Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am introducing the Clean Coal Power Initiative Act of 2005. I am pleased that Senator Landrieu is joining me in introducing this legislation.

The United States needs to have a diverse array of energy sources. It is crucial to our economy and our national security.

Coal is an important resource that is a solution to keeping our economy moving forward and reducing our reliance on foreign energy.

Today, coal fuels 52 percent of the electricity used to heat our homes and schools and run our factories. Coal can play an even greater role in meeting future demand because it constitutes 90 percent of U.S. energy reserves resources, enough to last more than 200 years at current consumption rates.

The Energy Information Administration recently stated that coal is expected to remain the primary fuel for electricity generation over the next 2 decades.

Generations of Kentuckians have made a living and raised families by working in the coal fields. They are proud to do such vital work for our country's energy future.

I believe that coal must be part of our energy plans. It is plentiful and we do not have to go far to get it.

It can help meet our energy needs as the cost of natural gas continues to rise dramatically, and is forecasted to remain at historical highs and as electricity demands continue to increase.

In order for us to take full advantage of coal's benefits, I believe we must balance conservation with the need for increased production.

That is where clean coal comes in.

The bill I am introducing today will help create new clean coal technologies by authorizing the Department of Energy to establish a research and development clean coal program. This will result in a significant reduction of emissions and a sharp increase in efficiency of turning coal into electricity.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the broken confirmation process for Federal judges. The Senate faces an unprecedented crisis and is failing the Constitution and the American people.

For the first time in the Senate's history, a minority of Senators is twisting the rules of the Senate to block the will of the majority. They are taking for themselves a power granted only to the President of the United States, the power of nominating judges. Just as disturbing is the fact that the minority is also threatening to shut down the Senate and the people's business if the majority acts to restore Senate tradition and fulfill our constitutional responsibility.

Make no mistake about it, we will restore the Senate tradition of taking up-or-down votes on the President's nominees. Hopefully, the minority will support the nomination process the Senate has practiced for more than 200 years and end the filibuster of judicial nominations. But if the majority of the Senate must act to restore that tradition, we will do so.

Like many Senators, I spend a lot of time in my home State. I meet with constituents, give speeches to civic groups, and tour manufacturing plants. I have heard a lot about the war in Iraq and Social Security. People talk about gas prices and the economy, education, and health care. But the topic I hear about the most is the importance of confirming judges.

Last November, election day came and the American people spoke. President Bush won reelection by receiving the most votes ever cast for a Presidential candidate. A majority of the American people clearly endorsed his policies and his leadership. So when this Congress convened, I had high hopes that the crisis of judicial nominations was behind us.

I hoped the Senators who obstructed the Senate's business over the past 2 years realized the errors of their ways. After all, they lost seats in the Senate, and their minority leader also was defeated in the last election. I hoped we could turn to voting on President Bush's nominations to the Federal bench. I hoped we would return to the Senate tradition of giving nominees an up-or-down vote.

But it did not take long to realize that was not going to be the case. The minority proudly boasts about their filibustering the President's nominees. And if the majority acts to restore Senate tradition, they say they are going to expand their obstructionism to the entire business of the Senate and shut down the Government.

In article II, section 2 of the Constitution, the President is given the power to nominate judges. And upon advice and consent of the Senate, those nominees shall be placed on the bench.

So the President alone has the power to pick judges. And the Senate has the responsibility to render its advice and consent. That leads to the question of what does ``advice and consent'' mean? Fortunately, I am not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar. But I can read. And the Framers were pretty clear when they spoke.

First, they said the Senate as a whole is to give its advice and consent. When the Constitution speaks of the Senate as a whole body, it means a majority of the body. The Supreme Court has even stated as much.

Second, the Framers were pretty clear when they required more than a majority to act. For example, they required a two-thirds vote to amend the Constitution. They required a two-thirds vote to convict and remove from office an impeached President or Federal official. But even more telling, in the very same sentence of the Constitution that gives the Senate the duty to render advice and consent on nominations, the Framers also required a two-thirds vote to approve a treaty.

Now, if Framers meant that a supermajority vote was required to approve

a nominee, they would have clearly stated so. The supermajority is something the Constitution rejects for nominees, but that is exactly what the minority is saying when they filibuster a nominee. The minority is attempting to shift the balance of power away from the executive to the legislative branch. That is nothing more than rewriting the Constitution and the separation of powers the Framers designed more than 200 years ago.

What the Constitution does give every Senator a right to do is to express his or her opinion on a nominee and on the nominee's qualifications. That right is to speak in support of or in opposition to, and vote for or against a nominee. But no Senator has the right to prevent the whole Senate from voting on judicial nominees if they are unable to convince enough Senators to join in their opposition.

It is the duty of Senators to speak their objections and then vote yes or no. They may make the ultimate statement against a nominee by voting against him or her, but they may not prevent the rest of the Senate from giving the same ultimate statement. They must not block an up-or-down vote on the nominee. In fact, for more than 200 years, this is how the Senate has considered nominations: with an up-or-down vote. Debate has taken place, and then the nominee has been given a vote.

Never before the 108th Congress was a nominee with majority support denied a vote on the Senate floor. Never before the last Congress had the rules of the Senate been twisted to prevent such a vote. Previous Senates had not even considered filibustering nominees as an option. The rules do not explicitly prohibit it because Senate tradition has always been to allow the nominee, no matter how controversial, an up- or-down vote.

I remember a situation in the 106th Congress. A group of Republicans opposed several of President Clinton's nominees to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Some Senators wanted to do everything within their power to stop those nominees from reaching the bench. But the majority leader at the time, Senator Trent Lott, said this was wrong and filed cloture himself to move the nominations forward. Cloture was invoked, and both nominees were confirmed, with many more Senators opposing the nominations than cloture.

Today, President Bush's nominees, who all have majority support, are being denied a vote by a partisan filibuster led by the Democratic Party leadership. That is unprecedented and must come to an end.

Just years ago, many Senators who now champion the filibuster of President Bush's nominees stated that judicial nominees should receive an up-or-down vote. Some even advocated abolishing the filibuster altogether. In fact, 19 members of the minority who are still serving today voted to abolish all filibusters. And now some of those Senators are the loudest voices in the Senate for filibustering President Bush's nominees.

Some of my colleagues across the aisle have spoken out against filibustering nominations. For example, the senior Senator from New York said, in 2000:

We are charged with voting on the nominees.

The junior Senator from California said, in 1997:

It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process

and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even

being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.

The current minority whip said, in 1998:

If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar

that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote

the person up or down.

And the senior Senator from Massachusetts said, in 1998:

We should resolve these disagreements by voting on these

nominees--yes or no.

It is amazing how some easily forget their own words. Or maybe I should say, conveniently and selectively forget their own words.

Well, Republicans did give President Clinton's nominees an up-or-down vote. And now the minority should allow the same courtesy to President Bush's nominees.

Something we have heard over and over from the minority is how many of President Bush's nominees they have allowed to be confirmed. Let's talk about that. The minority likes to talk about all nominations, but all nominations are not equal in their impact within the judiciary. District court judges, while they are very important, are not as powerful as circuit court judges. President Bush's nominees to the circuit court have the lowest confirmation rate since the Roosevelt administration at 69 percent. President Clinton's circuit court nominees were confirmed at a rate of 77 percent, far above President Bush.

And not all circuit courts are equal. The DC Circuit is the most important. For that court, only 33 percent of President Bush's nominees have been confirmed. President Clinton's nominees were confirmed 78 percent of the time. Those differences are staggering and support the fact that our judicial confirmation system is broken because of the obstruction tactics of the minority.

Something must be done to fix this crisis. The solution can be up to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The simplest, fastest, and most desirable option is for the minority to agree to drop its obstructionist ways and allow an up-or-down vote on all judicial nominees. Unfortunately, that does not appear likely to happen.

Last Congress, the current minority leader was asked how much time his side needed to present their case against a nominee. He replied that there was ``not a number in the universe'' that they would accept.

So where does that leave us? The only answer I could see is to restore Senate tradition through a change in the rules of the Senate. Article I, section 5 of the Constitution reads:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings . . .

That means a majority of the Senate can act to change the rules. It is the responsibility of the majority of Senators who want to fulfill the Senate's constitutional duty to take action necessary to do so. Majority action to set the rules of the Senate is not unprecedented, nor is it an assault on the body.

It cannot be an attack on the Senate to act to restore 200-plus years of Senate tradition and allow the Senate to fulfill its constitutional obligations. The senior member of the Senate Democratic caucus himself has taken such action. Not once, not twice, but four times in a 10-year period, the senior Senator from West Virginia changed the application of the Senate rules through a majority vote, and all four times his actions were aimed at limiting Senators' rights to debate or filibuster. Senate history is filled with other examples of majority action resulting in a change to the Senate rules to restrict the filibuster.

Let me make something very clear: We are not talking about changing the legislative filibuster. In fact, the only Senators I have heard advocating elimination of legislative filibusters are on the other side of the aisle. Not only does the legislative filibuster have a place in the Senate's tradition and history, it is fundamentally different from the filibuster of judicial nominees. Writing legislation is solely within the power of the legislative branch, and the Senate is empowered by the Constitution to set its own rules.

In the case of nominations, the nominating power is the power of the President, and the Senate can only accept or reject those nominees. The purpose of a legislative filibuster is to force changes in the legislation. However, no number of Senators can amend nominations; we can only accept or reject them. There is a place for the legislative filibuster within the Constitution, but there is not for the filibuster of judicial nominations.

So I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to take a deep breath and step back from the line in the sand that they have drawn. Offer us a compromise that guarantees each nominee a vote. Give us a set of time for debate. Let's take a vote. This issue is too important for the majority of the Senate to ignore anymore. We cannot and will not let a minority of this body rewrite the Constitution and destroy the Senate's traditions. We must vote, and we will vote.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I speak today in honor of Darleen Horton, a teacher at Chenoweth Elementary in Louisville, KY. Ms. Horton was recently selected by President Bush to receive the Presidential Award for Excellency in Mathematics and Science Teaching. Ms. Horton was chosen based on her passion for her subjects and her dedication to her students.

The Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching identifies outstanding mathematics and science teachers in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Territories and the

U.S. Department of Defense Schools. This year the awards focused on K- 6th grade teachers. Each teacher receives $10,000 and a trip to our Nation's Capital.

The requirements for this award are difficult to attain and demand a great deal of effort on the part of the teacher. It is only given to those teachers who embody excellence in teaching, demonstrate devotion to the students, and are able to uphold the high standards that exemplify American education at its finest. It recognizes the important contributions teachers make to American young people and to the promise of America's future.

I am very proud of this Kentucky teacher's accomplishments. Since she began teaching in 1958, she has been an inspiration to many students. In the news release concerning the Award, one of Ms. Horton's students was quoted as saying, ``Teaching is the art of making learning irresistible.'' I have no doubt which teacher that student was talking about. I congratulate Ms. Horton on her ability to make learning irresistible and I thank her for the work she has done to educate the next generation of Americans.

Mr. President, I pay tribute and congratulate Mr. Paul Hemmer of Northern Kentucky, who was recently honored with one of the ``Movers and Shakers'' awards for the Greater Cincinnati area. Mr. Hemmer life accomplishments and dedication to the Commonwealth of Kentucky have given me reason to be proud.

Following his graduation from Saint Xavier High School, Mr. Hemmer entered the University of Cincinnati where he later earned his Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering. He has held a variety of positions within the construction industry including general contracting, development, design/build and plan/spec with experience in the industrial, institutional, commercial, and residential fields. His is currently retired as the chairman of Paul Hemmer Companies.

Throughout his life, Mr. Hemmer has always been active in civic affairs in Northern Kentucky. He has been an integral part of his community serving as director for the Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, a trustee for Thomas More College, a trustee for the Literacy Network of Greater Cincinnati, and the United Way chairman for Northern Kentucky.

The ``Movers and Shakers'' award of Northern Kentucky is an annual award presented to honor those within the Greater Cincinnati region who stand as an example for all. It is presented by the Kentucky Enquirer, the Sales and Marketing Council of Northern Kentucky, The Home Builders Association of Northern Kentucky and The Kentucky Post.

As a Senator from Kentucky, I appreciate the devotion Mr. Hemmer has shown over the years to the citizens of Kentucky. I commend his efforts and hope his example of dedication and hard work will serve as an inspiration to the entire State.

Mr. President, I speak today on the nomination of John Negroponte to be the first Director of National Intelligence. I want to express my full support for his confirmation.

John Negroponte is without question one of the most qualified public servants to fill this position. Over the past four decades he has continually worked to advance American policy both domestically and abroad.

He is a career diplomat and served in the United States Foreign Service from 1960 to 1997. Among his most notable posts are Vietnam, the Philippines, Honduras and Mexico.

After the Foreign Service, Mr. Negroponte was appointed as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations from September 2001 until June 2004. After that, he was confirmed overwhelmingly by the Senate as the first U.S. Ambassador to the new democratic Iraq.

Throughout his ambassadorship in Iraq, he received immense praise even from the harshest of critics for his removal of corruption in the reconstruction effort in Iraq. He later oversaw, what many deemed impossible--the first successful Iraqi democratic elections. As we have seen through his leadership in Iraq, democracy has quickly taken root in the country and I believe it will continue to grow.

While the position of the Director of National Intelligence is new to our Government, I am confident that Mr. Negroponte will be successful in his endeavors to create a united intelligence entity. His experience and success in Iraq will serve him well in this new position.

Intelligence reform is an issue that we know all too well. It has been widely addressed in a variety of government bodies since September 11 and continues to be the topic of many debates. I commend President Bush in his efforts to directly confront this problem and to create a more unified and efficient intelligence apparatus.

I am confident the Senate will overwhelming confirm Mr. Negroponte. I wish him well in his new position and with the daunting task of reforming our intelligence agencies. It is not an easy one. Despite this challenge, I believe he will make our intelligence efforts better coordinated, more efficient and more effective.

Mr. President, I pay tribute in the Senate to the Lexington Catholic Girls' Basketball Team. The team won the Kentucky State Girls Basketball State Championship.

Lexington Catholic's Lady Knights finished the most successful season in school history by capturing the program's third State championship in seven seasons with a 59-54 victory over Clinton County. The team finished the season with a 36-1 record and ranked No. 6 nationally.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky should be very proud of this team. Their example of hard work and determination should be followed by all in the Commonwealth.

Congratulation to the members of the team for their success. But also, I want to congratulate their coach, Greg Todd, along with their peers, faculty, administrators, and parents for their support and sacrifices they have made to help the Lady Knights meet their achievements and dreams. Keep up the good work.

Mr. President, I pay tribute and congratulate Mr. Ralph Drees of Northern KY, who was recently honored with one of the ``Movers and Shakers'' awards for the Greater Cincinnati area. Mr. Drees' life accomplishments and dedication to Commonwealth of Kentucky have given me reason to be proud.

Mr. Drees was born in 1934 and grew up in Wilder, KY. After graduating from Newport Catholic High School in 1952, he was drafted and went on to serve in the Army Corps of Engineers. At the age of 23 he returned home to Kentucky to join his father and brother in the family business. This business, the Drees Company, has grown to become the largest privately held company within the greater Cincinnati area.

Throughout his life, Mr. Drees has always been active in civic affairs in Northern Kentucky. He's served as an Erlanger councilman, president of Home Builders Association of Northern Kentucky and member of the Northern Kentucky Area Planning Commission. In 1990, he was named the Northern Kentucky Chamber of Commerce's Business Person of the year.

The ``Movers and Shakers'' award of Northern Kentucky is an annual award presented to honor those within the Greater Cincinnati region who stand as an example for all. It is presented by the Kentucky Enquirer, the Sales and Marketing Council of Northern Kentucky, The Home Builders Association of Northern Kentucky and The Kentucky Post.

As a U.S. Senator from Kentucky, I appreciate the devotion Mr. Drees has shown over the years to the citizens of Kentucky. I commend his efforts and hope his example of dedication and hard work will serve as an inspiration to the entire State.

Mr. President, I pay tribute and congratulate King's Daughters Medical Center of Ashland, KY. This hospital has been named as one of the Solucient Top 100 Hospitals in America.

King's Daughters has been chosen for this award among every hospital in America. This award cannot be applied for; it is simply given to the hospitals that rank among the best in clinical outcomes, patient safety, operational efficiency, financial results, and service to the community. Solucient, a leading source of health care business intelligence, uses these five criteria to independently determine the best hospitals in America.

The citizens of Ashland should be proud of this hospital. Their success serves as an example of how Kentucky is more than capable of providing elite-level health care to its citizens. King's Daughters Medical Center's dedication and hard work should be an inspiration to the health care community of the Commonwealth. I wish them continued success in the future.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act of 2005, which repeals the 1993 income tax increase on Social Security benefits that went into effect in 1993.

When Social Security was created, beneficiaries did not pay federal income tax on their benefits. However, in 1983, Congress passed legislation requiring that 50 percent of Social Security benefits be taxed for seniors whose incomes were above $25,000 for an individual and $32,000 for a couple. This additional revenue was credited back to the Social Security trust funds.

In 1993, Congress and President Clinton expanded this tax. A provision was passed as part of a larger bill requiring that 85 percent of a senior's Social Security benefit be taxed if their income was above $34,000 for an individual and $44,000 for a couple. This additional money is credited to the Medicare program.

I was in Congress in 1993, and fought against this provision. This is an unfair tax on our senior citizens who worked year after year paying into Social Security, only to be taxed on their benefits once they retired.

My bill, the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act, would repeal the 1993 tax increase on benefits and would replace the money that has been going to the Medicare program with general funds. This legislation is identical to the legislation I introduced in the 108th Congress.

Recently during debate on the Budget Resolution, I introduced an amendment that provides the Finance Committee with the tax cuts to finally repeal the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. My amendment passed by a vote of 55 yeas to 45 nays. The legislation I am introducing today provides the legislative blueprint for repealing this unfair tax.

The 1993 tax was unfair when it was signed into law, and it is unfair today. I hope my Senate colleagues can support this legislation to remove this burdensome tax on our seniors.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act of 2005, which repeals the 1993 income tax increase on Social Security benefits that went into effect in 1993.

When Social Security was created, beneficiaries did not pay federal income tax on their benefits. However, in 1983, Congress passed legislation requiring that 50 percent of Social Security benefits be taxed for seniors whose incomes were above $25,000 for an individual and $32,000 for a couple. This additional revenue was credited back to the Social Security trust funds.

In 1993, Congress and President Clinton expanded this tax. A provision was passed as part of a larger bill requiring that 85 percent of a senior's Social Security benefit be taxed if their income was above $34,000 for an individual and $44,000 for a couple. This additional money is credited to the Medicare program.

I was in Congress in 1993, and fought against this provision. This is an unfair tax on our senior citizens who worked year after year paying into Social Security, only to be taxed on their benefits once they retired.

My bill, the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act, would repeal the 1993 tax increase on benefits and would replace the money that has been going to the Medicare program with general funds. This legislation is identical to the legislation I introduced in the 108th Congress.

Recently during debate on the Budget Resolution, I introduced an amendment that provides the Finance Committee with the tax cuts to finally repeal the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. My amendment passed by a vote of 55 yeas to 45 nays. The legislation I am introducing today provides the legislative blueprint for repealing this unfair tax.

The 1993 tax was unfair when it was signed into law, and it is unfair today. I hope my Senate colleagues can support this legislation to remove this burdensome tax on our seniors.

Mr. President, I pay tribute and congratulate Bernice Dickerson of Adairville, KY, for her service on the Adairville City Council.

At age 91, Mrs. Dickerson has dedicated herself to improving the community of Adairville. As a councilwoman for Adairville, Mrs. Dickerson has made a difference in people's lives and has served as an example for all who know her.

The citizens of Kentucky are fortunate to have the leadership of Bernice Dickerson. Her example of dedication, hard work and compassion should be an inspiration to all throughout the Commonwealth. She has my most sincere appreciation for her work and I look forward to her continued service to Kentucky.

Mr. President, I call up amendment 309.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Schumer- Graham, et al., amendment that would authorize actions in currency negotiations with China. I have come before the Senate on a number of occasions to speak about how strongly I feel against providing permanent normal trade relations to China. The Chinese have been systematically devaluing their currency, and they have been buying up dollars. This is all done in a concerted effort to keep their goods cheaper than United States goods.

This should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed how the Chinese behaved over the years. China's human rights record, their antagonism toward Taiwan, and the threat they pose to our own national security have been well documented. These issues have been swept under the rug as the Senate has given away its voice on our trade relationship with the most populous nation on the globe. For me it looks as though we are simply putting profits over people. That is plain wrong.

Now we have a chance to correct that. The amendment before the Senate will give the administration a real tool to deal with the Chinese. The Chinese need our markets to sell their goods. If we take it away from them, we will have their attention. Hopefully this amendment will show the Chinese we are serious this time and that they need to play fair and let the market set the value on their currency.

Those opposed to the amendment will talk as if the American economy will be seriously harmed if we pass the amendment. I argue our economy is already being harmed. We are losing manufacturing jobs as a direct result of Chinese policies. The Chinese are killing what is left of our domestic textile industry. Hopefully, the U.S. Trade Representative's office will step in. It sounds as though they will. But we are dangerously close to losing what few textile jobs we have left in Kentucky, and I know other States are in the same boat.

For those who are not concerned about China's human rights, foreign policy, and trade record, let's take another cold, hard look at the facts. China operates one of the most oppressive regimes in the world, brutalizing its own people and persecuting people of faith. China ships weapons of mass destruction to terrorist states. China threatens other freedom advocates such as Taiwan and snubs its nose at the international community by occupying Tibet. China tried to buy access to our Government through illegal campaign contributions and to influence our elections.

The trade deficit with China has grown to record heights. For over a decade, the supporters of free trade with China have been making the arguments over and over again that China is changing, that things are getting better, and that we will soon reap the benefits of free trade with China. The facts prove them wrong. It has been over 10 years since Tiananmen Square and the Chinese are still oppressing their own people. They are still selling weapons to terrorists. They are still bullying other nations and threatening Taiwan and United States interests in the Pacific. Nothing is any different with China now. In fact, it might be worse.

Those who say otherwise are fooling themselves. We are seeing a march of freedom around the world--in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, whose President addressed Congress today, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, and other prodemocracy revolutions. We have seen that the time of the oppressive regimes is coming to an end. It is time to stop propping up the Communist government of Red China. Vote for the Schumer-Graham, et al. amendment and tell the Chinese our Government will no longer support tyranny. Vote for this amendment for the sake of America's economy and our workers. Vote for this amendment because it is the right thing to do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. President, today, I rise to offer a very important amendment dealing with taxes on Social Security benefits. For too many years, senior citizens have carried an unnecessary and unfair tax burden on their shoulders. Today we have an opportunity to remove it.

Historically, Social Security benefits were not taxed. However, in 1983, Congress changed the rules of the game. That year, Congress passed legislation to begin taxing up to 50 percent of a senior's Social Security benefit if their income was over $25,000 for a single individual or $32,000 for a couple.

This move subjected many seniors across the country to an unanticipated tax increase and forced them to send a portion of their Social Security benefit back to the IRS.

It won't take long. I am encouraged that the Senator from North Dakota agrees with me that this is an unfair tax. Everybody here knows what a sense of the Senate is. It does not get into law. It is just how we feel and makes ourselves feel good by offering a sense of the Senate. The amendment I have offered actually removes the 35 percent increase that was put on in 1993. The sense of the Senate doesn't touch it. It just says: We should take a look at it. We feel good about doing it. But we are not going to do it at this time.

I urge all of my colleagues who are watching, listening, if they want to really reduce the tax on Social Security recipients, they should vote for the Bunning amendment. If they want to feel good about what they are doing and not really remove the 35 percent tax, then I would encourage them to vote for the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota.

The only thing I want to say is that my amendment gives the Finance Committee the resources to do this. A sense of the Senate does not give the Finance Committee the resources to make the changes in the law that reduces the 35 percent tax on senior citizens.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. It has no meaning at all, and it is not paid for by any method, so it means nothing. The senior citizen is still stuck with the additional 35-percent tax on their benefits on Social Security.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

For my 94 colleagues who just voted for that sense-of- the-Senate amendment, they now have a chance to vote for the real thing that actually pays for it. We put instructions in our resolution to the Finance Committee to actually set aside money to pay for this. The amendment my colleagues voted for last time made them feel good, but it did not do anything for our senior citizens and reduce the tax of 35 percent on the Social Security income they get. This is a chance to do just that. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Budget resolution before us.

Let's start with the revenue reconciliation instructions. We have already seen many amendments to raise taxes and I am sure we will see more. But there is another tax increase on the horizon. I am referring to the tax increase our constituents will feel in their pocketbooks and wallets if we fail to extend current tax law.

The so-called ``tax cuts'' the other side keeps referring to is really nothing more than just keeping current tax law. There are over 40 provisions that American families and employers have come to rely on that will expire at the end of this year if we do nothing.

The $70 billion in reconciliation that this resolution calls for is needed to prevent a massive tax increase. This is about provisions in current law that are important to our constituents and to our economy. We cannot afford to allow them to expire and therefore be raised.

Let's take a look at the items that the Finance Committee, which I serve on, will examine this year. There is the R&D tax credit. This is an important provision of the Tax Code that spurs innovation and new technologies and one that I and most others here support.

In fact, the bill introduced in the Senate in the last Congress to make this provision permanent had 40 cosponsors, including 22 Democrats. It will cost $7 billion to extend this provision alone for the 5 years of this budget.

Then there is the deduction for tuition expenses that will cost $10 billion to extend for 5 years. And we need to address the ability of taxpayers to deduct their State sales taxes from their Federal taxes. This will cost $2 billion for just 1 year.

We have a temporary, 1-year fix for the alternative minimum tax that will cost $30 billion.

Other items that expire this year include: the work opportunity and welfare-to-work tax credits, mental health parity, a provision regarding military pay and the earned income tax credit, a deduction for teachers who buy classroom supplies, the wind energy tax credit, oil and gas tax provisions, tax credit bonds for school renovations. I could go on and on.

Again, over 40 provisions in total will expire this year. Let me be clear, these are not new tax proposals. This is simply current law. If we do not extend these provisions we will cause a substantial increase in the tax bills of American families and businesses.

Our Finance Committee needs every cent of the $70 billion in the reconciliation instruction to make that happen. And that is even before we turn our attention to the dividends and capital gains tax provisions that have been important to our economy. I will push hard to extend these through the end of the budget window.

The amendments we have seen the last few days also deal with ``closing tax loopholes'' to get so-called ``corporate cheats''. I serve on the Senate Finance Committee and I can tell my colleagues that no one is more committed to closing tax loopholes than Chairman Grassley.

In fact, the last tax bill we passed, the Jobs bill, had tens of billions of dollars in tax loophole closers. If any doubts that Chuck Grassley will take every opportunity to shut down tax cheats, then I suggest they go talk to him and look at the record on this issue.

And for the record, it has been a Republican Congress and President that has gone after these loopholes and tax cheats in the Finance Committee.

In addition to the over 40 tax extenders I referred to, we also have other priorities, such as the tax title of the Energy bill and charitable provisions in the Care Act. Charities do such important work in America and offer incredible compassion. They touch lives in ways the Government never can.

And if we want to be energy independent and less dependent on foreign sources, then we need to encourage the development of energy alternatives for the cleaner burning of fuels, such as clean coal technologies.

So I hope we can avoid getting caught in the rhetoric that calls the reconciliation instruction ``unnecessary.'' It is absolutely necessary if we are to prevent a massive tax increase. And it is especially vital when our economy is showing real signs of continuing solid growth.

I also want to address some of the complaints that we have heard about the horrible so-called ``cuts'' in Medicaid spending that the president asked for and we assumed in this budget.

Medicaid spending is projected to grow $1.112 trillion in the next 5 years. The president's plan would call for a spending increase of $1.098 trillion over 5 years.

Notice that I said a spending increase of more than $1 trillion. That works out to an annual growth rate of 7.2 percent. On what planet is an increase of 7.2 percent a year a cut? Let's get honest about the complaints we are hearing. What we are hearing are complaints that an increase of 40 percent in 5 years is just too little. Think about that: 40 percent.

All we are asking of the Medicaid program, as we hand them a more than $1 trillion funding increase, is to cut out $14 billion in abuse and waste. I don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that it is impossible to save less than 2 percent of the budget of any program over a 5-year period. It absolutely can be done. We just need to have the will to do it.

We absolutely must get a handle on entitlement and mandatory spending because the numbers are alarming. By 2030 Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security spending alone will be 13 percent of GDP. Unless we reform entitlement spending, we simply cannot continue on our current path.

This budget is a first step, a very small first step, toward beginning to address the entitlement spending that threatens to overburden our economy.

I support this budget before us. It recognizes the realities of our world with the need to limit spending and extend current tax law to create jobs and keep America on the road to economic recovery. I congratulate Chairman Gregg on crafting a strong budget and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will resolve a longstanding inequity in the tax treatment of U.S. distilled spirits that penalizes the wholesalers, and some suppliers, of these products.

Under current law, wholesalers of distilled spirits are not required to pay the Federal excise tax on imported spirits until after the product is removed from a bonded warehouse for sale to a retailer.

In contrast, the tax on domestically produced spirits is included as part of the purchase price and passed on from the supplier to wholesaler. After factoring in the Federal excise tax (FET)--which is $13.50 per proof gallon--domestically produced spirits can cost wholesalers 40 percent more to purchase than comparable imported spirits.

In some instances, wholesalers and even suppliers can carry this tax- paid inventory for an average of 60 days before selling it to a retailer. Interest charges--more commonly referred to as float-- resulting from financing the Federal excise tax can be quite considerable.

For example, at a 5 percent interest rate on the sale of 100,000 cases of domestic spirits, a wholesaler will incur finance charges of $21,106.85 for loans related to underwriting the cost of paying the Federal excise tax. It is important to note that it is not uncommon for wholesalers to sell a million or more cases per year of domestic spirits.

The costs associated with financing Federal excise taxes amount to a tax on a tax, making the effective rate of the Federal excise tax for domestic spirits much higher than $13.50 per proof gallon.

The Domestic Spirits Tax Equity Act would give wholesalers and suppliers in bailment States a tax credit toward the cost of financing the FET for domestically produced products.

I believe this legislation is fundamentally fair and will help protect and create jobs for the wholesale tier in Kentucky and many other States. This legislation, which has broad support in both chambers and on both sides or the aisle, has passed the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee several times, and has reached the President's desk under a previous Administration. It's time to finally get this legislation over the goal line.

I wish to emphasize, however, that I will reject any connection between a repeal of Section 5010 of the Internal Revenue Code or an increase in Federal taxes for distilled spirits. Tax equity for one tier should not be achieved by placing additional burden on other tiers within the same industry.

My colleagues, Senators Lincoln, Lott and Bond join me in introducing this legislation, I which the Joint Tax Committee estimates would reduce Federal revenues by approximately $249 million over ten years. I understand that similar legislation will be introduced in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation when it comes before the Senate.