor when they are sick or hurt. They fought 
against President Obama's economic recovery plan, because it had the 
audacity to invest in creating jobs for victims of the recession Bush 
created.
  Now they are fighting against a budget that cuts taxes for the middle 
class, puts us on a path toward cutting the Republican deficit in half, 
and invests in middle-class priorities, such as health care, education, 
and clean, renewable energy. That is what Chairman Conrad has done.
  After 8 years of creating a record deficit so that they could slash 
taxes on the ultrawealthy, now they oppose our efforts to help the 
middle class.
  These newly hatched deficit hawks say no to any proposal that invests 
in the people their policies harmed. But when it comes to giving away 
another $100 billion plus of taxpayer money to the top two-tenths of 1 
percent--money that could pay down the deficit they claim to care so 
much about--these same Senators line up in support.
  Again, this is stunning hypocrisy. Not only that; it is outrageous 
hypocrisy.
  When the estate tax issue was debated back in 2005, in the aftermath 
of Hurricane Katrina, the then-chairman of the Finance Committee, 
Senator Grassley, said this--remember, at that time there was a defined 
group of people who were suffering in the gulf, but now it is the whole 
country. Today, it was announced on the radio that, for the first time 
since the Great Depression, all 50 States, without exception, have a 
downturn in their economy. Here is what Senator Grassley said then, 
after Hurricane Katrina:

       It's a little unseemly to be talking about doing away with 
     or enhancing the estate tax at a time when people are 
     suffering.

  If Katrina, which was a disaster for this country, was a reason not 
to do the estate tax, why now when all 300 million Americans are 
suffering? People are suffering now in every city, State, and town in 
America.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It amounts to nothing 
but

[[Page 9863]]

a giveaway to the wealthiest two-tenths of 1 percent of Americans, at 
the expense of the other 99.8 percent of Americans.
  Especially in this time of economic crisis, this is the wrong 
priority for our country. I ask everybody to vote ``no'' on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Lincoln 
amendment No. 873.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 146 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

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

                                NAYS--48

     Akaka
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 873) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


         Amendments Nos. 913, as Modified, and 875, as Modified

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding the adoption of amendments Nos. 913 and 875, the 
amendments be modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments, as modified, are as follows:


                     amendment no. 913, as modified

 (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 ``2008,'' on line 24 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,''.


                     amendment no. 875, as modified

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

       In Sec. 215, following ``contracts and bidding processes,'' 
     add the following: ``;and (3) including the identity of each 
     entity to which the Board has provided ``all loans and other 
     financial assistance since March 24, 2005, the value or 
     amount of that financial assistance, and what that entity is 
     doing with such financial assistance,'' after ``2008,''.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the list I 
send to the desk be the only amendments remaining in order to the 
budget resolution and managers' amendments which have been cleared by 
the managers and leaders and that a side by side be in order to any of 
the amendments on the list at the discretion of the managers and 
leaders; that the order in which the amendments are considered be 
determined by the managers; that upon disposition of all amendments, 
the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the concurrent resolution, 
with the provisions of the previous orders remaining in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The list is as follows:

       DeMint healthcare No. 963, Kyl Iran No. 932, Crapo Capital 
     Gains No. 897, Hatch Terrorism Tools POO No. 962, Alexander 
     Student Loans No. 792, DeMint CPSC No. 964, DeMint Autos No. 
     965, DeMint Earmarks No. 967, Sessions Border Fence POO No. 
     969, Crapo FDIC No. 958, Burr Veterans Health No. 777, Coburn 
     No. 828, Coburn No. 830, Hatch Medicare Advantage No. 976, 
     Hatch/Baucus (Not Yet Filed), KBH OCS No. 867, Vitter Oil and 
     Gas No. 751, Vitter Drug Testing No. 937, Enzi Unfunded 
     Mandates No. 819, Enzi Health IT No. 822, Graham Debt/
     Household No. 959, Barrasso Cow Tax No. 765, Barrasso NEPA 
     No. 960, Barrasso ESA No. 890, Crapo DOE Loan Guarantees No. 
     733, Crapo Nuclear Research Priority No. 734, Hatch DNRF for 
     FDA Facilities No. 939, Snowe/Landrieu DNRF for Energy Star 
     No. 940, Session OCS Inventory No. 770, Hatch/Dodd Maternal 
     Child Health Block Grant No. 878, Martinez Trade Agreements 
     No. 843, Murkowski Nat'l Health Service Corps No. 841, Begich 
     Denali No. 901, Begich Arctic Oil No. 903, Brown Training No. 
     810, Klobuchar Food Safety No. 886, Lautenberg Homeland 
     Security Grants No. 977, Pryor CPSC No. 814.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are prepared to go to the DeMint 
amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. No, Durbin.
  Mr. CONRAD. I am sorry. Mr. President, next in order is the Durbin 
amendment and then the DeMint amendment.
  Senator Durbin.


                     Amendment No. 974, as Modified

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 974, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 974, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide that no additional estate tax relief beyond that 
 which is already assumed in this resolution, which protects over 99.7 
  percent of estates from the estate tax, shall be allowed under any 
 deficit-neutral reserve fund unless an equal amount of aggregate tax 
  relief is also provided to Americans earning less than $100,000 per 
                                 year)

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

     SEC.__. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT PROVIDES 
                   ADDITIONAL RELIEF FOR THE ESTATE TAX BEYOND THE 
                   LEVELS ASSUMED IN THIS BUDGET RESOLUTION UNLESS 
                   AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL TAX RELIEF IS 
                   PROVIDED TO MIDDLE-CLASS TAXPAYERS.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, it shall not be in order to 
     consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report that would provide estate tax relief beyond 
     $3,500,000 per person ($7,000,000 per married couple) and a 
     graduated rate ending at less that 45 percent unless an equal 
     amount of tax relief is provided to Americans earning less 
     than $100,000 per year and that such relief is in addition to 
     the amounts assumed in this budget resolution.
       (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 any point 
     of order raised under this section.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the midst of the worst recession in 75 
years, with hundreds of thousands of Americans losing their jobs and 
their homes, 51 Members of the Senate believe our highest priority is 
to give a generous tax break to the wealthiest

[[Page 9864]]

people in America. Many of these same Senators have been wailing for 
weeks about deficits but obviously believe deficits do not count when 
it comes to tax breaks for the wealthy.
  At this point, it is clear they would move forward with these tax 
breaks for the wealthiest people in America. My amendment is simple. It 
creates a point of order. It says we should help struggling Americans 
first. Before we give an additional $100 billion in tax breaks to the 
superwealthy, we must first give at least as much in tax relief to 
Americans earning less than $100,000. It will be tax relief beyond that 
already included in this budget resolution.
  The amendment creates a point of order that if the people insist, a 
majority of Senators, that we give this estate tax to the wealthiest, 
at least let's help working families first before we do so.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition? The Senator 
from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the Senate just voted to support estate tax 
relief set at $5 million per person to be exempted and at no more than 
a 35-percent rate. The Durbin amendment creates a point of order unless 
you have a rate of at least 45 percent and a $3.5 million per person 
exempted amount. It is directly contrary to what we just voted for. 
Were this to be adopted, you would have two absolutely contradictory 
instructions--one for a $5 million exempted amount; the Durbin 
amendment, $3.5 million. Having voted the way we did, the Durbin 
amendment should be defeated.
  To the extent that it suggests there should be other tax relief, I 
stipulate to that, I am all for it. But the point of order relates to 
anything above the $3.5 million or below the 45-percent rate.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Do I have any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 974, as modified.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 147 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

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

                                NAYS--43

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker
  The amendment (No. 974), as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                   Amendments Nos. 777, 962, and 946

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have a number of amendments we can now 
take by unanimous consent: Burr No. 777, Hatch No. 962, and Dorgan No. 
946.
  I ask unanimous consent that we approve Burr amendment No. 777, Hatch 
amendment No. 962, and Dorgan amendment No. 946.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 777, 962, and 946) were agreed to, as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 777

 (Purpose: To provide that legislation that would provide authority to 
  the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to recover from a private health 
   insurer of a disabled veteran amounts paid for treatment of such 
        disability is subject to a point of order in the Senate)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. LIMITATIONS ON LEGISLATION THAT WOULD PERMIT THE 
                   SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO RECOVER FROM A 
                   PRIVATE HEALTH INSURER OF A DISABLED VETERAN 
                   AMOUNTS PAID FOR TREATMENT OF SUCH DISABILITY.

       (a) Point of Order.--If the Senate is considering 
     legislation, upon a point of order being made by any Senator 
     against the legislation, or any part of the legislation, that 
     the legislation, if enacted, would result in providing 
     authority to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to recover 
     from a private health insurer of a veteran with a service-
     connected disability amounts paid by the Secretary for the 
     furnishing of care or treatment for such disability, and the 
     point of order is sustained by the Presiding Officer, the 
     Senate shall cease consideration of the legislation.
       (b) Waivers and Appeals.--
       (1) Waivers.--
       (A) In general.--Before the Presiding Officer rules on a 
     point of order described in subsection (a), any Senator may 
     move to waive the point of order and the motion to waive 
     shall not be subject to amendment.
       (B) Vote.--A point of order described in subsection (a) is 
     waived only by the affirmative vote of 60 Members of the 
     Senate, duly chosen and sworn.
       (2) Appeals.--
       (A) In general.--After the Presiding Officer rules on a 
     point of order described in subsection (a), any Senator may 
     appeal the ruling of the Presiding Officer on the point of 
     order as it applies to some or all of the provisions on which 
     the Presiding Officer ruled.
       (B) Vote.--A ruling of the Presiding Officer on a point of 
     order described in subsection (a) is sustained unless 60 
     Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, vote not to 
     sustain the ruling.
       (3) Debate.--
       (A) In general.--Debate on the motion to waive under 
     paragraph (1) or on an appeal of the ruling of the Presiding 
     Officer under paragraph (2) shall be limited to 1 hour.
       (B) Division.--The time shall be equally divided between, 
     and controlled by, the Majority leader and the Minority 
     Leader of the Senate, or their designees.
       (c) Legislation Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``legislation'' means a bill, joint resolution, amendment, 
     motion, or conference report.
       (d) Termination.--The provisions of this section shall 
     terminate on December 31, 2012.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 962

(Purpose: To ensure the continued safety of Americans against terrorist 
  attack by Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations by providing a 
 point of order against any legislation that would weaken or eliminate 
                    critical terror-fighting tools)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. POINT OF ORDER.

       (a) In General.--After a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget is agreed to, it shall not be in order in the Senate 
     to consider any bill, resolution, amendment between Houses, 
     motion, or conference report that--
       (1) weakens any authorized anti-terrorism tool or 
     investigative method provided by the USA Patriot Act of 2001 
     (PL 107-56), the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 
     Act of 2004 (PL 108-458), the USA Patriot Improvement and 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005 (PL 109-177), or the FISA 
     Amendments Act of 2008 (PL 110-261); or
       (2) eliminates any authorized anti-terrorism tool or 
     investigative method provided by any of the statutes referred 
     to in paragraph (1).
       (b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeals.--
       (1) Waiver.--Subsection (a) may be waived or suspended in 
     the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of 
     the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (2) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of 
     the Chair relating to any provision of subsection (a) 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 subsection (a).

[[Page 9865]]




                           amendment no. 946

   (Purpose: To increase the budget authority for the Indian Health 
 Service by an additional $200 million to obtain a total $600 million 
                increase over the FY 2009 enacted level)

       On page 19, line 24, increase the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 19, line 25, increase the amount by $130,000,000.
       On page 20, line 4, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 20, line 8, increase the amount by $20,000,000.
       On page 20, line 12, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $130,000,000.
       On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $20,000,000.
       On page 28, line 11, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.


                           amendment no. 962

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, since the attacks of September 11, 2001, 
Congress has taken steps to give the Federal law enforcement and 
intelligence community the necessary tools to keep our citizens safe 
from terrorist attacks. Last week, FBI Director Robert Mueller 
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. When asked about 
expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act, Director Mueller urged Congress 
to renew these provisions. He referred to them as ``exceptional tools 
to help protect our national security.'' Director Mueller further 
provided the committee with information regarding the use of these 
provisions.
  From 2004 to 2007, the roving wiretaps provision was used 225 times--
that is--25 times over 3 years. That breaks down to 75 times a year. 
Roving wiretaps were only used 147 times in 3 years. Congress granted 
the FBI the authority to use national security letters, NSL, in 
counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations. The use of 
NSLs is invaluable in these investigations. Their use also predates the 
attacks on 9/11.
  The uninformed and the paranoid portray these tools as an example of 
unchecked government monitoring reminiscent of a scene from George 
Orwell's book ``1984.'' I would submit to my colleagues that these 
figures show that these necessary tools have not been overused. Fail-
safes and checks against overuse and improper application exist at 
numerous levels in this process. Changing administrations does not 
diminish the terrorism threat to our country. Two days ago, a Taliban 
leader responsible for brazen attacks in Pakistan issued a threat to 
attack the White House.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, This amendment will go far in meeting the 
Federal Government's trust responsibility to provide health care 
services to Native Americans.
  There is a health care crisis in Indian Country and I have spoken 
many times on the Senate floor about the importance of funding and 
meeting our obligation to provide for the health care of the First 
Americans. There are over 4 million Native Americans in this country, 
just fewer than 2 million of which depend on the Indian Health Service 
for their health care needs. However, the Indian Health Service is 
severely underfunded. Despite our trust obligation to Indian Tribes, 
the Federal Government spends twice as much on the health care of 
Federal prisoners as we do on American Indians.
  My amendment will increase the budget authority for the Indian Health 
Service by an additional $200 million to obtain a total of $600 million 
in increased budget authority over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 
The President's request for ``over $4 billion'' for total IHS funding, 
asks for an increase for IHS of over $400 million. My amendment will 
increase the President's budget request from $400 million to $600 
million in increased budget authority for the Indian Health Service. 
This brings us to the total that committee Vice Chairman Barrasso and I 
recommended for the Indian Health Service for fiscal year 2010 in our 
views and estimates letter to the Senate Budget Committee on March 13, 
2009. As my colleagues will remember, last year, Congress 
overwhelmingly passed a similar amendment requesting a $1 billion 
increase in Indian Health Service budget authority by a vote of 69 to 
31. I ask my colleagues to again consider the great need for assistance 
in Indian health, even in these tough economic times.
  While $200 million is small in comparison to the unmet needs of the 
Indian Health Service, when included with the President's request, the 
amendment makes the overall increase in budget authority equal to $600 
million. This amendment is crucial because it shows that Congress is 
committed to funding the Indian Health Service at a higher level and 
emphasizes the government's effort to continue to fulfill its trust 
responsibility to provide health care in Indian Country.
  We passed the Indian Health Care Improvement Act on the floor of the 
Senate in the 110th Congress. I am proud of that because it had been 
many years since this Congress had addressed the issue of Indian health 
care. Unfortunately, the bill did not pass the House and Indian Country 
suffers the consequences.
  Through a number of hearings by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, 
we have confirmed extensive unmet health care needs in Indian Country. 
The need includes over $3 billion just for health facilities and an 
ever growing $1 billion for contract health services. The health status 
of Native Americans are staggering. For example, Native Americans die 
at higher rates than other Americans from tuberculosis 600 percent 
higher, alcoholism, 510 percent higher, diabetes, 189 percent higher, 
and suicide, 70 percent higher. Third world conditions exist right here 
in this country on Indian lands.
  The story of Jami Rose Jetty highlights what underfunding the Indian 
health care system means to the lives of our youth and families in 
Indian Country and communities across the U.S. In February, I held an 
Indian Affairs oversight hearing on youth suicide. At that hearing, a 
young woman of 16 years old, named Dana Lee Jetty of the Spirit Lake 
Nation in North Dakota testified. She told the story of losing her 
sister, Jami Rose Jetty, who committed suicide at just 14 years old.
  Dana described her sister Jami as someone who had a lot of friends 
and was mature for her age. Jami was an open-minded, caring, and 
compassionate teenager. The sisters were best friends and part of a 
middle-class, loving home.
  Jami's mother knew there was something wrong with her daughter. She 
took Jami to Indian health care facilities over and over again, but no 
doctor properly diagnosed her depression. Even though her mother knew 
better, the doctors would say Jami was ``just a typical teenager'' and 
send the family home. In November 2008, Jami took her own life.
  During her testimony, Dana emphasized that she felt her sister Jami 
would still be alive had there been trained mental health professionals 
available near the Spirit Lake Reservation. Unfortunately, Jami didn't 
receive the services she needed. Dana, her family, and the entire 
Spirit Lake community were affected by the loss of this precious young 
life.
  Jami did not receive the care she needed because we have a health 
care system in Indian Country that is not working. It is dramatically 
underfunded. We are rationing health care and people are dying as a 
result. It is truly a scandal, which should be front-page news.
  Mr. President, by asking for an increase in Indian health funding, my 
amendment allows us to continue the dialogue with Indian Country. It 
emphasizes that the United States understands the health disparities 
that Native Americans face and that we will make Indian Country a 
priority this Congress. I thank my colleagues for joining me today and 
in the future in supporting efforts to improve the health of Native 
Americans throughout the United States.


                           Amendment No. 965

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, next we go to an amendment by Senator 
DeMint with respect to the auto industry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

[[Page 9866]]


  Mr. DeMINT. I call up amendment No. 965.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 965.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To prevent taxpayer-funded bailouts for auto manufacturers)

       On page 4, line 13, decrease the amount by $10,829,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, decrease the amount by $131,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, decrease the amount by $195,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, decrease the amount by $279,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, decrease the amount by $379,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, decrease the amount by $485,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, decrease the amount by $10,829,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, decrease the amount by $131,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, decrease the amount by $195,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, decrease the amount by $279,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, decrease the amount by $379,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, decrease the amount by $485,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $10,829,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $131,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $195,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $279,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $379,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $485,000,000.
       On page 5, line 16, decrease the amount by $10,829,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by $10,960,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, decrease the amount by $11,155,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, decrease the amount by $11,434,000,000.
       On page 5, line 20, decrease the amount by $11,813,000,000.
       On page 5, line 21, decrease the amount by $12,298,000,000.
       On page 5, line 24, decrease the amount by $10,829,000,000.
       On page 5, line 25, decrease the amount by $10,960,000,000.
       On page 6, line 1, decrease the amount by $11,155,000,000.
       On page 6, line 2, decrease the amount by $11,434,000,000.
       On page 6, line 3, decrease the amount by $11,813,000,000.
       On page 6, line 4, decrease the amount by $12,298,000,000.
       On page 15, line 17, decrease the amount by 
     $10,800,000,000.
       On page 15, line 18, decrease the amount by 
     $10,800,000,000.
       On page 26, line 20, decrease the amount by $29,000,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $29,000,000.
       On page 26, line 24, decrease the amount by $131,000,000.
       On page 26, line 25, decrease the amount by $131,000,000.
       On page 27, line 3, decrease the amount by $195,000,000.
       On page 27, line 4, decrease the amount by $195,000,000.
       On page 27, line 7, decrease the amount by $279,000,000.
       On page 27, line 8, decrease the amount by $279,000,000.
       On page 27, line 11, decrease the amount by $379,000,000.
       On page 27, line 12, decrease the amount by $379,000,000.
       On page 27, line 15, decrease the amount by $485,000,000.
       On page 27, line 16, decrease the amount by $485,000,000.

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, this amendment is called the Auto Bailout 
Prevention Amendment. We are debating an amendment which spends more, 
borrows more, and taxes more than any budget in history. Americans are 
already fed up with how much we spent on all the bailouts. One of the 
areas they are most frustrated with is the auto bailouts. We have 
already taken over $17 billion from funds designated to financial 
institutions and now the administration is talking about some form of 
bankruptcy while General Motors and Chrysler have asked for another 
$21.6 billion.
  This amendment reduces function 370 funds by $21.6 billion, which 
prevents the President from further using TARP to prop up General 
Motors and Chrysler with taxpayer dollars.
  Enough is enough. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who 
yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Stabenow has the time in 
opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, just 3 days ago, President Obama 
released a bold new plan to revitalize the American auto industry. We 
need to give this plan a chance to work. There are two or three 
different outcomes. But they are in the middle of the boldest 
restructuring of the American auto industry we have ever seen. This 
would cut the legs out from under that.
  Our President has made it clear that we are not going to walk away 
from the people, the communities or the businesses--the thousands of 
businesses that depend on the auto industry.
  I would finally say that all around the world countries such as Japan 
helping Toyota, Germany, Korea, China, France--around the world, other 
countries understand the critical nature for their own national 
security in terms of the auto industry; their economic security in 
terms of building a middle class, and they have stepped forward in this 
global credit crisis to help their auto industries.
  We are now in the middle of a plan to save jobs in communities and 
restructure. I urge strongly a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 965.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 31, nays 66, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 148 Leg.]

                                YEAS--31

     Barrasso
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--66

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 965) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. STABENOW. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we still have probably 30-some amendments 
left to do. We are working through a process to try to put together 
managers' packages that could clear the significant majority of those 
amendments, but we still have a number of amendments that will require 
votes. One of the lessons I hope we learn from this is to never do it 
again. That would be my strong recommendation.
  In just a moment, we will be prepared to have a managers' package.

[[Page 9867]]




Amendments Nos. 901, 903, 886, 792, 958, 976, 867, 819, 960, 890, 733, 
                    734, 939, 878, and 841, en bloc

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I propose a managers' package that would 
involve Begich No. 901, Begich No. 903, Klobuchar No. 886, Alexander 
No. 792, Crapo No. 958, Hatch No. 976, Hutchison No. 867, Enzi No. 819, 
Barrasso No. 960, Barrasso No. 890, Crapo No. 733, Crapo No. 734, Hatch 
No. 939, Hatch-Dodd No. 878, and Murkowski No. 841. I ask that they be 
accepted by unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendments are agreed to.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 901

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the funding 
                    level for the Denali Commission)

       On page 35, strike line 11 and insert the following:
       (a) Infrastructure.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairman of the Senate
       On page 35, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
       The Chairman of the Budget Committee may also revise the 
     allocations to allow funding for the Denali Commission 
     established by section 303(a) of the Denali Commission Act of 
     1998 (42 U.S.C. 3121 note; 112 Stat. 2681-637) for each 
     applicable fiscal year at a level equal to not less than the 
     level of funding made available for the Denali Commission 
     during fiscal year 2006.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 903

(Purpose: To modify the deficit-neutral reserve fund to invest in clean 
 energy and preserve the environment to provide for additional funding 
             for the conduct of arctic oil spill research)

       On page 33, line 5, before ``implement'', insert ``set 
     aside additional funding from the Oil Spill Liability Trust 
     Fund for arctic oil spill research conducted by the Oil Spill 
     Recovery Institute,''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 886

   (Purpose: To create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to improve the 
            safety of the food supply in the United States)

       On page 46, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       (c) Food Safety.--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 improve the safety of the food supply in the United 
     States, by the amounts provided in such legislation for these 
     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. 792

    (Purpose: To modify the Deficit-Neutral Reserve Fund for Higher 
  Education, to maximize higher education access and affordability by 
 ensuring that institutions of higher education and their students are 
able to continue to participate in a competitive student loan program, 
 in order to maintain a comprehensive choice of student loan products 
                             and services)

       On page 34, line 10, strike ``affordable,'' and insert 
     ``affordable while maintaining a competitive student loan 
     program that provides students and institutions of higher 
     education with a comprehensive choice of loan products and 
     services,''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 958

(Purpose: To provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund to increase the 
 borrowing authority of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and 
   the National Credit Union Administration, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND INCREASE FDIC AND NCUA 
                   BORROWING AUTHORITY.

       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 
     increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Corporation and the National Credit Union 
     Administration, provided that such legislation does not 
     increase the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal 
     years 2009 through 2019.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 976

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

       On page 32, line 10, after ``increases;'' insert ``or'' and 
     the following:
       (4) protect Medicare Advantage enrollees from premium 
     increases and benefit reductions in their Medicare Advantage 
     plans that would result from the estimate of the national per 
     capita Medicare Advantage growth percentage contained in the 
     Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Advance Notice of 
     Methodological Changes for Calender Year 2010, as proposed on 
     February 20, 2009, that is made using the Medicare payment 
     rates for physicians' services assumed in such Advance Notice 
     rather than the Medicare payment rates for physicians' 
     services assumed in the President's budget proposal for 
     fiscal year 2010 (which accounts for additional expected 
     Medicare payments for such services).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 867

(Purpose: To reduce U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources, minimize 
future gasoline price increases, and reduce the federal budget deficit 
through expanded oil and gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf)

       On page 33, line 1 after ``reduce our Nation's dependence 
     on imported energy'' insert ``including through expanded 
     offshore oil and gas production in the Outer Continental 
     Shelf''.


                           amendment no. 819

    (Purpose: To reinstate the 60-vote point of order under section 
425(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for legislation that 
       creates unfunded mandates on States and local governments)

       On page 68, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. RESTRICTIONS ON UNFUNDED MANDATES ON STATES AND 
                   LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate 
     to consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment, or 
     conference report that would increase the direct costs of one 
     or more States or local governments by an amount that exceeds 
     the threshold provided under section 424(a)(1) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658c(a)(1)).
       (b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) 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 to sustain an appeal of 
     the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under 
     subsection (a).


                           amendment no. 960

(Purpose: To increase amounts made available for the conduct of reviews 
          under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969)

       On page 13, line 21, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 13, line 22, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.


                           amendment no. 890

(Purpose: To provide funding to enable certain individuals and entities 
           to comply with the Endangered Species Act of 1973)

       On page 13, line 21, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 13, line 22, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.


                           amendment no. 733

     (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the 
     innovative loan guarantee program of the Department of Energy)

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

     SEC. 2___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INNOVATIVE LOAN 
                   GUARANTEE PROGRAM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

       (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 authorizes an 
     additional $50,000,000,000 for use to provide loan guarantees 
     for eligible projects under title XVII of the Energy Policy 
     Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16511 et seq.).
       (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. 734

   (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for nuclear 
                       research and development)

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

     SEC. 2___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH 
                   AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (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 authorizes 
     nuclear research and development activities, including the 
     Generation IV program, the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, 
     and the Light Water Reactor Sustainability program.
       (b) Deficit Neutrality.--Subsection (a) applies only if the 
     legislation described in

[[Page 9868]]

     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. 939

  (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the 2012 
         completion of Food and Drug Administration facilities)

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

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE 2012 COMPLETION 
                   OF FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION FACILITIES.

       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 in order to 
     provide sufficient funding for the General Services 
     Administration to complete construction of the Food and Drug 
     Administration White Oak Campus in Silver Spring, Maryland by 
     2012, 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. 878

 (Purpose: To increase funding for the Maternal and Child Health Block 
   Grant within the Health Resources and Services Administration by 
                   $188,000,000 in fiscal year 2010)

       On page 19, line 24, increase the amount by $188,000,000.
       On page 19, line 25, increase the amount by $56,000,000.
       On page 20, line 4, increase the amount by $81,000,000.
       On page 20, line 8, increase the amount by $34,000,000.
       On page 20, line 12, increase the amount by $13,000,000.
       On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $188,000,000.
       On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $56,000,000.
       On page 28, line 3, increase the amount by $81,000,000.
       On page 28, line 7, increase the amount by $34,000,000.
       On page 28, line 11, increase the amount by $13,000,000.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 841

  (Purpose: To increase funding for the National Health Service Corps)

       On page 19, line 24, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 19, line 25, increase the amount by $30,000,000.
       On page 20, line 4, increase the amount by $43,000,000.
       On page 20, line 8, increase the amount by $18,000,000.
       On page 20, line 12, increase the amount by $7,000,000.
       On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $30,000,000.
       On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $43,000,000.
       On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $18,000,000.
       On page 28, line 11, decrease the amount by $7,000,000.

                           amendment no. 792

  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate 
unanimously approved my amendment to maximize college affordability and 
access by helping to preserve competition and choice in the student 
loan program. I look forward to working with my colleagues to preserve 
the Federal Family Education Loan--FFEL--program as a viable program 
for students and institutions of higher education.
  My amendment is very straightforward and it calls on the Congress to 
maintain ``a competitive student loan program that provides students 
and institutions of higher education with a comprehensive choice of 
loan products and services.'' We know that institutions of higher 
education like the ability to choose which program to participate in, 
and 73 percent of schools choose to use the FFEL program.
  I think that we should maintain that ability of institutions to 
choose which program to participate in so that we can give them, and 
their students, the best options, the best services, and the best 
programs.
  The President's budget proposes to originate all new student loans in 
the Direct Loan program, which is a proposal that I do not support. 
When I was U.S. Secretary of Education, I opposed the creation of the 
Direct Loan program because I felt that the Federal Government 
shouldn't be in the business of being a bank. I still feel that way. 
The problem with the government operating as a bank is that we would 
have to borrow a lot of money and add to the Federal deficit. The FFEL 
program last year generated $52.9 billion in loans, while the Direct 
Loan program generated $21.8 billion. If we were to move all of the 
FFEL loans to the government's loan program, that's a lot more debt to 
add to our books. I don't think we should do that right now when we 
know that the FFEL program is working.
  I also thought that the Federal Government wouldn't be able to manage 
that many loans very effectively or efficiently for the students, and I 
haven't changed my mind on that. There are 6,000 colleges and 
universities, and over 15 million loans each year to students and 
parents. The Department of Education can't manage that many loans, nor 
should they. It is a massive undertaking that calls on over 30,000 
people throughout our Nation working for banks, guarantors, and 
nonprofit lenders. We don't need to increase the Department of 
Education staffing by 30,000 people, so I don't see why we should move 
all of the loans and operations to that agency.
  As the president of one of our lenders in Tennessee recently wrote in 
the Knoxville News Sentinel, ``Nationalizing the student loan industry 
would be the equivalent of the government taking over the parcel 
shipping industry and doing away with FedEx and UPS, relying entirely 
on the U.S. Postal Service.'' We can't afford to take that risk when we 
are dealing with students.
  In the past week we have all heard from many of the institutions of 
higher education in our States favoring the continuation of the FFEL 
program. My amendment does just that, and it sends the message that the 
U.S. Senate supports giving colleges and universities--and ultimately 
parents and students--the choice which student loan program works best 
for them.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me say that we are just about ready.
  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.


                           Amendment No. 967

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are prepared to go to DeMint amendment 
No. 967.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I would like to call up DeMint Amendment 
No. 967.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 967.

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

       (Purpose: To implement President Obama's earmark reforms)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. EARMARK POINT OF ORDER.

       (a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to 
     consider a bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report 
     that includes--
       (1) a congressional earmark to a private for profit entity 
     that is not subject to the same competitive bidding 
     requirements as other Federal contracts;
       (2) a congressional earmark which has not been the subject 
     of a public hearing in the committee of jurisdiction where 
     the member requesting the earmark has testified on its 
     behalf; or
       (3) a congressional earmark which has not been posted on 
     the Member sponsor's website at least 72 hours before 
     consideration of the legislation.
       (b) Trading Earmarks.--A Senator may not trade a 
     congressional earmark for any political favor, including a 
     campaign contribution.
       (c) Supermajority Waiver and Appeals.--
       (1) Waiver.--Subsection (a) may be waived or suspended in 
     the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of 
     the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (2) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of 
     the Chair relating to any provision of subsection (a) shall 
     be limited to

[[Page 9869]]

     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 subsection (a).
       (d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``congressional 
     earmark'' means a provision or report language included 
     primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident 
     Commissioner, or Senator providing, authorizing or 
     recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget 
     authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for 
     a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or 
     other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a 
     specific State, locality or Congressional district, other 
     than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or 
     competitive award process.

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, one of the changes President Obama said he 
would bring to Washington is earmark reform.
  Last month, on March 11, he laid out his plan. And that is what this 
amendment is. It is a four-point plan. I will explain it with quotes 
from the President: Any earmark for a for-profit private company should 
be subject to the same competitive bidding requirements as other 
Federal contracts; No. 2, each earmark must be open to scrutiny at 
public hearings where Members will have to justify their expense to the 
taxpayer; No. 3, earmarks that Members do seek might be aired on those 
Members' websites in advance so the public and the press can examine 
them and judge their merits for themselves; and, No. 4, that he would 
prohibit the trading of earmarks for public favors.
  It is just that simple. This is the President's plan for earmark 
reform. I ask my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Chairman Inouye has the time in opposition.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, at this moment, if you are trying to get 
an earmark in the bill, you have to have it posted on your Web site 30 
days before markup to give the public an opportunity to look at the Web 
site.
  Secondly, there is much transparency, much more than ever before.
  Thirdly, we have reduced earmarks to less than 1 percent. And now 
that, as our Senator has indicated, on March 11, the President spoke on 
the earmarks, it went something further.
  The President said:

       I recognize that Congress has the power of the purse, and I 
     believe that individual Members of the Congress understand 
     their districts best. They should have the ability to respond 
     to the needs of the communities.

  Yes, all of us were elected to represent our districts and our 
States. We were not elected to be rubberstamps of anyone.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from South 
Carolina creates a point of order against legislation that does not 
comply with President Obama's recently proposed earmark reforms.
  The amendment ignores the layers of reforms that Congress has adopted 
in recent years and the reduction in the amount of earmarks that has 
already taken place.
  For the coming fiscal cycle the Appropriations Committee has required 
that earmarks be posted on the requesting Members' Web sites well in 
advance of the appropriations bills even being considered in 
subcommittee. This well exceeds the 72 hour threshold sought by 
President Obama. And I note that President Obama will not make public 
his own earmark requests prior to publication of his budget.
  The amendment would require all Senators to testify at hearings in 
support of any earmarks they seek. If testimony by Senators is to be 
required to justify legislative initiatives, why on Earth would we want 
to limit this to earmarks? Shouldn't Senators be required to testify at 
hearings in support of any legislative initiative they advocate? When 
was the hearing on the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina?
  The amendment purports to prohibit earmarks from being traded for 
``political favors.'' Mr. President, does this mean it is OK to trade 
any other official act for political favors? Does this give Members 
license to pursue legislative provisions for labor interests or for 
particular industries in exchange for political favors? Of course, it 
doesn't. My colleagues are well aware that trading earmarks or any 
other official act for political favors is already against the laws and 
ethics rules of this body.
  I am happy for earmarks and all other legislative matters to be 
subject to the scrutiny of the legislative process. That is exactly as 
it should be. I hope my colleagues will support efforts to consider 
individual appropriations bills this summer in an orderly and timely 
manner so that the Senator from South Carolina and all other Members 
can offer amendments to eliminate spending that they see as wasteful.
  But we don't need new points of order to do this. I urge my 
colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the 
amendment is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to waive is considered made.
  Mr. DeMINT. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to waive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the Budget Act in 
relation to the DeMint amendment No. 967.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 28, nays 69, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 149 Leg.]

                                YEAS--28

     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Risch
     Sessions
     Snowe
     Thune
     Vitter

                                NAYS--69

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Kennedy
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 28, the nays are 
69. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from North Dakota.


              Modification to Purpose of Amendment No. 890

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding the adoption of amendment No. 890 by Senator Barrasso, 
the amendment be modified in the purpose statement. The modification is 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The purpose, as modified, is as follows:

[[Page 9870]]



    (Purpose: To provide funding for voluntary efforts to conserve 
 endangered species and to enable certain individuals and entities to 
            comply with the Endangered Species Act of 1973)


     Amendments Nos. 980, as modified; 830, 765, 940, 870, and 810

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have six amendments that have been 
agreed to by both sides, starting with Kyl amendment No. 980, as 
modified, on Iran--I think the modification is at the desk.
  Mr. KYL. It is.
  Mr. CONRAD. The modification is at the desk--Coburn amendment No. 
830; Barrasso No. 765; Snowe-Landrieu No. 940; Thune No. 870; and Brown 
No. 810.
  I ask unanimous consent those six amendments be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  The amendments (Nos. 980, as modified; 830, 765, 940, 870, and 810) 
were agreed to, as follows:


                     amendment no. 980, as modified

       On page 12, line 21, decrease the amount by $1.00.
       On page 12, line 22, decrease the amount by $1.00.
       On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $1.00.
       On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $1.00.


                           amendment no. 830

   (Purpose: To provide for legislation that allows for a temporary 
   suspension of the 10 percent tax penalty in order for struggling 
 families to make an early withdrawal from their qualified retirement 
            accounts to pay their monthly mortgage payments)

       On page 40, strike lines 9 through 22 and insert the 
     following:
       (f) Housing Assistance.--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 
     related to housing assistance, which may include low income 
     rental assistance, assistance provided through the Housing 
     Trust Fund created under section 1131 of the Housing and 
     Economic Recovery Act of 2008, and legislation that allows 
     for a temporary suspension of the 10 percent tax penalty in 
     order for struggling families to make an early withdrawal 
     from their qualified retirement accounts to pay their monthly 
     mortgage payments, 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. 765

  (Purpose: To provide that the authorized climate change legislation 
 decrease greenhouse gas emissions without regulating carbon dioxide, 
   nitrogen oxide, water vapor, or methane emissions from biological 
            processes associated with livestock production)

       On page 33, lines 19 and 20, after ``emissions'' insert the 
     following: ``(without regulating carbon dioxide, nitrogen 
     oxide, water vapor, or methane emissions from biological 
     processes associated with livestock production)''.


                           amendment no. 940

  (Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to require a 
     certain portion of funding for the Energy Star Program of the 
Environmental Protection Agency to be allocated to the Energy Star for 
                        Small Business Program)

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

     SEC. 2___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ENERGY STAR FOR 
                   SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM.

       (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 set aside, 
     from amounts made available for the Energy Star Program of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency, at least 2 percent for 
     the Energy Star for Small Business Program.
       (b) Deficit Neutrality.--Subsection (a) applies only if the 
     legislation described in that subsection 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. 870

   (Purpose: To provide for a total of $99,000,000 in COPS Hot Spots 
             funding, as authorized in the Combat Meth Act)

       On page 24, line 24, increase the amount by $99,000,000.
       On page 24, line 25, increase the amount by $12,000,000.
       On page 25, line 4, increase the amount by $28,000,000.
       On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $99,000,000.
       On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $12,000,000.
       On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $28,000,000.


                           amendment no. 810

   (Purpose: To modify the deficit-neutral reserve fund for economic 
 stabilization and growth to promote new employment opportunities that 
 are critical to economic recovery by supporting workforce strategies 
that help workers seeking specialized training for emerging industries)

       On page 37, line 24, insert ``by increasing support for 
     sector workforce training,'' after ``products,''.


                           amendment no. 940

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee 
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and as a longstanding steward 
of the environment, I have continuously requested increased funding for 
the Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star for Small Business 
Program, which has documented how voluntary action by small business 
owners can reduce energy costs by 30 percent or more.
  The Snowe-Landrieu amendment would require that a minimum of 2 
percent of the EPA's Energy Star Program's total budget be allocated to 
the Energy Star for Small Business Program. This critical program 
provides free unbiased information and technical support for small 
businesses to improve their company's financial performance by reducing 
energy waste and energy costs, while protecting the Earth's 
environment.
  Regrettably, in the past, less than 2 percent of Energy Star's annual 
funding has been allocated to the Small Business program which is 
responsible for reaching the entire small business community, thereby 
restricting its tremendous potential impact. This inadequate percentage 
grossly underestimates the critical role small businesses can play in 
improving our Nation's energy efficiency and reducing our carbon 
footprint.
  Through efforts to increase energy efficiency, small businesses can 
contribute to America's energy security, help to combat global warming, 
while strengthening their competitive advantage all at the same time. 
With 27 million small businesses in the U.S. comprising 99.7 percent of 
all domestic employer firms and producing approximately half of all the 
commercial and industrial energy in the United States, the role small 
businesses can play in forging a solution to global climate change and 
rising energy prices is undeniable.
  This amendment would provide small businesses with the funding, 
technical assistance, and resources necessary to improve small business 
energy efficiency. Every effort must be made at the Federal level to 
ensure the connection small businesses can engage in clean and 
renewable energy. I appreciate the support of my colleagues on this 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 810

  Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senator Brown, 
which I am cosponsoring, to create a deficit-neutral reserve fund to 
support funding for critical workforce strategy programs that help 
individuals seeking specialized training for emerging industries. This 
reserve fund will help highlight the need for resources to grow new 
employment opportunities that are critical to economic recovery by 
supporting workforce strategy programs that help those in need of 
training.
  Any effort to further stabilize our careening economy must include 
consideration of job training and transformation. Improving and 
reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act, WIA, to help the millions 
of unemployed--and millions more underemployed--must be a critical 
element of bolstering our economy.
  Much has been made of the phenomena of ``green jobs'' and a ``green 
technology.''At a recent speech in Atlanta, author Tom Friedman urged 
America to retake the lead in the world through innovation in ``ET''--
Energy Technology. Friedman said the United States needs to ``invent a 
source of abundant, cheap, clean, reliable electrons.'' He compared the 
``ET'' movement to the ``IT''--Information

[[Page 9871]]

Technology--movement of the last decade. There are thousands of 
entrepreneurs who are developing the next energy concept that will 
revolutionize our energy policies, and those concepts will need a 
highly educated and prepared workforce to make them a reality. The job 
training programs already in place under the Workforce Investment Act 
can help activate Americans, and expedite the transformation into a new 
energy economy. I believe this amendment will help ensure funding for 
our workers to get the best training and pave the way for just such a 
revolutionary shift in the future of this country.
  Throughout the Nation, workforce strategy programs, like those within 
WIA, are being used to promote the long-term competitiveness of 
industries and to advance employment opportunities. For example, the 
State of Maine has created a program called the North Star Alliance 
Initiative. The Alliance has brought together Maine's boat builders, 
the University of Maine's Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Centers, 
Maine's marine and composite trade association, economic development 
groups, and investment organizations for the purpose of advancing 
workforce training.
  In order to promote programs like the North Star Alliance Initiative, 
Senator Brown and I introduced the SECTORS Act, S. 777, which provides 
grants to industry clusters--interrelated group of businesses, service 
providers, and associated institutions in order to establish and expand 
sector partnerships. By providing financial assistance to these 
partnerships, this legislation would create customized workforce 
training solutions for specific industries at a regional level. A 
sector approach is beneficial because it can focus on the dual goals of 
promoting the long-term competitiveness of industries and advancing 
employment opportunities for workers, thereby encouraging economic 
growth. Existing sector partnerships have long been recognized as key 
strategic elements within some of the most successful economic 
development initiatives throughout the country. Unfortunately, current 
federal policy does not provide sufficient support for these critical 
ventures. This amendment will help ensure that critical funding will be 
made available for the SECTORS Act if it is passed into law.


                           Amendment No. 969

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, now we wish to go to the Sessions 
amendment No. 969.
  Senator Sessions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee.
  This Congress passed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 by a vote of 80 to 
19, with broad bipartisan support, including then-Senators Obama, 
Biden, and Clinton. We committed to 700 miles of barriers. Today we are 
less than halfway there. The funding has simply not been there.
  Some progress is being made in areas where the fencing is in place. 
We have had a dramatic reduction in crime in the San Diego area since 
the fence was completed a number of years ago. This will help us reduce 
crime. It will help us reduce drug smuggling, gun smuggling, and 
immigration violations. We have a lawless border.
  Progress is being made, colleagues. We are seeing a reduction in the 
number of people entering America, a reduction in the number of 
arrests. And if we follow through with what we have told the American 
people we intend to do, we will be able to create a lawful system of 
immigration, which is a responsibility this Congress has.
  I urge support of this amendment. It is consistent with previous 
votes. It puts a budget point of order against an appropriation in this 
area that does not fund the fence completion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 969.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for a point of order against any appropriations 
bill that fails to fully fund the construction of the Southwest border 
                                 fence)

       On page 68, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

     SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST FAILURE TO FULLY FUND 
                   SOUTHWEST BORDER FENCE.

       (a) Point of Order.--After a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget in the Senate is agreed to, it shall not be in order 
     in the Senate to consider any appropriations bill that fails 
     to provide at least $2,600,000,000 to carry out section 
     102(b)(1) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note).
       (b) 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.
       (c) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended only 
     by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly 
     chosen and sworn.
       (d) Appeals.--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.
       (e) Sunset Provision.--This section shall cease to be 
     effective on the earlier of--
       (1) the date on which $2,600,000,000 is appropriated to 
     carry out section 102(b)(1) of the Illegal Immigration Reform 
     and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996; or
       (2) the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Schumer has the time in 
opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, many of us supported the fence. Many of 
us opposed it. But one thing is for sure, there is only about $120 
million left to complete this section of the fence.
  The amendment we have before us--without an evaluation as to whether 
it is effective, without an evaluation of where the new parts should 
go, without an evaluation as to whether there are other, better ways to 
deal with the problem of undocumented and illegal immigration--says 
vote $2.6 billion whether it works or not. That does not make much 
sense at a time when we are trying to balance the budget, be fiscally 
austere.
  I had prepared a side by side. Let's have an evaluation by the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Border Patrol and everyone else 
as to whether the fence is working. I do not think that is clear. We 
should find out where it is working, how to make it better.
  Another thing we do here, without even any test, is set a double 
fence--$2.6 billion whether we know it works or not. I urge the 
amendment be defeated; we let the Department of Homeland Security study 
the most effective way to deal with illegal immigration, and if a 
double fence or another thing is needed, we will learn about that in 
time.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the 
amendment is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to waive is considered made.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 36, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 150 Leg.]

                                YEAS--36

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

                                NAYS--61

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer

[[Page 9872]]


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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Kennedy
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 36, the nays are 61. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. SCHUMER. 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.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are now down to six amendments and 
final passage. I wish to thank all the colleagues who have helped us 
get to this point.


                           Amendment No. 963

  The next amendment in order would be the DeMint amendment No. 963 on 
health care.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to call up DeMint amendment No. 
963.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 963.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for a point of order against any legislation that 
eliminates the ability of Americans to keep their health plan or their 
                           choice of doctor)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER ON LEGISLATION THAT ELIMINATES THE 
                   ABILITY OF AMERICANS TO KEEP THEIR HEALTH PLAN 
                   OR THEIR CHOICE OF DOCTOR.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate, it shall not be in order, 
     to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report that eliminates the ability of Americans to 
     keep their health plan or their choice of doctor (as 
     determined by the Congressional Budget Office).
       (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. DeMINT. Mr. President, there are a number of concerns about this 
budget, and I have heard from a number of Americans who see in the 
budget hundreds of millions of dollars for health care which suggests 
that the Government is not only going to expand into banks and auto 
companies and education but to expand into health care. One of the 
propositions President Obama made is that Americans will always be able 
to pick their own plans and choose their own doctors. This amendment 
simply codifies that. It creates a point of order against any 
legislation that would eliminate the ability of a patient to pick their 
own plans or their own doctor.
  I encourage my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Mr. President, would Senator DeMint be willing 
to accept a voice vote?
  Mr. DeMINT. If you can assure me we will win.
  Mr. CONRAD. I assure you.
  Mr. DeMINT. It is a done deal. Thank you.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask to take this on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 963) was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, that gives us five. We are going to go to 
the countdown; five plus final passage.


                           Amendment No. 964

  DeMint No. 964 is the next amendment in order.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to call up amendment No. 964.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 964.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to protect small 
and home businesses from the burdensome and impractical requirements of 
          the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO 
                   BAN ON LEAD IN CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS.

       (a) In General.--The Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of 1 or more 
     committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this 
     resolution by the amounts authorized to be appropriated for 
     the programs described in paragraphs (1) through (6) in 1 or 
     more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, motions, or 
     conference reports that fund consumer product safety, 
     including any program that--
       (1) delays the lead ban in section 101 of the Consumer 
     Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 1278a) by 6 
     months;
       (2) exempts thrift stores, consignment shops, and other 
     second hand sellers from the provisions of such section;
       (3) exempts children's motorcycles and all terrain vehicles 
     from treatment as banned hazardous substances under such 
     section;
       (4) exempts books from treatment as banned hazardous 
     substances under such section;
       (5) allows a product to comply with the lead ban in such 
     section if every component of the product complies with the 
     ban; or
       (6) does not require products manufactured before the 
     effective date of the ban under such section to be removed 
     from store shelves.
       (b) Limitation.--The authority described in subsection (a) 
     may not be used unless the appropriations in the legislation 
     described in paragraphs (1) through (6) of subsection (a) 
     would not increase the deficit over--
       (1) the 6-year period beginning with the first day of 
     fiscal year 2009; or
       (2) the 11-year period beginning with the first day of 
     fiscal year 2009.

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as 
cosponsors Senators Bennett, Enzi, Brownback, Coburn, and Vitter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask for my colleagues' attention because 
this is not a partisan amendment; it is not a messaging amendment.
  Many of my colleagues have probably heard from a number of 
constituents about some problems with the Consumer Product Safety Act 
that we passed. This amendment simply allows for the improvement of 
that bill with certain considerations such as allowing current 
inventory to sell through, exempting thrift stores and secondhand 
sellers, exempting book sales and children's motorcycles, allowing 
manufacturers to prove there is no lead content by proving that their 
components have no lead contents. This means they don't have to destroy 
existing inventory if they can prove it is safe. This amendment does 
nothing to diminish safety, but it is common sense.
  Please, this is costing millions of dollars, thousands of jobs across 
this country. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Pryor has the time in opposition.
  Mr. CONRAD. Senator Pryor has the time in opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, this amendment is a bad amendment. Last 
year, the Senate passed this legislation with 97 votes. It is a good 
bill. It bans lead in children's toys. It does so many other great 
things to make sure our marketplace is safe. It protects us from unsafe 
Chinese toys.
  We need to vote against this amendment. The problem is not with the 
act. It is very clear from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, 
where the Commissioner, who is not the Chairman, says that the single 
most important step that needs to be taken in furtherance of the 
implementation of the CPSIA at the agency is to have a third 
Commissioner who would also be a chairman appointed to lead the agency. 
Until then, any legislative fixes are premature.

[[Page 9873]]

  The CPSC has the authority to fix all the problems that have been 
raised by the Senator from South Carolina.
  I strongly urge that we vote for our children and vote no on the 
DeMint amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 151 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

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

                                NAYS--58

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Martinez
     McCain
     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--2

     Byrd
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 964) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                     Amendment No. 870, as Modified

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Thune 
amendment, No. 870, be modified with the changes which are at the desk, 
notwithstanding adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       On page 24, line 24, increase the amount by $99,000,000.
       On page 24, line 25, increase the amount by $12,000,000.
       On page 25, line 4, increase the amount by $28,000,000.
       On page 25, line 8, increase the amount by $59,000,000.
       On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $99,000,000.
       On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $12,000,000.
       On page 28, line 3, decrease the amount by $28,000,000.
       On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $59,000,000.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are now down to three amendments and 
final passage, and one of the three can be done on a voice vote.


                           Amendment No. 828

  The next amendment in order is Coburn amendment No. 828.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, imagine tomorrow morning, if we are in 
session, and you no longer get to vote your conscience, that a Federal 
bureaucrat will tell you what you can and cannot do.
  The fact is, we have wonderful physicians in this country who make 
decisions every day based on a multitude of factors, including what 
they think in their conscience is right. This is an amendment which 
simply protects that right, just as you would want the right for your 
vote in this body to be protected. It also protects the conscience of a 
patient to be able to choose the physician and the caregiver to whom 
they trust their body and their health.
  I hope this body will support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 828.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To protect the freedom of conscience for patients and the 
  right of health care providers to serve patients without violating 
                 their moral and religious convictions)

       On page 31, strike lines 3 through 7 and insert the 
     following: ``cans;
       (8) maintain long-term fiscal sustainability and pays for 
     itself by reducing health care cost growth, improving 
     productivity, or dedicating additional sources of revenue; or
       (9)(A) subject to subparagraph (B), protect the freedom of 
     conscience for patients and the right of health care 
     providers to serve patients without violating their moral and 
     religious convictions, which includes, but is not limited to, 
     prohibiting--
       (i) discrimination on the basis of a provider's objection 
     to perform or participate in specific surgical or medical 
     procedures or prescribe certain pharmaceuticals;
       (ii) legal coercion against a provider who expresses a 
     conscience objection to perform or participate in specific 
     surgical or medical procedures or prescribe certain 
     pharmaceuticals; and
       (iii) government coercion of patients to enroll in specific 
     health insurance plans or see pre-selected health care 
     providers; and
       (B) require the principles described in subparagraph (A) 
     shall not be construed to authorize or shield from liability 
     the denial, on the basis of a patient's race or present or 
     predicted disability, of a surgical or medical procedure or 
     pharmaceutical that a provider offers to others;''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Murray has the time in opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this amendment would put in place a 
regulation that would mean health care providers--not just doctors but 
anybody in a health care clinic or hospital--could refuse millions of 
women health care for critical services. It jeopardizes Federal family 
planning services, Medicaid, and title X, and it undermines State laws 
that guarantee women access to contraceptive services.
  Health and Human Services has proposed to rescind this rule which the 
Bush administration published when their clock was running out.
  This amendment puts ideology ahead of science and ahead of women's 
health care. Federal law already permits medical professionals to 
decline to assist in abortions based on their religious beliefs. But 
stopping this regulation will not change that. This amendment goes way 
too far and ignores the needs of patients and denies women reproductive 
health care services.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote no.
  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 the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 152 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

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

                                NAYS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan

[[Page 9874]]


     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 828) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the next amendment that is in order is 
amendment No. 751 by Senator Vitter, if he could briefly mention the 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 751

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 751.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 751.

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the 
reading of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To protect the more than 6 million Americans employed by the 
    domestic oil and gas industry and to ensure low-cost energy for 
             America's consumers, businesses, and families)

       On page 33, line 8, after ``legislation'', insert the 
     following:
       ``would not increase the cost of producing energy from 
     domestic sources, including oil and gas from the Outer 
     Continental Shelf or other areas; would not increase the cost 
     of energy for American families; would not increase the cost 
     of energy for domestic manufacturers, farmers, fishermen, or 
     other domestic industries; and would not enhance foreign 
     competitiveness against U.S. businesses; and''

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we accept the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing no objection, it 
is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 751) was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Vitter, and I also want to 
take just a moment to thank Senator Crapo for his graciousness in 
withdrawing an amendment, as well as Senator Martinez for his 
graciousness in withdrawing an amendment. We appreciate it very much.


                           Amendment No. 937

  We are now on to the final amendment before final passage, No. 937, 
by Senator Vitter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 937.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 937.

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the 
reading of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To require States to implement drug testing programs for 
    applicants for and recipients of assistance under the Temporary 
  Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which would encourage 
 healthy, drug-free families instead of encouraging dependent behavior 
                        or on-going drug abuse)

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

     SEC.__. RESERVE FUND TO REQUIRE DRUG TESTING AND TO PROVIDE 
                   DRUG TREATMENT FOR TANF RECIPIENTS.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, 
     aggregates, and other levels in this resolution for a bill, 
     joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report 
     that--
       (1) Would require that States operate a drug testing 
     program as part of their Temporary Assistance for Needy 
     Families (TANF) program;
       (2) Would provide treatment programs for those who test 
     positive for illegal drug use or are convicted of drug-
     related crime;
       (3) Would withhold TANF assistance for two years to any 
     recipient who, after initially testing positive and having 
     been offered treatment, again tests positive; and
       (4) Would not reduce or deny TANF assistance allocated for 
     dependents if the dependent's caretaker tests positive for 
     drug use or is convicted of drug-related crime; by the 
     amounts provided in that legislation for that purpose, 
     provided that such legislation would not increase 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.

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It advances 
the policy of drug testing for welfare or TANF recipients. If a 
recipient were to test positive, they would get treatment. If they 
tested positive again, then and only then would they be denied the 
benefit.
  Under no circumstances, would the children of that beneficiary be 
denied the children's benefit because they, of course, would not be a 
guilty party in any way.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Baucus will speak in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Begich). The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment for a lot of 
reasons. No. 1, this is an unfunded mandate. The TANF program, the low-
income program, the welfare program, is a block grant program. We give 
to all the States and the States set up their own systems under TANF. 
This is an unfunded mandate. It tells States they have to test all low-
income people for drugs.
  I think, frankly, it is a mean-spirited amendment. I believe we 
should not equate all low-income families with drug addiction. States 
can decide for themselves if they want to drug test. My State of 
Montana does. TANF, again, is a block grant program. States can decide 
for themselves what they want to do. We should not equate all low-
income families with drug addiction, and I strongly encourage this 
amendment be soundly defeated.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 27 seconds remaining.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I don't understand what is mean spirited 
about not giving tax money to folks who have drug problems and about 
trying to get them help, which is the first and most important thing we 
can do to actually help them.
  I urge broad bipartisan support for this commonsense amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
937.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily 
absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 18, nays 79, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 153 Leg.]

                                YEAS--18

     Barrasso
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Grassley
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     McConnell
     Risch
     Vitter

                                NAYS--79

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)

[[Page 9875]]


     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Byrd
     Kennedy
       
  The amendment (No. 937) was rejected.
  Mr. REID. 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. KYL. Mr. President, during these recent budget debates, I have 
been reminded that some in Washington used to mock President Reagan for 
the ``rosy economic scenarios'' they said his budgets relied upon. But 
never--until now--has any President's economic model differed so 
fundamentally from those predicted by most independent analysts.
  President Obama's budget chief, Peter Orszag, predicts that from 
2010-2013 the economy will grow 4 percent a year. But the blue-chip 
economic forecasters say it is much lower--about 2.7 percent. That is a 
big difference when we are talking about hundreds of billions of 
dollars.
  President Obama claims his budget will halve the deficit by 2014. But 
the way it gets there is by first running up a huge deficit and then 
cutting that number in half. The Congressional Budget Office now 
projects a $1.669 trillion deficit in 2009 that will bottom out at $658 
billion in 2012, which is still more than 40 percent above the highest 
deficit during the Bush administration. But the Congressional Budget 
Office also says the deficits accumulated by Obama's budget will then 
surge to $9.2 trillion in 2019.
  President Obama has said he will cut taxes for 95 percent of 
Americans. But his budget would raise taxes by $1.4 trillion over 10 
years. It not only lets some of the existing tax rates expire--thus 
raising taxes--but implements a colossal energy tax that will impact 
every American household--regardless of income--and is estimated to 
drop an additional $3,168 annual bill on every family, on top of its 
existing energy costs. Remember, candidate Obama told us that under 
this energy plan, ``electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.'' 
Why is this a good idea?
  Economic historian John Steele Gordon draws this analogy to an energy 
tax in the recent issue of Commentary magazine: ``If passed it will act 
on the economy as a whole exactly the way a governor acts on a steam 
engine, increasingly resisting any increase in revolutions per minute. 
. . . The more the economy tries to speed up the more [this tax] will 
work to prevent it from doing so.''
  Think about the incongruity between the growth predicted in President 
Obama's budget and the policies his budget would partially implement. 
This budget would saddle American taxpayers, businesses, and industry--
everyone--with a bevy of new tax increases and regulations that, once 
enacted, will unavoidably harm job creation and growth by making it 
more expensive for businesses to hire and by removing money from the 
private economy and transferring it to Washington.
  How can our economy recover with the Government hampering job 
creation and growth?
  Facts are stubborn things, as President Reagan used to say. We know 
that raising taxes in time of recession has never helped the economy 
grow. Why would this time be different?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I strongly believe that the Senate needs 
to address the serious and pressing problem of climate change, and I 
look forward to that debate this Congress. I do not, however, believe 
it would be appropriate to use the fast-track procedure known as 
reconciliation to consider climate change legislation. Reconciliation 
is intended for legislation that reduces the deficit. I have strongly 
opposed past efforts to use reconciliation to address policy matters, 
such as drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It wasn't 
appropriate then; it isn't appropriate now.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in approaching the budget for fiscal year 
2010, I am heavily influenced by the $700 billion expenditure in 
President Bush's bailout package--it was badly administered and I voted 
against release of the second $350 billion--and the President Obama 
twin brother $787 billion stimulus package. We have to take a closer 
look than usual at the mounting deficits and mounting national debt. 
These budget votes are all going to be determined by the Democratic 
majority largely on party lines so my vote is really a protest vote and 
to show there is substantial concern, at least with the loyal 
opposition, to limit Federal expenditures. To that end, I supported 
amendments offered by Senators Sessions, No. 772, and Crapo No. 844, to 
freeze domestic discretionary spending. I also supported amendments by 
Senators Alexander, No. 747, and Gregg, No. 739, to require a 60-vote 
threshold on any budget resolution that increases public debt.
  Congress must take action to address the current deficit spending 
especially the increasing funds for entitlement programs. I supported 
an amendment offered by Senator Gregg, No. 835, to establish a 
commission to examine the long-term obligations of the Federal 
Government and make recommendations to reduce that spending. Similarly, 
I voted in favor of the McCain amendment, No. 882, as an alternative 
budget resolution to lay down a marker to encourage reductions in 
Federal expenditures. The budget is just an outline without any of 
these votes being determinative as to what will occur on appropriations 
bills, where I will take another look at spending proposals depending 
on circumstances at that time.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I support the budget resolution for fiscal 
year 2010. The resolution embraces many priorities that I strongly 
support. They include a renewed commitment to energy efficiency, 
educational improvements, middle-class tax cuts, and our veterans.
  The resolution preserves the major priorities in President Obama's 
budget that was submitted to Congress. The President's budget outlined 
a blueprint for addressing and reversing the effects of the deep 
recession, collapse of the housing and credit markets, and the rise in 
joblessness that we inherited from the previous administration by 
setting the stage for sustained economic growth through investments in 
energy, education, and infrastructure, which were begun in the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA. Since President Obama's budget was 
submitted to Congress, the CBO's re-estimate of that budget has added 
$2.3 trillion to long-term deficit projections. Accordingly, the 
resolution adjusts the President's budget to cut the long-term deficit 
in half from $1.2 trillion in fiscal year 2010 to $508 billion in 
fiscal year 2014 while retaining the President's core priorities.
  The resolution matches the funding level in the President's budget 
for fiscal year 2010 energy discretionary funding to reduce our 
dependence on foreign sources of fuel, produce green jobs, promote 
renewable energy development, and improve the electric transmission 
grid, while encouraging energy conservation and efficiency.
  I am pleased that this resolution continues with green investments 
made in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act and provides 
increases for the energy efficiency and renewable energy program. The 
resolution will enable investments in further research and development 
in clean and sustainable energy technologies from resources that are 
abundant in my State of Hawaii, such as wind, solar, ocean, hydrogen, 
and biomass.
  The resolution invests in our Nation's future by fully funding the 
President's request for discretionary education and training programs. 
This includes expanding early childhood education programs that have 
proven to be so instrumental in preparing our Nation's children for 
future success. The budget also increases support for programs designed 
to reach out to low-income students so that every child has an equal 
opportunity to succeed. Similarly, by providing the necessary funding 
to support a $5,550 maximum Pell grant award in the 2010-2011 school 
year, this budget resolution will provide much needed assistance to 
individuals striving to achieve their higher

[[Page 9876]]

education goals including adults returning to school to revise and 
revamp their skills in order to more effectively compete in today's 
workforce.
  I was also pleased to see that funding was included in the budget 
resolution to enhance and improve the capability of the Federal 
acquisition workforce. In my role as both chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Oversight of Government Management and a senior member of the Armed 
Services Committee, I have long advocated for improvements in the 
hiring and retention of Federal employees. Similarly, I strongly 
support funding for the reform of Department of Defense processes for 
the acquisition of weapons systems including the reduction of no-bid 
and cost-plus contracts.
  As chairman of the Federal Workforce Subcommittee, I am pleased the 
resolution provides pay parity between Federal civilian and military 
servicemembers in the average annual pay raise, which is consistent 
with more than 20 years of congressional precedent and my priorities.
  Turning to items in the budget resolution for the Department of 
Veterans Affairs, the resolution includes the President's request, plus 
$540 million to compensate for the ill-advised proposal that would have 
billed veterans' insurance companies for service-connected care. 
President Obama made the right decision not to move forward with that 
proposal. Veterans' care and benefits are a cost of war and treatment 
for conditions directly related to service is the responsibility of the 
government alone.
  The resolution also includes mandatory budget authority for important 
benefits, such as compensation and pension, for veterans and their 
survivors. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the 
administration to enact the funding increases and targeted programs to 
help VA adapt to the changing needs of veterans and their loved ones.
  My colleagues, this resolution, with its targeted investments and 
changed public-policy priorities, will help us address the essential 
needs of the Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the budget resolution for fiscal year 
2010.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I believe the document we are now 
debating reflects two basic realities. First, it reflects the deep 
troubles that we have inherited from years of lax regulation, excessive 
risk, neglected oversight, even fraud and criminal behavior in our 
financial sector.
  As President Obama said when he addressed the Joint Session of 
Congress, America's ``day of reckoning'' has arrived. The deficit 
spending of the past administration and the economic collapse that 
began last fall have created deep structural problems that this budget 
inherits.
  Along with short-sighted budget policies that have put us deeper into 
debt, the collapse of our financial sector has brought down virtually 
every other sector of our economy. Those facts set the difficult 
context in which we do our work.
  Delaware has not been spared from the waves of bad economic news that 
have swept over our Nation. We have seen the job losses in our 
manufacturing industries, layoffs in flagship companies like DuPont, 
and downsizing in our financial services industry.
  Nationally, we just lost another three-quarters of a million jobs 
last month. In Delaware, our statewide unemployment rate has hit 7.4 
percent, a level we have not seen in a generation.
  As families in Delaware and around the country sit at their kitchen 
tables, they know that the world outside has changed. For those who 
have lost their jobs, for the husbands, the mothers, who have come home 
with that heartbreaking news--the process of sorting out mortgage 
payments, health insurance, groceries--even school books and lunch 
money--has taken on a sad urgency.
  For the others, whose neighbors are out of work, whose neighborhood 
now has a foreclosure or two mixed in with the for sale signs, whose 
own jobs could be among the next to go--basic decisions about family 
priorities are growing tougher every day.
  We must not forget those families as we do our work here on the 
Federal budget this week.
  But this budget reflects another reality, as well. It reflects the 
fundamental strengths of our country--our faith in the future, our 
ability to pull together, the strengths of our national character.
  And this budget reflects the change in direction, the change in 
priorities and values, the American people voted for last November.
  To help with family finances, this budget provides tax cuts to 
middle-class families.
  To begin the work of making our health care system more affordable, 
this budget makes health care more accessible for families and small 
businesses.
  It makes a college education more accessible and more affordable, so 
our children can qualify for the jobs that will define our economic 
future.
  This budget starts winding down our dependence on imported fossil 
fuels, by investments in clean and renewable energy we can provide 
right here--creating new processes, new products, and new jobs.
  And it begins the process of restoring the balance to our Nation's 
finances--a balance we had achieved just eight years ago--indeed, a 
budget surplus that was squandered.
  Just as the economic crisis has hit the paychecks of American 
workers, it has lowered the economic activity that funds the revenues 
we need to pay for our national priorities.
  One key part of our response to this crisis must be to fill the hole 
left in our economy by the loss of 5 million jobs, the loss of so much 
economic activity. Our economic recovery package, passed earlier this 
year, is a part of that response.
  So a key function of this budget will be to continue to fill that gap 
in our economy, to continue to provide families, businesses, and state 
and local governments with the resources they need to slow, stop, and 
reverse the decline in our economy.
  But if we are to move beyond the current crisis, we must make the 
investments that will reshape our future.
  This budget is a clear statement of new priorities: it lays down a 
new foundation for economic growth. These are the priorities, these are 
the commitments President Obama and Vice President Biden campaigned on. 
These are the priorities the American people voted for last November.
  We must not lose sight of the lesson before us: under the previous 
administration we gave free rein--and huge financial rewards--to short-
term risk-taking, to highly leveraged debt, to deals that many times 
were not worth the paper they were written on.
  We now know that tens of billions, or maybe more, of those paper 
profits were created by criminal enterprises like the one run by Bernie 
Madoff. Others, while legal, tread on the very border of our outdated 
and poorly enforced rules and regulations.
  At the same time, we failed to recognize and support average families 
in their struggles with rising health care costs, with the rising costs 
of a college education.
  We wasted years when we could have invested in cleaner and more 
efficient domestic sources of energy, while our dependence on dirty, 
dangerous, uncertain sources of imported oil increased. Those wasted 
years made our country more vulnerable to those who control oil 
reserves.
  The American people have rejected those failed policies and misplaced 
priorities. This budget replaces them with an agenda for rebuilding our 
economy and reasserting our values.
  Budgets are statements of our priorities, here in Washington, at the 
kitchen tables of families in Delaware, in the homes of families around 
the country.
  No budget is perfect. All budgets reflect difficult choices. In this 
economic crisis, our choices are more difficult, and our decisions 
carry more importance.
  I believe this budget reflects the best balance of addressing our 
present crisis, building a foundation for the future, and putting our 
finances on a sustainable path.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

[[Page 9877]]


  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote for this budget resolution. It 
rightfully recognizes that our way through these difficult times is by 
investing in our future, with significant funding for infrastructure, 
energy independence and programs that ensure the safety, health, and 
education of our Nation's children. This budget resolution makes clear 
that we cannot continue to cut taxes for a handful of wealthy 
individuals, at the expense of the many and hope that someday the 
benefits will trickle down. That course of action would lead to deeper 
and deeper deficits.
  The prior administration's fiscal policies failed. They left us in 
difficult and uncertain times. Unemployment in my state of Michigan and 
across the country is sky high. The financial markets are in turmoil, 
and millions of hard-working Americans that still have jobs are not 
only concerned about their depleted savings and retirement accounts, 
but making their mortgage payments. And now, some of the greatest 
companies in our country are under great duress.
  Our shared ability to navigate these troubled waters will depend upon 
our willingness to come together. Through this budget resolution, the 
Senate will set the blueprint for its work to help reverse the past 
administration's failed fiscal policies that have been so damaging to 
our economy.
  The Budget Committee includes in this resolution deficit-neutral 
reserve funds to promote economic recovery and growth, investments in 
infrastructure, and a long overdue commitment to the health of 
Americans. With adequate funds, we can modernize the health care system 
by continuing to progress towards health information technology. With 
additional dollars to help support and strengthen the health care 
workforce, we are making a firm statement that we will no longer shirk 
our responsibilities and will continue to fight for the 45.7 million 
uninsured individuals who have not had access to health care.
  This budget will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It allows 
us to improve our educational system. And it provides tax relief to 
millions of middle-income Americans, including providing much-needed 
relief from the alternative minimum tax. Congress, and our citizens, 
have long known that this tax was never intended to hit middle-class 
families.
  I am also pleased that this budget paves the way for using our 
committed resources to restore our financial system, while providing 
critical transparency and accountability for taxpayers. While I was 
pleased to support the economic stimulus packages, they only provided a 
partial solution to fixing our economy's problems. We cannot stop now. 
Although we have already taken unprecedented efforts to stimulate and 
revive our economy, there is more work ahead. While hard-working 
families struggle to make ends meet, we owe it to them to continue to 
invest in their futures.
  I am pleased that this budget resolution includes my proposal to 
establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to promote American 
manufacturing. Congress needs to take bold, decisive action to 
revitalize our domestic manufacturing sector. The U.S. has lost more 
than 4.1 million manufacturing jobs since January 2001 and over 300,000 
manufacturing jobs in Michigan since January 2001. It is important that 
we revitalize and maintain a strong manufacturing base in the U.S. The 
manufacturing industry faces pressure from international corporations 
that are strongly supported by their respective governments; our own 
government needs to lend similar support to keep American manufacturing 
companies competitive in the global marketplace.
  The deficit-neutral reserve fund included in this budget lays the 
groundwork for legislation to address important initiatives to boost 
American manufacturing. I look forward to continuing to work with my 
colleagues to stimulate the manufacturing sector in a meaningful way, 
and make a wise investment in the long-term growth, health, and 
stability of the manufacturing industry.
  The budget wisely includes a deficit-neutral reserve fund to 
accommodate legislation that would provide investments in clean energy 
and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, leaving the details of the 
legislation to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction. The threat 
of climate change is real and its impacts could be catastrophic if we 
do not act quickly. Clean energy and advanced technologies hold the 
promise for making real progress on reducing harmful greenhouse gases.
  While swift action is needed to confront the daunting challenges of 
global climate change, I oppose misusing the budget reconciliation 
process in the consideration of climate legislation. That legislation 
would influence every sector of the U.S. economy and could have far-
reaching impacts across the globe. For this reason, I supported an 
amendment offered by Senator Johanns that would prohibit the use of 
reconciliation for climate legislation. I voted in support of the 
Johanns amendment to reaffirm my opposition to an extremely truncated 
process for climate legislation, which would make a deliberative 
approach impossible. Taking action on climate change legislation to 
protect public health, the economy, and natural security should be done 
in a thoughtful way and not rushed through Congress.
  I was pleased to join Senator Dorgan in proposing an amendment to 
provide an increase of $10 million for organ donation activities at the 
Health Resources Services Administration. This modest amendment is 
aimed at fulfilling the promise of the Organ Donation and Recovery 
Improvement Act of 2004, to increase the number of organ donations. 
Currently, over 100,000 individuals are on the organ transplant waiting 
list, and more than 83,000 of those are in need of a kidney transplant. 
On average, patients wait 4 years before receiving a kidney transplant. 
Medicare spends about $55,000 per patient per year for dialysis. This 
means that every kidney donation has the potential to save Medicare as 
much as $220,000. Unfortunately, nearly 6,000 people die every year 
while waiting for a transplant. By doing more to educate people about 
donation and developing programs to encourage donation, we can take 
steps to reduce that number.
  Mr. President, this budget will continue the job of getting our great 
Nation back on track, and it deserves to pass.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of 
organizations opposing this budget resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Outside Groups Key Voting and Opposing The Senate Budget Resolution


         groups Key Voting Against Final Passage of The Budget

  Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Associated 
Builders and Contractors, Center for Fiscal Accountability, Citizens 
Against Government Waste, Club for Growth, Concerned Women for America, 
Freedom Works, Independent Electrical Contractors, International 
Foodservice Distributors Association, National Association of 
Wholesaler-Distributors, and National Taxpayers Union.


                       Groups Opposing The Budget

  American Conservative Union, American Family Business Institute, 
Americans for Limited Government, Associated General Contractors, Club 
for Growth, Council on National Policy, Family Research Council, 
National Association of Manufacturers, Numbers USA, Small Business 
Entrepreneurship Council, Tax Relief Coalition, and U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce.


  Groups Opposing Using Reconciliation For Health Care and Carbon Tax 
                           Within The Budget

  Business Roundtable, National Federation of Independent Business, 
National Mining Association, and Small Business & Entrepreneurship 
Council.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish to say a brief word so we know what 
we are going to do when we get back on Monday, 2 weeks from Monday.
  First of all, I express my appreciation to the whole Senate for the 
outstanding work done by the managers of this bill, Chairman Conrad, 
Ranking

[[Page 9878]]

Member Gregg. They did wonderful work. All the Senate speaks with one 
voice in recognizing the tremendous difficulty of this resolution. The 
work was done with civility. We had difficult amendments. This is a day 
the Senate should be proud.
  I applaud and commend, I repeat, on behalf of the entire Senate, the 
brilliant work done by these two fine gentlemen.
  When we come back, I was hoping we would not have to have this vote 
on Monday, but it appears we are going to have to. We have two wars 
going on. One, as we know, Afghanistan, and one we cannot put out of 
our mind in Iraq. One of the great career senior foreign service 
officers whom we have had in recent years, Christopher R. Hill of Rhode 
Island, has been nominated by the President to be Ambassador to Iraq.
  It is hard to comprehend, but I am going to have to file cloture on 
that tonight before we leave. I would hope everyone who is trying to 
hold up this man would give this some thought. How does this look? It 
does not look very good. But we are going to go ahead, and we are going 
to have this cloture vote on Monday. We have a lot of other things we 
could work on. We have a lot to do. We have a 5-week work period when 
we get back. I have already informed the Republican leader as to what 
days we are not going to have votes; there are three of them.
  I hope everyone has a good 2 weeks. We have a lot of time we need to 
spend at home. We have not been home. These have been very long 
periods, two long work periods we have had since we have become a new 
Congress.
  Of course, I have to say for all of us, it is very exiting to all of 
us to see the Presiding Officer.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to take a minute to thank the 
majority leader and Republican leader for their assistance in helping 
us move this bill in a reasonably expeditious way, considering it is 
the budget.
  I especially wish to thank the chairman and his staff, headed up by 
Mary Naylor. They do an extraordinary job. They are extremely 
professional and very courteous to the minority. It is always an open 
and fair process when we take up the budget, and they set an excellent 
standard.
  I additionally wish to thank my staff, headed up by Cheri Reidy and 
Jim Hearn, Allison Parent, and they do a fabulous job. I also wish to 
thank the folks up there on the dais because they stay here all day and 
make sure we are in order and keeping things on the move and we thank 
them very much for their time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the chairman of the committee and the 
ranking member did such a wonderful job. I think we should all express 
our appreciation.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wish to thank all of our colleagues. 
This is a tough, difficult day for all of us. I think the Senate has 
conducted itself well and distinguished itself today.
  I wish to thank each of our colleagues for that. I especially wish to 
thank Leader Reid for his support throughout this process; Senator 
Murray, who I think has a special knack for convincing people not to 
offer amendments. Thank goodness for Senator Murray. To my colleague, 
Senator Gregg, you could not ask for a better partner. There is no one 
more professional, more decent or somebody whose word is better than 
Senator Gregg. I deeply appreciate it, as well as his professional 
staff, who have been terrific to work with.
  On our side, Mary Naylor, my staff director; John Righter and Joel 
Friedman, my deputies; Joe Gaeta, Steve Bailey, Mike Jones, Jamie 
Morin, Stu Nagurka, Steve Posner, Sarah Kuehl, and all the others who 
have contributed.
  This has been a labor of love. They have worked night and day, 
weekends for months, and I deeply appreciate their sacrifice.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me briefly echo the remarks of the 
majority leader and congratulate Chairman Conrad and Ranking Member 
Gregg and say we have a lot of freshmen Senators. You probably think 
this is a tough day. I might mention to you, this is one of the least 
tough budget days we have had in the time that I have been here. I 
think I see the Vice President smiling. He would agree with that.
  That is a tribute largely to Senator Gregg and Senator Conrad. Thank 
you so much for an excellent job.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish to make a plea, if I can publicly. 
There is still time between now and tomorrow to try to do something 
differently on this question of sending our Ambassador to Iraq.
  Senator Lugar is supportive. I am supportive. There is bipartisan 
support for this nominee. He is going to be approved. We all know that. 
Iraq is experiencing increasing political difficulties, and the missing 
ingredient of our capacity to get the success we want is political 
reconciliation.
  Ambassador Crocker has not been well recently. He has put enormous 
energy in this effort. Getting Christopher Hill there in the next 2 
weeks can make a difference. I would urge our colleagues, if there are 
other issues linked to this, there are other ways to work it through.
  My hope would be that we would be able to free him up. It is a 
terrible message to send, to tie him to issues of North Korea or 
otherwise extraneous. It handicaps our capacity to maximize our efforts 
in a war.
  If we are going to treat a war seriously, we ought to treat this 
Ambassador nomination seriously. I would ask my colleagues to think 
about that while there is an opportunity to be able to approve it in 
these next 24 hours.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I hate to throw a little cold water on 
this whole ``Kumbaya'' party we are having, but I think it is an 
important precedent that we determine tonight.
  I rise to make a parliamentary inquiry regarding the status of the 
budget resolution: Specifically, I rise to inquire if the resolution 
remains a privileged measure, notwithstanding the adoption of 10 
corrosive points of order, 8 of which reach into the jurisdiction of 
the Finance Committee, 1 of which reaches into the Veterans' Committee, 
and 1 into the Judiciary Committee.
  In the case of the Durbin amendment, No. 974, the point of order 
specifies, with exacting detail, what level of taxpayer must receive a 
tax cut in order to allow death taxes to go forward.
  Therefore, I put the question to the Chair: Does the pending budget 
resolution retain its privileged status despite these corrosive points 
of order having been adopted?
  The VICE PRESIDENT. It does.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Further parliamentary inquiry: Does that mean it would 
require 60 votes for passage?
  The VICE PRESIDENT. It does not require 60 votes for passage.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Further parliamentary inquiry: Is losing its privileged 
status at this point, does that mean it would be still fully debatable?
  The VICE PRESIDENT. It has not lost its privileged status.
  Mr. ENSIGN. So that would be the precedent for the future, 8 to 10 
corrosive amendments does not lose its privileged status.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. This particular budget resolution has not lost 
its privileged status.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I thank the Chair.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, to briefly respond to the Senator from 
Massachusetts, the chairman of the distinguished Foreign Relations 
Committee has raised a serious issue about Ambassador Hill.
  A number of us on our side have serious questions about Ambassador 
Hill and how he conducted himself in the last assignment. I would like 
to see what some of those instructions were from that assignment.
  I recognize the seriousness of the situation we are in in Iraq, no 
question

[[Page 9879]]

about that. But I have serious reservations about his position in going 
to that. I think this will be a good period of time for us to get some 
of these questions answered from the State Department.
  I have proffered a letter to them. I have some serious questions 
about what took place during the negotiations with North Korea and a 
possible missile launch that will take place even in this interim, and 
this was our lead negotiator there.
  For those reasons, I, amongst others, am raising questions at this 
time. I think they need to be answered before he is approved for such 
an important spot for the United States.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the adoption of the concurrent 
resolution, as amended.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. 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 West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 154 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kennedy
     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

                                NAYS--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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Byrd
       
  The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 13), as amended, was agreed 
to.
  (The resolution will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Begich). The Senator from Michigan.

                          ____________________