Traumatic Brain Injury Act of 2008

Mr. President, if I may just review for our colleagues, that is 30 amendments that were just cleared. We now go to an amendment by Senator Boxer.

Mr. President, did we move to reconsider and table?

Mr. President, can we have order in the Chamber.

We need to ask people to hold it down so we can conduct business. It will go much faster if we do that and respect the rights of Senators to be heard.

We now go to Senator Ensign for an amendment.

Mr. President, the next amendment ready to go is an amendment by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint.

Mr. President, might I ask a series of questions, through the Chair, to the Parliamentarian?

Mr. President, I ask the Chair if the amendment by the Senator from South Carolina is germane to the budget resolution?

The second question is, If this amendment is adopted, is it corrosive to the privileged standing of budget resolutions?

No. 3, if this amendment were adopted and went to conference and if it came back from conference, would it be fatal to the budget resolution's privileged status?

This amendment is simply not in the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. It is in the jurisdiction of the Energy Committee.

I raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. It is not germane.

The next amendment in order is the amendment of the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.

Does the Senator yield back his time?

Mr. President, I will ask a series of questions of the Parliamentarian through the Chair.

Is the amendment by the Senator from Texas germane?

Would it be corrosive to the privileged status of the budget resolution if this amendment were adopted?

Would it be fatal to the privileged status of the budget resolution if it came back from conference?

Mr. President, so the challenge of this amendment is it is not germane. I, therefore, raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, let me just help people understand where we are. We have what conceivably could be 9 or 10 more rollcall votes but dozens of additional amendments that are out there pending--as many as a total of 50. So that is the circumstance we face. The only way that Senator Gregg and I can see to reach conclusion tonight is if we devise another managers' package, put together amendments that can be cleared on both sides and deal with these other votes that require rollcalls, starting with Senator Kyl on his extenders.

Or do we want to go to Senator DeMint?

Senator Kyl.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, let me thank all colleagues for their extraordinary patience. This will be, before the end of the day, I think, a record number of votes on a budget resolution in 1 day. I don't think that is anything particularly to be proud of, but it is the reality of what we are confronting.

We can go now to the Kyl amendment?

We thank the leaders of both sides, and I especially thank our leader, Senator Reid, for pushing to get a final definitive list.

With that, we go to Senator Kyl.

Mr. President, I am having a hard time hearing. I think the Senator deserves to be heard. This is a serious amendment.

Mr. President, the budget resolution already provides for a 1-year package of extenders that is fully paid for. The Kyl amendment would add a second year without paying for it. Consequently, the Kyl amendment would drive us $28.6 billion into debt, driving us further away from the balance that we are seeking to achieve by the fourth year.

We anticipate that tax extenders will be dealt with in the regular order, and our resolution provides for longer term extensions, as long as they are paid for.

I ask colleagues to resist the Kyl amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. President, while that matter is being resolved, could we go to the next amendment?

And the next amendment in order is Senator DeMint's.

Amendment No. 4347

Mr. President, I ask, through the Chair, a question to the Parliamentarian.

Is this amendment germane to the budget resolution?

The amendment is not germane.

Mr. President, if this amendment were adopted, is it corrosive to the privileged status of the budget resolution?

Mr. President, if this amendment were adopted and came back from conference, would it be fatal to the privileged nature of the budget resolution?

Mr. President, I suggest the pending amendment is not germane; therefore, I raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

I would be constrained to object.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the next amendment in order is an amendment by Senator Landrieu. It is a side-by-side to Senator Kyl. This is on the estate tax. Obviously, these are important amendments. We would ask for the attention of our colleagues.

Mr. President, next up is the Kyl amendment.

Amendment No. 4372

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Kyl, for his courtesy during all of the debates today.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Kyl amendment because it is not paid for. It goes onto the debt some $200 billion over 10 years. This would knock us out of balance in 2012 and in 2013. The previous amendment that had the same more generous exemptions was paid for. It didn't add to the debt, didn't add to the deficits, and it kept us in balance.

So I would urge my colleagues to vote no on the Kyl amendment.

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. President, the next amendment is from the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley.

Mr. President, if you want to blow a hole in the budget as big as all outdoors, here is your opportunity--a trillion dollars not paid for, a trillion dollars that we are going to go out and borrow from the Chinese and Japanese. That makes absolutely no sense. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

That is correct.

That is correct. That is a Dorgan amendment. That is correct. It should have been read as amendment No. 4249.

Mr. President, we have a list now of additional amendments in a managers' package we can approve: amendment No. 4252, Senator Brown; amendment No. 4230, Senator Chambliss; amendment No. 4330, Senator Obama; amendment No. 4268, as modified, Senator Thune; amendment No. 4186, Senator Bunning; amendment No. 4311, Senator Alexander; amendment No. 4357, Senator Gregg; amendment No. 4361, Senator Clinton; amendment No. 4370, Senator Bingaman; amendment No. 4200, Senator Dorgan; amendment No. 4334, Senator Smith; amendment No. 4376, as modified, Senator Snowe; amendment No. 4159, Senator Allard, as well as amendment No. 4333, Senator Baucus; amendment No. 4255, Senator Kohl; amendment No. 4283, Senator Hatch; amendment No. 4345, Senator DeMint; and amendment No. 4220, Senator Cardin.

Mr. President, if Senator Snowe's staff is in the Chamber, we need the modification to Senator Snowe's amendment sent to the desk.

Senator DeMint has an amendment on deductibility. If the Senator can describe that amendment and if he would be willing to take that amendment on a voice vote, we can accept it at this point.

Amendment No. 4339

Mr. President, the ranking member tells me we need to defer on this DeMint amendment because it involves another amendment, it affects another amendment, and the other amendment is still in the clearing process. So we need to defer on this amendment.

Senator DeMint has another amendment on Semper Fi; is that correct?

I ask the Senator from South Carolina if he can describe the amendment briefly, and if he will accept a voice vote, we can proceed to that amendment. We can accept that amendment.

Mr. President, we were told that amendment had been cleared. It appears it has not.

Mr. President, we have to return to regular order if we can. Perhaps the best way to unwind this situation, as I understand, Senator DeMint's amendment then will require a vote; is that the case? Then I think what we should do is ask Senator DeMint to take his 1 minute to explain the amendment. Then we will ask for 1 minute in opposition by perhaps the two Senators from California, vote on the DeMint amendment, and then perhaps we can go to Senator Vitter's amendment, if that is OK.

No, no, that is fair. I think we need to agree to that request. That has to be done. That is fair.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. At this moment we have, unfortunately, not yet seen the amendment of the Senator. We do need to take a moment to review it, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, for the purpose of helping us move along effectively, in order to get this done it is very important that both sides have copies of the amendments that are offered. We can't do business efficiently if we don't--both sides--have copies of the amendments.

I say this because both of us are in such a rush to conclusion that sometimes we neglect to make sure the other side--we have done it, which we apologize for, and it is very easy to happen in this hectic ending.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, since we have had argument on both sides, I wonder if it would be fair now to have 2 minutes for those in opposition, 1

minute by each of the Senators from California.

I think we have to cut this off at this point, if I can say that to my colleague.

So Senator Feinstein.

Time for the vote. I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, in the previous list sent to the desk, we need to show amendment No. 4268, by Senator Thune, as having been modified.

Mr. President, we are about to move. We are awaiting some additional amendments to clear. While we are doing that, we could go to the next amendments, which are on the unborn child. Senator Boxer has a side-by-side, followed by Senator Allard. These will require votes.

Senator Boxer.

Amendment No. 4379

Mr. President, we can now approve another group of amendments that have been cleared on both sides: 4270, as modified, Senator Leahy; 4302, Senator Gregg; 4300, Senator Clinton; 4331, Senator Baucus; 4209, as modified, Senator Collins; 4375, Senators Specter and Casey; 4307, Senator Bunning; and 4371, Senator Graham.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to.

Mr. President, we would like to take two additional amendments at this point, 4206, Senator Barrasso; and 4299, Senator Vitter. That takes us to the DeMint amendment on deductibility.

No, sir. There has been objection by the chairman of the Finance Committee.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4340 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, with high gas prices becoming an increasingly difficult burden for all American families, it is very important that we consider all the legislation we pass here to make sure it doesn't further increase the prices of gasoline.

This is a very simple amendment that creates a 60-vote point of order against any legislation that would cause the price of gasoline to increase, as determined by the CBO in consultation with the Energy Information Agency.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Parliamentary inquiry: Mr. President, if this point of order is waived and the amendment is adopted, would it cause the budget resolution to lose its privilege at this time?

Mr. President, in that case, I move to waive the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.

My colleagues, it is time for some straight talk on earmarks. And it is time for some real change that all Americans can believe in. All three of our colleagues running for President are cosponsors of this moratorium on earmarks.

All three of our colleagues running for President are cosponsors of this amendment. I thank John McCain particularly for years of warning us of what earmarks and our earmark system were doing to undermine confidence in this Congress. I thank Senator McCaskill for her courage in standing up, and my Democratic cosponsors, Senators Obama, Clinton, and Bayh, and all of my Republican cosponsors who know what we all know: that this earmark system is out of control.

It has undermined the faith and the confidence of the American people. It is time for a timeout. My amendment creates a 1-year moratorium on all earmarks by establishing--

My amendment creates a 1-year moratorium on all earmarks by establishing a 67-vote point of order against bills with earmarks. We have heard all the excuses; we will hear some more tonight.

I encourage all of my colleagues to vote against the status quo and vote for this moratorium to give us time and a sense of urgency to reform the system.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I call up amendment No. 4347 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

May I ask the Chair a question?

It is not the intent to bring down the budget or compromise a privilege in any way. If the Senator is worried about privilege, I ask unanimous consent if the motion to waive is successful, that the amendment be withdrawn and deemed passed in a separate Senate resolution.

If that is the case, I now move to waive the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman. This is amendment No. 4339. What it does is what I believe all of us in the Chamber would like to do and that is to make it easier for people without health insurance to buy health insurance. It does not accomplish all our goals or solve all the problems, but what it does is allow people who do not have health insurance through their employer to buy health insurance and deduct it the same way an employer would.

It is a very simple amendment. That is the only item in it, to allow individuals to deduct the cost of a health insurance premium from their taxes.

Correct.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, since there has already been more than a minute in opposition, that I have 2 minutes to speak on this amendment.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, if I may have the attention of the Chamber, I bring this Semper Fi amendment to the floor as a promise to a number of marines and their families. I admit this is somewhat unusual, but this amendment is not about free speech.

In Berkeley, CA, there were some folks protesting the Marine Recruitment Office. They have their right to protest, to speak out. My case is against the city of Berkeley, which incited hate against our marines and encouraged them to disrupt recruitment, which is their Federal responsibility.

This is a terrible precedent for a local government to take a position against our constitutional role to defend our Nation, which requires recruitment.

The things that were said by the city council about our marines were disgraceful. What we are proposing is to make a point. The earmarks that are talked about that went to Berkeley, over $2 million worth of earmarks, should not have gone there anyway, and they do involve special gourmet-type meals for the schools and money to the University of California at Berkeley, where they already have a $3.3 million endowment.

We can argue about the earmarks all night, but I am trying to make a point on behalf of marines and everyone in uniform that it is not the role of city or State governments to try to disgrace and intimidate, embarrass--whatever--our marines who are doing what we ask them to do.

So my amendment takes away those $2 million worth of earmarks as a symbol to every local government that may want to take on our Federal role and try to make an issue with our marines.

Semper Fi means ``Always Faithful.'' It is the motto of our marines. They are always faithful to us, and I promised many of their families, when I was in Iraq and back here, that I would stand up for them. I encourage all my colleagues to vote for this amendment to make a point.

Would it be OK to add an additional 30 seconds, just to clarify the misinformation?

Mr. President, was the chairman accepting the deductibility amendment?

So you would like to bring it up and vote.

Mr. President, we have had some partisan and controversial amendments tonight. I hope this won't be one. This amendment simply allows individuals who buy health insurance on their own to deduct it from their taxes.

All of us talk about the uninsured. This is a chance to give a number of the uninsured the opportunity to buy health insurance on the same basis that we do in Congress, and that is to make it deductible. Some will say this is a cost. We are already paying for this, and probably much more, as people seek health care in the emergency room and other places when they are not insured.

I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for the amendment to allow Americans to deduct 100 percent of the cost of the health insurance premium.

Mr. President, I have a modification at the desk seen by both sides. We left out the second page originally. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified.

Mr. President, this is a little complicated. The only reason I am offering this amendment is as a substitute to the Ensign amendment which is coming next. The Ensign amendment does something I have never seen in all my years in the Senate. It funds a program that is not the law of the land. It funds a program that Senator Ensign strongly supports. It did pass the last Congress--not this Senate, the last Senate. He is setting aside $50 million in the Justice Department for this particular priority. What if we each came down here with our priority bill? I have one to fund preschool for all kids, but it is not passed. If I asked you to set aside $50 million for a bill that was not law yet, it would make no sense. When I asked Senator Ensign, he said: Well, it could pass. The Child Custody Protection Act could pass. It could pass here. It could pass the House. It could be signed by the President. But my friends, what I do here is just say: Let's take that same amount of money and use it for all child protection laws. I hope Members will support my amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I wish to inform all colleagues on both sides of the aisle that you voted for $50 million to enhance the enforcement of child protective laws. If Senator Ensign's bill becomes a law--which it is not the law; it has not passed this Senate in this Congress and I do not believe people feel it is going to become law--if it does become law, then that money is already there to be used for such a program.

But now to set aside funding for a bill that is not a law is the oddest kind of precedent. It is kind of ``Alice in Wonderland,'' to be honest with you. Every one of us could take our favorite bill and say: Let's set aside funding in case my bill becomes law.

This is not the way to legislate. We have put in $50 million to enhance the enforcement of child protective laws, including this particular bill.

I hope my colleagues will vote no.

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.

Excuse me, if I may, Mr. President.

Mr. President, if I may have a moment, the amendment I agree with is the Vitter amendment which says that the rules surrounding FACE, which is the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, would apply to recruiting stations because we do not want anyone hurt by demonstrators. Whether it is at a reproductive health care clinic or a recruiting station, we fully agree, and we are very happy to accept that amendment.

The amendment by the Senator from North Carolina, on the other hand, would take funds away from the University of California, would take funds away from the police and firemen in Berkeley, would take funds away from the children who go to school there, would take funds away from transit--these people who had nothing to do with anything any city councilman in Berkeley said. And, by the way, P.S., they took it back. They took back what they said.

Mr. President and my colleagues, this is a moment we could be together because we had some outrageous statements coming out of the Berkeley City Council. They rescinded. They apologized. And what the Senator wants to do is take it out on people who, A, had nothing whatsoever to do with this in the first place; and, B, the whole thing ought to be moot because they have apologized.

Now, I don't see how you are faithful to the Marines--and by the way, I hope everyone will donate, as I do, to the Semper Fi Fund. Since you mentioned semper fi, there is a fund that takes care of our wounded vets. I hope we will all write a personal check tonight.

You want to help the Marines? How do you help the Marines and their families when you take money away from paralyzed people, including paralyzed veterans? That is what the earmark was about. How do you help the Marines when you take money away from American kids who are learning about the importance of nutrition? How do you help the Marines when you take money away from police and fire?

Please vote this down. It is mean spirited.

And it is not in the interest of America to do this.

Mr. President, I did not want to have to offer another amendment here to tonight. The only reason I am doing that is because the amendment that will be offered in a moment by Senator Allard says that the SCHIP program, our kids health program, should cover children--this is from his amendment--from the moment of conception until 19 years old. I am assuming the idea is to make sure pregnant women are covered. Yet it doesn't say that. So my side-by-side says pregnant women will be covered. That means you don't get into that whole area of when does life begin and so on.

We are saying, please vote for this. Let's cover pregnant women, and that will, indeed, cover the pregnant woman and her fetus, all the way from the minute she is pregnant.

This is what we hope you will vote aye for. We hope you will vote no on the Allard amendment. I am sorry to trouble you with another vote.

I call up amendment No. 4379.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran).

Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his courtesy.

One of the questions we are most frequently asked is, are we, for sure, going to do the tax extenders--the R&D tax credit, the sales tax deduction, the $250 teacher deduction, and the tuition deduction. These already expired at the end of last year, and there are three more that will expire at the end of this year. We need to provide a definitive answer--yes, we are going to do the extenders package.

Now, the budget accommodates generally expiring tax provisions.

While we are getting order, Mr. President, this amendment, I gather, had not been technically called up, amendment No. 4348.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.

Mr. President, just to conclude, the budget says expiring provisions are accommodated, but I don't think the Senate is going to raise $50 billion in new taxes to pay for these, to pay permanently for 1 or 2 years of these extenders. In fact, in recent times, more often than not, we have extended these tax provisions without offsets. In fact, this was done when the Democratic Party was in control of this Chamber, of this body, in the year 2002.

So what this amendment does is it simply explicitly extends all of these expiring tax provisions, which would expire at the end of this year and that have already expired, and it would not be required to have a permanent increase in taxes in order to accommodate that extension.

Mr. President, is there any time remaining on my side?

Mr. President, I oppose this amendment. The reason is very simple. The provisions are essentially the same as the amendment I offered earlier and will be offering again with the 5 and $5 million exempted amount and not to exceed 35 percent rate. There are minor differences. The bottom line is that the bulk of it, all but $22 billion, is not paid for with any explicit taxes. The question has to be, what tax are you going to raise permanently in order to offset the cost of this estate tax relief? It is not real if we are not willing to answer that question. You can't say there is going to be an amorphous fund out there that somehow or other we are going to raise some taxes for. We all know it is not going to happen that way. The question is, are we serious about tax relief for estates?

The reason the NFIB and other groups support the approach I have taken is they know it is an exercise in futility if all we do is say we are going

to pay for it with a tax increase, when, in fact, everybody knows we are not going to raise taxes permanently for estate tax relief.

Mr. President, do we need to call up amendment No. 4372 first?

If so, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 4372.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is a revote of a vote we had earlier in the day. If you supported the estate tax reform then, obviously you would want to do it now.

I appreciate the last vote. This is a better approach. This is an approach which is supported by groups such as the NFIB, which asked us--we only have 1 year to go before the estate tax is totally repealed. In the year 2010, there is no more estate tax, and then the year after that, it comes roaring back with a rate of 60 percent and an exemption of $1 million.

Clearly, we have to provide some certainty. The only way to do that is to adopt a rate not to exceed 35 percent, an exempted amount of $5 million per spouse, and to ensure that we can actually get it done this year, not require that we find some permanent tax to increase in order to offset it. If that is what we are asking for, we know it won't happen, the outside groups know it won't happen, and they know this budget exercise then is a game rather than a serious attempt to reform the estate tax.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici).

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Prior to that time, we are going to have a finite list.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, this has been cleared by the minority and the majority managers.

I ask unanimous consent the following numbered amendments be the only amendments in order, that if Senator Gregg or Senator Conrad decide they want a so-called side-by-side with these, that is at their discretion.

I would ask unanimous consent there be no second-degree amendments in order. The amendments are: 4242, 4230, 4330, 4276, 4168, 4186, 4220, 4308, 4209, 4233, 4311, 4307, 4345, 4344, 4357, 4339, 4371, 4347, 4269, 4243, 4270, 4206, 4369, 4334, 4375, 4283, 4265, 4159, 4331, 4351, 4202, 4200, 4255, 4245, 4361, 4300, 4256, 4310 and an unnumbered

amendment by Senator Brown, an unnumbered amendment by Senator Whitehouse, an unnumbered amendment by Senator Bingaman, an unnumbered amendment by Senator Kyl, an unnumbered amendment by Senator DeMint, an amendment No. 4268, an unnumbered amendment by Senator Conrad, and an unnumbered amendment by Senator Vitter.

I would say to everyone, there is no one trying to take advantage of anyone. If there is a problem we will be happy to work with you. This is a finite list. If there is some misunderstanding, we have two of the most generous, patient men I have ever seen, Senator Conrad and Senator Gregg. We will work with you. Let's get this locked down. If there is a problem, we will work with you. No one is trying to take advantage of anyone.

I ask unanimous consent that we approve this agreement. If there is something that my friend from Louisiana has a problem with, we will talk with him.

Yes.

I have no problem with that. I renew my previous unanimous consent request.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Would my friend yield?

Mr. President, we have a few amendments. We know everyone is very tired. We are doing very well. I would hope that those who have sense-of-the-Senate amendments would consider not moving them. I know they are important amendments, but they are sense of the Senate.

Anyway, even with those, we do not have many left. So if everyone would be patient, the staff is working very hard. The managers have another group of amendments that can be accepted. So if everyone will be very patient, final passage is going to be close. We need everybody here. So everyone please be patient.

Amendments Nos. 4270, as Modified; 4302, 4300, 4331, 4209, as Modified;

4375, 4307, and 4371