Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak about the President's announcement a few hours ago relative to pay-go.

Today, the President said:

Paying for what you spend is basic common sense. Perhaps

that's why, here in Washington, it has been so elusive.

Well, I could not agree more. But I must ask: Where was that common sense when the President proposed to add $10 trillion to the national debt in the fiscal year 2010 budget submission? Where was this basic common sense when he signed a bill earlier this year that adds $1 trillion in debt this year alone? Where was this newfound fiscal discipline when he proposed a massive universal health care proposal that is now turning out to be a government-run proposal with just a downpayment of $650 billion?

The President's announcement undoubtedly was meant to quell rising fears about the amount of spending and borrowing his administration has undertaken. It was likely intended to calm the fears of those who buy our debt who are wondering if it is just paper.

But do the President's words today in any way address the mountain of debt and increased taxes he proposed and supported just a few weeks ago with the budget submission? The answer to that is no.

Today's announcement does absolutely nothing to decrease the rising, crushing debt we have accumulated. In fact, this President has significantly added to our debt, causing it to rise to an unprecedented level, an unsustainable level. Let me repeat that. The President's announcement does absolutely nothing to address our record spending and borrowing. This is akin to maxing out on the personal credit card and then promising not to use it anymore but offering no plan to pay off the balance.

The President rightly pointed out today:

The debate of the day drowns out those who speak of what we

may face tomorrow.

Maybe it is an appropriate time to thoughtfully consider what we face tomorrow because of the unpaid credit card balance.

It is important to dissect the rhetoric and speak to Americans who have been promised something I would suggest the President cannot deliver. Remember that those in the so-called middle class--and the definition of that has changed--have been told they will be shielded from tax increases. Well, I would suggest the evidence is obvious. The rug is about to be pulled out from underneath them by the President's explosive growth in spending and borrowing.

If Congress continues to follow the President's unlimited spending spree and tries to balance the budget at the same time, the middle class will get hammered with tax increases. This, I would suggest, is the elephant in the room that no one in the Obama administration wants to discuss for fear of the consequences.

But the American people deserve an open discussion about the real- life consequences of big government and the runaway freight train of spending and borrowing that comes with bigger government.

Supporters of the current budget claim that only individuals earning more than $200,000 will see their taxes go up; therefore, there will be no tax increase on the middle class. Yet such a tax on higher income earners still results in an average annual deficit hovering around $1 trillion per year for the next 10 years, described by many to be unsustainable.

Our national revenue simply cannot keep up with the bloated spending in the budget, and that is resulting in a shortfall.

Let me illustrate this in an example. This is equivalent to a Lincoln, NE, teacher earning $33,000 per year but spending $58,000 per year--year after year. It cannot last long. So is the Obama administration going to continue this spending increase with only the revenue from the so-called rich? How can they continue running annual deficits with no end in sight? They cannot. Inevitably, the spending spree and exploding deficits will land squarely on the middle class in the form of higher taxes, unless we do something.

The reality is, the Obama administration cannot continue the unprecedented level of spending while claiming to hold the middle class harmless.

If you do not believe me, listen to leading economists.

Martin Sullivan, a former economic aide to President Reagan, actually, who backed President Obama last fall, said:

You just simply can't tax the rich enough to make this all

up.

He went on to say:

Just for getting the budget to a sustainable level, there

needs to be a broad-based tax increase.

Leonard Burman, director of the liberal Tax Policy Center, said:

[T]here's no way we're going to be able to pay for

government 10, 20 years from now without coming up with a new

revenue source.

Finally, economist Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist, wrote:

I, at least, find it hard to see how the federal government

can meet its long-term obligations without some tax increases

on the middle class.

All of these experts echo the point I am making: You cannot tax the rich enough to cover all the spending. Inevitably, what all of this is leading to is that the middle class will fall victim to massive taxation.

I will put this into more tangible terms by examining how much the tax rate would need to rise to make up for only this year's projected budget deficit--just this year's projected budget deficit. The deficit for this year alone is an eye-popping $1.8 trillion. This does not even take into consideration the more than $12 trillion public debt we currently owe.

Here is what would have to happen to the tax rate. The rates for the top four brackets would skyrocket from the current rates of 35 percent, 33 percent, 28 percent, and 25 percent to an alarming 90 percent across the board. Imagine, people would have to work until Thanksgiving just to pay their taxes.

Some may say: Well, this is great. Tax the rich because they can afford to pay more in taxes. Yet those making up the third and fourth brackets from the top can hardly be characterized as rich.

Let's look at who actually falls in those income brackets. Currently, for tax year 2008, people who fall under the 25-percent bracket earn about $32,000 to $78,000.

Does anyone want to come to the Senate floor and make the case that somebody making $32,000 a year in Nebraska is rich? The average salary in Nebraska is $35,000. I do not know anyone who would suggest that only wealthy people fall within the bracket.

The average Nebraskan would have something to say about that in terms of whether they are wealthy. Let's look at the next bracket, those taxed at 28 percent. The income levels for this bracket are roughly $78,000 and $164,000 for singles. For married couples, it is $131,000 to $200,000. What does that mean? This means that a landscape architect in Nebraska making $75,000 a year, hypothetically, married to an emergency room nurse making $59,000 a year would fall into a 90-percent tax rate. Again, I suggest if you asked this couple, I am quite confident they would not describe themselves as wealthy. Taxing the middle class to the tune of 90 percent would bring this economy to its knees.

There is some notion in America that we, the people, should be the masters of our own economic success. If you tax someone at a 95-percent rate, you take away the economic incentive to be innovative, to strive for greater success. Eventually you end up with slim or no productivity or competitiveness. Yet this administration keeps spending as though it is monopoly money. Just this week, more directions: Get that money

out there. Get that spending going. Their spending binge has an unsustainable course. Complying with pay-go alone won't even come close to fixing it. Maybe Congress would benefit from being coached by the same credit card counselors who help Americans who are drowning in debt. I will bet those counselors would have some stern words.

My point is simple: This is not the right direction for our country. We must start to make spending decisions today that paint a realistic and candid picture of the impact on the middle class, and if it is the purpose of our Nation to hold them harmless, then we have to cut spending and we have to smart size our government.

Working families across our Nation and in my State deserve an honest debate. It is time for Washington to take responsibility. The people at home I believe are demanding it. I often say Nebraskans have great wisdom to convey. I couldn't agree more with a gentleman from North Platte, NE, who wrote me a letter recently and he said this:

It's important to remember that while government consumes

wealth, transfers wealth and sets the ground rules for the

generation of wealth, it is the private individuals that

create it.

As a final note, the President today rightly acknowledged:

The reckless fiscal policies of the past have left us in a

very deep hole.

I would add to that: And the present.

Digging our way out will take time, and patience, and tough

choices.

Again, I could not agree more, other than I would add to that: The present.

However, instituting pay-go does nothing to cut the deficit or the debt, it simply attempts to hold the line, which the President's budget fails to do. His proposal is actually a more liberal approach than what is already in House rules. Right-sizing government and cutting spending is far from revolutionary. So while the President is saying when you find yourself in a massive hole, stop digging, the more important question might be: How are we going to start filling up this gaping hole?

Our country needs leadership, not the empty rhetoric I would suggest we heard today. The President's speech today sought to subdue the fears of many regarding our country's exploding deficits. I am sure it was targeted to those who buy that debt, who are expressing concerns about what they are purchasing. Yet people should not be fooled into thinking that pay-go is the holy grail for solving all of our spending and borrowing woes. I believe that while pay-go is a useful tool, when you look at the hard facts, you realize that President Obama's speech today, though, is simply too little and it is too late. The horse is already out of the barn, and the President is talking to us about closing the barn door.

Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, today I rise in solemn remembrance of the life of a fallen hero, SGT Justin J. Duffy, of the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne Division.

Justin died while serving his country in Iraq on June 2 when his humvee was struck by an improvised explosive device in eastern Baghdad. He was 31 years old.

A native Nebraskan, Justin was born in Moline and later moved with his family to Cozad, graduating from Cozad High School in 1995. He earned a degree in criminal justice from the University of Nebraska at Kearney.

After working in Kearney for 5 years, Justin joined the Army in June 2007, beginning a career that satisfied his sense of adventure and work ethic. He had been serving with the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq since November of 2008.

Justin's family and friends referred to him as ``The Shepherd.'' He was always looking after the welfare of others, putting their well- being above his own. In this same fashion, Justin selflessly gave his life while protecting the safety of others.

Justin is survived by his parents, Joseph and Janet Duffy, his two sisters, and his grandfather. Today I join them in mourning the death of their beloved son, brother, and grandson. Justin made the ultimate sacrifice in service to his country. Our Nation owes him and his family an immeasurable debt of gratitude. May God's peace be with Justin's family, friends, and all those who continue to mourn his death and remember his life.

Let us also pause today to remember and celebrate the lives of all our Nation's fallen soldiers, marines, sailors,

and airmen who have laid down their lives defending our country. We also lift in prayer all those serving our country today, spreading freedom and democracy abroad. May God bless them and their families.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the Post-Deployment Health Assessment Act of 2009. I am pleased to join my colleague, the senior Senator from Montana, in cosponsoring this important legislation.

The Post Deployment Health Assessment Act requires the Defense Department to increase mandatory mental health screenings for military personnel who deploy to combat. This legislation is important and necessary because of the alarming increase in combat-related psychological injuries suffered by our soldiers overseas.

A RAND study in 2008 concludes that nearly 20 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or depression. That is nearly 300,000 returning American servicemembers. It also finds that rates of marital stress, substance abuse, and suicide are all increasing.

According to a report released earlier this year, the Army's suicide rate hit a record high last year, putting the suicide-per-capita rate higher than the national population. In the first three months of this year, there have already been 56 reported suicides in the Army. If that rate is maintained for the rest of this year, we will have another unfortunate, record-breaking year for military suicides.

Soldiers returning from deployment are already required to receive an in-person mental health assessment when they return home. The Post Deployment Health Assessment Act requires that soldiers receive an assessment from personnel trained to conduct such screenings before they deploy. That way, the screening personnel has a reference point and can monitor the soldier's progress and any serious changes that may have occurred during the soldier's deployment. The Post Deployment Health Assessment Act also requires soldiers to receive mental health assessments every six months for two years after they return from combat. The periodic assessments allow health personnel to monitor a soldier's adjustment from the combat zone back into normal society. By providing the mental health screening program called for in the Post Deployment Health Assessment Act, we will give the Defense Department an effective system for diagnosing the unseen scars that are so prevalent amongst our combat veterans.

The program proposed by this bill is based on a pilot program developed by the Montana National Guard. When I heard about it, the program made a great deal of sense to me. That unit has improved the mental health care its servicemembers receive, and it seems natural to implement such a program to benefit all of our warriors and veterans.

Since the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress has acted to protect the physical health of the soldiers on the front lines. Congress responded to the needs of our fighting men and women by funding more body armor and reinforced vehicles. Now, we must do more to protect the mental health of our war fighters by giving them the access to mental health screenings that can help them get ahead of debilitating depression and other disorders that result from intense combat experiences.

Finally, I point out that my colleagues need look no further for support than to the veterans whom this bill will help. It has been endorsed by groups representing our brave warriors such as the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the National Guard Association, and the Enlisted Association of the National Guard.

I urge my colleagues to support the Post-Deployment Health Assessment Act of 2009, and I look forward to its swift passage so that our soldiers and veterans can get the treatment and protection they need.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend President Obama on his recent decision to continue military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. I think the decision shows the President's realistic assessment of the value of the commissions. Resuming them will also ensure that justice will be brought to the suspected terrorists currently awaiting the commission. The President has also shown an invigorating commitment to winning the war in Afghanistan, and he has resisted brash decisions to exit Iraq before the security situation has been fully stabilized.

However, today, I must temper my comments with an admonition. The President needs to reverse his order to close Guantanamo Bay. We are all familiar with the President's Executive order. It was signed in the first hours of his Presidency. It announced the closure of the prison within 1 year. To say the Executive order is short on detail is an understatement. We have learned that the Justice Department is reviewing the cases of the individual detainees and that the President would like to move the detainees somewhere else. That is really all the Executive order tells us.

About 240 detainees are now being held at Guantanamo Bay. The administration claims that not every detainee is a terrorist and that a few are kept at Guantanamo simply because other countries are very slow to accept them. Well, let me tell you, in my judgment, that speaks volumes about the character and the fitness for society of these detainees. Other countries are literally dragging their feet in accepting them. In April, the President of France famously agreed to accept one detainee. A number of countries, such as Germany and Lithuania, have only said they will consider accepting detainees, despite the Attorney General's round-the-world tour to ask our allies to accept more.

Let's assume the administration's projection that only half of the detainees there would be considered terrorists. Well, that is 120 terrorists who would be brought to facilities on our soil; 120 terrorists who would entice their brothers in arms worldwide to make every effort to break them out or at least wreak havoc on places where they are jailed; 120 terrorists whose trials and hearings will cause a community to virtually lock down every time they have to be transported from point A to point B.

Last Friday, I had the opportunity to actually go to Guantanamo and visit the prison. Having seen the facilities, I am more confident than ever that we should keep Guantanamo operating.

On my visit, I saw firsthand the treatment detainees receive there. The facilities there rival any Federal penitentiary. Detainees receive three meals per day that adhere to cultural dietary requirements.

They stay in climate-controlled housing with beds. It was a warm day when we were there. Their housing is air-conditioned. They have flushing toilets and had all of the hygiene items we would use, such as toothbrushes, toothpaste, soap, and shampoo. They have the opportunity to worship uninterrupted. They are provided prayer beads, rugs, and copies of the Koran. The Muslim call to prayer is observed in the camps five times a day, followed by 20 minutes of uninterrupted time to practice their faith. In fact, we happened to be there during the call of the prayer, and the camp literally shuts down to allow them to have that time. They have access to satellite TV and a library with more than 12,000 items in 19 languages, including magazines, DVDs, and Arabic newspapers. I will bet their big-screen television--really state-of-the-art television--is bigger than most in the average home in America.

Most remarkable, though, is the medical care provided to detainees at Guantanamo. Most people don't realize this, but detainees receive the same quality of medical care as the U.S. servicemembers who guard them. They have access to medical care anytime they need it, and there is a two-to-one detainee-to-medical-staff ratio. They get preventive care, such as vaccinations and cancer screenings. In addition to routine medical care, detainees have been treated for preexisting medical conditions, even to the extent of receiving cancer treatment or prosthetic limbs. This is likely better treatment than they would receive in their home countries.

The courtroom constructed at Guantanamo was designed specifically to deal with military commissions. I am a lawyer myself, and I have to tell you that I have never seen anything like this. To say that it is state of the art is to understate the quality of that courtroom. I will tell you that I am convinced there is not another courtroom anywhere in the world with better equipment than what we have installed at Guantanamo.

To top it all off, earlier this year, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations reviewed conditions at Guantanamo and issued a report that the detainees' confinement conformed to the Geneva Conventions. Despite public perception, no detainee has ever been waterboarded at Guantanamo.

Why would we throw away a $200 million, state-of-the-art facility just to meet an artificial deadline in 2010 that I think really originated from an uninformed campaign promise?

These are very dangerous people being held at Guantanamo. These are not a couple of teenagers who robbed a corner convenience store. There are 27 members of al-Qaida's leadership cadre currently housed at the prison, plus 95 lower level al-Qaida operatives, which combined is about half the prison population at Guantanamo. There are also scores of Taliban members and foreign fighters.

There was a survey that was done awhile back--it was released in April--and it indicated that 75 percent of Americans oppose releasing Guantanamo detainees in the United States, while only 13 percent support that. I am willing to bet the numbers opposing the transfer of prisoners to the United States would skyrocket even higher, although that is hard to imagine, if you told people that the terrorist detainees would be held in a prison near their town. But if moved to the United States, they have to be near some town.

The President submitted an $80 million funding request for the detainees to be transferred, despite having no plan outlining their destination. Fifty million dollars of the President's funding request would go to the Department of Defense to actually transfer the detainees from the prison. But we don't know where. This lack of a plan and lack of transparency deeply disturbs me.

Alarmingly, two of the sites on U.S. soil that some speculate would house transferred detainees are at Fort Leavenworth, KS, or the supermax facility in Colorado. Both facilities are within 250 miles of the Nebraska border. That alarms me and my constituents. That is why I sent a letter to Attorney General Holder on April 23 requesting a personal briefing before any decision is made to move current Guantanamo detainees within 400 miles of Nebraska's borders.

But simply being notified that detainees are about to be transferred won't suffice. That amounts to telling the passengers to hold on before the bus crashes. It is for these reasons that I believe we should deny funding to transfer detainees and in fact not close the prison at Guantanamo. It is for these reasons that I support S. 370, the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility Safe Closure Act of 2009, introduced by the senior Senator from Oklahoma.

The bill prohibits Federal funds from being used to transfer any detainees out of Guantanamo to any facility in

the United States or its territories. It also prohibits any Federal funds from being used for the construction or enhancement of any facility in the United States in order to house any detainee. Finally, it prohibits any Federal funds from being used to house or otherwise incarcerate any detainee in the United States or its territories. It will keep our communities safe by preventing terrorists from being thrust into our cities and towns.

I will close by reminding Senators that in 2007, the Senate voted 94 to 3 to express its opposition to moving Guantanamo detainees to U.S. soil or releasing them into American society. President Obama's Executive order to close the prison at Guantanamo demonstrates his intention to ignore the will of the Senate and the American people. Despite an overwhelming vote, the administration apparently still plans to bring terrorist detainees from Guantanamo near our communities.

I hope we have the opportunity to once again address this issue. There is a pending amendment which I support. But I also urge the President to reconsider his decision to close the prison. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment that is before this body to deny funding for closing the prison.

I look forward to a robust debate on this issue as we delve into this very important matter. Amendments will be offered. I think this is the most important issue we are going to face in a long time. Action to close the prison and move these people here is unacceptable. It is unthinkable to the American public. We must yield to their collective wisdom and hear their call. Anything else would be a grave mistake.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I wish to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Omaha District of the Army Corps of Engineers in Omaha, NE.

From its original mission in the 1930s working on flood control projects on the Missouri River, including the building of the Fort Peck Dam, to its contemporary work in support of our Nation's military mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Omaha District has served the citizens of the State of Nebraska and the United States of America with pride and distinction.

I especially note the contribution that the Corps has made every day since its inception managing and protecting Nebraska's precious water resources. Without the dedicated efforts of all of the men and women of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District, citizens in the State of Nebraska would: (1) be vulnerable to extensive flooding, (2) lack abundant recreational opportunities and preservation of critical wildlife habitat, and (3) face much higher electric energy bills. It is estimated that as a result of the work of the Omaha District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, more than $25 billion of property damage due to flooding has been averted during its distinguished history.

I also note with extreme pride the important contribution that the Omaha District has made over the years to the success of our Armed Forces. The Omaha District was responsible for the construction of what later became known as Offutt Air Force Base. Offutt Air Force Base was the home of the Glenn L. Martin Co. Bomber Plant, which manufactured the B-29 ``Superfortress'' and the B-26 ``Marauder'' airplanes. Other more recent noteworthy projects have included work on the North American Air Defense Command headquarters at Cheyenne Mountain, construction of various missile controls and launch facilities throughout the Midwest, building of hangar facilities for B-2 ``Stealth'' bombers, and other important projects for military purposes in Nebraska and for foreign deployments.

Again, I thank the thousands of Omaha District employees who have dedicated their careers to serving the military and civilian needs of the State of Nebraska and the United States of America.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss some of the energy issues currently facing the American economy. First among them is our dependence on foreign sources of energy.

Last summer, we all experienced the consequences of serving the foreign masters who control most of the oil we consume. In July, oil prices climbed to just under $150 per barrel. Policymakers wrung their hands and scrambled while Americans tried to control their frustration. What did Americans see? They saw prices rising uncontrollably on the global petroleum market. That was especially painful for families. At the same time some at least started to realize that we have abundant reserves right here at home. But these reserves have been actively blocked by Federal policy for over 20 years.

Just how import dependent are we as a nation? Last year we imported about 4.7 billion barrels of oil. Based on an average price of $100 per barrel, Americans shipped about $470 billion overseas, nearly half a trillion dollars. That was just for calendar year 2008 alone.

We need to address this problem by expanding every domestic energy source in an environmentally responsible way. This strategy should include clean and renewable sources. I believe in that.

But one might ask: Why raise this issue now? That was last summer, and this year prices are down some. I raise this issue now to note to Nebraskans and to my Senate colleagues that even though prices have relented, our exposure to foreign oil markets has not changed. That alarms me, and it should alarm my colleagues.

I fear the American people are getting set up again. Unfortunately, United States policy on domestic sources of energy hasn't changed much. For too long our Federal policy on domestic energy sources has consisted of three words: No, no, and no. Unfortunately, since this administration has taken office, we have seen evidence of more of the same tired no, no, no policies. First the administration in February canceled 77 leases for natural gas development in the State of Utah. Can we turn our backs on a domestic resource as critical as this one? We know that natural gas is clean relative to other fossil fuels. We know demand for natural gas is only going to increase. We need look no further than the Capitol's own power plant. The Speaker of the House and her own majority leader announced on Friday that we will no longer burn coal to heat the Capitol complex buildings and water.

What is the alternative? It is natural gas. Most troubling, perhaps, we know that natural gas is not easily transported. So increasing demand translates very quickly into increased price where additional supply is not available. This is not only true for heating; it is especially true for fertilizer and other industrial uses of natural gas. Fertilizer affects my State immensely. For the good of our farmers, for the good of manufacturers, for the good of the Nation, we need to find more domestic sources of natural gas.

If the administration says no to Utah, what about energy exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf, known as the OCS? Since the early 1980s, there has been in place a Federal moratorium of one sort or another on exploration in the OCS. Essentially, most of the Federal waters of the Atlantic and California coasts were off limits to energy development. This is worth repeating. For more than 20 years, Federal policy blocked energy exploration in many of the OCS areas.

Finally, last year, in the face of $4 gasoline and very angry constituents, the moratorium on OCS exploration was lifted. Unfortunately, it appears to have been a short-lived victory.

In February, the administration announced a delay in the rules for exploration and utilization of the natural gas and crude oil off our shores. The administration assures us that the delay is only to pave the way for ``wise decisions.'' But to a savvy American public, it sounds like more of the same. It sounds like a policy of no, no, and no or at least delay, delay, delay some more, especially when they hear that the same script was used for oil shale leases. That is right. The administration in February also withdrew leases for research and development of oil shale on Federal lands in Colorado and Utah where our oil shale resources are equivalent to 800 billion barrels of oil.

The reason: According to the administration, the leases had ``several flaws.''

So what is the promise? The administration would offer a new round of oil shale leases for research and development. I will take the administration at its word but, again, it does sound like a broken record: Delay, delay, delay. So Americans, Nebraskans, and this Senator cannot be faulted for being a bit skeptical, for thinking that the most recent delays are simply more of the same. The day will return-- unfortunately, perhaps in the not too distant future--when fuel prices will shoot up. Promises that the administration is doing everything it can may very well ring hollow. Americans will know that 77 leases for natural gas exploration were canceled. Americans will know that OCS and oil shale development and exploration was delayed again. Meanwhile their commutes are not getting any shorter. Their electricity bills are not going down. Fertilizer and food prices are continuing to increase.

There has been a lot of talk from the administration about ending our dependence on foreign oil. I welcome that. I want to be a partner in that.

But so far the actions don't match the promises. The administration's only comprehensive policy document, which would be the budget outline to date, contains no effort to increase domestic production of critical oil and natural gas resources. Instead, the proposal raises taxes on the consumption of energy, spends a small fraction of the revenue on energy research, and claims that it is a strategy to end our dependence on foreign oil. Again, we see a policy of saying no to domestic energy sources.

Research and development in this field--don't get me wrong--is a good thing. It is a great thing, as a matter of fact. But we need to be candid with the American people. This should not be about bait and switch. We cannot promise a plan to end our dependence on foreign oil but give them the President's proposal to reach in the back pocket to take control of more of their money. With an abundant, largely untapped supply here at home, surely the administration can do better than to say their best idea is to restrict demand through an energy tax. That is essentially telling the Americans, your best bet is to buy a sweater because it is going to be costly to heat your home.

I am going to end my comments where I started. I am worried. Nebraskans are frustrated by a policy of saying no to American energy. I am in favor of the expansion of domestic sources of energy of all sorts--wind and solar, wave and tidal and geothermal, alternative biofuels and nuclear--a policy of doing all we can to end our dependence on foreign oil. But I am also for expanding domestic sources of natural gas and crude oil. We need them. It simply makes no sense to buy from abroad, indeed to beg for more oil at times, when we have made it a matter of Federal policy to place our resources off limits. I, as one Senator, will be watchful. The President will send up his budget this week. We will see if the President demonstrates a commitment to bringing on line American natural gas and oil resources. I hope he does. I will be anxious to support that. We will watch and see if the administration continues, though, the policy of no when it comes to energy that is right here at home.

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

Madam President, I rise today to express my extreme disappointment in the outcome of the conference report, specifically the blatant disregard of the will of a bipartisan majority of this Senate. Madam President, 67 Members--67 of us--spoke with one voice in opposition to allowing cap-and-trade legislation to be slipped into the law in a way that stifles amendments and debate.

Almost 70 of us spoke, again in a very bipartisan voice, to instruct the budget conferees to include our amendment in their report to ensure that the bright light of transparency shines on cap-and-trade legislation. Yet that very amendment, supported by 67 Senators, is nowhere to be found in the conference report. So the door has been reopened to pass sweeping cap-and-trade legislation with a simple majority.

The Budget Committee leadership did include report language about climate change, but it really has no meaning. The sentence in the conference report states:

It is assumed that reconciliation will not be used for

changes in legislation related to global climate change.

In reality, this statement is not worth the paper on which it is written. This assumption is made by people who don't have any control over the process. Frankly, the Budget Committee can assume whatever it wants, but the truth is that the majority leadership can roll them at any time.

And then what is our recourse? Well, there is none. This Budget Committee assumption has no teeth whatsoever. It is simply a nice platitude to try to lull us to sleep.

Certainly you can understand my skepticism. Sixty-seven Senators supported an amendment that had real enforcement teeth to shield the American people from being railroaded in the dead of night. It would have ensured open debate and the opportunity to offer amendments on the Senate floor. Yet when the conference agreement returned, the amendment had been stripped from the budget resolution to ensure it appears nowhere--nowhere in black and white.

So today we must be on our guard again. Some might suggest we relax because there are no reconciliation instructions entitled ``cap and trade.'' In fact, some will argue that because there are no instructions from the Senate for the Committee on Environment and Public Works at all, so there is no need to worry; case closed.

Don't fall for it. Remember, the House Energy and Commerce Committee has reconciliation instructions in the final resolution. So the House could easily use these instructions to enact cap and trade. They could generate over $1 trillion for nationalized health care or really for any other initiative. They could go to the conference, and then, presto, cap and trade emerges from the conference with not a single Senate amendment offered and only 10 hours of debate on the Senate floor.

Consider this: A hard-working American on the night shift could literally go to bed after a long night's work and wake up to find cap and trade is the law of the land. What a rude awakening that would be: his family facing a new $3,000 tax and his job in jeopardy of moving overseas where no carbon tax exists. And let's not be fooled. There will be tremendous pressure on the committee to follow this exact path.

Many will want to avoid such inconveniences as consultation with the American people. After all, these discussions would be very uncomfortable. Who would want the very unpleasant job of explaining to the American people that they are going to be taxed every time they turn on a light switch or start the washing machine or throw clothes into the dryer? I can see why some think it would be easier just to slip the legislation through with no transparency.

It is not just cap and trade that could become the law of the land without a robust debate. Budget reconciliation could be used to pass universal health care. Some describe this as an insurance policy. Insurance policy for what? Don't the American people, through their elected representatives, have a right to use Senate procedure to examine this very important change?

My point is this: Many have risen over the years to speak against reconciliation to pass complex legislation. Budget reconciliation is simply ill-suited to pass difficult, comprehensive legislation such as cap and trade or health care.

Well, what has happened is this: By mixing complex policy questions with budget reconciliation instructions and the Byrd rule, you get a witch's brew. The result is a bizarre set of rules. You could literally have a situation where a high bar would be set--a 60-vote requirement-- to pass very noncontroversial, budget-neutral health care provisions, and yet--listen to this odd result--major overhaul provisions which cost hundreds of billions of dollars would need just a simple majority. We have reduced the Senate to not the deliberative body but a body where literally we get around the rules.

And that is where we will be. Some simple sections of the health care bill will require 60 votes, while the tax increases and the extravagant spending provisions within the same bill will require a simple majority. I challenge any Member to come to the floor and explain to me why that makes any sense. How unfortunate. It certainly is no way to legislate. It is not what I planned on when I came to the Senate. This situation will make a mockery of the work we do on this floor.

Allowing only 20 hours of debate on this extremely complex issue will result in very piecemeal policies with glaring weaknesses. Eventually, the American people will catch up with this and say: What were you thinking?

I am not interested in a band-aid solution. I am not interested in playing politics with such an important issue. It is a game changer. I am interested in

being thoughtful and careful about our approach to such important policy--legislation that will affect the lives of virtually every single American.

The budget rules were never intended to expand Government programs or to be the catalyst for major policy implementation. The American people deserve better than the course this budget resolution is charting.

I will also say that I don't believe I was elected to come here and assign blame. Let's just follow our rules, starting today, and bring transparency to these complex issues. Debate them, amend them, then cast our vote.

I urge all Americans to pay close attention because I think we are on a dangerous course. There is troubling potential for health care reform and climate legislation to constitute the largest tax increase ever witnessed in the history of this country. I ask the American people today, therefore, in view of where we seem to be headed, to be vigilant. They have to demand honesty. They must demand transparency. And demand that those in Washington remember the principles of democracy and remember why we were sent here--to have great debates, to follow our rules, to amend where we can, and then to cast our vote. Unfortunately, this budget resolution takes us on a different course.

Madam President, I yield the floor, and because I don't see anyone else queued up, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the detainment facilities at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.

At the end of January of this year, the President signed an Executive order indicating his intention to close Guantanamo. Unfortunately, the Executive order was very short on detail. We do know the Justice Department is reviewing the cases of individual detainees. We know the President would like to move these detainees somewhere else. Unfortunately, 3 months after the release of the Executive order, that is about what we know today.

If the President still plans to close Guantanamo Bay within a year, the clock is ticking, and we only have 9 months until the deadline laid out in the Executive order. Indeed, the President's supplemental request for Iraq and Afghanistan includes $80 million to close Guantanamo. We know that $30 million would go to the Justice Department to shut down the facilities, review detainee procedures, and to fund future litigation. The other $50 million would go to the Department of Defense, primarily to support the transfer of the detainees and the associated personnel. However, we do not know--and neither does anyone else within the administration or outside it--where the detainees would go. I am troubled by this insubstantial approach and what appears to be a haphazard approach. This is a matter vital for national security.

Memories have dimmed and we forget the days surrounding September 11. We remember the day itself quite well--the shock in the morning--but we seem to forget the resolve that came after that. The resolve was born of our understanding that there was a global network of violent extremists with substantial international support dedicated to attacking the United States and its allies. Make no mistake about it, these terrorists are highly dangerous. By now, most Americans are probably familiar with the name Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. He is a Guantanamo resident. Before his capture in 2003 and later transfer to Guantanamo, he was one of al-Qaida's top agents and mastermind behind the September 11 attacks. I believe this man belongs in Guantanamo. With his contacts and his terrorist expertise, he would be a menace to the United States and its allies should he ever be set free.

But he is only the operational face of this contagion. Also in custody at Guantanamo is Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, a lead operative in the September 11 plot. This terrorist could not obtain a U.S. visa to get into this country. That

made it impossible for him to participate in the attacks directly. He was forced to remain in Germany where he lived as a student. However, this did not stop him from acting as a primary communications liaison between the U.S.-based hijackers and the al-Qaida management in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

Shortly after the September 11 attacks, he arrived in Afghanistan where he was forced to flee when the Taliban fell. He was apprehended in 2002 and eventually transferred to Guantanamo.

Terrorism runs in this family. His uncle is Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. His cousin is presently incarcerated for his participation in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing event. He served as a travel and financial facilitator for the 9/11 terrorists and helped al-Qaida members escape from Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban. From 2002 to 2003, this individual prepared al-Qaida members for travel to the United States and later plotted attacks against Western targets in Karachi.

A different detainee at Guantanamo was involved in plotting to kill the Philippine Ambassador to Indonesia, as well as attacks on a series of Indonesian churches on Christmas Eve in the year 2000. Most famously, this terrorist helped plan the Bali bombings, in October of 2002, which killed over 200 people, including several Americans.

Another notorious face residing at Guantanamo was the head of al- Qaida operations in the Arabian Peninsula. This terrorist saw combat within various insurgencies and later with the Taliban before being instructed by Osama bin Laden to focus on terrorism in Yemen. He followed bin Laden's orders. In 2000, he successfully coordinated the attack of the USS Cole in the Yemeni Port of Aden. That attack killed 17 American sailors.

The Cole attack is the most well-known event in this individual's long career of terrorism, but it doesn't stop there. He has a resume of attacks. He coordinated efforts to kill U.S. personnel in Saudi Arabia. He planned car bomb attacks and assaults on oil tankers. He was also involved with a plot to crash a plane into a Western naval vessel in the UAE.

In 2002, however, he was captured and ultimately sent to Gitmo.

These extremists are part of the al-Qaida A-Team of terrorists; and they have no business being released or transported to American soil.

I describe these individuals today to put a face on this debate.

The al-Qaida members detained in Guantanamo are the worst of the worst. They are unrepentant, they are unpredictable, and are still dangerous.

So, if not Guantanamo, where should these unrepentant terrorists reside?

One option would be for our international allies to help with their detainment.

I know that the administration has been trying to persuade the Europeans to accept custody of some of the detainees. Attorney General Holder is in fact discussing this issue with European officials this week.

On Wednesday, he will be making a speech in Berlin about Guantanamo, and I hope he has some good news. Unfortunately, there has not been much to date.

When the President met with European leaders in early April, he also asked for help in resettling the detainee. They agreed to help--with one.

We should perhaps count that as a victory, since many national leaders have said thanks but no thanks or remained completely noncommittal.

For example, Austria's interior minister has rejected accepting detainees flat-out. I am not surprised. Despite all the international angst about Guantanamo, most nations recognize that these detainees are very dangerous to free people.

Our time is not unlimited, since the administration's self-imposed January 2010 deadline for transferring these individuals is coming closer. In the absence of radically increased international cooperation, the administration will thus be forced to release the remaining detainees or keep them on U.S. soil.

And those are possibilities that I, like many Nebraskans, am particularly concerned about. Two of the sites being considered are Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, and the United States Penitentiary Maximum Security facility in Colorado, known as ADX Florence. Both are far too close to Nebraska for comfort--both within 250 miles of my home State of Nebraska.

This is likely a non-starter with my constituents, and for good reason. Thus, last week, I sent a letter to Attorney General Holder asking to be informed if any of the detainees were to be moved within 400 miles of Nebraska.

I will not allow my home State to be endangered by the proximity of unrepentant al-Qaida terrorists. Other Senators and their constituents are likely to have similar concerns.

In 2007, the Senate rejected moving Gitmo detainees to U.S. soil. The Senate spoke loudly and clearly in an overwhelming 94-3 vote against moving Gitmo prisoners to our shores or releasing them into our society. I do not believe the sentiment in this body has changed today.

The last option that I will mention--releasing them into the American population--seems unthinkable, if not absurd. However, if they are transferred into the American judicial system, their release is a possibility. This option is simply unacceptable.

The $80 million requested by the administration to close Guantanamo, and the executive order signed to that effect, are troubling.

In a dangerous world, facilities such as those at Guantanamo are a necessity that we cannot change simply by waiving a magic wand and wishing it so.

With about 270 days left before its proposed closure date, it is clear the administration still has no plan for its demise.

That is a gamble that the American people cannot afford.

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

Mr. President, because of the procedure we are following at the moment, I can't make this motion right now, but we will offer the motion at the appropriate time.

I rise today to speak about something I am bringing to the Senate. I am on the floor today because I think it is unwise and I also think it is unfair to the American people to use budget reconciliation to pass cap and trade.

Just to review the history of this, I joined the senior Senator from West Virginia and circulated a letter asking the leadership of the Budget Committee not to include reconciliation instructions to pass cap and trade. I was very happy that a number of my colleagues agreed with us. Eight Democrats signed the letter, and 25 Republicans--even some who support cap and trade--signed the letter. Notably, the budget resolution which we considered on the floor of the Senate did not include reconciliation instructions. I commended members of the Budget Committee during floor debate for not including instructions for cap and trade. I do so again today.

At the same time, I expressed concern that the real threat, though, came from the House in terms of what it had done with its resolution. The House budget, I think we all know, included, interestingly enough, reconciliation instructions. We all know why they included the instructions. The House has no use for them. They are not necessary under House rules. Therefore, there is no reason to include them other than to attempt to force cap-and-trade provisions into the conference report.

We are nearing that day when a conference report will come to us. This would restrict input from the American people, or the Senate body, on a policy that would result in massive taxes and fees.

I thank Members on the other side of the aisle. I think they should be commended for what they did next. Understanding that the House was trying to slip climate change into law without review, without debate, without amendment, without consideration, 26 of my colleagues from the other side voted with the Republicans in support of my amendment.

What was the result? The result was that 67 Senators made it very clear just a few days ago that they would not support using budget reconciliation to pass cap and trade. This vote, I would offer, showed courage and leadership. Probably most importantly, it showed true bipartisan spirit.

Today I am again asking for the support and leadership of my colleagues to stand in support of my motion to instruction the budget conferees. My motion just says: Don't just drop our amendment when you walk into the conference committee meeting.

It says: Remember, we voted overwhelmingly against shutting off debate and using as little as a single legislative day to pass complex cap-and-trade legislation.

It says: Don't forget that cap and trade, if passed, will radically change the economic landscape of this great Nation.

Amendments to such a bill should not be narrowly limited by the rules of the budget process, a process that was really built for deficit reduction, not greenhouse gas reduction. It asks for leadership from our Senate conferees so the American people can witness a full debate on this very important issue.

Where does that leave us today? One might ask the question: Why is the motion necessary? With such a strong showing against including instructions for cap and trade, isn't that message already clear? The message is clear, but I think we have to be vigilant for some simple reasons.

First, we learned over the past several days that budget discussions are far from over. Reports indicate that negotiations will continue over the next several days, maybe into the next several weeks. Memories fade. If we think that budget reconciliation is off the table as time wears on, we could be very mistaken.

Budget Committee leadership from both the House and the Senate has specifically noted that debate on the inclusion of reconciliation instructions continues to be very intense. In other words, the use of budget reconciliation for cap and trade does remain a possibility. Cap and trade could be slipped into law if the House instructions, as currently written, end up in the conference report.

For me, today's motion is about being able to say to Nebraskans when I return home--to look them in the eye and say: Yes, I read that bill, and I carefully considered its impact on you, your families, your businesses, and your future. And, yes, I did everything I could to make sure people from Nebraska understood well the significant tax burden likely to result from the legislation. And, yes, after considering all of those things, I stood up and cast a vote, yes or no.

We need to stand up to those who want to use reconciliation to stop transparency and limit debate. I believe both the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, whom I respect, and the Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, whom I respect, are battling mightily to ensure that reconciliation instructions are not included. Today, on the floor of the Senate, I commend them for that bipartisan effort. But they need our help. They need an army of Senators whose primary concern is the interest of the American people. A vote in support of this motion can do just that. We need this vote. We need to pass this motion. We need to insist that the text of the amendment, which 67 Senators, both Republican and Democrat supported, remains in the conference report on the budget.

I appreciate the opportunity to express this view. I urge my colleagues to support this motion. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Members of the Senate, I rise this evening for the express purpose of asking for your support for a motion that is very straightforward. We have already voted on this in an amendment I submitted during the budget process.

The motion basically says that we will not use the reconciliation process to pass cap-and-trade legislation. The last time this issue was before this body, we had 67 Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, who spoke very loudly and clearly opposing budget reconciliation to pass cap-and-trade legislation. I ask that we do that again. I ask that we do that again to indicate very clearly that we do not want to use the reconciliation process for cap-and-trade.

I conclude my remarks by saying thank you for your thoughtful approach to this, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have at the desk a motion, and I would ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, the budget before us increases nondefense discretionary spending by $42 billion over last year's levels.

Here is what my motion does. It would limit the overall increase in the budget to CBO's projected rate of inflation for nondefense, nonveterans spending. This motion will save $36 billion in 2010 and $194 billion over the 5-year budget window.

My motion only affects aggregate spending so it allows some programs to be larger than the rate of inflation; thus, any claim that it is unfair to one particular group would be inaccurate. The motion allows the committee to take a scalpel to the budget, which is exactly what the President called for. If not, our country continues to be in a dire situation. This helps deal with the spending piece of this.

This motion will allow us to take a step back from bloated spending and step forward to fiscal responsibility.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes and I ask for the yeas and nays.

It is not an amendment but a motion. I can provide it to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, that is acceptable.

Mr. President, just so we are clear on this procedure, I supplied a copy of my motion to the chairman of the Budget Committee. It is being reviewed. I would like the opportunity to speak on it now.

I rise to discuss this motion which I firmly believe would bring a bit of fiscal responsibility back to Washington

at a time where I fear spending restraint has gone out the door.

The budget before us increases nondefense discretionary spending by 9 percent. That translates into $42 billion over last year's levels. My motion would instruct the Budget Committee to take the budget resolution back to the committee and limit the overall increases to CBO's projected rate of inflation. The motion asks that we do this for each of the budget years. The motion would save $36 billion in 2010 and $194 billion over the 5-year budget window.

I would like to point out that my motion does not attempt to dictate which programs are prioritized for funding or which are cut back. Instead, my motion ties the aggregate spending to the rate of inflation. It asks the Budget Committee to take a scalpel to the budget line by line, which is exactly what the President has promised to do. Government simply cannot be everything to everyone, and at some point, tough spending decisions do have to be made.

Some may wonder why I chose to limit spending to the rate of inflation. The answer to that is very straightforward. If the average cost of goods and services for folks has increased by a certain percentage, I believe it makes common sense to require the Federal Government to spend within the same range. The American people cut back during tough economic times. Yet their Government is blatantly rejecting that commonsense principle. If you do not have enough money to pay for something, well, you shouldn't buy it. While most American families are planning to spend less this year compared to last year, isn't it eminently sensible that their Government increase spending no more than the rate of inflation?

It is clear that this budget does not have enough revenue to pay for its price tag, $3.6 trillion, even though it levies a massive tax increase on hard-working Americans to the collective tune of $1.7 trillion. Instead, the budget piles more debt on more debt, so much so that the debt per household for fiscal year 2010 would be $74,000. Considering that the average hourly wage in my home State is about $17 an hour, it would take most Nebraskans about 4,200 hours to earn that much money. That is an astronomical amount of debt.

But why should people back home worry about the debt the Government continues to amass? Because debt becomes unsustainable. When this occurs, the interest consumes more and more of the revenue, leaving virtually no money left to fund programs. Then you find yourself borrowing more and more to offset the difference. It is not a productive dance--taking one step forward, two steps back, then one forward, three back, year after year, until pretty soon you are not on the dance floor, and if you are not careful, you are not even in the dancehall. We will be so indebted to our creditors, such as China, that we will be watching through the dancehall window as economic engines of other nations carry the world economy.

Consider this sobering thought: If this budget passes, a few years from now we will be spending more on finance charges than on the entire defense budget. Put another way, our finance charges will be eight times the Nation's education budget. The budget before us is comparable to a family running up so much credit card debt that their finance charges are more than the house payment. We have lost our way.

Gone are the days when $1 million was a significant amount of money to invest in a program. Some think it is a bargain if we just spend $100 million or even $1 billion. More and more commonplace are bills that actually spend $1 trillion. How did we get spending so out of control?

It seems as if every time legislation is passed, we end up by just nonchalantly raising the debt limit. How long do you think our Nation can keep going down this course of unrestrained spending? Not very long.

We have a country that lives on credit, and we are close to maxing it out. Then what? Well, I will tell you what. Our dollar will be worth nothing. No one will want to invest in the United States, and economic growth will stall. I shudder at the thought.

I mentioned China a minute ago. They are the largest foreign holder of our debt. Why do we allow that to happen? I don't know about you, but we need something to change the course. This motion just simply takes a step back from bloated spending and a step forward to fiscal responsibility.

Before I yield the floor, I would like to offer a few short and very straightforward comments about an amendment that I offered on Monday. It has not yet come up for a vote. I hope the delay means my colleagues are thinking long and hard because it is an amendment that stands for the Senate.

It basically says: Don't use reconciliation for climate change legislation. First, climate change and energy are important enough that the Senate should deliberate these issues carefully. Haste leads to error and consequences. I remind my colleagues that budget reconciliation means far-reaching cap-and-trade legislation would only get 20 hours of debate. That is right. If the leadership keeps the Senate floor open all night long, a $250-per-month increase in energy bills could pass the Senate in just 1 day.

Second, let's not permit the House to dictate how we do business in the Senate. I tried to suggest to my colleagues that the House budget is a Trojan horse meant to force the Senate's hand. Many of my colleagues understand and know exactly what the House leadership has in mind.

I know the chairman of the Budget Committee has indicated he will resist. I applaud him for that. I thank the chairman. I note also that the chairman has been careful and thoughtful in his comments regarding the use of budget reconciliation. Again, I applaud that. I think my amendment just lays this issue before us and gives us the chance to stand for the Senate.

I would like to emphasize one other point. I have tried to make clear that the merits of climate change are not at issue. This body will thoughtfully consider climate change given the chance. What is uncertain--and the issue before us--is whether we have an open, robust debate and the opportunity to share with our constituents the content of the legislation and the amendments we offer.

I thank most Members on the other side of the aisle for their support and their reasoned approach. In fact, eight Members who are Democrats joined me in a letter to the leadership of the Budget Committee. My amendment directly addresses the concerns in that letter. In reality, the proposed solution in the letter is exactly what my amendment is doing.

Additionally, a man I respect a great deal, another Democratic Senator, the junior Senator from North Dakota, also indicated his opposition in his own letter. My amendment addresses these concerns.

The chairman of the Finance Committee has indicated that using reconciliation ``is not a good idea.'' I could not agree more. House Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee urge the use of ``hearings, markup and regular order'' instead of budget reconciliation.

I could quote on and on from Members on both sides who have stood with me on this issue and have expressed their concern long before I arrived. I thank them for protecting the integrity of the Senate process, and I offered that amendment in that bipartisan spirit.

I yield the floor, and I yield my time.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I ask them to vote against this amendment because it is important for Senate tradition.

Some weeks ago, a man whom I respect a tremendous amount, Senator Byrd, and I circulated a letter. It was directed to the chairman of the Budget Committee. It simply said: Please don't use reconciliation to pass complex legislation such as climate change. We got over 30 signatures on that--very bipartisan. We had Democrats and we had Republicans join in that.

If we allow this amendment to pass, basically what we are saying is, under the terms of this language, a majority of Senators can arrive and simply take away our ability to have a robust debate, to have the ability to debate this issue the way it deserves, and this is enormously significant legislation.

So I ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. It is important to the tradition of the Senate.

Madam President, let me thank my colleagues for their thoughtful approach to a very important issue.

What this amendment essentially does is say that the budget reconciliation process will not be used to pass climate change legislation. There are many in this body who can talk about this institution and the importance of approaches such as this.

Budget reconciliation was designed to reduce the deficit. It was never designed to pass complex legislation such as climate change. What this amendment does is it very clearly says that. It simply says reconciliation will not be used for that process.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. It is enormously important. I think it is an enormously important statement for this institution.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 735 which is at the desk.

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

I rise to offer an amendment to the budget resolution. The amendment is simple. It inserts language that would bar the use of budget reconciliation for climate legislation. Budget reconciliation essentially fast tracks legislation. It limits debate. It circumvents normal Senate procedure and requires only a simple majority for passage.

For weeks, the House leadership, the Senate leadership, and the administration have been pushing the Senate to use reconciliation to pass cap-and-trade legislation. They certainly have not taken it off the table. This is a mistake. Members on both sides of the aisle and on both sides of the Capitol agree with me.

The Senate resolution before us does not include reconciliation instructions. That is noteworthy. It is commendable. However, it is the conference report that concerns me. It should raise a red flag for all Senators.

Let me step back for a minute and review where we are. We now know that the House budget has included reconciliation instructions to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and two other committees. Why would the House include instructions at all? The House has a Rules Committee that sets rules for debate and amendments. Reconciliation instructions in the House budget are therefore meaningless except for one purpose: to open the door to cap-and-trade policy in the final budget resolution that emerges from the conference process.

Now that we have reached the heart of the matter, let me say again: The House language is there to dictate how the Senate conducts its business. The House language is a placeholder, a Trojan horse to limit debate, amendment, transparency, and a thoughtful consideration in the Senate on cap and trade.

We know that the leadership in the Senate is already planning how it will spend the cap-and-trade revenues. How do I know this? The Senate majority leader said last week that the collection of revenues from cap and trade would be useful for other governmental spending down to the very last penny.

Budget reconciliation is actually about lowering spending and controlling the debt. So let's take a closer look at the House language. After all, that language might set the rules for debate in the Senate, unless my amendment is adopted.

The House instructions call for a savings of $3 billion. The key, though, is this: The committees could raise hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes and fees, including cap and trade, so long as new spending is $3 billion below the total revenues collected. Cap-and- trade legislation is expected to generate almost a trillion dollars in revenues--a lot of spending. I make this point to illustrate the significance of taxing and spending that could be passed under the guise of reconciliation.

Finally, I see that the House language even provides a placeholder in the text for Senate reconciliation instructions. Section 202 provides the following:

Senate reconciliation instructions to be supplied by the

Senate.

I suggest we adopt my amendment and send a clear, bipartisan message opposing the use of reconciliation for cap and trade. Cap and trade is simply too large, too significant, and too important and costly to pass under the cloak of another bill.

The senior Senator from West Virginia, a man I admire immensely, said it eloquently:

Putting climate change legislation on a freight train

through Congress is an outrage that must be resisted.

Quoting again:

It is an abdication of the constitutional role of the

Senate.

I cannot say it better.

Before closing, I would like to discuss the economic impacts of this cap-and-trade freight train for a moment. The President's climate proposal could cost an American family an additional $3,000 per year or about $250 a month. Most families will see much of this

extra expense show up in their electric bill, especially if the family is from a State where significant amounts of electricity are generated by coal.

That is right, everyone with a light switch will see the pain of this policy.

The rest of the additional costs could show up in all sorts of bills families struggle to pay. If a family uses natural gas to heat their home, cook or fuel their small business, the bill will go up. Higher natural gas prices drive fertilizer costs up. When these increases are coupled with higher gasoline and diesel fuel prices, the costs to our farmers in terms of production go up. That means the costs of dairy, beef, pork, and chicken producers are bound to increase. Some of those higher costs will be seen at the grocery store. Because steel and cement manufacturing would be affected, even the cost of heavy construction goes up, and that impacts our infrastructure.

Americans are on the hook for all of this, while China gains a competitive advantage.

I could go on and on, but I think I have said enough. Aren't these economic impacts significant enough to warrant an open discussion, a transparent debate? Not some parliamentary maneuver hatched in a late- night conference committee?

Well, I think they are. Our constituents deserve to understand the true impact of the decisions we debate on this floor.

To sum up, cap-and-trade legislation is complex and costly. Americans deserve, and the issue demands, a thoughtful, deliberate approach. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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