Floor Statements

Madam President, I call up my amendment at the desk and ask that it be modified with the changes that are at the desk.

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

Madam President, in my home State of Nevada, the unemployment rate has reached 12 percent, and we are seeing unemployment continue to rise across the country. The President said the stimulus bill that was passed this year was going to keep unemployment no higher than 8.3 percent across the country. We know it is a lot higher than that everywhere now. This is not just a Nevada problem, it is a problem in every State.

American families across the country are hurting, and they are hurting badly. I am offering an amendment that will help families during these tough times. 18 States have depleted their State unemployment fund and are now borrowing from the Federal unemployment fund to cover benefits. The Federal Fund is now running dangerously low. I am offering an amendment to shore up the Federal fund and help the States that have depleted their own funds. My amendment will help in a way that is fiscally responsible. My amendment is very simple. It would say we are going to use money out of the stimulus bill to replenish the Federal unemployment funds that the States are borrowing from, and we are going to do that in a way where we don't increase the deficit. My amendment does not play any phony numbers games, unlike the bill that was sent over here from the House of Representatives. The House bill says, technically, it is not increasing the deficit. The Federal Government, however, is borrowing from future generations, and will very likely forgive the States that have borrowed money, which will therefore increase the deficit.

The U.S. Department of Labor estimates it will take about $7.5 billion to replenish the Federal fund for the rest of the Fiscal Year. Next year, it is projected to be at $30 billion. And we have already seen in the stimulus bill that this Congress is giving money away to the States. We will continue to borrow from future generations so we can forgive that debt the States have run up. States are not going to be able to pay back all they have borrowed, right? That is what we all assume. So let's show some fiscal responsibility and take the money needed to replenish the Federal unemployment fund, out of the stimulus.

The Senator from Illinois was just on the floor talking, and I listened carefully to some of the things he was saying. He was saying that if we actually borrow less--as does the Vitter amendment, for instance--it means our deficit is going to be more. Well, that just doesn't pass the commonsense test. I know what he is saying. He is saying, basically, if we take the money away from the stimulus--in other words, we borrow less now--it is not going to help the economy as much. That was the philosophy behind the stimulus package, that by borrowing money and putting that government money into the economy, we would help the economy recover. I think it is not arguable that there are a certain amount of jobs that can be created by government spending.

The reason I voted against the stimulus bill is because I thought a lot of the money was irresponsibly spent and it was going to run up the deficit. So I was looking more long term, not just short-term. The problem with continuing to borrow more and more is we have the threat of long-term economic harm. We have the threat of long-term inflation in this country, which will be devastating to this economy.

Under the President's budget that was passed here in the Congress, it is projected that our national debt will double in 5 years and triple in 10 years. Think about that. Take all of the debt that was borrowed in the history of this country, from George Washington to George W. Bush, and that debt is going to be doubled in 5 years and tripled in 10 years. That is unsustainable. We have to think about future generations.

States do need help to replenish their Federal unemployment insurance fund. They do need that help. We recognize that. But let's do this in a way where we are not borrowing more money from our children's future. That is really what this is about.

We had the former Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, talking to our conference at lunch a couple of weeks ago. One of the things he talked about and one of his big fears is that the United States is borrowing too much money and that can be a future threat to our economy in the form of inflation. If we get to the point where other countries decide not to loan us this money anymore--if they quit buying our Treasury bills, in other words--our economy falls off a cliff. We don't want to get to that point.

That is why we need to start taking small steps, which can lead to larger steps on being fiscally responsible in this country. We hear Senators from both sides of the aisle get up and talk all the time about being fiscally responsible. Yet every time we have a small proposal that shows fiscal responsibility around here, it is rejected: We can't do that now. We can't do that with this program. The stimulus program is off limits.

Even though a large amount of the stimulus isn't going to be spent for a long time, it was originally supposed to help our economy this year. And the Senator from Illinois just said the economy is recovering. There are signs the recession is slowing down; however, this looks as if this is going to be a completely jobless recovery. That is not what the stimulus bill was supposed to be about. It was supposed to be about creating jobs.

We had alternatives, actually, that would have created jobs, that would have helped the housing industry. The housing industry was the part of our economy that drug the rest of the economy down. So we thought we should have fixed housing before we started putting money into all these other projects and all these other government programs. That was rejected by the Democratic majority, unfortunately. I still believe we need to help the housing industry.

Senator Johnny Isakson from Georgia has a good proposal--to give a $15,000 tax credit to anyone who would buy a home. In my State of Nevada, the housing market is still devastated. We have huge foreclosure rates. We have a large amount of inventory to sell out there. The housing market is starting to turn around in some of the other States, but it still has a long way to go, and we could really help the housing market.

The bottom line is that we need to be more fiscally responsible to future generations. My amendment today is just taking a small step toward that.

My dad used to tell me all the time when I was growing up: You have to watch the small amounts of money. He used to say: If you watch the $20 bills, the large amounts of money will take care of themselves. Well, let's start watching the small amounts. I know

$7.3 billion is not a small amount of money, but around here, it is. Let's start watching at least these amounts of money so that when we are talking about the $1.8 trillion deficits, we can start taking care of that and we can start being fiscally responsible to future generations.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. I think the Vitter amendment is the right direction to go as well. This is something we need to do for future generations.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, the next amendment we are going to vote on is a very simple vote, similar to the last one. What it says is the States right now are borrowing from the Federal unemployment trust fund, and that trust fund has been depleted. There are more States that are going to need to borrow from it. It is temporarily putting back into that trust fund a little over $7 billion.

Next year, there is going to be about $30 billion that is going to be needed. Does anyone around here, with the dire straits States are in, believe we will not forgive this debt for the States? That is why I am saying don't just borrow the money--even though CBO says this is deficit neutral, let's not borrow the money, which is what is going to end up happening. Let's take it out of the stimulus funds and let's be fiscally responsible around here. States need the help. Those who are unemployed need help. Let's give the help but do it in a fiscally responsible way. That is really the purpose of this amendment. I encourage all Senators to vote for it.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:45 today, the Senate stand in recess for 10 minutes.

Madam President, I rise to talk about a bipartisan amendment on military voting, a bill I have cosponsored, because counting every vote in our elections is the foundation of our democracy. I thank Senators Schumer, Bennett, Chambliss, and Cornyn for their work on this matter.

This is a long overdue measure to address the problems that our uniformed service men and women face in exercising their constitutional right to take part in elections, a right for which they so bravely fight to protect. Military personnel have encountered many problems in recent elections. They have trouble receiving timely information about elections in their home States. They have trouble registering and obtaining absentee ballots. They have trouble preparing ballots. Most of all, they have trouble returning the ballot to local election officials in time for their vote to be counted.

It has been a national embarrassment to read news stories of military ballots that have been delayed. Despite the best efforts of those voters, those votes were not counted. Those military voters were disenfranchised from the same democracy they are charged with protecting because of administrative redtape.

According to a Pew Charitable Trust study, one-third of States do not provide military voters stationed abroad enough time to vote. Additionally, it found that 25 States and the District of Columbia need to improve military absentee voting to ensure our men and women stationed around the globe can participate in the democratic process. While it concluded that my home State of Nevada gave its voters enough time to vote, there are still steps that could be taken to make the process simpler. Providing half of the country with insufficient time is entirely unacceptable.

This study went on to say that by almost every measure, military and overseas voting participation is much lower than the general population. In 2006,

voter turnout was approximately 20 percent for military voters as opposed to approximately 40 percent for the general population. These statistics illustrate that those who are fighting to protect our democracy are not being afforded the opportunity to participate in it.

Both the Department of Defense and State and local election officials have not done enough to address these problems. The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act of 2009 would address some of these problems to help military personnel have their votes count. The bill establishes new requirements for the States and for the Department of Defense to make it easier for military and overseas voters to participate in elections. The key requirement is for States to allow sufficient time for these voters who are overseas to receive their ballots, vote, and return them in time to be counted.

Other provisions in the bill include having States provide online and fax systems to deliver registration and absentee ballots; making the Department of Defense provide improved ballot delivery and mail service for troops; and having the Department of Defense provide improved Federal voting assistance such as designating and training voter assistance officers and providing registration and absentee ballot information at every installation. While these are challenges, they are not insurmountable, especially when we consider the outcome--providing the men and women in uniform with the opportunity to vote. We, as Americans, owe them that opportunity.

My office has been in touch with the office of the Secretary Of State of Nevada to continue to work through these challenges. Implementing these changes will not be simple. My colleagues and I have modified the bill to address some of these concerns and will continue to work with our States and localities going forward.

For example, the original version of the bill focused attention on the steps that States must take, even though we know that many States, such as Nevada, have local election officials who carry out important election activities. We never had any intention of reaching into States and rearranging that relationship. That is why the Rules Committee modified the bill to clarify that election responsibilities identified in the bill can, of course, be delegated to the appropriate local election officials. The negotiation process is ongoing because the objective of ensuring that military votes are counted on election day is so critical.

I fully expect we will find new issues to work through, but we must keep our eyes on the main goal--improving the system to protect the voting rights of our military personnel. There are few rights we exercise greater than choosing our own elected officials. We cannot call ourselves a democracy if we do not count the votes of our citizens in elections of government officials. The men and women who put their lives on the line for you and me to protect our country are certainly no exception. It is time that we take steps to protect their right to vote.

I encourage my colleagues to make sure that this particular amendment is included in the Defense authorization bill. This is critical ahead of the election so States have time to prepare and every person in the military who wishes to exercise their right to vote is allowed to do so and their vote is counted in time for the 2010 elections.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess, as under the previous order.

Mr. President, yesterday Senator Brown and I introduced bipartisan and commonsense legislation as both an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act and as a stand-alone bill. This is not the first time we have worked together on legislation. I would like to recognize and thank the junior Senator from Ohio for the bipartisan manner that both he and his staff have worked on this particular issue.

In particular, I would also like to thank the Nevada Office of Veterans Services and the National Association for State Veterans Homes for bringing this matter to our attention.

As stated, our legislation is both bipartisan and common sense. Currently, an individual is allowed into a State veterans home if the individual is, No. 1, an eligible veteran as defined by the U.S. Code; No. 2, the spouse of an eligible veteran; or, No. 3, a Gold Star parent.

The problem, though, arises in the way that the Veterans Affairs Department defines a Gold Star parent. Under current regulations, an eligible parent is one who has lost all of their children while serving their country. I know it doesn't make sense, but that is the way the definition is. As a consequence, state veterans homes are forced to deny admissions to Gold Star parents if they have any surviving children. Losing a child in war is a stunning and life-altering event for anyone. Senator Brown and I believe that for these families, having one child make the supreme sacrifice in service to our country is sacrifice enough to authorize the surviving parent's elder care in a State veterans home later in life. Our legislation would change that to permit entry into a VA nursing home to any parent who lost a son or daughter in war while fighting to protect our freedoms and our very way of life.

As most people are aware, State veterans homes were founded for servicemembers following the American Civil War. They have become institutions that our veterans and their dependents have come to rely on for nearly 150 years. Currently, there are 137 State veterans homes in all 50 States and Puerto Rico that, on a daily basis, provide hospital, rehabilitation, long-term care, Alzheimer's care, and end-of- life care to approximately 30,000 veterans and dependents.

I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the Nevada State Veterans Home in Boulder City, NV, for the great work they do. U.S. News and World Report recently rated this veterans home as a 5- star facility and the top nursing home in my home State of Nevada. I think it is only fair that the parents who have lost a son or a daughter have access to first-class facilities such as this.

I thank, once again, the junior Senator from Ohio and ask my other colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, as we are confronted with the news this week of the first of what may be many deadly terrorists being transferred to American soil, I am still left to wonder what the administration's plan is for the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

I recently had the privilege of visiting Guantanamo Bay. I traveled down there with Senators Brownback, Barrasso, and Johanns. I would like to start out by saying how proud I am of the job our men and women in uniform who are stationed down there are doing. ADM Dave Thomas and his staff are doing an outstanding job, and their efforts need to be recognized. These are the kinds of individuals who make America great and who keep us safe.

This is the type of facility where you do not have a true understanding of how well run it is until you go down there and see it in person for yourself. I would actually encourage our President to go down and see firsthand what Guantanamo Bay is like, what the facility is like, how the prisoners are treated down there, and how well our service men and women in uniform are preforming.

As we are all aware, 6 months ago, President Obama set an arbitrary timeline of January 2010 to close Gitmo. It is now mid-June, and it appears he is no closer now than he was back in January of this year in identifying what his plan is. We still have seen little more than political rhetoric and no concrete plan of how to deal with the prisoners currently being housed at Gitmo.

My question to the administration is: Why are we rushing to close this world-class facility without first having a plan in place? The administration should work with Congress on a bipartisan basis to first come up with a plan, if a plan is even possible, and then proceed from there.

Included in this population are critical figures involved in the 9/11 attacks on the United States and the bombings of a U.S. warship, the USS Cole, and also terrorists captured from the battlefield in Afghanistan. As I stated earlier, one of the most deadly terrorists who was formerly at Gitmo and is directly responsible for the deaths of 224 individuals is now in the United States.

On our trip, we were able to see the security measures that have been put in place to keep these evil individuals from escaping or doing harm. These individuals do not view this war we are in as over. A document that was found in an apartment of an al-Qaida operative in Manchester, England, appropriately entitled the ``Manchester Document,'' lays out how terrorists should act if captured.

According to the Manchester Document, if an individual is detained, he should ``insist on proving that torture was inflicted on him. . . .'' Whether it was or not, they want to use the press. They want to try to show that torture was used on them.

According to this document, they want to ``take advantage of visits from outsiders to communicate with brothers outside the prison and exchange information that may be helpful to them in their work outside the prison. . . .'' They are to ``master the art of hiding messages . . . and provide information about the enemy's strengths and weaknesses, movements of the enemy and its members.''

The terrorists practice this doctrine on a daily basis. In addition, on a regular basis, they abuse our troops down at Guantanamo Bay. It is not the other way around.

A spokesman for the Pentagon stated that 14 percent of the over 500 who were released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to some sort of terrorist activity--14 percent. Some people say: Boy, that is a very low recidivism rate. But if we think about it, these are mass murderers and evil individuals. These are people who want to set out to destroy our country, our way of life, and kill as many Americans as they can. Do we want to transfer or release some of these individuals even if only 14 percent of them return? The lives of American troops are at stake.

By the way, the people who were released early, the over 500, those are the people we actually thought were safe. The people who are still there are the most dangerous and deadly.

One of the people who was transferred detonated a car bomb in Iraq.

Another is now a leading al-Qaida operative in Yemen. As I said before, these were supposedly the safe ones.

What would happen if those currently at Gitmo returned to the battlefield?

This document and the actions of those detained at Guantanamo Bay illustrate what some in this Congress seem to have forgotten. We, as a nation, are still at war. They are trying to kill Americans and destroy our very way of life. The prisoners at Gitmo realize this. Our troops realize this. It is time that we in Washington, DC, wake up and realize it as well.

The facilities at Gitmo are state of the art and are some of the most impressive I have ever seen. After touring the facilities down there, I believe it would be next to if not impossible to recreate those facilities in the United States, partially because of the physical location of the facility.

Guantanamo Bay is also the appropriate place to conduct military commissions. The privacy and seclusion of the unique courtroom facilities that have already been built there allow classified information to be protected and allow privacy for the 9/11 families who are grieving and have chosen to watch the proceedings down there. Too often, we forget about those individuals, the families of the 9/11/01 victims.

Transferring these hardened terrorists to facilities in the United States would make each of the facilities where they are transferred to, and the communities in which they are situated, terrorist targets. Let me repeat that.

Transferring these hardened terrorists to facilities in the United States would make each one of the facilities they are transferred to and the communities in which they are situated terrorist targets.

Would you like to own a small business, a gas station or a convenience store around one of these prisons that house terrorists? I know I wouldn't.

Another observation that struck me while I was down at Guantanamo Bay was the care and treatment of the detainees. Every--every--effort is made to ensure their religious rights are respected. During my visit to the facility, we even paused as part of our tour out of respect for prayer time of the detainees.

In addition, there are various programs and resources to provide detainees with instructional training and social recreation. Listen to these statistics.

Available to the detainees are over 13,000 books for them to read, 910 magazines, and various newspapers in different languages that are distributed weekly. They have access to a vast collection of DVDs for the detainees. It is almost like they have Netflix down there. They also have satellite television, including Al-Jazeera. Detainees are permitted quarterly phone calls to family members and have received or sent over 22,000 pieces of mail, including privileged attorney-client mail. Finally, we offer literacy classes, second language classes, and art classes for the detainees. These detainees are provided better health care than a lot of Americans are.

Does any of this sound like abuse? Does any of it sound like abuse?

In his first 6 months, President Obama has had to make some tough decisions. Some of these decisions, such as his Afghan policy, I publicly supported. He needs to realize, though, that on this issue of transferring these hardened terrorists to the United States there is strong bipartisan opposition. If the President were to go down to Gitmo, tour the facilities, and to be completely honest with himself, I believe he would come to the same conclusion I did. In the end, there are no superior alternatives to Guantanamo Bay.

The administration must answer this question: How does closing Guantanamo, especially without a plan, make the American people safer?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was unavoidably absent on the afternoon of May 19, 2009. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on rollcall vote 194, in favor of final passage of H.R. 627, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I rise to honor the leaders, visionaries, students, faculty, and the parents at West Prep in North Las Vegas, NV. At a time when disappointing and depressing news seems to fill our days, there is a light of promise beaming from a very unlikely place in my State.

Just a few short years ago, the writing was on the chalkboard for West Middle School. The school was persistently dangerous and consistently the lowest performing middle school in southern Nevada. Madam President, 100 percent of the students are from low-income households, and 92 percent of them are Hispanic or Black. These children had not just been left behind, their futures were sort of swept under the rug for someone else to deal with at another time.

Fortunately, there are educators who will never settle for that. Associate superintendent Dr. Ed Goldman asked if he could take the school over. He hired a young, brash, hungry principal named Dr. Mike Barton and made sure the school had empowerment-level funding. He also gave Dr. Barton tremendous reign over the school. That was in April 2006.

Today, West Prep is a study in education innovation. They extended the school day and provided a third semester as summer school. Forty percent of the children have voluntarily signed up for this summer school. Now they have begun a transition to a full K-12 campus. There is afterschool tutoring. The students wear uniforms. There is a newcomer track for students new to the United States. Science and math classes are divided by gender. There is a law enforcement class that collaborates with the FBI and a Men Mentoring Men program, both of which are keeping kids out of the dean's office. Students feel safe now when they go to this school. Most importantly, they are finally learning.

I had the opportunity to visit this school and observe the students throughout the school. When an adult walks into the classrooms, all of the children stand, say good morning, sit back down, and continue their lesson. They are taught to respect elders.

When I visited that school, I had the opportunity to observe a chemistry class. They were performing a chemistry experiment. I asked one of the students--she was an African-American young lady who had attended the school before Dr. Barton took over: What is the biggest difference between then and now? What was happening now, as opposed to before educators shook things up? She had a very simple reply. She said: Now I get to learn.

It seems like such a simple thing, to be able to learn, almost shocking that those kinds of words would come out of her mouth. But these students had been robbed of that opportunity. We are the greatest Nation on earth, and we have not figured out how to make it so all our kids can learn. Give a child an education--an education that teaches and inspires--and there is no limit to their potential. The test results at West Prep are proof.

This school has seen phenomenal test score growth. Recently, we learned how phenomenal that growth is. Three years ago, only 17 percent at what was then West Middle School could read or perform math at grade level. Only 17 percent. Today, 97 percent of juniors are proficient in reading, 73 percent are proficient in math, and 64 percent are proficient in science. About 80 percent of the juniors were enrolled at the school 3 years ago when Dr. Barton took over. Isn't that amazing?

I am so proud of what Dr. Goldman and Dr. Barton have done, but I am especially proud of the students, the teachers, and the parents at West Prep. Together they have turned the tide. Every day we see at West Prep what quality education can accomplish.

There is still work to do, but there is a can-do feeling that has spread throughout the community, and you feel it when you walk onto the campus. See, Dr. Barton was given freedom to lead that school. He isn't tied down by bureaucracy. He spends most of his time in the school, when a lot of the other principals today go to school district meetings, spend time on bureaucracy. The other thing is, he can fire teachers who are not performing. In fact, when he came onboard, he replaced a majority of the teachers. Remember, he is recruiting teachers into one of, what most people would describe in southern Nevada, the least desirable places to live or teach in southern Nevada. But now he has a team in place that he knows will motivate his students and help them reach their potential. This formula is working.

In 2006, nobody imagined this school could ever reach the level of success it has in such a short period of time. Instead, the school will graduate its first senior class next year. It is raising the bar every day as it shakes up traditional education. Most importantly, the students of West Prep are learning and reaching their full potential.

Congratulations, West Prep. We are all so proud of you and what you have accomplished.

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

Mr. President, I call up the Ensign second-degree amendment, No. 1043, at the desk.

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

I rise to talk about the Ensign-Boxer-Pryor-Snowe amendment. The four of us have worked on this amendment. It is a second-degree amendment, but it is a friendly second-degree amendment to the Boxer amendment. I commend all four offices and our staffs that did superwork over the last several days to come up with the language. It is not compromising language; it is strengthening language. This is great bipartisan work to increase the oversight of this program known as the Public-Private Investment Program or as some call it, PPIP.

The special inspector general of TARP has stated that PPIP is ``inherently vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse.'' Our amendment would go a long way to protect taxpayers from such fraud, waste, and abuse.

Most of my colleagues would agree Congress gave far too long of a leash to the Treasury when it created TARP. I know few people who believe the program has been completely successful so far. The PPIP would represent the most ambitious and complex undertaking yet for TARP and by far the riskiest use of TARP funds to date. Let's not make the same mistakes with PPIP that we have made with the rest of the TARP fund so far.

Our amendment would establish key oversight, transparency, and conflict-of-interest safeguards before the program begins, not after. Our amendment will impose strict conflict of interest rules to prevent PPIP fund managers from inappropriately using the program to benefit themselves or their clients. It will require these rules be in place before any Government funds can be used in the new program. The amendment requires rigorous investor screening procedures and robust ethics policies for the Public-Private Investment Program funds. It will require Treasury to issue regulations governing how the program and the Federal Reserve's TALF Program can interact to avoid excessive and dangerous over-leveraging.

Lastly, our amendment calls for significant and improved oversight and transparency of PPIP. The amendment also preserves the language from the underlying Boxer-Snowe amendment that provides the special inspector general of TARP with an additional $15 million to conduct audits and investigations of this new program.

The American people are demanding more accountability and transparency from their Government. President Obama campaigned over and over on change and promised to lead the most open administration ever. Let's send a message to the country that we are backing up that rhetoric with action. Let's shine sunlight on the TARP's newest program from its inception, not once mistakes have been made. Let's put the safeguards in place from the start of PPIP to protect against fraud and waste rather than waiting until after abuses occur.

I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Ensign-Pryor-Boxer- Snowe amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, will the Senator repeat the unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, can I modify the request that I be recognized to call up an amendment, not to have action on it, call up an amendment, spend 5 minutes on it following the Senator from New York to get my amendment pending?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, I call for regular order with regard to the Boxer amendment, and that I be allowed to call up a second-degree amendment, No. 1003.

For the Chamber's edification, I have an amendment filed as a first-degree and I also have a second-degree. I was going to call up the second-degree amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I call up amendment No. 1004, which is the first-degree amendment.

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

Mr. President, taxpayers and politicians alike have been too long in the dark about how the Treasury has been implementing this so-called TARP program--or as most people in the country know it, the bank bailout program. The President has proposed and Treasury Secretary Geithner has proposed a new toxic asset plan that could put hundreds of billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money at risk, so we need to do this right.

The special inspector general for TARP has stated that this new toxic asset buy-back program--called the Public-Private Investment Program-- is ``inherently vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse.'' The special IG's report outlined a number of good recommendations that are necessary to protect the taxpayers and to ensure the integrity of this new program.

My amendment would simply require that the Treasury Department implement the recommendations from this special inspector general before allocating money under this new program known as the Public- Private Investment Program.

These requirements include, very simply, No. 1, imposing strict conflict of interest rules to prevent PPIP fund managers from inappropriately using the program to benefit themselves or their clients. Common sense. Makes sense. No. 2, mandate complete transparency of this program, including public disclosure of all transactions and the current valuation of all assets. And No. 3, requiring that the fund managers who manage this program have stringent investor screening procedures, at least as rigorous as typical know- your-customer procedures found at commercial banks or retail brokerage firms to ensure investors are legitimate.

Let's put these safeguards in place. These are common sense. We are all talking about a bill in front of us that eliminates fraud and abuse. Well, there is no bigger program that we have right now than the TARP program. We need to eliminate fraud and abuse. And when the special inspector general has said this new program is ripe with fraud and abuse, we ought to protect the taxpayers.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment so that the Treasury Department fulfills President Obama's promise of bringing in transparency and open government. That is what he promised upon coming in. This particular amendment will help ensure that the American people have transparency and that their interests are protected, especially their dollars are protected with this new program that literally could run into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. Hopefully, we won't get blocked on having a vote on this amendment.

Mr. President, I call for regular order on the Boxer amendment.

Mr. President, do I have the floor?

Mr. President, I call up as my second-degree amendment No. 1003.

I call up amendment No. 1003.

Mr. President, this is my motion that says let's not raise taxes, whether they are direct or indirect taxes, on anybody making less than $250,000. It was agreed to unanimously when the amendment was considered by the full Senate, 98 to 0. Unfortunately, it was said that it would be stripped out. We went through a whole parliamentary mess to understand that this amendment would not bring the bill down. I am hoping the managers who take this bill to conference keep this amendment in conference, so we don't raise the taxes on any family making less than $250,000 a year.

That is fine.

Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I wasn't able to speak on my amendment last night. I wonder if I could have the remaining time until 11:45 to speak on the amendment.

Madam President, my amendment which I have offered in the past, is a means testing of Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit.

This Congress, under the leadership of President George W. Bush, offered seniors a brand new benefit: Prescription drug coverage. The problem with what this Congress did is that in this brand new benefit, we didn't take into account wealthier seniors who were getting a benefit from a system they never paid into. People pay taxes for Medicare Part A: Hospital coverage. That is what Part A is for. We currently means test and require seniors that have more means to pay part of the Part B premium, which covers doctors. Well, Part D is to cover prescription drugs. So what we are doing with this amendment is saying to seniors, that instead of a schoolteacher, firefighter or police officer, the middle-income folks out there having to pay higher taxes in order to pay for your prescription drugs, if you have the means, then you should pay for them.

That is all this amendment does. The savings are contributed to deficit reduction.

We are talking about the massive amount of debt this budget puts onto our children and our grandchildren. The Chinese, who are a big buyer of our debt, are questioning whether they want to continue to buy our debt. If

that ever happens, if the Japanese, the Chinese, other sovereigns around the world, or if our own citizens quit buying our Treasury bills this country is in trouble. We should be looking at ways to lower our debt, to lower the amount of money we are borrowing from our children and grandchildren.

This amendment saves about $3 billion. I realize it is small change, but that used to be a lot of money around here. In these tough economic times we should save money whenever we can. This means-testing of Medicare Part D is absolutely a place where we should start saving.

I am happy to yield.

The Senator is correct, that the President of the United States did include means testing as a part of his budget, means testing for Part D. He did put that toward health care. There are many of us who believe we spend plenty of money on health care in this country; we just don't spend it in the right way. We have a sick care system that pays people, doctors, and hospitals once people get sick, but we don't do pay for better behavior in this country, such as not smoking.

Safeway was in here talking to us about the program they implemented, and they actually give financial incentives for healthier living. They have actually been able to lower costs, compared to the rest of the United States, by 40 percent over the last 4 years. The United States does not need to spend more money on health care. We need to better allocate the money we are spending. That is why putting the savings from Medicare Part D toward deficit reduction is the responsible way to go.

Let's take the $3 billion in savings, considered a pittance around here, and put it toward deficit reduction so we do not continue to put a huge burden on our children and our grandchildren.

Lastly, when the President says: Let's means test Part D, I think we should do just that. When our children and our grandchildren are saying: Let's not have any more debt, let's not be burdened with huge taxes in the future, we should listen to them as well. We have a responsibility to do that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I hate to throw a little cold water on this whole ``Kumbaya'' party we are having, but I think it is an important precedent that we determine tonight.

I rise to make a parliamentary inquiry regarding the status of the budget resolution: Specifically, I rise to inquire if the resolution remains a privileged measure, notwithstanding the adoption of 10 corrosive points of order, 8 of which reach into the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, 1 of which reaches into the Veterans' Committee, and 1 into the Judiciary Committee.

In the case of the Durbin amendment, No. 974, the point of order specifies, with exacting detail, what level of taxpayer must receive a tax cut in order to allow death taxes to go forward.

Therefore, I put the question to the Chair: Does the pending budget resolution retain its privileged status despite these corrosive points of order having been adopted?

Further parliamentary inquiry: Does that mean it would require 60 votes for passage?

Further parliamentary inquiry: Is losing its privileged status at this point, does that mean it would be still fully debatable?

So that would be the precedent for the future, 8 to 10 corrosive amendments does not lose its privileged status.

I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 804, an amendment to protect middle-income taxpayers from tax increases.

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

I will, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. President, if I tried to imagine the worst policy we could pursue during this time of economic duress, when jobs are being shed from the economy, the worst policy would be to raise taxes on individuals and businesses.

Every single day, we are buried in the news of our economic turmoil. Thousands more are laid off, home foreclosures are reaching new highs, property values are dipping to new lows, more businesses are shutting their doors, and Americans are struggling to pay for life's essentials. Therefore, what we should be discussing is extending tax relief for individuals and families, and even going further to encourage savings and investment that generates jobs and security.

Framed within this context, President Obama has promised not to raise taxes on individuals making up to $200,000 and for families who make up to $250,000. In his address to Congress, he said:

But let me [be] perfectly clear, . . . if your family earns

less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes

increased a single dime. I repeat, not one single dime.

That was the quote from the President of the United States. The President did not say I will not raise income taxes one single dime. He said ``taxes,'' period. He did not define direct, indirect--he said ``not one single dime will be raised in taxes.''

That promise does not go far enough, in my view because, as we have discussed, many middle-income families could be hit by increased energy costs and other potential tax increases under this budget resolution. Still, the promise was made by the President and by other Democrats that those who make up to $250,000 will not have their taxes raised, ``not one single dime.'' I will be frank with my Democratic colleagues when I say that many people doubt they will live up to this promise. Many people making less than $250,000 fear tax increases on them in the immediate future.

I believe we need to take action on this budget resolution that locks in place a commitment that Congress will not raise taxes on middle- income families. My amendment ensures that Congress and the President will keep this promise not to raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 a year or families making $250,000. If they decide to violate this promise, then they will be held accountable.

To achieve this objective, my amendment would create a new budget point of order against any legislation that would raise taxes on middle-income taxpayers, those individuals making less than $200,000, and families making less than $250,000. If the Democrats mean what they say about not raising taxes on families making up to $250,000, then they should embrace my amendment as a way of accomplishing it.

I define tax increase broadly because I think families were promised ``no tax increases'' and they don't care whether those tax increases come directly or indirectly. My amendment would protect taxpayers against indirect tax hikes yet to be forced upon the public.

Under the budget proposals, Americans, even those married couples with incomes under $250,000 and singles under $200,000, would see higher electricity, gas, heating oil, and other energy prices. Americans would also see higher prices for other goods and services that are themselves affected by higher energy costs.

This is the Trojan horse--the national sales tax on energy. This is the indirect tax on people making less than $250,000 a year. A recent MIT study, which modeled a national energy tax regime similar to President Obama's budget proposal, estimated that annual revenues as high as $366 billion would come to the Federal Government. This equals tax increases of over $3,100 per household per year in the United States. Higher energy costs under a national energy tax is not speculation. Candidate Obama acknowledged his plan would lead to higher energy prices. He said last year:

Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates

would necessarily skyrocket.

The OMB Director, the President's OMB Director, Director Orszag, said in prepared testimony that ``[u]nder a cap-and-trade program, firms would not ultimately bear most of the cost of the allowances but instead would pass them along to their customers in the form of higher prices . . . [T]he price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program.''

That was a direct quote from President Obama's OMB Director, admitting that these higher prices are going to get passed on to the American consumer. If you are raising cap-and-trade taxes, and that is not an indirect tax, I don't know what is. More than anything else in this budget, an energy tax poses perhaps the greatest risk to our economy and to middle income livelihoods. In addition, this amendment would also protect taxpayers against tax hikes yet to be developed by those who want to expand the role of the Federal Government.

Now is the time to protect middle-income Americans who are at risk from direct and indirect taxes. This amendment would be a good first step in locking the budget into a direction in which middle-income families are protected. Then we should work toward providing new tax relief instead of raising taxes. With the economy in such bad state, we should all be able to agree not to raise taxes. I urge all Members of this body to support this important amendment.

In conclusion, the energy tax that has been proposed, this cap-and- trade system, this national sales tax on energy. We did a hearing on this the other night. What people do not realize is that not only do the electricity rates skyrocket as the President said, but gasoline and diesel prices go up significantly. That means transportation costs on your food go up significantly. That means you have to raise the price of food.

We had the fertilizer companies testifying before our committee. I didn't know that much about fertilizer before the testimony in front of the committee. It is amazing what a world commodity fertilizer is. The energy tax is going to destroy jobs in the fertilizer industry, but it will also raise prices of fertilizers in the United States. Guess what, to grow food you need fertilizer. If you pay more for fertilizer, you are going to pay more for food. That cost either has to be borne by hard-working farmers and their families or it is going to be borne by the consumer at the end.

The worst part of all this is that a national energy tax is the most regressive form of taxation there is because it hits those in the low- and middle-income categories much more severely as a percentage of their income than it does people at the top.

My amendment is critical for the President to keep his word on not raising taxes on individuals making up to $200,000 a year or families making up to $250,000 a year. My amendment will ensure that the President keeps not only his campaign pledge, but also what he pledged in his first address to Congress and to the American people when he took office after Inauguration Day.

I urge adoption of my amendment by all the Senators in this body. Let's move forward and protect middle-class, middle-income taxpayers in America.

I yield the floor.

I would say to the Senator from North Dakota, we have worked on language with the Parliamentarian, trying to overcome this problem the Chairman is raising. The bottom line is, the intent of what we are trying to do is to make sure taxes are not raised on people making up to $250,000 a year.

From what we understand from the Parliamentarian, there was not language we could draft that would fit the conforming factor with the budget resolution. So we were going to have to have a vote on waiving the germaneness.

Another parliamentary inquiry: It is true that when you say ``fatal,'' that just requires 60 votes instead of 51 votes?

Further parliamentary inquiry: That would indicate, if they had 60 votes, they could pass the budget resolution even with this amendment in it? So it actually is not fatal, it requires a higher level of support from the Senate to pass it?

But it does not kill the bill? The bill still could be passed with 60 votes, passing the other hurdles that are in the way; is that not correct?

Mr. President, one last comment. We clearly established that even if it was in the budget resolution, coming back from conference it would require 60 votes at that point if somebody raised the question of its privileged status. If that was the case, it would require 60 votes, and there it would require bipartisan participation.

I guess bipartisanship around here means it is fatal.

I need about 10 minutes.

I would need just 10 minutes. If I could just get my amendment pending then I could speak later in the day.

This is the Medicare prescription Part D, means testing amendment.

Would you allow me to offer it to get it pending and then I can come back later?

I am not going to speak now; I just wish to get it pending at this point.

That is all I want to do.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to call up amendment No. 805.

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

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. The President, during his campaign, as well as during his speech to the Nation--his first major speech to the Nation--promised Americans who made less than $250,000 as a family that not one dime of their taxes would be raised. Repeatedly he has said it, time and again, and he listed taxes and basically said any taxes. That means direct and indirect taxes.

My amendment makes the Senate and the House keep that promise made by the President.

There is going to be a point made that the Parliamentarian is going to rule that this threatens the nature of the budget resolution being a privileged resolution. We submitted some questions to the Parliamentarian. We asked him:

When was the last budget that lost its privileged status?

Never happened. We also asked:

Has one amendment ever resulted in a budget resolution

losing its privileged status?

That has never happened.

Mr. President, I ask for 30 additional seconds.

Just 30 seconds to explain because we had a big discussion with the Parliamentarian.

Mr. President, just to finish, Senator Gregg offered earlier--because the Parliamentarian was saying that one amendment could threaten but not necessarily kill this budget resolution, we asked the Parliamentarian to clarify. He said this has never happened. One amendment has never brought down a budget resolution from a privileged process. So do not make that as an excuse on this budget for stripping this amendment out of the conference report when it comes back, if it is adopted.