A joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to broadcast media ownership.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the House message to accompany S. Con. Res. 70, the concurrent budget resolution; that the motion to disagree to the House amendment be agreed to, the motion to agree to the request of the House for a conference be agreed to; and the motion to request the Chair to appoint conferees be agreed to.

Mr. President, I now ask we enter into 1-hour time agreement, equally divided, on an amendment that will be on or in respect to potential tax increases in the conference agreement.

Madam President, I have enjoyed listening to my colleagues describe this budget resolution. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with the budget resolution we have produced. It is a wonderful speech. It is the same speech they give every year no matter what the budget resolution says. But it absolutely has no attachment to what we have presented.

I hear this talk about the biggest tax increase ever in the world history. He said the same thing last year. And you know what happened. We have cut taxes. In fact, I have that chart too. It is very interesting because he gave precisely the same speech last year. It may have been exactly the same speech.

And what has happened with this Democratic-controlled Congress? Well, here are the tax cuts we have enacted, $194 billion. After they said we were going to have the biggest tax increase in the history of the world last year, we have cut taxes by $194 billion, with $7 billion of revenue raised through loophole closers that have been enacted, loophole closers that, frankly, many of them supported to advance the legislation that was important to us all. But that is the record.

After the speech, the identical speech, virtually the identical speech he gave last year, that we were going to have the biggest tax increase in the history of the world--what is the record? We have cut taxes by $194 billion, overwhelmingly on the middle class.

Now, let's look at this budget resolution. The green line is the revenue that is in our resolution. The red line is the President's. That is a very small difference, as you can see, a very small difference between the two. In fact, here is the difference: $15.6 trillion of revenue in our resolution, $15.2 trillion of revenue in the President's proposed budget. That is a difference of 2.6 percent. So I do not know what he is talking about when he is talking about the biggest tax increase in the history of the world. That has nothing whatever to do with our resolution.

In fact, our resolution has substantial tax relief. The Baucus amendment adopted on the Senate floor with bipartisan support extended the middle-class tax relief by providing for marriage penalty relief, by providing for extension of the child tax credit, by extending the 10-percent bracket.

We also provided alternative minimum tax relief to prevent 26 million people from being caught up in the alternative minimum tax, almost an eightfold increase from the number affected now. We have taken effective action to prevent that from happening. We have estate tax reform that will provide that only two-tenths of 1 percent of estates will face any taxes.

We provide for energy and education tax cuts. We provide for property tax relief, and we provide for extension of the popular tax extenders. All of that is done in this bill. Now, there is a difference in revenue, as I indicated, a very modest 2.6 percent between what is in our budget resolution and what the President called for.

Well, where are we going to get that revenue if we are not going to have a tax increase? Well, the first thing we do is go after the tax gap which is now estimated at $345 billion a year. That is the difference between what is paid and what is owed, $345 billion a year.

If we got 20 percent of that amount alone we could meet our numbers with no tax increase. But that is not the only place we can look because, as I have shown before on the floor of the Senate, this building down in the Cayman Islands called Ugland House, this little modest, five-story building is the home to 12,748 companies.

Now, I have said this is the most efficient building in the world. Think of that. That little building down in the Cayman Islands, and 12,748 companies claim they are doing business out of that little building. Of course, the only business they are doing in this building is monkey business because what they are doing is claiming they are doing business there in order to engage in tax avoidance. That is the business they are engaged in in Ugland House.

Now, if anybody doubts it, here is a recent story from the Boston Globe from March 6 of this year: Shell companies in Cayman Islands allow Kellogg, Brown and Root to avoid Medicare and Social Security taxes in the United States. What they have done down there this is the Nation's top Iraq war contractor until last year, a subsidiary of Halliburton, is to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal Medicare and Social Security taxes by hiring workers through shell companies based in this tropical tax haven.

Now, what we are saying is, let's shut down this kind of scam. How much is there? Well, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said there is $100 billion a year that is being lost to the U.S. Treasury in tax scams being run in these offshore tax evasion schemes. So if you have $345 billion a year in the tax gap, money that is owed that is not being paid, and the vast majority of us pay what we owe, it is outrageous that some are getting away without paying what they owe. And our argument on our side is that we ought to go after those folks who are not paying what they owe and are cheating all the rest of us.

On our side we say: Let's shut down these offshore tax havens that are costing us another $100 billion a year, these tax scams that are cheating all of the rest of us. You add those two together, that is $445 billion a year.

Again, now we need less than 20 percent of that in order to completely close this revenue gap.

But it doesn't end there, because I have shown this chart on the floor of the Senate too. This is a picture of a sewer system in Europe. What does a sewer system have to do with the budget of the United States? We have companies in America buying European sewer systems to write them off on their books to reduce their taxes here. Then they lease the sewer systems back to the European cities that built them in the first place. Is that unbelievable? Our friends on the other side don't want to do anything about that. They don't want to shut that down. They think that is OK. We don't. We think that should be shut down. This is another tens of billions of dollars a year in these types of tax scams.

We have things we have done to try to shut down some of these operations. We have put these in bills that the President has threatened to veto. This is almost hard to believe, but this is what has been going on. We proposed shutting down these scams. One of the things we propose is codifying economic substance, prohibiting transactions with no economic rationale done solely to evade taxes. We proposed shutting down schemes to lease foreign subway and sewer systems and depreciate their assets on the books of the United States to avoid taxes here. We have proposed ending deferral of offshore compensation by hedge fund managers trying to avoid taxation in this country. One of those people, by the way, earned over $1 billion last year alone. And there is not just one; there are many of them who earned over a billion dollars a year last year. Then they cook up a scheme where they move their money offshore to avoid paying taxes in this country and stick all the rest of us with the bill. We have said no, let's shut that down. The President has threatened to veto that.

We have talked about expanding broker information reporting to prevent this evasion and taxing people who leave this country and give up their citizenship to evade taxes they owe here. As unbelievable as it may sound, we have people who give up their U.S. citizenship, go to one of these tax havens and say: We don't owe any taxes in America because we don't live there anymore. We are no longer a citizen of that country. We are now down in the Cayman Islands or another one of these tax havens.

In fact, I went on the Internet. It is amazing to go on, put in ``offshore tax havens.'' Punch that in and then do a search. You will get over 1 million hits. One of my favorites is ``live offshore in a luxury yacht, never pay taxes again.'' This is the kind of scam that is going on. We say shut it down. If we only got back 15 percent of the money in the tax gap--not 50 percent, 15 percent--if we got back 15 percent of this tax gap, of these abusive tax shelters, we could meet our numbers with no tax increase. Remember, in our resolution, we have hundreds of billions of dollars of tax reduction on middle-income people, because we have extended all the middle-class tax cuts. That is what this resolution does. The other side doesn't want to do that. What they want to do is make sure to protect the wealthiest among us. They want to protect those who are engaged in these scams. I don't know why they want to. I don't get it. But that, apparently, is their position. They are going to have to defend it.

As I have indicated, there is no assumed tax increase in this budget resolution--none. There are substantial tax reductions, hundreds of billions of tax reductions.

I will end as I began. Last year the Senator on the opposing side gave the same speech, that our budget resolution had the biggest tax increases in the history of the world. Here is the record. Now we can look back and we can see what happened. Did Democrats increase taxes? No. Democrats cut taxes by $194 billion. In fact, people all across the country are getting checks from the Federal Government right now that represent those tax reductions enacted and, by the way, enacted on a bipartisan basis. The President signed the bill. So people know they got a tax reduction from Democrats when we have been in control of Congress this year, because they are getting the checks in the mailbox right now.

After the Senator asserted last year we were going to have the biggest tax increase in the history of the world, it didn't happen. There wasn't any tax increase. Instead, there were tax reductions.

There is no tax increase in this budget resolution either. None. None is assumed. We don't need any to meet the revenue numbers which are only 2.6 percent more than the President's revenue numbers. In fact, we have substantial middle-class tax relief. The middle-class tax relief that is in this package is right here. We extend the middle-class tax provisions that provide marriage penalty relief. We extend the important child tax credit. We extend the 10-percent bracket that provides such good relief to middle-income people. We have provided for relief from the alternative minimum tax. We have provided for estate tax reform. We have provided energy and education tax cuts, property tax relief, and the popular tax extenders. All of that tax relief is in this package.

I hope our colleagues will reject the assertion that is in the Senator's motion because it bears absolutely no relationship to the budget resolution before us.

I yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.

Well, Madam President, it is the same song, second verse. Again, it is words. It is no wonder our friends on the other side have lost three congressional elections in a row because they keep chanting the same mantra that has no relationship to reality. These are the exact same speeches they gave last year: biggest tax increase in the history of the world.

Now we can come and we can check the record. We do not have to guess; we do not have to suppose; we do not have to engage in make-believe. We can look at the record. Here it is: Democrats lowered taxes by $194 billion. If you are listening, you do not have to wonder if that is true. All you have to do is go to your mailbox because all across America people are getting checks from the United States that represent the tax cuts Democrats in Congress passed. So this is not a question; this is a matter of fact. Democrats cut taxes $194 billion. Those are not my numbers. Those are the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office.

All of this talk about big tax increases is just talk. It has no relationship to this budget and no relationship to last year's budget. It has no relationship to this year's budget.

I present the factual record. It is as clear as it can be. We lowered taxes $194 billion in the year under the budget resolution we passed last year.

With that, Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.

Madam President, I will not object. So let's go forward with that, and then I will seek recognition.

Madam President, I ask that we enter into a unanimous consent agreement on the Kyl motion--there will also be a side by side--that we do an hour on the two, equally divided.

Oh, they are typing up the comprehensive agreement. So shall we----

Let's proceed on the basis that we will make a good-faith attempt that we try to do this in an hour. Is that OK?

Madam President, if I can say, maybe we can work things out. We will try to be flexible and work in people as they come. We will do our best effort to get it done in an hour.

Motion To Instruct

Madam President, I will offer a side-by-side amendment that seeks to achieve the same goal. This is one place where we have an agreement. None of us want to see the alternative minimum tax imposed on the American people. That would involve 26 million people, up from 4.2 million now. All of us want the so-called tax extenders to be extended. It would involve the research and development tax credit and others.

We would add this additional caveat: We ask that every effort be made to

offset the cost of these policies by closing the tax gap, shutting down abusive tax shelters, and addressing these offshore tax havens that are turning out to be so abusive. We think that is better policy.

We absolutely agree that the alternative minimum tax should not be expanded. We absolutely agree that the so-called tax extenders, such things as the research and experimentation tax credit, the deduction for State and local taxes, the deduction for classroom expenses, the deduction for qualified education expenses, the incentive for the charitable IRA rollover, the combat pay earned-income tax credit, and various energy tax incentives, be extended. But we believe that rather than just putting that on the charge card and adding to the debt-- meaning that we go out with a tin cup and borrow more money from the Chinese and the Japanese--we pay for it by going after these abusive tax shelters, going after these tax scams, these offshore tax havens, and do it without raising taxes. So I hope my colleagues will support that as a general principle and an instruction to the conference committee.

With that, I note the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.

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

Madam President, I am going to extend my remarks.

I think many people in the country hear the phrase ``AMT'' and they wonder: What is that? It is the alternative minimum tax. It was established decades ago because they found there were people making $200,000 a year who weren't paying any taxes. To address that, they created the so-called alternative minimum tax.

The problem with it is that it was never indexed for inflation. The result is that now, instead of affecting just a few people, it is affecting millions of people. In fact, the estimates are that if we don't do anything about this, it will increase from 4 million people in 2007 to 26 million people in 2008.

In this budget resolution we say: No, no, don't let that happen. Don't increase taxes on 26 million American families. Don't do that.

In this instruction to the conferees, we say: Yes, absolutely, don't allow the alternative minimum tax to grow like a cancer. Instead, let's take care of that. Let's remove it as an option, and let's try to pay for it by closing down these abusive tax shelters, these offshore tax havens, and closing the tax gap.

Our friends on the other side have a different approach. They just want to put it on the charge card. The problem with that is if you eliminate the alternative minimum tax without paying for it, it adds $1.7 trillion to the debt. That is trillion with a ``t.'' Where do we get the money? Well, we borrow it.

We have been doing a lot of borrowing under this President. This is his record. He is building a wall of debt that is almost unprecedented in the history of the finances of this country. When he came in at the end of his first year, the debt was $5.8 trillion. At the end of his tenure, it will be $10.4 trillion. In the 8 years he is responsible for, the debt will have risen to $10.4 trillion. In fact, he will have nearly doubled the debt of the country.

More alarming is where we are getting it from because increasingly we are getting this money by borrowing from Japan and China. We even owe Korea money. This chart shows it. This chart shows that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up $1 trillion of U.S. debt held abroad; $1 trillion of foreign-held debt--foreign-held U.S. debt. It took 224 years to run up $1 trillion of foreign-held debt and all these Presidents, 42 of them. This President tops them all. He increased foreign holdings of our debt by $1.51 trillion so far, and counting. He has dug a very deep hole.

We have proposed a series of reforms.

I held up just moments ago a picture of a French sewer system and asked the question: What does this have to do with the U.S. budget? Well, it turns out it has quite a bit to do with the U.S. budget because we now find companies in this country--wealthy individuals buying European sewer systems, not because they are in the sewer business but because they want to avoid taxes in this country. How do the two have any relationship? Well, here is how it works: They buy a European sewer system, they put it on their books here, they depreciate it for tax purposes here, reducing their tax bill, and they lease the sewer system back to the European cities that built them in the first place. What a scam.

I just held up a picture of this little five-story building. Here it is. This little building down in the Cayman Islands is home to 12,748 companies. What a remarkable building this is. That little five-story building is supposedly the corporate headquarters of 12,748 companies. Now, are they all really doing business out of that little building down in the Cayman Islands? No, of course not. They are not doing business down there. They have a postal drop down there in order to claim that it is their headquarters for tax purposes. Why would they do that? Because the Cayman Islands doesn't have any taxes. So what they do is they have a subsidiary of this company that sells to another subsidiary that is wholly owned, and they sell at cost to subsidiary No. 2. Then they sell from subsidiary No. 2 to subsidiary No. 3 that is down in the Cayman Islands. They sell to them at cost. Then the subsidiary in the Cayman Islands sells to another subsidiary over in Germany or France and shows a big profit in the Cayman Islands where there are no taxes. That is an outrage. The vast majority of us pay what we owe. We have some who don't, and they are getting away with it with these scams. We say shut it down.

Let's not go borrow more from China and Japan and dig the hole deeper the way the President wants us to do. That is what our budget resolution says. That is what my amendment says. Yes, absolutely, don't let the alternative minimum tax be expanded from 4.2 million people in this country to 26 million. Don't let that happen. Yes, extend the research and experimentation credit. Yes, extend the sales tax deduction. Yes, provide for these other important tax incentives, especially the energy tax incentives. But instead of borrowing the money, instead of just going back hat in hand to China and Japan and asking them for more money, let's shut down these offshore tax havens, these abusive tax shelters and this tax gap where we have people who owe money but aren't paying it. Let's go after them instead of going over to China and being dependent on the kindness of strangers to finance our country.

We are headed for a cliff here because under this administration the debt has skyrocketed before the baby boomers ever retire. I have shown the chart that shows what has happened to the debt. The debt has gone up like a scalded cat.

Here is what has happened to the debt under this President and these policies: up, up, and away. He has nearly doubled the federal debt. He has more than doubled the foreign holdings of our debt. In fact, the increase in foreign-held debt under this President is now 150 percent of the amount accumulated by all previous Presidents combined over 224 years. As a result, we now owe the Chinese hundreds of billions of dollars. We owe the Japanese even more. We even owe Korea now over $40 billion. Enough is enough. Enough is enough. Let's quit digging the hole deeper. Yes, absolutely, let's provide middle-class tax relief. That is in this budget.

As I have said before, with all the talk from the other side about the biggest tax increase in the history of the world, here is the record. Democrats had been in charge for 1 year and we have provided $194 billion of tax relief, and you don't have to wonder if that is true. Just go home and check your mailbox. You are receiving a check passed by this Congress, signed by the President--a stimulus package-- with $150 billion in that package alone. But we have taken other steps to provide other tax relief as well, including not allowing, last year, the alternative minimum tax to be expanded, and we are not going to let the alternative minimum tax be expanded this year either. That is a fact. That is the record. It is not rhetoric, it is a fact.

Madam President, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Perhaps, I would ask the ranking member, could we just agree that whenever we go into a quorum call, we equally divide the time?

I ask unanimous consent that we adopt that as a rule, that any time we go into a quorum call, we equally divide the time.

I would ask the Senator from South Carolina, would it be acceptable--I understand it is with Senator Boxer who has a matching motion to yours--to have 30 minutes equally divided?

On the two.

That would help very much. I appreciate the Senator's courtesy.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we have 30 minutes equally divided on the DeMint and the Boxer motions.

Madam President, through you, I ask the Senator if he would yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent agreement we have worked out?

I think it would be helpful to the overall process that we do this.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following motions to instruct conferees be the only motions, except the pending motions, with no amendment in order to the motions, and that would be the Conrad AMT and the Kyl AMT amendments, with 60 minutes equally divided, with the time already consumed being applied to the 60 minutes; that there be a Democratic nuclear energy reserve fund amendment and a Republican nuclear energy reserve fund amendment and the two amendments be limited to 30 minutes equally divided; that there be a Democratic OCS amendment and a Vitter OCS amendment, with 30 minutes equally divided.

We have already had initial debate on the Boxer China-India and the DeMint China-India amendment with 30 minutes equally divided, and we will apply all time already consumed to that 30-minute limit.

Finally, a Gregg or Republican $1 trillion cap on discretionary spending amendment with 30 minutes equally divided; that points of order be waived; that upon the use of debate time on each motion, it be set aside and the motions to be voted in the order listed; that there be 2 minutes prior to each vote, and then after the first vote, the vote time be limited to 10 minutes each; that upon the use of all time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to each motion; that there be 60 minutes of general debate time available to the chair and the ranking member.

Madam President, I would note that obviously the amendment that has already been debated in the time consumed, the Gregg amendment, would be the first amendment to be voted on and these other amendments voted on in the order indicated, or we will do it as offered. I guess we can do it as offered, if that would accommodate the Senator from California, because we did the Boxer-DeMint amendment offered earlier. We will do it as offered.

I thank the Senator from Iowa for his courtesy.

Absolutely, an additional minute. Always, anytime, to the Senator from Iowa.

Madam President, I understand the Kyl motion regarding the alternative minimum tax is already pending, so I ask that my motion on the alternative minimum tax, which is at the desk, also be called up and be made pending.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote sequence with respect to the pending motions be as follows: the Gregg amendment, the Conrad AMT amendment, the Kyl AMT amendment, the Boxer China-India amendment, the DeMint China-India amendment--those are both with respect to energy provisions--the Vitter OCS amendment, the Graham energy nuclear reserve fund, and the Gregg discretionary spending cap, with the remaining provisions of the previous order in effect.

Mr. President, no objection.

No objection.

Mr. President, I wish now to turn to the Gregg amendment that was previously offered with respect to a $1 trillion cap.

Let me indicate that the spending in the budget resolution that has gone to the conference committee takes spending down as a share of GDP each and every year from 20.8 percent of GDP in 2008 and 2009, every year stepping it down until we get to 19.1 percent of GDP in 2012 and 2013. I might add, we balance the budget in 2012 and 2013 under the budget.

The comparison of the spending under the resolution and the President's budget is depicted by these lines: The green line is the budget resolution spending line; the President's is the red line. You can see almost no difference. That is because there is almost no difference between the spending in the President's budget and the spending in the Senate budget resolution. In fact, here are the differences: The Senate budget resolution has $3.08 trillion of spending over the period of the 5 years. The President has $3.84 trillion of spending over the period.

What are the differences? Let me indicate as a percentage, that is a 1-percent difference--1 percent. Why do we have 1 percent more than the President? Well, because first we rejected his Medicare cuts. That is 45 percent of the difference. Forty-three percent of the difference is we rejected his cuts to law enforcement. We rejected his cut to veterans. We rejected his cuts to transportation. My goodness. We just had a bridge collapse in Minnesota, 35W. Can you imagine the horror? You are driving home and the bridge collapses. We don't think it is wise to be cutting transportation funding when we are not maintaining the roads and bridges we have now, much less dealing with the gridlock that exists around the country as well. So we have rejected those cuts by the President.

We specifically rejected his proposal to cut the COPS program, not by 10 percent and not by 20 percent. The President proposed cutting the COPS program 100 percent. What is the COPS program? That is a program that has put 100,000 police officers on the street in this country. In my State, it has put over 200 officers on the street. I just held a hearing with every part of law enforcement represented: the police chiefs, the sheriffs, the States' attorneys--open testimony. They said it was absolutely beyond their understanding why the President would propose cutting the COPS program 100 percent, but he did.

He proposed cutting weatherization assistance 100 percent. Why would you cut weatherization assistance when that is designed to reduce fuel bills when oil is $120 a barrel? He says cut weatherization assistance 100 percent.

He says cut first responder grants 78 percent. I just held a hearing that involved all of the first responders in my State: The fire chiefs, the police chiefs, and all of the others, including the EMS personnel, emergency medical services. I asked them: Do they think it makes any sense to cut the first responder grants 78 percent? They unanimously said absolutely not. What are we going to do in terms of interoperability of communications if we are not upgrading those systems? One of the things we learned on that fateful day, September 11, was that the failure to have interoperable communications created a fiasco at the Pentagon when all the emergency responders were going there to try to help and they couldn't communicate with each other. That is what these grants are for, to provide interoperable communications, to provide the training to respond to disasters, both natural and manmade. The President says cut it 78 percent. The President said cut community development funds 24 percent. He said cut clean water grants 21 percent. He said cut low-income home energy assistance--the very popular LIHEAP program--which is already underfunded, another 15 percent. We said, no, that doesn't make any sense; yet we produced a budget that balances. It balances in the fourth year--not by much, but it does balance, according to CBO. We stay in balance in the fifth year, unlike the President's budget. The President balanced in the fourth year but went right back out of balance in the fifth.

He has an addiction to debt unlike anything I have ever seen. This President has almost doubled the national debt in just 7 years. He has more than doubled foreign holdings of our debt in that period. We owe the Chinese hundreds of billions, we owe the Japanese hundreds of billions, and we even owe Mexico. This President's legacy is one of debt.

In this budget, we bring down the debt as a share of GDP in each and every year, according to the scoring of the budget resolution, from 69.6 percent down to 66 percent. That is not as much progress as I would like to make.

Senator Gregg and I have a separate proposal to deal with the long- term entitlement problems and those challenges, to deal with that in a bipartisan special task force that would have the power to come back with a recommendation that would get a vote in the Congress of the United States if a supermajority of the members of the task force, who are completely bipartisan, would agree on the plan.

Mr. President, I am proud of this budget resolution. I think this trillion-dollar cap on discretionary spending is a pure political gambit.

Let me add one other thing. If this cap were imposed, part of what is included in that spending is spending on our national defense. So that would put defense under the gun and put it at risk of additional cuts. I am a little surprised that the Republicans are proposing that. I don't think this is the time to be making cuts in national defense, but that would be in the pot and be subject to cuts under their proposal. I hope we reject that approach.

With that, I think we are very close to being ready to go to votes.

I see my colleague, the Senator from Florida, here.

I wonder if the Parliamentarian could advise us on the time remaining

on the Conrad-Kyl AMT amendment and the Gregg $1 trillion cap. How much time is left on those two?

No, there is not. That is not correct. That was part of a unanimous consent agreement. There was 16 minutes for Kyl and Conrad combined, and all time consumed was credited against that 60 minutes. So there is virtually no time. I think we will just yield back all time on that motion.

Senator Nelson may want to speak on OCS. How much time is left on that?

I am happy to yield 7 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Florida.

I will retain 2 minutes on that too. So we each will retain 2 minutes on that amendment and yield back all other time, except for the 7 minutes on OCS.

I will allow the Senator an additional minute if the Senator in opposition will be given an additional minute as well.

Mr. President, the first motion I like very much, the debt disclosure. I think that would be a very useful item for Members of Congress and for the people of the country. So I readily accept motion No. 1. Can we accept that motion by a voice vote?

Mr. President, on the second motion, we have no objection on this side to adopting that motion by unanimous consent.

I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague very much. I thank Senator Gregg. We have had an interesting day. Senator Gregg, we can see by his head with that nasty bruise, is bloodied but unbowed.

He said he got hit by a farmer with a lamb chop or asparagus, I don't know which.

I think we are ready to proceed to vote.

I think that is fair.

I think we would be well advised as well. We advise colleagues, after the first vote, there will be 10 minutes. We will have eight votes. Typically, that will take us 3 hours. If Members will come and stay here, we can conceivably get done in 2\1/2\ hours. It is up to the Members whether we are able to do that.

With that, I go to my colleague for an explanation of the first motion.

I will be happy to go first. The Senator is talking about this being the biggest tax increase in history. That is the same speech he gave last year. We can now check the record and see what actually happened and, lo and behold, there was not the biggest tax increase ever. In fact, there was no tax increase. In fact, there were tax cuts. The Democrats in both Houses of Congress cut taxes by $194 billion.

In this legislation before us, we have no tax increases. We have additional tax reductions. Included in this resolution are the middle- class tax cuts, the marriage penalty relief, the child tax credit, the 10-percent bracket, further alternative minimum tax relief, estate tax reform, energy and education, property tax relief, and extenders.

The difference in revenue, which is only 2.6 percent between our bill and the President's, can completely be met by closing down these offshore tax havens, abusive tax shelters, and aggressively going after the tax gap, the difference between what some owe and what they are failing to pay.

Mr. President, two of our colleagues and a third, counting me, have very graciously agreed to take voice votes to shorten this process. Now we will turn to Senator Kyl for an explanation of his motion.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Kyl for his willingness to do this on a voice vote. He has described the amendments well. I see no purpose in further discussion.

I ask for a voice vote on the Conrad and Kyl motions.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, has a motion on nuclear energy. The Senator from South Carolina has also graciously agreed to take it on a voice vote.

Would the Senator like to take 30 seconds to explain the motion?

The Senator from South Carolina continues to rise in the judgment of his colleagues.

Can we then go to a voice vote on the Graham motion?

Mr. President, that takes us to the Boxer motion on cap and trade. We have 2 minutes equally divided. These are motions that will require votes, the Boxer and DeMint motions.

If the Senator from California would take time to explain her motion.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, under the budget resolution, spending goes down each and every year as a share of domestic product, 20.8 percent down to 19.1 percent

The Senator opposite seeks to make those reductions more steep and embrace the President's proposal which would eliminate the COPS Program--not just cut it but eliminate it, a program that puts 100,000 police on the street--cut the Weatherization Assistance Program 100 percent at a time of $120 oil; cut the first responder grants--police, fire, emergency medical 78 percent; cut community development 24 percent; cut clean water 21 percent; cut LIHEAP 15 percent.

More than that, because of the way this amendment has been written, this would put defense in the pool to be cut. If you want to do that, vote for the Senator's motion. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I will just say it will be a motion to instruct.

Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.

Mr. President, this motion to instruct is necessary because the budget, as it left the Senate and it is represented, has been agreed to between the House and Senate Democratic leadership and membership, with no Republican input other than the courtesy of telling us what they have agreed to, has in it the largest tax increase in the history of the world--the history of the world, not just the history of the United States. It is a $1.2 trillion tax increase. It means that all Americans' taxes will go up significantly as a result of this tax increase. Mr. President, 7.8 million people today who do not pay taxes will find that they are paying taxes. These are low- and moderate- income Americans who are not liable to pay taxes because their income has them in a level where there is no tax event, but under this budget resolution, which assumes the termination of the tax policies that were put in place in 2001 and 2003, those 7.8 million people will be returned to the tax rolls and will have to pay taxes.

Families of four, earning $50,000--a husband, a wife and two children--in 2011, under this bill, would see their taxes go up $2,300. A single mom raising two kids--which is the toughest job in America, in my opinion--earning $30,000 a year, that mother would see her taxes go up by $1,100. That is a lot of food, a lot of clothing, and a lot of better lifestyle that will be lost to that family.

A family of four earning $110,000 would see their taxes--that would be, for example, a mother who is teaching or a father who is teaching and a mother who is a police officer, one making $50,000 and one making, say, $60,000--that family with two children could see their taxes go up $4,300 under this bill.

Small businesses--which are defined by the Democratic Party as the rich, will pay more taxes. In fact right now in the House of Representatives they are debating a bill which they claim taxes the rich, which it turns out are small businesses who file as individuals-- 75 percent of all individual returns with income above $300,000 include business income, and 83 percent of all individual returns with income above $1 million include business income. They will be subject to the high-end tax which the Democratic Party is proposing in the House. Meanwhile, small businesses, who pay 54 percent of all individual income taxes--those small businesses, 27 million in total, will see their tax bill go up by $4,100 under this budget resolution. That could easily put a lot of those small businesses out of business, that type of a tax hike. A lot of these businesses work at the margin. Even though they may have high income, they are still spending a lot of that in order to maintain their business.

Elderly couples with incomes of $40,000, if the Democratic budget goes forward, an elderly taxpayer, someone over 65 with $40,000 of income, will see their taxes go up $2,200. That is a lot of money for somebody who is probably on a fixed income and does not have too many ways to increase their income and are trying to make fixed costs, which they also cannot reduce. To be hit with a $2,200 tax bill in 2011 is a pretty stiff penalty to pay so the party in power, the Democratic Party, can spend their money on some program they deem more appropriate than allowing that individual to keep their money in their pocket. Eighteen million seniors will see taxes go up under this bill as the tax policies of 2001 and 2003 are repealed and taxes are increased.

There was an argument made on the other side of the aisle that we are not going to do that, we are going to collect this money from uncollected taxes. That argument has no viability any longer. They made that argument last year, and the amount of money which was collected from uncollected taxes went up a minuscule amount, so that argument has no credibility. There is an argument made, primarily by Senator Obama in his campaign for the Presidency, that all these new programs and all this cost will be paid for by taxing the wealthiest Americans--only the wealthiest Americans; that the other tax breaks will be left in place.

This budget does not assume that. This budget does not assume that at all. This budget assumes the full repeal of all the tax rates as they were put in place in 2001 and 2003. In addition, it assumes the full repeal of the capital gains rate, full repeal of the dividend rate-- which, by the way, taxes on capital gains and dividends are paid disproportionately by senior citizens. They are the ones who sell their homes and end up with capital gains, they are the ones who have fixed incomes usually tied to dividends from their pensions.

So that argument that this proposal is just going to tax the wealthiest of Americans does not fly, on the basis of the language of the Democratic budget. The Democratic budget says they are going to repeal and raise, by $1.2 trillion, those taxes--taxes which all Americans will have to pay.

Senator Obama says if he just taxes the wealthy, he can pay for all his new spending programs. Those new spending programs total up to well over $300 billion a year. He has proposed over 185 new programs. If you score just 143 of those programs he is proposing--his new or additional programs--it totals $300 billion in new spending. That is on top of the new spending already in this budget resolution. This budget radically expands spending. It is well over $200 billion in new discretionary spending over the 5-year period of this budget and of course you put the Obama ``spend-orama'' on top of that and you are up another $300 billion. All of this is going to be paid for, allegedly, by just taxing the wealthy.

You have to look at the language of the bill. That is not the way it is going to be paid for. As I outlined, it is going to be paid for by taxing working Americans, elderly Americans, single moms with families and individuals who run small businesses.

In fact, if you took Senator Obama at face value, and what he is proposing, he is going to raise all of these taxes on the wealthy to pay for his $300 billion of new spending and the $200 billion in this bill. The $300 billion figure is an annual number, by the way.

The maximum amount, if you were to return to the top rate in America, back to the rate during the Clinton years, which is what has been proposed by Senator Obama, the maximum amount that generates annually is $25 billion. The fact is, we will not get that much. These are wealthy people. They understand how to hire tax accountants and avoid taxes when taxes become disproportionate, and they view them as something that should be avoided rather than paid.

The great advantage we have from the tax cuts which were put in place by President Bush and which caused this economy to expand and caused Federal revenues to grow in the most aggressive way in our recent history, was that tax laws have reached fair levels.

Take, for example, the capital gains tax which, under this bill, under this

budget, will be doubled. The capital gains tax today, because it is at a reasonable rate, 15 percent, is generating huge increases in Federal revenues.

In fact, CBO estimated when the capital gains rate went to 15 percent, it would generate about $100 billion less than what it has actually generated over the last 3 years. And why did we obtain an additional $100 billion in tax revenue as a result of having a lower capital gains rate? For two reasons: One, because the capital gains rate was fair so people were investing in activity that was taxable, and they were not trying to avoid taxes by investing in nontaxable activity; and, two, because when you set a fair capital gains rate, what you do is incentivize people to go out, recognize their capital gains--in other words, sell the asset which they obtained gain in, and then take that new money they have gotten and reinvest it in some other activity which also generates capital gains.

Instead of having the capital gains event locked down, instead of having assets held simply because people do not want to pay taxes, and those assets may be nonproductive assets, thus not having productive use of those dollars, a reasonable capital gains rate, which is what we now have in this country, causes people to go out and invest and act in the most efficient way with the money they have.

As a result, not only do they generate more taxes to the Federal Government, $100 billion more than was estimated, but they also, at the same time, create more jobs. Because those dollars are used more efficiently, there is more entrepreneurship, there is more risk taking, and more people are willing to go out and take the risks to create a job because they know they are going to have a chance to get an adequate return, and their efforts will not be taxed away.

But this budget rejects all of that. This budget rejects that whole concept. It says: Let's go back to the period where we taxed people at extremely high rates. And why? Why do they tax people at extremely high rates? Is it to reduce the deficit? No, the deficit goes up dramatically under this bill.

Does it reduce the national debt? No, the national debt goes up dramatically under this bill. The reason they want your tax dollars is because they want to spend your tax dollars. There is a genuine philosophy on the other side of the aisle that says they know how to spend your money better than you do. You, the working American, you, the small business man or woman, you, the single mother, they know better how to spend your money than you know how to spend your money. Thus, they want to raise your taxes in order to reprogram it in some sort of program that they deem to be of a better social purpose than allowing the person who earned that income to keep their money in their pocket so they can make decisions which benefit them and their family with those dollars.

That is the philosophical difference that divides us and could not be shown in a more stark way than in this budget as it left the Senate and which will be conferenced, because this budget repealed almost all the constructive tax policy that was pro-growth oriented in the President's proposals of 2001 and 2003, and as a result it drives this massive increase in the tax burden on the American people.

This is not a tax on the wealthy. This is a tax on the middle class because it is middle-class America who will have to pay for the $1.2 trillion tax increase. To review the numbers, 7.8 million people who do not pay taxes today will have to pay them under this bill; 27 million people who run small businesses will see their taxes go up by $4,100; 43 million working Americans who have children will see their taxes go up by $2,300; and senior citizens, 18 million senior citizens, will see their taxes go up by $2,200.

Obviously, we have a deep philosophical difference with the majority on this point. And that is why we are suggesting an instruction which says we should not proceed down the path of having the world's largest tax increase. Let's at least tell our conferees: Do not do that to the American people. Keep the tax laws at a level that is fair and is responsible.

By ``responsible'' I mean the tax laws, as they presently are structured today, are returning more revenue to the Federal Government from our income tax than we have ever had in our history. And even as a percentage of the gross national product, they are returning more revenues to the Federal Government than has been the historical average. Mr. President, 18.7 percent of gross national product today is being collected in tax revenue. Historically, it was only 18.2 percent. So these tax laws have not reduced Federal revenue, they have actually increased Federal revenue, as I pointed out when I discussed the capital gains rates.

We should not be putting in place a tax burden on working Americans which is going to be counter to the idea of creating jobs, creating economic incentives, and giving and allowing people to keep in their pockets money which they have earned and which they know better how to spend than we as a government know how to spend.

I reserve the remainder of my time. I look forward to continuing this discussion as we proceed through the afternoon.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) The Senator from North Dakota.

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

Madam President, I now suggest we yield back the time remaining on this motion and that we turn to the motion to instruct by Senator Kyl. So I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

Madam President, to my knowledge we have not seen the side by side.

Why don't we proceed with Senator Kyl, and after we see your side by side, we can talk about time agreements because we already have an hour.

That is fine with me.

Yes.

On both motions?

Madam President, I am not speaking on Senator Kyl's motion. He has reserved his time. I am going to ask to set aside his motion and send another motion to the desk.

As I understand the order, we have pending the motion to instruct that I offered, the motion to instruct which Senator Kyl offered, the motion to instruct which Senator

Conrad offered relative to the motion of Senator Kyl, the motion to instruct which Senator DeMint offered, the motion to instruct which Senator Boxer offered in relationship to Senator DeMint's motion, and this motion; is that correct? Is there anything else pending right now?

The Conrad motion relative to the Kyl motion has not been sent to the desk.

Relative to the unanimous consent agreement, other than the motion I have just sent to the desk, which is a trillion-dollar spending cap, we would still have available to be sent to the desk the motion relative to nuclear energy reserve and the motion relative to offshore drilling, with the side by sides.

I thank the Chair. I believe all the motions that are pending, to the extent they still have time remaining on those motions pursuant to the unanimous consent request, that time is reserved; is that correct?

So right now I will address the trillion-dollar spending one and have that come off that time which is, I believe, 30 minutes equally divided.

What this instruction says is, we should not be spending $1 trillion on discretionary accounts around here. This budget for the first time, the Democratic budget, because of its increases last year on top of the increases in this budget, has hit the trillion-dollar mark. That should be a fairly big red flag, that we are now going to spend $1 trillion in discretionary spending. I have trouble comprehending what a trillion dollars is. I suspect almost everybody does. But if you take all the taxes paid since we began as a republic, I believe it totals something like $42 trillion. That would be over 200 years. So this one budget is going to spend a fairly significant amount of what has been raised in taxes since our country began. It is a big number, $1 trillion. It seems to me we ought to sort of maybe draw a line here, take a breath, and say: Let's stop. Let's think about what we are doing. Let's see if rather than spending this huge amount of money, we can't save a little money.

Last year the Democratic budget, and then the Democratic appropriations bills, increased spending by $22 billion. That was what they proposed. It is not just a 1-year event when you raise spending around here by $22 billion. That compounds over 5 years. It is $22 billion plus $22 billion plus interest, plus $22 billion. It adds up. In fact, a 5-year number is probably closer to $220 billion, $250 billion, when you spend $22 billion in 1 year or increase spending by that much. So it is a lot of money. Last year they increased spending by $22 billion on nondefense discretionary spending. This year it is not absolutely clear, because it hasn't actually been disclosed to us, but we know it is going to be well over $20 billion on nondefense discretionary spending again.

That is why the Democratic budget takes us over $1 trillion; $1.9 trillion, I believe, will be spent under this budget on discretionary spending. As I said, it is time for a timeout. That is what this motion to instruct says. It says: Let's go back and rethink this effort. Can't we somewhere in that trillion dollars find enough savings to get us back under $1 trillion? Shouldn't we certainly be saying we are not going to push the American taxpayer over the trillion-dollar number; rather, we will make a little extra effort to try to reduce spending in this account if we want to increase spending in that account, rather than constantly add on to the spending?

This Democratic budget has absolutely no programmatic savings in it. The President suggested some programmatic savings. I believe his programmatic savings added up to about $15 billion. None of those was accepted and none of those was put in this budget. None of those are assumed. In fact, all it does is add to spending and add to programs. It is hard to believe that in a trillion-dollar budget, we couldn't find a mere 1 percent or 2 percent of savings by reducing programs which have either outserved their usefulness or which, in the order of priorities, we simply can't afford, and we should make difficult decisions of maybe not increasing them as much as proposed or maybe even reducing them. In most instances, we are talking about slowing the rate of increase. We are not actually talking about reducing.

This is a red-flag motion. It says: Let's pause. Let's think about this. Do we want to blow through the trillion-dollar mark on the discretionary side of the ledger without having made some effort to try to save some money around here, to reallocate money, to set priorities, and to do what is affordable? I don't think we do. That is why we are calling on the conferees to take some action to bring this number back under $1 trillion. That means they have to save $9 billion, $10 billion. That is 1 percent. They ought to be able to do that. I know it is a lot of money, $10 billion, but on a trillion-dollar budget, it certainly ought to be a doable event. It does seem to me the American people deserve that type of effort. We could all earn our pay around here, a number of times over, if we were to save the American people $10 billion or $20 billion and allow them to keep that money so they can spend it and make their lives better rather than have the Government spend it for them.

That is what this motion does. It instructs the conferees to bring this budget back under the trillion-dollar level in the discretionary side.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending motion and send to the desk a motion on behalf of Senator Graham dealing with nuclear power.

Madam President, I note that the Senator from Louisiana is on the Senate floor. I had planned to offer this motion on behalf of Senator Graham in order to move the process along. He is in accordance with that as he is in a meeting he could not get out of, a briefing on security. I will reserve the remainder of the time on the motion so Senator Vitter can be recognized.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be no further motions to be brought forward.

Mr. President, I think we will yield back all time on the Kyl-Conrad motion.

I would like to retain 2 minutes to respond to my spending a trillion dollars.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 4 minutes be equally divided between Senator Conrad and myself when we get to the Kyl-Conrad AMT amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we turn to two other items that need to be taken up prior to the time limit.

Mr. President, I send two motions to the desk dealing with budget enforcement. I ask they be reported in seriatim.

Mr. President, these are two motions, one of which says that under the rules of the budget, there will be a disclosure of the debt owed by the United States in a manner that is comprehensible.

Right now the budget is a very hard, very complex document to read for those of us who are involved in it, but it is extremely difficult to glean what actually is the debt and how the debt relates to the overall budget. The first motion says that will be made clearer for the purpose of transparency.

The second motion has four elements. The first one is a point of order that says the budget resolution, which will be live, does not put us on a path to a balanced budget over a 5-year period. The second one is a point of order against a reconciliation bill which spends more than 20 percent of what it saves. The third is a point of order against a budget resolution that does not provide a debt disclosure statement, such as the first motion included. And fourth is a long-term deficit point of order that should prohibit any deficit increases outside the budget window.

I talked about these with the chairman. The chairman seems amenable to accepting these motions. I hope they can be accepted.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the second motion be adopted.

That came from the farm bill.

It must have been asparagus.

We are. I suggest we have 2 minutes equally divided before each vote to explain what we are voting on for our colleagues.

And after the first vote, the votes be 10 minutes.

Mr. President, it being my motion, I am sure the chairman would like to go first.

Mr. President, there is a tax increase in this resolution. If there

isn't, then the budget doesn't make any sense because it assumes $1.2 trillion of new revenues in order to reach its targets, and that means 78 million taxpayers who don't pay taxes today are going to end up paying taxes under this budget.

It means a working family of four with $50,000 income will end up with a $2,300 tax bill increase in 2011. It means a single mom with two kids earning $30,000 will have a $1,000 tax increase in 2011. It means that 18 million senior citizens will have their taxes increased by over $2,000, and that 27 million small businesses will have their taxes increased by over $4,000 in the year 2011.

The simple fact is this budget assumes massive tax increases, the largest tax increase in the history of the world. I hope people will oppose that.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I have no charts. I simply have a number: $1 trillion. We should draw the line somewhere around here. We should say to the American people: It is time that we exercise fiscal discipline. Let's do it at $1 trillion. That means that in this budget, you only have to reduce it 1 percent to get back underneath that number.

We don't have to look to the President to do that. We can't, amongst ourselves, come up with $10 billion of savings on a $1 trillion budget? If we can't, we should all go home.

Vote to draw the line at $1 trillion. Vote for the American taxpayer.

Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Thank you, Madam President. I am going to take a couple of minutes to lay this motion down and then leave the floor. I will come back. Senator Grassley will be here in about a half an hour. I know he wants to speak to this motion. So the total time consumed should not be more than that, but exactly when we will do the time I am not precisely sure.

Madam President, I have a motion at the desk.

Madam President, let me simply describe in about 90 seconds what this motion does, and then I will come back and make the presentation for it in a moment. This motion would instruct the House and Senate budget conferees to assume a 1-year extension of the alternative minimum tax so-called patch, in other words, that the filers who have not had to pay that would not have to pay it in the future for another year.

Also, it assumes an extension of the tax extenders, as we call them. Those are the provisions of the Tax Code that have already expired, things such as the R&D tax credit; plus those that expire at the end of this year, things such as the various energy tax credits; and some international tax credits that have always been the subject of our extender policy.

These tax extenders and the AMT, alternative minimum tax, fix would not have to be offset by raising taxes on others. That is the key point of this motion, that we extend the relief we have given to filers-- about 26 million filers this year--from the alternative minimum tax, and extend the various so-called tax extender provisions that are traditionally extended here, and that in neither case would we be raising taxes in order to pay for them.

Madam President, I will reserve discussing this further until some of the other speakers are here to make the motion.

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

Madam President, I had earlier filed and Senator Grassley had spoken on a motion to instruct conferees. An alternative has been presented by Senator Conrad. I wish to discuss both of them, this motion to instruct conferees on the alternative minimum tax, and the so-called tax extenders.

Each year Congress is required to fix the AMT because without such a fix--around here it is called a patch--but without such a fix, it would apply to, last year 22 million people, this year 26 million people. It was never intended to apply to those people.

It was originated about 20 years ago because there were a couple hundred millionaires who were not paying taxes because of all of their credits, deductions, offsets, and so on. People in Congress thought that was not right, so we said: Well, no matter what, even if you have enough other tax shelters to eliminate your tax liability, we are going to make you pay an alternative minimum tax, no matter what. But it was not indexed for inflation, so now everyone is going to have to be paying it. Each year Congress says: Well, we did not intend that, so we will fix it so you do not have to pay it this year.

The question is not whether we are going to relieve taxpayers from that--we will--but whether the rules of the Democratic majority that it has to be paid for will, in fact, be implemented so that we have to raise taxes in order to save taxes, save people from having to pay taxes. Obviously it does not make any sense to say to taxpayers: You should have not to pay the alternative minimum tax, but under the Democratic rules we have to raise your taxes so that the Government does not lose any money from us relieving you of that tax liability. That does not make any sense.

So each year we waive that requirement. All we are saying here is we need to do that again this year. I understand the pay-go requirement is part of the Democratic rule around here. It has not been applied in the past for a very good reason: It makes no sense, and it should not be applied here either.

We never intended that this tax apply to 26 million taxpayers, we never intended to collect the revenue, we are not going to collect the revenue. So why do we have to make the Government whole for revenue that we never intended to give it in the first place, especially since it means raising taxes on people in order to ``pay for the reduction in revenues to the Treasury''? That is what this resolution is about.

The other half of it is to instruct the conferees that we need to also extend the so-called extenders. Now, that is shorthand around here for a variety of tax provisions which provide various credits and other relief to taxpayers such as the research and development tax credit. But we only do that a year at a time, so every year about this time we have to start talking about passing the extenders package. We are going to do it; there is not going to be any debate about it. The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee made the point earlier that agrees with us that this needs to be done; it is a question of how we do it.

What we are doing is saying here, today, we need to do it in the following way: Pass it as we did last year. You do not have to raise taxes somewhere else in order to ``pay for it.''

This is not a case that make any sense for us. If you are going to give tax relief, why would you raise taxes to have to pay for it? We are not counting on any revenue. Every year we do it this way. So why the charade that somehow we have to raise taxes to pay for something we never intended to collect revenue from in the first place?

That is what this resolution does. Let's strip away the pretense here that somehow or other we are going to pay for it. ``Pay for'' are not the right words anyway. That starts from the presumption that the Government owns all of this money, and that if we ever decide to give the taxpayers a break so they do not have to pay for it all, the Government gets to make up the revenue some other way.

How does the Government make up revenue? It taxes people. That is the only way the Government makes revenue. So the assumption is, well, the Government deserves all of this money, and if we ever say we are not going to collect some of it because we want people to keep more of it, then we have to make that up some other way, obviously by raising taxes.

I would rather start from the other premise, which is that the money belongs to the people and especially in times of economic downturn it is important that they be able to use, in the way that they deem most beneficial, the income they have earned, and that when we say we are going to relieve them of the alternative minimum tax liability, for example, we are doing that for a reason, and we do not need to start from the premise that it is the Government's money and somehow we have to keep the Government whole and give the Government money by raising taxes even though they were never going to collect this AMT revenue in the first place.

This must sound like a strange debate to the American people. But that is what the rule the Democratic majority has in place would require. That is what the budget would require. All we are saying is, since we are going to be passing a budget, let's instruct the conferees on the budget here that is not what we are going to do here. We are going to do it as we have in the past, as we did last year. We are going to pass the AMT relief, we are going to pass the extenders, and, no, we are not going to raise taxes on someone in order to pay for them.

Now, what is the alternative that the distinguished chairman of the Committee comes up with? It is the identical motion I have, with one other provision. It is this addition:

And that we should insist that every effort should be

made--

That is a sure sign for: We are not really going to do anything about this, but we at least want to make it sound good--

to offset the cost of these policies by closing the tax gap,

shutting down abusive tax shelters, addressing offshore tax

havens without raising taxes.

Well, I am glad we have the ``without raising taxes'' in there, because none of us wants to raise taxes. But this reminds me of the candidates, and we have all seen them out on the stump: Yes, we have a huge Federal budget deficit, but I want to spend more money. The way we are going to pay for it is we are going to end waste, fraud, and abuse in Government. That is a sure sign for a politician who has not figured out how to get the money in any other way. Everyone is going to end waste, fraud, and abuse. You know, I used that phrase in a sort of facetious way, but actually I think it is in here.

Shutting down abusive tax shelters. There we are. Abuse. Waste, fraud, and abuse. Addressing offshore tax havens. The reality is, the Finance Committee on which we sit comes up with offsets to offset true tax policy whenever we can, and we have wrung out our Tax Code for every last dollar we can find that involves waste, fraud, and abuse.

There are not any abusive tax shelters out there. If they are out there, we have not found them or we would sure enough have gotten the money from them. The same thing about offshore tax havens. We have gotten about $60 or $70 billion from these, and there is no more to get. If there is, we would have gotten it by now.

Then there is the tax gap. The tax gap is this: Not everyone pays all of the income taxes the IRS thinks they owe, and the problem is we do not know exactly who has not paid. But the estimates are that if most businesses in an industry pay $100, and some only pay $80, the assumption is that maybe those that only pay $80 probably ought to be paying more. We cannot figure it out, but we think the money would be there if we had a better way to account for it.

We have held hearings, and the experts basically say: There is not much more you can get. You probably would have to pay more to find it than it is worth to collect.

We did do one thing, though. We actually subcontracted out to some tax collectors. If they can go out and find some and they can bring it back, they get a little piece of the action. It would help us because they would collect some of these revenues.

The only thing from the other side is, well, let's eliminate that policy. We are not going to send these guys out to try find where these taxes are. So if they intended to collect the revenue or to end or minimize the tax gap, they would not be sponsoring the legislation to fire all of the people we hired to go out there and find the revenue.

The bottom line is, this is a nice sounding phrase, but it is like the person that goes out and says: I am going to end waste, fraud, and abuse. That is how I am going to pay for all of the new spending I am recommending.

I urge my colleagues to support the motion I have filed, the motion that Senator Grassley spoke to, and to reject the motion of the chairman of the Budget Committee which, at the end of the day, recognizes the reality. We are going to do the AMT patch. We are going to do the tax extenders. We are not going to pay for them. So let's don't pretend like we have to find revenue from someplace else in order to make this happen.

I reserve the remainder of my time and inquire how much remains?

How much remains on the other side?

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``aye.''

Both the chairman of the committee and I have resolutions that are almost identical. They both call for us to extend the so- called patch for the alternative minimum tax which otherwise would affect about 26 million taxpayers this year; to extend the so-called tax extenders package that has tax provisions like the R&D tax credit in it for another year, and to do so without raising taxes.

The addition on the Conrad motion is to use our best efforts to shut down abusive tax shelters, address offshore tax havens, and to close the tax gap.

Since I assume we are all for ending any waste, fraud, and abuse, I cannot disagree. I would be pleased to take votes on both of these motions by voice vote.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Thank you, Madam President.

I thank the distinguished ranking member for the courtesy.

Motion To Instruct

Madam President, I have a motion I send to the desk.

Madam President, if I could briefly explain this motion, it attempts to, again, get us to deal directly with the enormously important issue, the real crisis that consumers across America face; that is, the high and escalating cost of energy, including gasoline at the pump.

This will finally suggest to the American people that we get it, that we understand their plight, that we feel their pain, if you will, to use an often used phrase, and we are actually going to do something about it. We are going to act.

This motion to instruct the conferees would show the Senate is serious about increasing energy supplies and doing that to decrease gasoline prices.

The motion is very simple. It would instruct the budget conferees to include a reserve fund for future legislation that we would be expressing an intention to pass. That legislation would allow a Governor, with the concurrence of his or her State legislature, to petition for increased energy exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf off of that State.

It would also allow for revenue sharing coming from such exploration and production, to give producing States a fair share on new areas of production and new leases made available.

Specifically, I would suggest that we follow the precedent and the policy we set a few years ago. As we opened new areas of the gulf, we said the producing States will have a fair share, will finally get revenue sharing--37.5 percent of the revenue from that new production.

Finally, this would only happen if the price of regular gasoline in the United States reaches $5 a gallon at the pump.

The American people are wondering right now if we understand what their daily lives are all about because as gasoline prices at the pump are high, and higher the next day, and much higher the next month, we seem to want to do absolutely nothing about it.

This Congress, under Democratic leadership, came into power in January of 2007. As that happened, the Democratic leadership of this new Congress was very clear that an absolute top priority was to deal with sky-high energy prices.

At the time fuel prices were about $2.33 a gallon at the pump. Well, if that was sky high then, I do not know what adjective to use for today because since that time, from January 2007 to today, we have gone from $2.33 a gallon at the pump to about $3.72 a gallon--a 61-percent increase. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any real end in sight.

Now, the American people get this because they live it. They go to the gas pump weekly. They live it. They see that bill for filling up their tank go higher and higher. They have to wonder if we get it because we talk a lot on the Senate floor, we debate a lot, but what have we done? In my opinion, very, little on this crucial challenge-- even crisis--facing the American people.

When I look at this issue, I go back to economics 101: supply and demand. Price is set by the intersection of demand and supply. So you can try to stabilize or lower prices in two ways: You can try to decrease demand; you can try to increase supply.

I think our energy situation is so dire, so challenging, the escalating prices are so great, the pace of escalation is so staggering, that we need to take action on both sides of the equation. We need to do everything possible on both sides of the equation.

We need to lessen demand or at least mitigate increasing demand from other countries worldwide, such as China and India. We cannot control what they do. Their demand is increasing enormously. But at least we can try to mitigate that with demand reductions in our own economy. I support those measures: greater efficiency, greater conservation, moving to alternative forms of fuel and energy. That is all absolutely crucial. We need to do that. We have done a little of it; we need to do more.

But as we do that, we cannot ignore the supply side of the equation. We need to address both sides at the same time. We need to do everything reasonable we can on both sides of the equation at the same time.

That brings us to supply. For far too long, Congress has absolutely ignored the supply side of the equation, has absolutely refused to do anything to increase supply in this country--by increased exploration and drilling on our Outer Continental Shelf or in Alaska or anywhere else.

I do not know how long we are going to wait. What does the price have to get to before we hear the American people and before we finally act more on the demand side, yes, and more on the supply side?

Again, my motion to instruct would address this challenge head on. It would say, if the price at the pump gets to $5 a gallon--we are not there yet. We are below $4, but if it gets to $5 a gallon, is that high enough to get us to act, to get us to do something, to get us to, yes, address demand but also address supply?

I think the American people think that is plenty high enough to get us to act. If we push past that point, then under my motion to instruct, we would support a reserve fund for legislation to allow exploration and production off our coasts on the Outer Continental Shelf.

But, again, I want to emphasize there would be two important rules we would have to follow with this increased exploration and production. No. 1, the host State coast we are talking about would have to want that activity to happen. That Governor and that State legislature would both have to say: Yes, we believe this is good for the country; we believe this is good for the State; we want this activity to happen.

Secondly, when the activity does happen, that host State would get a fair share of the revenue, would get the same share as we set for the host States in the gulf when we opened new areas of the gulf a couple years ago: 37.5 percent. That host State could then use that revenue for its priorities: education, K-12, higher education, highways, environmental cleanup, beach restoration.

In the case of my State, Louisiana, it is perfectly clear what our priority for that money is. We have already passed not only legislation but State constitutional amendments regarding how we are going to use that money. It is to address the crisis that is happening on our coast, to battle coastal erosion, to enhance coastal restoration, to build hurricane protection, and to build hurricane evacuation routes.

To me, that is a very commonsense consensus approach. The price of gasoline has been rising astronomically. As I said, from the start of this Democratically led Congress, it has already risen 61 percent. The Democratic leadership of this Congress began in January 2007 saying this is a top priority. Yet little to nothing has happened, as that price has risen 61 percent.

Are we finally going to hear the pleas of the American people? Are we finally going to act on all sorts of fronts to try to stabilize and bring down these prices? This is a sensible solution on the supply side that can have a real impact.

Let me reiterate. We need to do everything conceivable, both on the demand side and the supply side, because our challenge is that great. I support demand side measures. I supported increased efficiency standards. I supported the measure we passed a couple days ago temporarily ceasing filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. So we decrease demand in that very modest way. We need to do more in terms of fuel efficiency, conservation, and new forms of fuel and energy.

But as we address much more aggressively the demand side of the equation, we cannot ignore the supply side. We need to increase supply, particularly domestic supply, at the same time. We have enormous reserves in this country off our coasts, as well as in Alaska, as well as places on shore to do that. What we have not mustered so far is the political will and the votes in Congress to allow our people and our industry to do it.

My motion would say $5 a gallon--if we get there, we sure as heck need to act. We sure as heck need to do all of those sensible things on the supply side, just as we should on the demand side.

I urge all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to support this sensible measure. The leadership of this new Congress has been talking about energy prices since the Congress came in in January 2007. The only thing that talk has done is be concurrent with the rise in prices at the pump of 61 percent, from about $2.33 a gallon to $3.73 a gallon.

Talk is not good enough. The American people deserve action. They deserve action on the demand side, much more aggressive action than we have taken to date. They sure as heck also deserve action on the supply side to increase our domestic supply, which can have a major impact on price at the pump.

I urge my colleagues to support this sensible motion in that regard.

I yield back my time.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, if I can briefly respond on my own time-- and I invite a conversation or colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Florida--I hope the distinguished Senator realizes that in this proposal, in order for any offshore drilling to take place, both the Governor and the State legislature of the host State have to say, yes, we want it. That is an absolute requirement under this proposal. The distinguished Senator from Florida knows Florida politics far better than I, but based on everything I know, that is not going to happen in Florida, including under Republican Governors and Republican legislatures, anytime soon. So I don't understand why he considers this a threat to the State of Florida, because they are in absolute control of their own destiny under the details of my motion. If the Senator has a response to that simple fact, I would love to hear it and engage in a discussion.

Mr. President, if I can reclaim my time.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute since I seemed to cede all my time.

I thank the Chair.

Quite honestly, I am not sure I understood that response. My simple point was that Florida under my motion is in control of its own destiny, and if Florida doesn't want drilling, the Governor and the State legislature, Florida doesn't get drilling.

There is a little bit of caveat to that. I think the Cubans are going to drill off Florida if we do nothing. That is moving forward anyway. Or the Chinese through Cuba. But otherwise, Florida doesn't get drilling.

My other response is, here we are caught in a stale debate again. It isn't either/or. It isn't oil and gas or alternative fuels. Our energy picture is so challenging it clearly has to be both. We need a future of new fuels and new technology. We also need to get to that future in the short and medium term. We need to do both things on the demand and the supply side. Let's start acting for the good of the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this motion is very straightforward. It creates a reserve fund in support of the following bill, a bill that would say: If the price at the pump, the price of gasoline reaches $5 a gallon--if it reaches $5 a gallon--then we are going to allow exploration and production off our coasts in the Outer Continental Shelf, but only if two conditions are met. No. 1, the host State wants it; the Governor and the State legislature of the host State say yes, we want that activity; and No. 2, the host State gets a fair revenue share of 37.5 percent which is the policy and the precedent we set about 2 years ago.

It would also ensure that nothing in this bill would disrupt military training, military activity off the coast, and that also a host State could decide to do natural gas only.

We can't drill our way out of this energy problem, but increased domestic supply is part of the solution. We need a new energy future, but we also need to get to that future.

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

Madam President, I rise to speak against the DeMint motion and in favor of the Boxer motion, which takes on the issue of global warming in a way that is consistent with the information and the facts that we have today.

The DeMint motion is a throwback to 10, 11 years ago when everybody around here, including myself, was saying we better watch out and not do anything about global warming until the undeveloped world acts. We better sit back and do nothing. You know what. We cannot do that anymore. This is a time of change. This is a time where we have to challenge the status quo. This is a time when we need to stand up as the leading country in the world and say that we can fight global warming, and we can win this fight. As a matter of fact, if we approach it with hope, not fear, we are going to create tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of new jobs. We are going to get our people off of fossil fuel, not having to worry about gas prices anymore, and we will create new technologies that will spur us on to an economic renaissance.

But what happens with the DeMint motion, he gives China and India a veto power over what we should be doing. Imagine sitting back and saying we are not going to do anything about human rights until China acts. We are not going to do anything about a better educational system until India acts.

Why would we give up our chance to take the mantle of leadership and finally grab hold of this issue, and do it in a way that makes us quite strong in the global marketplace? So when you look at the DeMint motion, it is very similar to what passed in the last century, if you will, more than 10 years ago. That is why I think my friend's party is in so much trouble--because they fight against change, they fight for the status quo, they fear change, and this is a time of change.

I didn't ask for this moment during the budget debate. I don't think this is the right place to debate a cap-and-trade system because we will be tackling this subject matter soon enough. It is not going to be easy. Change isn't easy. But this is positive change, where America says we will lead. We know from the Pentagon, and we know from our intelligence officials that if we do nothing, we become less secure in the world because global warming, we know, will have an impact on drought, floods, cyclones--all of the things we are already seeing--if we do nothing because we have given over our chance to act to India and China, and our people will suffer.

Yesterday, the Bush administration declared that the polar bear is a threatened species because the polar bears' habitat is shrinking away. The permafrost and the ice that the polar bear stands on to hunt is literally melting out from under them. Now, for the Bush administration to declare that is extraordinary. They said it is because of global warming, and that in 30, 40 years we will not have any more polar bears. That is one example.

Scientists tell us 50 percent of God's species could be gone. For those of us who happen to believe there is a spirituality to this world--and I do--it is

our destiny to save the planet. It is not our destiny to support the DeMint motion, which leaves it up to China and India.

We have a better way. We say in our substitute that no legislation should pass mandates on greenhouse gas emissions until it effectively addresses imports from China and India and other nations that have no similar emissions programs. We agree that no bill should pass unless it addresses the imports from these nations. So that is our alternative-- not to say stop the world, I want to get off; not to say that America will be missing in action in the biggest domestic challenge of our time, but to grab hold of that challenge and make sure we do it in a way that is fair to our industry, fair to our workers, fair to our consumers, fair to our manufacturers. And when those imports come in at our ports, if those countries seeking entry into our country do not have equivalent programs, then they will have to get the allowances at the border in order to bring those goods into the country.

That is the way we are going to handle this problem. So, once again, I say to my colleagues, we are going to have a debate on global warming very soon, thanks to Senator Reid putting it on the schedule for June 2.

When we are told by the leading scientists of the world that if global warming is left unchecked, our planet will become inhospitable to us as human beings, to our children, to our grandchildren, and that there will be vectors around that we cannot combat, there will be amoebas in our water, bacteria that have never been there before; there will be storms, cyclones, droughts, and floods--extreme weather conditions; when we see that the habitat for beautiful animals--God's creatures, such as the polar bear--is already being impacted now as we speak, for us to say we will do nothing until China acts--I don't want China dictating what I do in this country. I don't want India dictating what I do in this country. I want to make sure that we handle this issue right and that we are not disadvantaged because they may not act. That is what our alternative does.

I hope we will have a good vote on that alternative and reject the status quo--the throwback position of Senator DeMint.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

How much time remains on both sides?

Madam President, will you let me know when I have used up 5 minutes?

Madam President, I say to my colleagues that Senator DeMint's motion is a back-to-the-future position. Again, it is why his party is in so much trouble. It is not looking ahead with hope; it is looking ahead with fear. It is giving veto power to countries that we should not be following. We should not be following the environmental policies of China. You can barely breathe over there. Yet they are going to have the same until they decide to act and we sit here and do nothing about one of the greatest challenges to face our generation.

I cannot look into the eyes of my grandchildren and tell them: Sorry, I am giving over my proxy to China, I am giving over my proxy to India, and I can't do anything about it.

I don't know exactly what my colleague is talking about. He is telling me what I support, and he has no right to do that. He has no right to say I support higher taxes on consumers because I don't. He has no right to say I want to give away jobs. I have more support from working men and women in my State than probably almost anyone in this body. I take second to none in that category of fighting for the environment and fighting for jobs.

Actually, if my friend knew a little bit more about what we are talking about, he would understand that the bill we are going to come up with has one of the biggest tax cuts in history in it--let me repeat that, one of the biggest tax cuts in history in it--which is going to ease the pain and ease the burden on consumers and on our people and help them pay for high prices of gasoline.

My bill has cuts in carbon of 2 percent a year that we think is doable, and our bill is deficit neutral. It is, as my friend should know, a very bipartisan bill--Boxer, a Democrat; Lieberman, an Independent; Warner, a Republican, and it has bipartisan support.

For someone to stand up and say the purpose of that bill is to hurt consumers, hurt America, hurt jobs, then they have not read the bill or they are giving a political speech. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

I look at my friend's motion as a sad one. It is a position of surrender. It takes us back to the nineties, when we didn't know what we now know about global warming. It takes us back to the nineties, when we feared taking on that challenge. But our time has come. The time for change is here. It is time, once and for all, to stand up and say we are not going to depend on foreign oil anymore, we are going to make sure we have technology developed in this country that will get us away from foreign oil and away from the countries that hold such a vise around our neck. That is why Senator Warner is on this bill, that is why Senator Lieberman is on this bill, that is why I am on this bill, and many other colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

So for my colleague to bring this issue up on the budget resolution is unbelievable because he has not even seen the bill. To stand up and say that what I want to do and what those of us who want to act against global warming will do is bad for our country is quite the opposite.

In Great Britain, over the last 10 years, they have reduced carbon emissions by 15 percent. Their GDP rose by 45 percent, and 500,000 jobs were created that are green-collar jobs.

You can stand in the corner and shiver and shake and say: Please, China, please act so we can act. You can say: Oh, India, please act so we can act. Or you can stand up like an American and say: We lead.

This vote is an important vote because what I say in my side-by-side motion is we will not support legislation that does not address the issue of imports from countries such as China and India that have no emissions program.

Motion to Instruct

Madam President, I have a motion to instruct at the desk. I wish to make that clear.

I didn't want to forget to offer the motion.

I reserve the remainder of my time. I look forward to a good vote on the Boxer motion.

Mr. President, colleagues, I hope you pay attention to this because there are two motions that deal with global warming. The first one is the Boxer motion, and what it says is, we should not enact any global warming legislation until we address the issue of goods imported from nations such as India and China, countries that do not have their own global warming program. So we protect our people and yet we allow global warming legislation to proceed.

Senator DeMint's motion is a back-to-the-future motion. He basically says we can do nothing--nothing--until India and China act. This is wrong. We should not be held hostage to the actions of China and India or any other nation when it comes to our own country, when it comes to an issue which is so serious that even the administration, that has been kind of dragging on this, yesterday found that global warming is threatening a beautiful species called the polar bear.

We do not want to be held hostage to India and China. Vote aye on the Boxer motion, and no on the DeMint motion.

Thank you.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, how much additional time did Senator DeMint get?

Then, Mr. President, I would ask for the same amount of time, equally divided, between myself and Senator Warner.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have the same amount of time Senator DeMint had, divided equally between myself and Senator Warner.

If the Presiding Officer will tell me when I have used half the time so I can stop.

Colleagues, this is a very important vote. We already voted to level the playing field for America in that last vote so that countries cannot take advantage of us. But I have to say, this motion would hold this Nation hostage to China and India. Since when do we wait around for countries such as China to act on human rights issues, on economic issues, on environmental issues? That is not America.

I believe this is a motion that looks to fear, not hope. This is the greatest country on Earth, and I do not think we should tell ourselves we can do nothing about a pressing issue until a foreign country acts.

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

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.