Mr. Conrad: Madam President, I am going to be yielding to the Senator from New Jersey in a moment on this amendment, but we wish to enter into a unanimous consent request for what happens after the votes tonight. We have already entered into a unanimous consent request with respect to the votes that will occur tonight. After those votes, there will be a time for discussion and debate. I ask unanimous consent that during that period, Senator Hutchison be allowed to offer an amendment on sales and use tax, that Senator Sessions be able to offer an amendment relating to the alternative minimum tax, that Senator Durbin be permitted to speak, that Senator Sanders be permitted to speak, that Senator Lieberman be permitted to introduce and withdraw an amendment on war costs, and that Senator Wyden be permitted to speak.
Perhaps we should go a step further and give an amount of time for each. Would the Senator have a thought with respect to wanting to give them 10 minutes each?
Mr. Gregg: Why don't we give them 15 minutes.
Mr. Conrad: Continuing, that each of the aforementioned Senators have up to 15 minutes, and that they be in the order indicated: Senator Hutchison, Senator Sessions, Senator Durbin, Senator Sanders, Senator Lieberman, Senator Wyden.
Mr. Gregg: And, Madam President, that the majority has the right to reserve an amendment in response to the Sessions amendment and in response to the Hutchison amendment, and that the order of voting on any amendments offered this evening as part of this unanimous consent would be at the discretion of the chairman and the ranking member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. Conrad: That is correct.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Conrad: And, when the business of the Senate is concluded today, that there be 25 hours left on the budget resolution.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Conrad: We thank all colleagues. To revisit, so everybody understands what we will then face, after the votes tonight, Senator Hutchison will be able to offer an amendment relating to sales and use tax, Senator Sessions on the alternative minimum tax; that both of those can have a side-by-side Democratic amendment offered tomorrow if it is deemed necessary; that Senators Durbin, Sanders, Lieberman, and Wyden all be recognized in that order, or if they seek to change the order among themselves they are able to do that; that each of them be limited to 15 minutes; that there be no further votes after the votes that have already been approved; and that at the conclusion of the Senate business tonight, there will be 25 hours remaining on the budget resolution.
We thank the excellent staff who have helped us keep track of all this through the day, and we thank very much the occupant of the Chair as well for her attention and for her effort.
With that, I recognize the Senator from New Jersey.
How much time do I have remaining?
The Presiding Officer: There is 3 minutes 42 seconds.
Mr. Conrad: I yield that time to the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. Menendez: Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee for yielding, and let me get right to it. Only in Washington, with those who have some of the best health care coverage in the Nation, would there be a proposal to cut coverage to America's neediest children.
An example of what would happen if this were to be passed: In New Jersey alone, more than a half million children depend upon our State's successful SCHIP program. Providing less than what is required to keep these children safe and healthy isn't only reckless, it is a dereliction of our duty here in Congress.
The President is spending a lot of time this week talking about Congress's role and responsibilities. The President had a responsibility to send us a budget that took care of children in this country, and we have had members of his administration cite the successes of what we have done in New Jersey and, therefore, in other places in the country.
Tom Scully, who is the CMS administrator, said:
Even in tight economic times New Jersey is setting an example of how Federal waivers can help them cut into the numbers of citizens with no health coverage.
That is what he said on January 31 of 2003.
If the Cornyn amendment is passed, as many as 30,000 children in New Jersey could lose coverage for needed medical service. Worse still, it would prevent another 75,000 children in New Jersey from even being eligible for the critical health coverage they need. That is not only bad policy, it is downright reckless and it is flatout wrong.
We live in the greatest country in the world, and there is no reason our neediest children should go without the medical services they need. No child in America should go to sleep at night in pain because they don't have the health care coverage they need or, as we saw recently, a young boy in Maryland who had a toothache, and it abscessed and it ended up getting infected and he died. No child in America should face that reality.
We know the success of covering parents, because when we cover parents, we end up covering children. That is not because I say it, but look at what the CMS administrator Mark McClellan said last year before the Senate Finance Committee. He said:
Extending coverage to parents and caretaker relatives not only serves to cover additional insured individuals, but it may also increase the likelihood that they will take the steps necessary to enroll their children. Extending coverage to parents and caretakers may also increase the likelihood that their children remain enrolled in SCHIP, and that is our experience.
That is New Jersey's experience.
Who are we talking about, not only in New Jersey but across the country? We are talking about some of the children in our Nation who come from communities that already have great health disparities. Yet when we see what SCHIP has done, we have seen those disparities narrow. Here is a chart that shows before enrollment in SCHIP what many children faced--White, African American, and Latino children--and after the enrollment, the percentage of children lacking a regular source of care dramatically reduces; dramatically reduces. Now, Latino and African-American children in this country will represent over 40 to 45 percent of all of the Nation's schoolchildren. Would we leave 45 percent of any capital, human capital in this case, unhealthy, uneducated? That is what this amendment seeks to do.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. Menendez: Madam President, we need to defeat the Cornyn amendment. We need to keep the reality of where SCHIP is today: insuring our children and their families and making sure we are preserving that human capital.
The Presiding Officer: Who yields time?
Mr. Gregg: What is the time situation?
The Presiding Officer: The Senator has 6 minutes left.
Mr. Gregg: I yield to the Senator 6 minutes.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. Pryor: Madam President, I thank the Senator. That is very gracious and I appreciate it very much. I wanted to come to the floor and say a few words. I will try to keep my remarks to 90 seconds or 2 minutes, because I know some other Senators wish to say a word.
First, let me thank my colleagues for working on a package of legislation that includes the TRAC Act, making the TRAC Act permanent, the tax relief for our soldiers in combat. We know we spotted this 3 years ago where for some soldiers in combat, when they take their combat pay, they lose the ability to get the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit. I have had soldiers all around my State and other places tell me they appreciate the tax relief, and the last thing they need to be worried about is their taxes and getting gypped out of some tax relief. So this makes it permanent. Thank you very much.
Secondly, I have included in this package one of these amendments we are going to vote on which is the daycare tax credit. In 2004, there were 6.3 million taxpayers who used the child independent tax care credit to cover daycare, afterschool care, summer day camp, elder care facilities, and this is a tax that helps working families, middle-class families, folks who are the bread and butter of our Nation and our economy.
Also, I thank Senator Conrad and Senator Gregg for their great leadership on this budget. I know it has been very hard. I know we are getting to the time to vote. I want to thank them publicly for their leadership.
I yield the floor.
Mr. Gregg: Madam President, if I still have time, I yield it back.
Mr. Conrad: Madam President, we have a series of votes starting at 5 o'clock. We have the rest of the evening lined up. I apologize to the desk crew who will be here late into the evening once again. I also want to thank our staffs--my goodness, they have worked tirelessly-- Mary Naylor of my staff, Scott Gudes, and the staff director for Senator Gregg, and all of their assistants who have done a spectacular job of helping us to manage this difficult budget resolution.
Votes are to start at 5 o'clock. Why don't we start now. I think we could begin the vote early. Is there a problem with that? I don't think that hurts anything, because what that would allow us to do is we have agreed there would be 10-minute votes after that. I don't think there is any problem with that.
Does Senator Gregg have any other observations? Maybe one thing we need to do is remind our colleagues--this may be a very good time to remind colleagues of what it is we are going to face tomorrow. Tomorrow we are going to come in and we are going to have 25 hours left on this resolution. Then we go to vote-arama. We need to finish this by 4 o'clock on Friday. We have a number of our colleagues on both sides who have other obligations, so we need to finish this. So we are calling on colleagues--and I will speak for myself. I am calling on colleagues on our side to please be disciplined about the amendments you insist on getting votes on. We have had perhaps the most difficult year I can ever remember, because we have some of our colleagues on Presidential campaigns, and there have been so many other events we have had to break for. It has made it very difficult to give colleagues the chance to get the votes they desire. We are going to have to ask for continued cooperation to get this done.
Senator Gregg, do you wish to say anything further?
Mr. Gregg: I appreciate the Senator's comments. First, I join him in thanking the staff. We are about halfway through the timeframe here and they are getting tired, but they are doing a great job and we very much appreciate all they do; not only our staffs on the committee but obviously the staff that operates the Senate itself, who end up being here late into the night, and we very much appreciate their help.
As to amendments, we are going to have a lot of votes on Friday, and it is going to be a very extensive day of voting and people need to sort of get ready for that.
At this point I think we ought to start the votes.
Mr. Conrad: Madam President, the hour of 5 o'clock having arrived, I think it is the appropriate time to start the votes.
Mr. Gregg: I am not sure the yeas and nays have been ordered on all of these amendments.
Mr. Conrad: Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The Presiding Officer: The yeas and nays have been requested en bloc.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
Mr. Gregg: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes evenly divided between each amendment.
The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes equally divided between the votes prior to the vote on the Baucus amendment.
Mr. Conrad: Madam President, nobody has used time on either side on the first amendment; is that correct?
The Presiding Officer: That is correct.
Mr. Conrad: Maybe I will take the time because I am advised Senator Baucus will not be here until the vote has begun.
Let me recall for our colleagues that the Baucus amendment is to provide for the middle-class tax cuts to also address this anomaly in the estate tax, where it goes from $3.5 million per person of exemption back down to $1 million. It also contains additional funding for the Children's Health Care Program.
There are other elements to the Baucus amendment, as well, that were enumerated by the Senator. I hope very much that our colleagues can support the Baucus amendment. It still leaves us with a slight balance in 2012 so that we are not back into deficit.
I thank the Chair.
id="Gregg"The Presiding Officer: The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. Gregg: Madam President, claiming the minute on the Republican side, the Baucus amendment makes sense, but it does so in the context of also justifying the Kyl amendment. Both amendments basically make the point that we should extend these tax rates, which have done so much to help people and create an economic boom in this country. Both amendments are essentially the same, as far as the impact on the economy, but the Baucus amendment is about 2½times the Kyl amendment. Both of them create issues of deficit financing.
As a practical matter, the Kyl amendment specifically will generate economic activity. It creates jobs and, therefore, more revenue to the Federal Treasury. If you vote for one, you should vote for the other, if you happen to believe we have a tax policy that is making sense in this country today and is generating a lot of revenue, which it is.
The Presiding Officer: The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 492 by the Senator from Montana.
The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
Mr. Durbin: I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Obama): Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 1, as follows:
| Rollcall Vote No. 82 Leg. - Amendment 492 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YEAS--97 | ||||
| Akaka | Alexander | Allard | Baucus | Bayh |
| Bennett | Biden | Bingaman | Bond | Boxer |
| Brown | Brownback | Bunning | Burr | Byrd |
| Cantwell | Cardin | Carper | Casey | Chambliss |
| Clinton | Coburn | Cochran | Coleman | Collins |
| Conrad | Corker | Cornyn | Craig | Crapo |
| DeMint | Dole | Domenici | Dorgan | Durbin |
| Ensign | Enzi | Feinstein | Graham | Grassley |
| Gregg | Hagel | Harkin | Hatch | Hutchison |
| Inhofe | Inouye | Isakson | Kennedy | Kerry |
| Klobuchar | Kohl | Kyl | Landrieu | Lautenberg |
| Leahy | Levin | Lieberman | Lincoln | Lott |
| Lugar | Martinez | McCain | McCaskill | McConnell |
| Menendez | Mikulski | Murkowski | Murray | Nelson (FL) |
| Nelson (NE) | Obama | Pryor | Reed | Reid |
| Roberts | Rockefeller | Salazar | Sanders | Schumer |
| Sessions | Shelby | Smith | Snowe | Specter |
| Stabenow | Stevens | Sununu | Tester | Thomas |
| Thune | Vitter | Voinovich | Warner | Webb |
| Whitehouse | Wyden | |||
| Nays-- | ||||
| Feingold | ||||
| Dodd | Johnson | |||
| NOT VOTING-- | ||||
The amendment (No. 492) was agreed to.
The Presiding Officer: The majority leader.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, we have six votes that are going to be called immediately; 10 minutes plus 5 minutes the roll will be called. Everybody should understand that and not run back to their offices. Ten minutes, fifteen minutes goes by very quickly. There will be six votes, and we have 15 minutes on each one of them.
The Presiding Officer: There is 2 minutes equally divided prior to the next vote. Who yields time?
Mr. Gregg: Mr. President, could we have a little bit of order? A touch, not too much. I don't want to get carried away.
The Presiding Officer: The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. Gregg: Mr. President, if my colleagues voted for the last amendment, they should vote for this amendment. Procedurally, they are essentially the same. They are treated the same, they have the same impact, for all intents and purposes.
The last amendment, arguably, would increase the deficit by $60 billion. This one would increase it by $70 billion. Both amendments are focused on continuing the tax policy that we have in place, which is doing such a good job of generating jobs. In fact, this amendment increases the death tax to 35 percent--it reduces it, doesn't allow it to go over 35 percent. It allows the exemption to be applied to estates of $5 million; it permanently extends the tuition tax credit; it permanently extends the $250 deduction for teachers; it extends the tuition tax credit; it extends the capital gains and dividend tax rates which are so important to this economy and have had such a positive impact on revenues to the Federal Treasury.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, however well intended the Kyl amendment is, it spends $72.5 billion with no offset. The surplus is gone under the amendment we just adopted. The surplus is gone. So the effect of this amendment is to take us right back into deficit.
This amendment blows the budget. This amendment takes us from a balance in 2012 right back into deficit.
My colleagues can extend those tax cuts if they pay for them, if they offset them. The Kyl amendment does not pay for them; it does not offset them; it takes us back into deficit. It ought to be defeated.
The Presiding Officer: Is all time yielded back?
Mr. Gregg: Do I still have time?
The Presiding Officer: The Senator has 6 seconds remaining.
Mr. Gregg: Six seconds.
The Presiding Officer: Go ahead, quick.
Mr. Gregg: The Senator from North Dakota is wrong. Vote for the Kyl amendment.
The Presiding Officer: The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 507. On this question, 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 Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
The Presiding Officer: Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:
| Rollcall Vote No. 83 Leg. - Amendment 507 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YEAS--47 | ||||
| Alexander | Allard | Bennett | Bond | Brownback |
| Bunning | Burr | Chambliss | Coburn | Cochran |
| Coleman | Collins | Corker | Cornyn | Craig |
| Crapo | DeMint | Dole | Domenici | Ensign |
| Enzi | Graham | Grassley | Gregg | Hagel |
| Hatch | Hutchison | Inhofe | Isakson | Kyl |
| Lott | Lugar | Martinez | McCain | McConnell |
| Murkowski | Roberts | Sessions | Shelby | Smith |
| Specter | Stevens | Sununu | Thomas | Thune |
| Vitter | Warner | |||
| Nays--51 | ||||
| Akaka | Baucus | Bayh | Biden | Bingaman |
| Boxer | Brown | Byrd | Cantwell | Cardin |
| Carper | Casey | Clinton | Conrad | Dorgan |
| Durbin | Feingold | Feinstein | Harkin | Inouye |
| Kennedy | Kerry | Klobuchar | Kohl | Landrieu |
| Lautenberg | Leahy | Levin | Lieberman | Lincoln |
| McCaskill | Menendez | Mikulski | Murray | Nelson (FL) |
| Nelson (NE) | Obama | Pryor | Reed | Reid |
| Rockefeller | Salazar | Sanders | Schumer | Snowe |
| Stabenow | Tester | Voinovich | Webb | Whitehouse |
| Wyden | ||||
| NOT VOTING--2 | ||||
| Dodd | Johnson | |||
The amendment (No. 507) was rejected.
Mrs. Murray: Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. Reid: I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The Presiding Officer: There are now 2 minutes equally divided on the Cornyn amendment.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. Cornyn: Mr. President, my amendment creates a 60-vote point of order against legislation that would increase the income tax rates on taxpayers.
Yesterday, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee graciously indicated his support for this amendment. I hope nothing has changed overnight, and so I would hope my colleagues would support this taxpayer-friendly amendment.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, I find myself conflicted on this amendment in the following way: On the one hand, I don't think it is particularly good tax policy to establish points of order on this matter. So as a matter of tax policy, I don't think it is a particularly good idea. On the other hand, I don't want to leave the impression that this resolution contemplates an increase in tax rates because it doesn't.
So I would say to those on my side, vote your conscience on this amendment. It certainly will not do any damage to this resolution if this were to pass.
The Presiding Officer: The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
Mr. Durbin: I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
The Presiding Officer: Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 35, as follows:
| Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg. - Amendment 477 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YEAS--63 | ||||
| Alexander | Allard | Baucus | Bayh | Bennett |
| Bond | Brownback | Bunning | Burr | Cantwell |
| Casey | Chambliss | Coburn | Cochran | Coleman |
| Collins | Corker | Cornyn | Craig | Crapo |
| DeMint | Dole | Domenici | Ensign | Enzi |
| Graham | Grassley | Gregg | Hagel | Hatch |
| Hutchison | Inhofe | Isakson | Kohl | Kyl |
| Landrieu | Leahy | Lincoln | Lott | Lugar |
| Martinez | McCain | McCaskill | McConnell | Murkowski |
| Murray | Nelson (FL) | Nelson (NE) | Pryor | Roberts |
| Salazar | Sessions | Shelby | Smith | Snowe |
| Specter | Stevens | Sununu | Tester | Thomas |
| Thune | Vitter | Warner | ||
| Nays--35 | ||||
| Akaka | Biden | Bingaman | Boxer | Brown |
| Byrd | Cardin | Carper | Clinton | Conrad |
| Dorgan | Durbin | Feingold | Feinstein | Harkin |
| Inouye | Kennedy | Kerry | Klobuchar | Lautenberg |
| Levin | Lieberman | Menendez | Mikulski | Obama |
| Reed | Reid | Rockefeller | Sanders | Schumer |
| Stabenow | Voinovich | Webb | Whitehouse | Wyden |
| NOT VOTING--2 | ||||
| Dodd | Johnson | |||
The amendment (No. 477) was agreed to.
The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes evenly divided on the Sessions amendment.
Mr. Sessions: Mr. President, just briefly on this next amendment, I think it is a defining vote on the question of whether we intend to extend the current lower tax rates. The budget resolution that is before us has four points of order against tax cuts, but the way it is written, it even includes continuing our current income tax rates beyond 2010 because that would be defined under this budget as a reduction in taxes. This means that this proposed budget resolution would require 60 votes to extend the currently existing lower rates beyond 2010. I believe that is a mistake. These reduced rates include the $1,000 per child tax credit, the 10 percent bracket, the marriage penalty, the adoption tax credit, capital gains and estate tax repeal.
I urge my colleagues, let's not put a burden on our economy and on our constituents by allowing these current tax rates that are low now to surge upward when they expire at the end of 2010. Do not put a 60- vote requirement to extend current rates.
The Presiding Officer (Ms. Cantwell): The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. Conrad: Madam President, if you want to gut pay-go this is your opportunity. This amendment would completely overturn the pay-go discipline. The pay-go discipline, as all Members know, says: If you are going to have new mandatory spending, you have got to pay for it. If you want more tax cuts, you are going to have to offset them.
This amendment would completely strip all of the points of order that exist under the pay-go discipline. This would be a return to deficits and debt as far as the eye can see at the worst possible time, just before the baby boomers retire.
This is a critical and defining amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
The Presiding Officer: The question is on agreeing to the amendment No. 466, as modified, offered by the Senator from Alabama. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. Durbin: I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
The Presiding Officer: Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 52, as follows:
| Rollcall Vote No. 85 Leg. - Amendment 466 as Modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YEAS--46 | ||||
| Alexander | Allard | Bennett | Bond | Brownback |
| Bunning | Burr | Chambliss | Coburn | Cochran |
| Coleman | Corker | Cornyn | Craig | Crapo |
| DeMint | Dole | Domenici | Ensign | Enzi |
| Graham | Grassley | Gregg | Hagel | Hatch |
| Hutchison | Inhofe | Isakson | Kyl | Lott |
| Lugar | Martinez | McCain | McConnell | Murkowski |
| Roberts | Sessions | Shelby | Smith | Specter |
| Stevens | Sununu | Thomas | Thune | Vitter |
| Warner | ||||
| Nays--52 | ||||
| Akaka | Baucus | Bayh | Biden | Bingaman |
| Boxer | Brown | Byrd | Cantwell | Cardin |
| Carper | Casey | Clinton | Collins | Conrad |
| Dorgan | Durbin | Feingold | Feinstein | Harkin |
| Inouye | Kennedy | Kerry | Klobuchar | Kohl |
| Landrieu | Lautenberg | Leahy | Levin | Lieberman |
| Lincoln | McCaskill | Menendez | Mikulski | Murray |
| Nelson (FL) | Nelson (NE) | Obama | Pryor | Reed |
| Reid | Rockefeller | Salazar | Sanders | Schumer |
| Snowe | Stabenow | Tester | Voinovich | Webb |
| Whitehouse | Wyden | |||
| NOT VOTING--2 | ||||
| Dodd | Johnson | |||
The amendment (No. 466), as modified, was rejected.
Mr. Conrad: I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, there will be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, on the Ensign amendment No. 476.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. Ensign: Madam President, this amendment is very simply a Defense firewall amendment. We have had these in the past. The chairman of the Budget Committee will argue that they did not work very effectively in the past. I would disagree. It made it more difficult to take money out of Defense and to spend it on other programs.
Our amendment is a little different. It says if you are going to take money out of Defense for social spending programs, then you must do it during the budget process. It brings transparency into the budget process. In the last several years, folks have taken money out of the Defense Department during the appropriations process, put it in other social spending, and then during the emergency supplemental process they backfill the Defense Department. This has cost our country an extra $84 billion over the last 5 years. The problem is the money gets built into the baseline, which costs more money and more money and more money every year; last year alone it was $40 billion.
If you want to be fiscally responsible, you should vote for this amendment.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. Conrad: Madam President and colleagues, I think this amendment is well intended.
I believe it will actually make the situation worse with these defense firewalls. What it means is that supposedly we are walling off nondefense money and defense money. But here is what is happening. We have had these firewalls in the past. Before we had them, we had three medical research earmarks in the defense budget. This is what happened after defense firewalls. Here are the number of earmarks in the defense budget for medical research. Does anybody believe we are better off doing medical research at the Department of the Army rather than at the National Institutes of Health? That is what this amendment is about. It will be a mistake to adopt this amendment. I urge a "no" vote.
The Presiding Officer: The question is on agreeing to the amendment No. 476. 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 Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
The Presiding Officer: Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 51, as follows:
| Rollcall Vote No. 86 Leg. - Amendment 476 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YEAS--47 | ||||
| Alexander | Allard | Bennett | Bond | Brownback |
| Bunning | Burr | Chambliss | Coburn | Cochran |
| Coleman | Collins | Corker | Cornyn | Craig |
| Crapo | DeMint | Dole | Domenici | Ensign |
| Enzi | Graham | Grassley | Gregg | Hagel |
| Hatch | Hutchison | Inhofe | Isakson | Kyl |
| Lott | Lugar | Martinez | McCain | McConnell |
| Murkowski | Roberts | Sessions | Shelby | Smith |
| Snowe | Stevens | Sununu | Thomas | Thune |
| Vitter | Warner | |||
| Nays--51 | ||||
| Akaka | Baucus | Bayh | Biden | Bingaman |
| Boxer | Brown | Byrd | Cantwell | Cardin |
| Carper | Casey | Clinton | Conrad | Dorgan |
| Durbin | Feingold | Feinstein | Harkin | Inouye |
| Kennedy | Kerry | Klobuchar | Kohl | Landrieu |
| Lautenberg | Leahy | Levin | Lieberman | Lincoln |
| McCaskill | Menendez | Mikulski | Murray | Nelson (FL) |
| Nelson (NE) | Obama | Pryor | Reed | Reid |
| Rockefeller | Salazar | Sanders | Schumer | Specter |
| Stabenow | Tester | Voinovich | Webb | Whitehouse |
| Wyden | ||||
| NOT VOTING--2 | ||||
| Dodd | Johnson | |||
The amendment (No. 476) was rejected.
Mrs. Murray: I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. Nelson (FL): I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, there will be 2 minutes evenly divided on the Bunning amendment No. 483.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. Bunning: Madam President, this amendment is almost identical to the language that was included in the fiscal year 2003 budget resolution Chairman Conrad authored. There are many reasons for this amendment, but basically the amendment says that just because we have been spending the Social Security surplus for decades does not mean we should continue to do so. That is why we have made a budget point of order against continued spending of it.
We have dug ourselves into a big ditch. The budget before us just keeps on digging. My amendment says: Stop digging. It forces Congress to make a plan to protect the Social Security surplus.
I urge my colleagues to think about the future Social Security retirees and support this amendment.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. Conrad: Madam President, this is a happy moment. We can all vote for this amendment. This is an amendment I offered a number of years ago. I wish it would have passed then and been in effect because we could have avoided some of the unpleasantness that has followed in taking Social Security funds and using them for other purposes.
There is no reason not to support this amendment tonight to try to once again impose the discipline that has been lacking, to prevent Social Security funds from being used to pay other bills.
So I welcome colleagues voting for this amendment.
The Presiding Officer: The question is on agreeing to Bunning amendment No. 483. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. Durbin: I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
The Presiding Officer: Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:
| Roll No. Rollcall Vote No. 87 Leg. - Amendment 483 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YEAS--98 | ||||
| Akaka | Alexander | Allard | Baucus | Bayh |
| Bennett | Biden | Bingaman | Bond | Boxer |
| Brown | Brownback | Bunning | Burr | Byrd |
| Cantwell | Cardin | Carper | Casey | Chambliss |
| Clinton | Coburn | Cochran | Coleman | Collins |
| Conrad | Corker | Cornyn | Craig | Crapo |
| DeMint | Dole | Domenici | Dorgan | Durbin |
| Ensign | Enzi | Feingold | Feinstein | Graham |
| Grassley | Gregg | Hagel | Harkin | Hatch |
| Hutchison | Inhofe | Inouye | Isakson | Kennedy |
| Kerry | Klobuchar | Kohl | Kyl | Landrieu |
| Lautenberg | Leahy | Levin | Lieberman | Lincoln |
| Lott | Lugar | Martinez | McCain | McCaskill |
| McConnell | Menendez | Mikulski | Murkowski | Murray |
| Nelson (FL) | Nelson (NE) | Obama | Pryor | Reed |
| Reid | Roberts | Rockefeller | Salazar | Sanders |
| Schumer | Sessions | Shelby | Smith | Snowe |
| Specter | Stabenow | Stevens | Sununu | Tester |
| Thomas | Thune | Vitter | Voinovich | Warner |
| Webb | Whitehouse | Wyden | ||
| NOT VOTING--2 | ||||
| Dodd | Johnson | |||
The amendment (No. 483) was agreed to.
The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, there will be 2 minutes evenly divided on the Bingaman amendment No. 486.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. Bingaman: Madam President, this amendment is bipartisan. Senator Alexander and I and many other Senators are cosponsoring this amendment. It is to make room in this budget so we can fund what the President has requested in the various agencies that are essential to keeping this country competitive.
It is to allow the provisions of the America COMPETES Act, which Senators Reid and McConnell earlier introduced, to actually be funded later this year, if we can do that in the appropriations process. I yield the remainder of my 1 minute to Senator Alexander and urge all colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Alexander: Madam President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico. He is precisely correct. This is an amendment to help America keep its brain power managed so we can keep our good jobs. It is necessary to make room in the budget for the amount of money President Bush recommended in connection with legislation that Senator Reid and Senator McConnell have introduced.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. Alexander: I urge a "yes" vote.
Mr. Conrad: Madam President, this is the last vote today. We would urge all of our colleagues to vote yea on this bipartisan amendment. I think this is one of the most thoughtful amendments that has been offered throughout the process. It deserves all of our support.
The Presiding Officer: The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 486. 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 Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
The Presiding Officer: Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 1, as follows:
| Rollcall Vote No. 88 Leg. - Amendment 486 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YEAS--97 | ||||
| Akaka | Alexander | Allard | Baucus | Bayh |
| Bennett | Biden | Bingaman | Bond | Boxer |
| Brown | Brownback | Bunning | Burr | Byrd |
| Cantwell | Cardin | Carper | Casey | Chambliss |
| Clinton | Coburn | Cochran | Coleman | Collins |
| Conrad | Corker | Cornyn | Craig | Crapo |
| DeMint | Dole | Domenici | Dorgan | Durbin |
| Ensign | Enzi | Feingold | Feinstein | Graham |
| Grassley | Hagel | Harkin | Hatch | Hutchison |
| Inhofe | Inouye | Isakson | Kennedy | Kerry |
| Klobuchar | Kohl | Kyl | Landrieu | Lautenberg |
| Leahy | Levin | Lieberman | Lincoln | Lott |
| Lugar | Martinez | McCain | McCaskill | McConnell |
| Menendez | Mikulski | Murkowski | Murray | Nelson (FL) |
| Nelson (NE) | Obama | Pryor | Reed | Reid |
| Roberts | Rockefeller | Salazar | Sanders | Schumer |
| Sessions | Shelby | Smith | Snowe | Specter |
| Stabenow | Stevens | Sununu | Tester | Thomas |
| Thune | Vitter | Voinovich | Warner | Webb |
| Whitehouse | Wyden | |||
| Nays--1 | ||||
| Gregg | ||||
| NOT VOTING--2 | ||||
| Dodd | Johnson | |||
The amendment (No. 486) was agreed to.
Mr. Conrad: Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Cardin): Under the previous order, the Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. Hutchison: Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Enzi, proposes an amendment numbered 517.
Mrs. Hutchison: 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:
amendment no. 517
(Purpose: To provide tax equity for citizens of states which do not have a state income tax by providing for a permanent extension of the state and local sales tax deduction from federal income taxes, now scheduled to expire at the end of 2007)
- On page 3, line 11, decrease the amount by $429,000,000.
- On page 3, line 12, decrease the amount by $2,923,000,000.
- On page 3, line 13, decrease the amount by $3,294,000,000.
- On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $3,349,000,000.
- On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $3,579,000,000.
- On page 3, line 20, decrease the amount by $429,000,000.
- On page 3, line 21, decrease the amount by $2,923,000,000,
- On page 3, line 22, decrease the amount by $3,294,000,000.
- On page 3, line 23, decrease the amount by $3,349,000,000.
- On page 4, line 1, decrease the amount by $3,579,000,000.
- On page 4, line 6, decrease the amount by $429,000,000.
- On page 4, line 7, decrease the amount by $2,923,000,000.
- On page 4, line 8, decrease the amount by $3,294,000,000.
- On page 4, line 9, decrease the amount by $3,349,000,000.
- On page 4, line 10, decrease the amount by $3,579,000,000.
- On page 4, line 15, decrease the amount by $429,000,000.
- On page 4, line 16, decrease the amount by $2,923,000,000.
- On page 4, line 17, decrease the amount by $3,294,000,000.
- On page 4, line 18, decrease the amount by $3,349,000,000.
- On page 4, line 19, decrease the amount by $3,579,000,000.
- On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $429,000,000.
- On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $429,000,000.
- On page 26, line 16, decrease the amount by $2,923,000,000.
- On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $2,923,000,000.
- On page 26, line 20, decrease the amount by $3,294,000,000.
- On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $3,294,000,000.
- On page 26, line 24, decrease the amount by $3,349,000,000.
- On page 26, line 25, decrease the amount by $3,349,000,000.
- On page 27, line 3, decrease the amount by $3,579,000,000.
- On page 27, line 4, decrease the amount by $3,579,000,000.
Mrs. Hutchison: Mr. President, my amendment is cosponsored by Senator Cornyn, Senator Cantwell, and Senator Enzi. This is an amendment that also has sponsors of bills to legislatively produce the same result: Senators Alexander, Ensign, Cornyn, Enzi, Corker, Martinez, Stevens, Thune, Bill Nelson, Cantwell, Murray, and Reid. This is an amendment that would extend the sales tax deduction in Federal income taxes for the period of this budget. This would perpetuate the law that is today but which expires at the end of this year. It is fully offset with the 920 budget function allowances. It would cost $13 billion over the 5- year period, and this account will absorb that loss.
My amendment provides for the extension of the sales tax deduction for States that do not have an income tax. It is an issue of fairness. We have fought for this since 1986, until 2004, when we corrected the inequity. I hope we will be able to correct this inequity on a permanent basis.
State and local governments have various options for raising revenues. Some levy income taxes, some use sales taxes, and some do both. Citizens of States that levy income taxes have long been able to offset some of what they pay by deducting their State income tax on their Federal tax returns. In essence, we are not making people pay taxes on their taxes, which is fair.
Before 1986, all taxpayers had that capability, whether they were taxed with sales taxes or income taxes. From 1986 until 2004, the residents of States that didn't have a State income tax but had a sales tax were not allowed to deduct their State's revenue mechanism, thereby penalizing them because of their State's choice to collect revenues through sales taxes.
Eight States--Washington, Nevada, Wyoming, South Dakota, Alaska, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas--have been penalized in those years for exercising their independence in choosing their method of collecting taxes. It was unfair.
Congress rectified this unequal treatment when we passed the America Jobs Creation Act of 2004, providing taxpayers with the option of using the sales tax for their deduction or the income tax. If someone lives in an income tax State, they can also choose the sales tax instead of their income tax deduction, so it is a benefit for every taxpayer in America to have this option. But it especially affects these eight States that have no option, without the ability to deduct their sales taxes. Why should they have to pay taxes on their taxes, when people who pay income taxes do not? Of course, they should not.
A family of four in Texas that itemizes will save $310 a year in Federal income taxes, on average. This deduction, which we extended through this year, 2007, will expire if we don't provide for this extension in the budget.
Sales tax deductibility is not only an issue of fundamental tax fairness but is also an economic stimulus. It can create jobs in the States, where lowering taxes does make a difference in the investments businesses make, which does create new jobs. Fifty-five million Americans live in States which do not have income taxes but which have hefty sales taxes. Last Congress, three-fourths of this body voted overwhelmingly to make the sales tax deduction permanent.
My amendment is fully paid for through reductions in waste, fraud, and abuse. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so we can have equity for all of our citizens and options for all of our citizens to choose which of the State and local taxes they would prefer to deduct.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. 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, if I may inquire of the Senator, for clarification purposes on her amendment, the amendment, as I understand it, on sales tax deductibility--what is the cost of that amendment?
Mrs. Hutchison: It is $13 billion over 5 years.
Mr. Conrad: As I understand it, the Senator funds it out of section 920.
Mrs. Hutchison: That is correct.
Mr. Conrad: Would it be out of the mandatory side of 920 or the discretionary side?
Mrs. Hutchison: The discretionary side.
Mr. Conrad: Let me say to colleagues that while I have great sympathy for the purposes of the Senator's amendment, the funding source gives me substantial heartburn. Let me explain why, if I may. The discretionary side would include things such as law enforcement and veterans. We already have, out of section 920, between $7.5 billion and $8 billion taken from that pot. The problem with taking another $13 billion is it goes into an area where we don't have the resources in terms of this magnitude.
Let me say why that is the case. The President just sent up a message identifying $7.5 billion in this area that could be cut. Congress, in a recent legislative enactment, took out $6 billion. So we can probably do some more out of 920 but, honestly, to take that additional amount out of 920 is going to have a real impact on these discretionary accounts that it affects--veterans, law enforcement, parks, and all the rest.
So I am going to be compelled to resist this amendment, not because I don't favor the basic objective the Senator is trying to accomplish, which is entirely reasonable, but the pay-for presents a problem to this budget. That would take us well over $20 billion out of section 920, and I don't think there are sufficient resources there to accommodate that amount.
I want to give colleagues a heads up, and perhaps overnight we can find some other way. Perhaps we can work together and see if there is another way to fund it.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. Hutchison: Mr. President, I appreciate what the distinguished chairman of the committee has said. Let me say three things: First, I would be happy to work with the chairman to find another offset that would be acceptable, because I certainly want it to be offset, and I think the basic fairness of treating every taxpayer in America fairly is one we should absolutely adhere to. I cannot imagine that we would go forward next year and put eight States at such a disadvantage. So I want to work with the chairman.
The second point is it doesn't have to be discretionary. The reason I said discretionary--and it is not in the amendment that it would be discretionary, and perhaps we can work in another area of spending that would be acceptable. The reason I chose discretionary is my third point, which is the OMB rating analysis--the PART assessment--working with that PART assessment, Senator Allard said there was $88 billion in program spending that was rated as "ineffective" over the next 5-year period. So I thought the $88 billion provided plenty of leeway for programs that were not fully operational to use what they have in the budget. I don't think anyone would take from the veterans account, of course, because we have increased the veterans amount to make sure that veterans' health care is fully covered. I am the ranking member of the Veterans Appropriations Committee and I added $1.5 billion in emergency funding last year to assure that the veterans accounts would be fully funded. In the rating analysis of OMB, there are other funds that cannot fully utilize their line items and, therefore, I think there would be leeway in this discretionary account.
I would be pleased to work with the chairman. I hope we can provide for this in the budget, because I think we have to treat every American taxpayer fairly.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. Durbin: Mr. President, imagine a President coming before a joint session of Congress and using his bully pulpit to call for a fundamental change in the way we fund political campaigns in America. Imagine a President saying we need to buy back our democracy by replacing special-interest-funded elections with publicly funded elections.
As hard as it may be to believe, that happened. An American President did say that--100 years ago. His name was Teddy Roosevelt, and his call for public financing of campaigns was the cornerstone of his 1907 State of the Union Address.
I know the Senate moves slowly, but a century is long enough to wait. Congress can pass all the lobbying and ethics reforms we want, but we won't get to the heart of the problem when it comes to the confidence of the American public until we address the issue of campaign financing. Special interest money and influence will always find new loopholes, until we change this political system fundamentally.
Just yesterday, Senator Specter and I introduced a plan to do that. It is called the Fair Elections Now Act. Our bill will create a pool of public, accountable funds that qualified Senate candidates can use to fund their campaigns in place of special interest dollars and dollars from wealthy donors. The program we propose is strictly voluntary, and it is consistent with our Constitution.
For years, I have always resisted the idea of public financing of political campaigns. I used to have this kind of quick response when people asked me about public financing. It was a pretty good one. I used to say I don't want a dime of Federal taxpayer dollars going to some racist such as David Duke running for office. It was a pretty good response, but frankly, as I reflect on it now, it ignores the obvious. For every miscreant like David Duke, there are thousands of good men and women in both political parties who were forced into a system that is fundamentally corrupting.
The stakes right now are too high in America not to change. A lot of people in America on both sides of the fence have a sneaky feeling that our democracy is in real trouble. No wonder. Look around at all the scandal and suspicion, the so-called "culture of corruption." Take a good look at the political money chase that consumes more of our time every year. That is time a Senator and a Member of Congress doesn't have to devote to being a Senator. We can use that time talking to people we represent, people who might not have $2,000, $3,000, $4,000 to give to us but people who are even more important than those donors. That is time we could use to study and try to solve some of the big challenges facing this country, such as our reliance on foreign oil.
There are many good, honest people in politics, and this Senate is guided by the best of intentions, but we are stuck in a terrible, corrupting system.
Take a look, if you will, at the cost of running Senate campaigns. This chart is an indication of what we are up against. This is the average spent by candidates in the 10 most expensive Senate races between 2002 and 2006. Mind you, this is the average of the 10 most expensive races. Go back to 2002, and you see the number is somewhere short of $20 million. Now go to 2004 and the number is up to $25 million. Now come to 2006 and the number happens to be $34 million. That is $34 million on average spent by the 10 most expensive Senate races by both candidates--$34 million, the average amount.
The cost of running for the Senate is out of control. To think that the cost of running a Senate race between 2002 and 2006 in the 10 most expensive races has more than doubled tells us this is unsustainable.
Let me show this chart as well. It is a little hard to read because the charts are smaller. Here is another figure that is hard to imagine. It takes a mountain of money to lose a Senate campaign today. On average, to run and lose a campaign for the Senate costs $7 million. That is to lose. That figure, too, has doubled since 2002. Who knows what it is going to cost in 2008.
These figures are the averages spent by winners and losers for the Senate in each of these years, and one can see from these charts what is happening. Losers, $7 million to lose a Senate race; those running and winning, $12 million.
Then take a look at the total amount spent in Senate races between 2002 and 2006. We have now broken through the $500 million barrier. We are on our way to spending in total for about 33 races every election $1 billion. We are on our way there. There is no doubt we are going to hit that and soon. That is the reality of what it means to be elected to this important body.
The costs increase dramatically with every election. I am up for reelection in 2008. Candidates, if they are honest with you, will tell you they spend too many waking moments worrying about raising money, getting on the telephone, setting up fundraisers, traveling around the country, where good people--I thank them for helping me--are asked to give contributions. It becomes a consuming passion because you understand you are going to need that money to be reelected.
Mr. President, do you know why I am raising money? I am raising money to create a trust fund in Illinois for television stations. That is right. I am begging money from everybody I can find in order to buy television time next year. I need millions of dollars because the cost of television is soaring.
Take a look at the amount spent on political TV advertising. To give you a notion, political ad spending in millions of dollars, starting in 2002, $995 million; 2004, $1.6 billion; 2006, $1.7 billion; and 2008, I can't even guess where that figure is going to go.
Does anyone think our democracy is stronger and healthier because of this explosion in drive-by political TV ads? Have you ever met a voter who said: You know what the problem is with political campaigns? They are just too darn short. We need longer campaigns; we need to see more of your ads. I have never heard that. But I have heard the opposite. I have heard people beg for mercy: Are you going to have another week of those television commercials going?
The candidates hate raising the money for it, the people hate watching it, but the TV stations love it.
I visit TV stations in my State when it gets close to election time, and I meet with the managers. I met with one in downstate Illinois in this last election cycle. Nice fellow. I have seen him in Washington a lot. He runs a nice little station downstate. He had this big smile on his face.
I said: Things going OK here?
Yes, they sure are.
I said: Lots of political ads?
He said: Senator, I am the luckiest guy in southern Illinois. My TV station plays into Missouri. You know what is going on. We may not have a big Senate race in Illinois, but in Missouri, there is a big red hot contest between an incumbent Senator and a challenger, and they are buying every single minute I will sell them. To be honest with you, I have no time to sell to other advertisers because these political candidates are here.
Senators are spending more and more time each year when they are up for reelection creating these trust funds for wealthy broadcasting corporations instead of doing the work the voters sent us here to do. This is not good for our democracy. Our democracy cannot afford to let this system continue.
The plan Senator Specter and I have introduced is simple and constitutional. In order to receive Fair Election funds, candidates first have to prove they are real candidates. It isn't enough to think you are going to run; you have to have some support. People have to believe you are a real candidate. You prove that by, as a candidate, collecting a minimum number of small contributions.
What does it mean? You have to be a fundraiser, and in my State of Illinois, it would mean you would have to have 11,500 $5 contributions. I think that a person who is not a serious candidate would have a tough time raising 11,500 contributions in a State such as Illinois, but it is worth the effort because if you can raise that to prove you are a viable candidate, you can qualify for these funds to run your election campaign.
What happens if you are running against a millionaire or a billionaire? And believe me, a lot of political parties spend time searching for these so-called self-funders, people who pay for their own campaigns. Or what if you get caught in the crosshairs of some shadowy attack group that has decided they are going to take you on by running ads against you? In that case, the candidate who has agreed to be part of the Fair Elections financing can receive additional funds to level the playing field. All candidates who voluntarily agree to abide by Fair Elections rules will receive vouchers for free TV time and discounts on additional TV-radio time.
That is a major way in which our plan will help slow the explosive growth of campaign spending. The only thing the Fair Elections candidates cannot do is accept private, special interest or big-donor funds. With the exception of those 11,500 contributions of $5, you are not in the fundraising business. Maybe a few startup funds, but by and large, the qualifying $5 contributions is the end of your campaign fundraising.
This is not a naive, idealistic, over-the-Moon theory. Some of the programs are already working in Maine and Arizona. They were enacted by public referenda. They went to the voters of those two States and said: Do you want a shorter, cleaner, and fairer campaign? And the voters said "yes."
They were enacted by public referenda, and they have been sustained through election cycles because they are producing shorter and better campaigns. They are producing better debates in place of a terrible avalanche of political ads that we see almost everywhere. Fair Elections in Maine and Arizona are helping those States pass the kinds of reforms Americans want, such as affordable health care.
Fair Elections are bringing new faces and new ideas into politics. They are helping level the playing field between incumbents and challengers because we see, under this system, the incumbent Senator doesn't get any more money than the challenger. They get the same amount of money, fair play.
Some may wonder why Senator Specter and I would support a system that weakens the incumbent advantage. The answer is simple: We believe that America needs a system that rewards candidates with the best ideas and principles, not just the person who is the most talented in raising special interest money.
Supporters of the current system who don't want to change say the public will never support Fair Elections. They are wrong. Take a look at these polling results when it comes to the idea of public financing of elections. Support is increasing for the idea of public financing in Fair Elections: Seventy-four percent of all voters support public financing in Fair Elections; 80 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of Republicans, and 78 percent of Independents.
This is an idea whose time has clearly come. These are the results of a national survey conducted for Common Cause and a group called Public Campaign. Three-quarters of Americans--Republicans and Democrats and Independents--support Fair Elections and public financing. It cuts across party lines, regional lines, and gender. Public financing will only cost us a fraction of what the current system costs. Make no mistake, if you are listening to this and saying: Why in the world would we want any tax dollars to go to campaigns, let them pay for it themselves, the harsh reality is America pays for the way we fund our campaigns.
We are sustained on both sides of the aisle. Unless you are a self- funding millionaire, we are sustained by special interest groups and wealthy donors.
I ask for those contributions because I am not a wealthy person. I do my best to come and vote my conscience, but the fact is, there is always a suspicion that when I cast a vote, it is because I received a contribution.
How much will it cost? About $1.4 billion a year, $2.8 billion per election cycle. About as much as we spend in 1 week on the war in Iraq is the amount it would cost us to publicly fund all House and Senate campaigns.
People who say the public shouldn't have to pay for elections miss the point. We are already paying for them in the hidden ways that favor incumbents and special interests. We pay when special interests are allowed to literally write their own bills. We pay every time a line is slipped into a bill anonymously, a big bill, behind closed doors giving some well-connected corporation tens of millions of dollars in tax breaks.
Fair Elections aren't just better than what we have now, ultimately they are less expensive to the taxpayers.
It has been a century since Teddy Roosevelt challenged Congress to get to the heart of the problem and get the special interest money out of the public elections 100 years ago. The American people do understand what is at stake. They understand our democracy is in trouble because special interests and big-donor money is choking the system and preventing us from facing up to the big challenges of our time.
I wish to say for the record what I said on the floor before in the midst of corruption and scandals: I want to make it clear, the overwhelming majority of men and women serving in Congress in both the House and Senate, those serving today and those I have served with over the years, are honest, good people trying to do the best in public service.
I am not suggesting otherwise, but the way we finance our campaigns is unfortunate, forcing many of us into compromising situations which are becoming increasingly difficult.
The American people are ready for Fair Elections. Fair Elections are already at work in several States. After a century, it is time for the Senate to accept President Teddy Roosevelt's challenge: Buy back our democracy from big donors and special interests and make Fair Elections the law of the land.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining under the previous order?
The Presiding Officer: The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. Durbin: I thank the Presiding Officer. I see another Senator on the floor, and I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. Sanders: Mr. President, let me begin by thanking Chairman Kent Conrad and his staff for the very hard work they have done in crafting the important budget resolution that is before us. I know of their work because I am a member of that committee and have seen how much effort it has taken.
Mr. President, as you know, a budget is more than a long list of numbers and this budget certainly has many numbers and it adds up to a huge sum of money. But after all is said and done, a budget is a statement about our values, about our priorities, and what we as a nation stand for. That is what a budget is about. In my view, the time is long overdue for the Congress in its budget to get its priorities right, and by that I mean to begin to stand up for the vast majority of our people--the middle class, the working families of this country-- rather than just the large multinational corporations and the wealthiest people in our Nation who year after year have had their way on budget initiatives.
Mr. President, when we analyze the merits of a Federal budget, we have to begin by taking a very serious look at the economic reality which faces the American people. In other words, is the budget we are working on now reflective of the needs of our people? Is that what we are doing?
On many occasions, members of the Bush administration have come before the Budget Committee, of which I am a member, and they have given us their view of how our economy is doing. I am astounded each and every time by their worldly view with regard to the budget. We have heard members of the administration telling us how wonderful the economy is doing, how marvelous it is, and how the economy is booming. I sit there, and I think millions of Americans sit there, and they begin to scratch their heads and they say: What world are these people living in?
I know that in my own State of Vermont, when we do town meetings, we always talk about the economy; how well the middle class is doing. I always ask people: How do you think the middle class is doing right now--doing well, not so well? With very few exceptions, people tell me that the middle class in this country, in the State of Vermont, in their own lives, that people are struggling economically to keep their heads above water. I find it hard to understand how people from the Bush administration can come forward and tell us just how great the economy is doing. I really wonder what world they are living in.
In my view, and I think the facts substantiate my view, the economic reality facing the vast majority of our working people is that the middle class is shrinking, that people today all over our country are working longer hours for lower wages.
When I was a kid growing up, the expectation was that one person in a family--in those days, almost always the man--could work 40 hours a week and earn enough money to pay the bills--one person, 40 hours a week. How many middle-class families do we know today where one person is working 40 hours a week? The answer is, likely not very many. Most of the middle-class families we know are seeing husbands working very long hours, wives working very long hours, and on occasion kids working to help save some money for college. In fact, at the end of the day, what we have to understand is that the American worker today is working longer hours than the people of any other industrialized country. We surpassed the Japanese a few years ago.
We also have to understand, when we talk about a shrinking middle class, that many millions of American workers today are working longer hours for lower wages than used to be the case. In Vermont, and throughout this country, in fact, parents are wondering why, despite a huge increase in technology, despite huge growth in worker productivity, there is a strong likelihood that for the first time in modern American history our children will have a lower standard of living than we do. The American dream has always been about parents working hard with the hope that their kids, the next generation, will do better than they have done. That was the case with my parents and in the case of millions of families in this country.
Unfortunately, now we are in a situation unique in modern history where, unless we turn this economy around, what we will see is our children having a lower standard of living than we do.
I wonder how the Bush administration can tell us how great the economy is doing when more than 5 million Americans have slipped into poverty since the President has been in office, including over 1 million children. That is not a booming economy.
How can the economy be doing well when median income for working-age families has declined for 5 years in a row and when the personal savings rate in this country now is below zero, something which has not happened since the Great Depression?
How can our economy be doing well when almost 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance since President Bush has been in office and when, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 35 million Americans struggled to put food on the table last year and hunger in America is increasing? If hunger is increasing, that, to my mind, does not sound like a booming economy.
How can people talk about our economy doing so well when college students are graduating with about $20,000 in debt and some 400,000 qualified high school students don't go to college because they can't afford it? We all talk about education, education, education. Hundreds of thousands of young people cannot afford to go to college.
How can our economy be doing great when home foreclosures have skyrocketed to the highest level in nearly four decades, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association, and when we have lost over 3 million good-paying manufacturing jobs since President Bush has been in office?
How can our economy be doing so great when 3 million fewer American workers have pension coverage today than when President Bush took office, and half of private sector American workers have no pension coverage whatsoever?
When the President of the United States and his administration tell us the economy is doing great, well, they are partially right. While the economy is not doing well for the middle class or working families of our country, it is doing very well for the wealthiest people in America. That is the truth.
Today, the wealthiest people in our country are becoming much wealthier. In fact, they have not had it so good since the 1920s. That is the reality. The middle class is shrinking, poverty is increasing, the people at the top have never had it so good since the 1920s, and we have, as a nation, the dubious distinction of now having, by far, the widest gap between the rich and the poor of any major country on earth.
Today, the upper 1 percent of families in America have not had it so good since the 1920s. According to Forbes Magazine, the collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans increased by $120 billion last year to $1.25 trillion. The 400 wealthiest Americans are now worth $1.25 trillion at the same time that hunger in America is increasing and 5 million more of our citizens have slipped into poverty.
I have given this broad overview of the economy in order to place the discussion of our budget in what I think is a sensible context; that is, if the wealthiest people in America are becoming wealthier while the middle class is shrinking and poverty is increasing, what the budget should be about is responding to that reality. That is the reality to which the budget should be responding.
The President of the United States, in his budget proposal, told us what he thought. He said in his budget that, despite the growing health care crisis in our country, he was going to cut Medicare and Medicaid by $280 billion over the next decade and that he was going to inadequately fund the Children's Health Insurance Program. Today, the United States is the only nation in the industrialized world that does not guarantee health care to all its people. We have millions and millions of children who have no health insurance, and this President refuses to adequately fund the health insurance program for children.
Despite the reality that we have 23,000 wounded coming home from Iraq and tens of thousands more who will be coming home with post-traumatic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury, the President, in his budget, once again inadequately funded the needs of our veterans, as he has done year after year. In fact, since President Bush has been in office, an estimated 1 million veterans have been denied access to health services at the VA.
Despite a horrendous crisis in childcare access and affordability for working families, so that all over this country working people are desperately trying to locate quality, affordable childcare while they are at work, the President, in his budget, reduced the number of children receiving childcare assistance by 300,000 and he cut funding for the Head Start Program.
Despite millions of homeowners paying outrageously high property taxes, the President has, in his budget, further retreated from the Federal commitment to special education and he has cut funding for that program. This will result in a lowering of the quality of education for all of our children, including those with disabilities, and an increase in property taxes. This is a very serious problem in my State of Vermont, where towns are divided every March when they go over the budget.
People understand the needs of the schools. They understand the high cost of mainstreaming kids with disabilities. Yet people cannot afford higher and higher property taxes. We as a Congress have to fully fund special education and keep the commitment we have made to school districts all over this country. Yet the President, in his budget, cuts funding for special education.
Interestingly enough, while cutting programs for the middle class and working families of our country, while inadequately funding the needs of our veterans, of our children, and of our senior citizens, the President has reached the conclusion in his budget that we do have enough money as a government to provide enormous tax breaks to the wealthiest people in our society--$739 billion in tax cuts for households earning more than $1 million per year over the next decade. We can't fund the needs of our kids, the President wants to eliminate a wonderful nutrition program for low-income seniors, we can't fund special education, we don't have enough money to put into sustainable energy, we can't take care of our veterans--we just don't have enough money--but somehow the President did manage to find in his budget $739 billion in tax cuts for households earning more than $1 million per year over the next decade.
Part of the President's budget calls for a complete elimination of the estate tax, a tax which now applies only to the wealthiest three- tenths of 1 percent of our population. The elimination of this tax would provide an estimated $1 trillion in tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires between 2012 to 2021. One, just one multibillionaire family, the Walton family, which owns Wal-Mart, would receive an estimated $32 billion in tax relief--for one family. But we just don't have the money to take care of hundreds of thousands of veterans or our children or our seniors. Now, that may make sense to somebody, but that is not my sense of what moral values are about.
While the budget resolution, introduced by Chairman Kent Conrad, which we are debating now is far from perfect, it is much more responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans than the President's. Instead of cutting back on the educational needs of this country, this budget resolution provides over $6 billion more than the President's request for education, including significant increases for Pell grants, Head Start, title I, and special education.
Instead of cutting back on health care, this budget resolution provides an increase of $2.8 billion over the President's request for health care, including strong funding for a program that I think is enormously important for rural America and that is Community Health Centers and the National Health Service. Instead of cutting back or inadequately funding the needs of our veterans, this budget resolution provides over $3 billion in increases over the President's budget for our Nation's veterans--one of the priorities that I regard most important as a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
But I think over the long run we can and must do much better in establishing our budget priorities than this budget does. This budget is much better than President Bush's budget, but in my view we have a long way to go to create a budget which responds to the needs of ordinary Americans.
As an example of where I think we should be going as a nation in terms of our budget, last week I introduced the National Priorities Act which would expand the middle class, reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, and lower property taxes all over America as well as reduce the level of poverty. The basic premise of this legislation is pretty simple: We raise $130 billion in new revenue by rescinding the tax breaks that President Bush gave to the most wealthy 1 percent.
I know a lot of my colleagues do not agree with me, but I think that at a time when we have a $8.5 trillion national debt, at a time when the middle class is being squeezed, at a time when the wealthiest people in our country have never had it so good, I believe that it is time to rescind the Bush tax breaks that have been given to the wealthiest 1 percent.
What we also do is ask the Pentagon to take a hard look at their budget and cut out the waste, the fraud, the unnecessary weapons systems that currently exist. When you do that, you end up raising $130 billion of new revenue. We propose that $30 billion go to deficit reduction and we propose the other $100 billion go to address the longtime unmet needs of the middle class and working families of this country.
If as a nation we are serious about addressing the long neglected needs of the working people of America and creating a more just society, we have to change our national priorities. The wealthiest people in this country are doing just fine. They are doing really well. It is time we pay attention to working families, to the middle class, to the people who are struggling.
I appreciate very much the hard work that Senator Conrad has done and I applaud his efforts. In the coming days I will be offering several amendments that I think will make the budget bill a stronger bill. One of the amendments is pretty simple. I hear a whole lot on the floor of the Senate about the need for deficit reduction, and I share that concern. The fact that we have a $8.5 trillion national debt should be of concern to every Member of the Senate and every Member of the House. So our proposal is going to be a pretty simple one--very simple.
What we are going to propose is that we rescind all of the tax breaks given to people who earn $100 million or more--a tiny fraction of 1 percent--and that we use those savings for deficit reduction. That is it. Pretty simple. If you are in favor of deficit reduction, I hope you will support that amendment.
There is another amendment that we will also be offering. We have not worked out all the details but again what this amendment would do is rescind tax breaks for upper income people and use all of those savings to start the process of fully funding special education. All over America, people are paying higher and higher property taxes. It is certainly true in Vermont; it is certainly true in many States. The question is, Do we continue to maintain tax breaks for the most wealthy people in this country while property taxes are soaring? I say no. I say we lower property taxes, provide quality education for our kids including the kids with disabilities, and we do that by rescinding tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country.
I think we are making some progress in terms of the budget, the budget before us today, far better than what the President presented to Congress. But we still have a long way to go. I ask my colleagues to support amendments which will strengthen the middle class and working families of our country.
I yield the floor.
Mr. Akaka: Mr. President, before I address the proposed funding for VA in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2008, I applaud Chairman Conrad and his colleagues on the Budget Committee for their hard work on this resolution. The measure before us today clearly reflects the right priorities and directions for our Nation.
For a number of years, I have made the case for the President to include funds for VA health care as part of the war supplemental packages he has submitted to Congress, and every year, my colleagues and I fought to get those funds included in the budget resolution to no avail.
The pending budget resolution finally recognizes that caring for returning service members and veterans is part of the cost of war and in turn proposes to fund VA health care appropriately for this effort.
Right now, a great deal of attention is being paid to the needs of our men and women in uniform--attention that Chairman Conrad, myself, and other Members of this Chamber have been talking about for quite some time. I am proud to stand with Chairman Conrad in support of our service members and veterans.
One of the harshest realities of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the number of service members who have sustained complex and multiple injuries in combat.
In stark contrast to past conflicts, significant improvements in battlefield medicine have enabled very seriously wounded service members to survive their injuries. Subsequently, these men and women are coming home with extraordinarily complex health care needs.
We know that right now, there have been 1,882 identified and registered cases of service members who have suffered from traumatic brain injuries, or TBI, alone. This does not include those who have suffered from a milder form of this injury and may not even be aware of it. While TBI is becoming the signature wound of the current conflicts, many of these soldiers also have been rendered blind or lost a limb as a result of their injuries and the numbers of those who are coming back with serious and multiple wounds continues to grow.
In recognition of the emerging medical and rehabilitative needs of veterans with traumatic brain and other injuries, Congress directed VA to establish specialized centers for rehabilitative care. VA's four lead Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers are essential to meeting the needs of the most severely injured veterans and their families.
In the budget before us today, Chairman Conrad and his colleagues have provided over $300 million specifically for meeting the needs of these veterans and service members who are in need of the comprehensive health care and rehabilitative services VA delivers through their Polytrauma Centers.
This level of funding will enable VA to conduct assessments and screenings of troops for traumatic brain injury, provide veterans with intensive comprehensive TBI/polytrauma rehabilitation, and most importantly, support intensive case management for veterans with TBI and other injuries when they return to their communities and continue the rehabilitation process.
Recent reports by the VA inspector general and others have illustrated that case management is a key element in the process of assisting these veterans achieve the fullest possible recoveries. Funding VA so that it can provide the continuum of care needed by the most severely injured service members is imperative if we are to truly fulfill our obligation to take care of our troops and veterans.
I am also very pleased that the budget resolution before us is making a long-overdue investment in mental health care.
Studies published in some of the most prestigious journals have found that a third of those seeking VA care are coming for mental health concerns, including PTSD, anxiety, depression, and substance abuse. We do not know the full magnitude of this need, as many returning service members have yet to seek care from VA.
As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, my goal is to make sure that VA is doing everything possible to guarantee that each and every veteran who needs mental health care--whether in North Dakota, Vermont, or Hawaii--can receive that care.
I remind my colleagues that so much of the time, battle wounds manifest themselves as invisible wounds--wounds which cannot be seen but are every bit as devastating as physical wounds. PTSD affects not only a veteran's mental status, it affects his or her physical well- being as well. It impacts the veteran's relationships, his or her ability to work, and to interact in society. VA must catch readjustment issues early before they turn into full-blown PTSD, and this budget resolution would enable VA to take a serious approach towards making this happen.
When we talk about the mental health needs of veterans, we cannot deny the reality that substance abuse is prevalent among many veterans. We know that many veterans with PTSD turn to drugs or alcohol in order to self-medicate. Yet the administration does not seem to want to be in the business of helping veterans with substance abuse problems. VA used to provide an intensive month-long program to treat substance abuse. Today, most VA substance abuse programs run for 2 weeks--not nearly enough time to put a veteran truly on the road to recovery. Again, this budget resolution provides funds for comprehensive inpatient substance abuse care. This is a very real investment in VA mental health care.
On the benefits side, the current claims inventory and the time it takes to process a claim is unacceptable. Veterans deserve a timely and accurate response to their claims. It is obvious that Chairman Conrad agrees, as this budget resolution takes a major step toward responding to this very real problem by providing appropriate funding for VA to use to employ additional claims adjudicators.
There are 30,000 more claims pending right now than last year this time. This constitutes an 8 percent increase. As the veterans population continues to age and new veterans come home from Iraq and Afghanistan, this trend of increased claims will continue. Given that it takes nearly 2 years for a new VA employee to start fully contributing to the bottom line, now is the time for new staff to be hired and trained to help reduce this caseload.
Just 2 weeks ago, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing on the VA claims adjudication process. During the hearing, VA witnesses testified to the nearly 400,000 ratings claims inventory and the 175 days it takes to process a claim for benefits. We must insist that VA have no more than 250,000 claims in the pipeline at once, and that it take not more than 125 days to adjudicate a claim. VA clearly needs additional resources to hire the employees needed to adjudicate claims in a timely manner, which this budget resolution certainly provides.
Mr. President, I am very pleased with the investment in veterans programs that is made in this budget resolution. I again commend Chairman Conrad and the Budget Committee for sending the right message to our Nation's veterans--that we are honoring our commitment to them by making a real investment into their care. I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of the resolution before us today.
