Floor Statements

Mr. President, last fall, many of us in Congress weren't all that excited about rescuing financial firms from problems that many of them had brought about themselves, but we decided swift action was needed precisely to protect ordinary Americans from the mistakes these firms had made. At the time, Republicans insisted on strong taxpayer protections. None of us had any doubt that once these banks were healthy again, they would pay the money back to the taxpayers who gave it to them.

Let me say that again. None of us had any doubt that once the banks were healthy again, they would pay the money back to the taxpayers. In fact, many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle only supported the bill because of the representations that were made that we would recoup--the Government would recoup--the money. Now we are hearing a different story.

A number of the firms that taxpayers helped out last fall are now on the road to recovery and want to pay back their loans. Unfortunately, Treasury doesn't seem to want to take the money. Let me say that again. These firms are getting healthy, they want to pay back the money, and Treasury doesn't seem to want to take the money. This wasn't the original plan, and it doesn't seem right to most people. If a bank wants to pay the taxpayers back--if a bank wants to pay the taxpayers back--the Government shouldn't block the door.

Just as troubling is a new report by the special inspector general who is overseeing all the financial rescue programs. It alleges the same kind of fraud we warned about back in October, including about 20 preliminary and full criminal investigations for everything ranging from securities fraud to mortgage fraud, to insider trading, to public corruption related to the $700 billion in rescue funds.

All of this is a major wakeup call. The Treasury needs to root out the

fraud now, particularly at a time when the new administration is vastly expanding the size and the scope of these programs. As these programs expand, so will the potential for abuse. The Treasury Department also needs to let these banks extract themselves from Government control as soon as they want to. That was the original plan the American people signed onto, and they have a right to expect that the original plan will be carried out free from fraud and abuse.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I was not seeking the floor. I was going to talk to the Senator from Pennsylvania when he finishes his remarks. So I am not seeking recognition.

Mr. President, yesterday, I pointed out that the President's war funding request contains up to $80 million to close the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. The administration says Guantanamo will be closed by next January. What they haven't told us is what they plan to do with these killers once it closes. Well, Americans want some assurances that closing Guantanamo will not make them less safe. Frankly, that is a very important and understandable request.

Guantanamo currently houses some of the most dangerous men alive. These are men who are proud of the innocent lives they have taken and who want to return to terrorism. One person who is there, and whom we don't know what we will do with, is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. We captured him while he was planning followup attacks to 9/11, including plots to destroy a West Coast skyscraper and to smuggle explosives into New York. If we hadn't captured him, he may have succeeded in launching the same type of attack on the west coast that he carried out on the east coast. This is a man who brags about decapitating the American journalist Daniel Pearl, with the following quote: ``. . . with my blessed right hand.'' How does transferring Khalid Shaikh Mohammed make the country safer?

Another person at Guantanamo that the administration doesn't know what it will do with in 9 months is Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, who served as a key lieutenant for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed during the 9/11 operation. How does transferring him make the country safer?

Then there is Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. He was al-Qaida's operations chief in the Arabian Peninsula and the mastermind behind the attack on the USS Cole which killed 17 sailors in 2000. How does transferring or releasing him make our country safer?

These are just 3 of the 240 terrorists that the administration doesn't know what to do with. The one thing they do know is that they claim they are going to close Guantanamo in 9 months, even though they can't say yet whether the alternative is as safe and secure. All of this, despite the fact that after visiting Guantanamo for the first time recently, Attorney General Holder said he was ``impressed by the people who are presently running the camp'' and that ``the facilities there are good ones.''

That was certainly my impression when I went there a few years ago.

The administration needs to tell the American people what it plans to do with these men if it closes Guantanamo. Two years ago, the Senate voted 94 to 3--94 to 3--against sending these men to the United States. Foreign countries have so far been unwilling to take any of them in significant numbers--understandably. Even if countries were willing to take them, there is an increasing probability that some of these murderers would return to the battlefield. The Defense Department recently confirmed that 18 former detainees had returned to the battlefield and said that at least 40 more are suspected of having done so. These are people we have already released who are back on the battlefield.

Earlier this year, the Saudi Government said that nearly a dozen Saudis who were released from Gitmo are believed to have returned to terrorism.

The administration has made a priority of closing Guantanamo, but its first priority should be to assure the American people that the detainees at Gitmo will never again be able to harm Americans.

Entitlement Spending

Mr. President, I wish to say another word in addition to my comments yesterday about the President's welcome gesture on wasteful spending. The Cabinet has been asked to find $100 million in savings over the next few months and this is clearly a step in the right direction, but it is just a step. Current levels of Government spending and debt are completely and totally out of control and the threat of a fiscal catastrophe is very real. The only way to address this out-of-control spending is to get at the heart of the problem, which is entitlement spending. A lot of people do not realize that nearly 70 percent of the money the Federal Government spends every year is mandatory spending on very popular programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and on the interest we have to pay on the national debt.

Entitlements are the heart of the problem. As Willie Sutton put it: That's where the money is. And if we don't find a way to address this spending, we will be in very serious trouble as a nation. Fortunately, Senators Gregg and Conrad have a proposal on the table that addresses entitlement spending head on, by forcing Democrats and Republicans to come together and make the kind of tough choices necessary to steer the country out of an otherwise inevitable financial shipwreck. It deserves much more attention than it has received, and it deserves a vote here in the Senate.

Cutting $100 million in waste is certainly good, but let's put it in context. The amount of money the President asked the Cabinet to save yesterday,

$100 million, is about how much we will spend every single day on interest on the stimulus bill we passed a while back. Mr. President, $100 million in savings is certainly good. It amounts to about 33 cents for every single American. Compare that to entitlement spending where, in order to meet all our current and future entitlement promises, we would have to extract $495,000 from every American household--$495,000 from every American household. The way I see it, there is simply no question as to where the priority should be.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, toward the end of 2006, President Bush concluded that American security interests in the Persian Gulf were not being advanced by the military strategy that was then in place in Iraq. He directed a review of military plans and decided to accept the recommendation of GEN David Petraeus and other advisers to adopt a counterinsurgency strategy that would involve a surge of ground forces to secure the Iraqi population. In the face of growing sectarian violence in Iraq, President Bush announced this strategy in early 2007, and the success of this strategy is now so widely acknowledged that it is hard to believe that just 2 years ago some in Washington wanted to cut off funding for our forces on the battlefield and establish arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal without consideration to conditions on the ground.

Over the past 2 years, the American people have witnessed a gradual maturation of the Iraqi Government. Iraqi security forces, working with coalition forces, took control of Basra and Sadr City. General Petraeus's efforts to shift responsibility to the Iraqi Army took place in front of a pessimistic audience that included, of course, Iran. But it worked.

During the recess, I visited General Odierno in Baghdad, and despite ongoing challenges in some provinces and the continuing need of the Iraqi security forces for coalition support, he is optimistic that the security gains made in Iraq are indeed sustainable.

That is why I was encouraged when President Obama moved away from his campaign promise to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq within 16 months of his inauguration. Instead, he accepted the advice of Generals Petraeus and Odierno to draw down forces at a pace that will recognize conditions on the ground, the challenges associated with Iraqi elections, and the need to maintain a presence to conduct training, force protection, and counterterrorism.

To those of us who ignored the calls for arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal and efforts to cut off funding for our forces in combat, it is likewise encouraging to see President Obama has accepted the recommendations of General McKiernan and General Petraeus to order a surge of additional forces in Afghanistan in order to succeed there. I visited with General McKiernan in Kabul last week, and he explained his plans to deploy these additional forces. He is mindful of the challenges associated with Afghan national elections, the need to continue expanding the Afghan National Army and police, and the need to combat corruption within

the Afghan ministries. Nonetheless, he is confident of military success. With the lives and security of so many at stake, it is important that the Obama administration follow the best military advice. So far in Afghanistan, this is precisely what the President has done, and he deserves a lot of credit for it.

During the recess, President Obama submitted a supplemental appropriations request to fund the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Republicans will aggressively support our combat forces just as we did in the last Congress. In the coming months and years, Congress will continue to play an essential role in preserving and extending the security gains our service men and women have made in Iraq and in fighting the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan. By approving President Obama's request for war funding, we will provide our men and women in uniform with resources they need to complete their missions and return home with honor.

This is a solemn duty, and Members of Congress should resist the temptation to use these war funding requests as an opportunity to fund unrelated projects. The President's war funding request should be used for its intended purpose; that is, the national defense.

In that vein, this war spending bill falls short in one important respect. It requests up to $80 million for the purpose of shuttering the secure detention facility at Guantanamo Bay before the administration has a place to put the roughly 240 inmates who live there. The administration has sought to mollify our critics overseas by saying it will transfer the inmates at Guantanamo in a matter of months. The administration should, instead, be assuring the American people that these inmates will not be transferred to American soil or allowed to return to the battlefield--an assurance that so far the new administration has not been able to give.

This is an extremely important issue. As the clock runs out on the administration's plan to shut down Guantanamo within the next 9 months, Americans are paying closer and closer attention to what this means for them. It is one thing to announce the goal of closing this facility; it is quite another to set an arbitrary date for closure before anyone has even come up with a safe alternative. The administration hasn't even been able to assure us that these 240 detainees will not be scattered across the United States. Indeed, when it comes to Guantanamo, the administration doesn't seem to have any plan at all for dealing with men whom many consider to be the most dangerous terrorists alive. Meanwhile, Guantanamo has provided Americans with a high degree of safety and certainty. Of the 800 terrorists who have been held there over the years, not a single one has ever escaped to harm anyone. Not one has escaped to harm anyone.

In the days ahead, Republicans will remind the American people about the dangers of closing Guantanamo without a safe alternative--and prod the administration to rethink its strategy in the same way the President has rethought his campaign proposals on Iraq. In the end, the safety of the American people is of far more important concern than pleasing our foreign critics, many of whom have been far quicker to criticize our detention policies than they have been in offering a hand in adjusting them. On Guantanamo, it is increasingly important that we get the policy right and put the politics aside. If it does so, the administration can expect strong bipartisan support.

Mr. President, the President has announced today he is directing the members of his Cabinet to cut wasteful Government spending. Obviously, I applaud such an effort, but it is important that we not lose sight of the enormity of our current spending and debt levels, which will only really be addressed through major, bipartisan, politically difficult reforms. The Cabinet has been asked to find $100 million savings in a $4 trillion budget. Any amount of savings, obviously, is welcome, but according to the Congressional Budget Office numbers, that is about the average amount we will spend every single day--that $100 million is about the average amount we will spend every single day just covering the interest on the stimulus package we passed earlier this year.

We need to cut waste, but we will need to do much more to restore fiscal balance. Senators Gregg and Conrad have proposed a plan that would force us to get debt and spending under control. It deserves our serious attention.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a brave Kentuckian and soldier who has been awarded the Silver Star for valor in defense of our country.

SFC Larry Hawks, a native of Edmonson County in my home Commonwealth of Kentucky, received our Nation's third highest award for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States. Those rare few who receive the Silver Star do so because of their display of selfless sacrifice and

unparalleled courage under fire and Sergeant First Class Hawks has certainly demonstrated that to his fellow soldiers.

Sergeant First Class Hawks showed his bravery and patriotism to all during a 14-hour battle in 115-degree heat while stationed in Afghanistan on July 25, 2005. That morning on combat patrol in the Oruzgan province, his unit encountered and gave chase to a large number of enemy fighters. Our soldiers soon found themselves facing an intense volley of fire from machine guns, small arms and rocket-propelled grenades.

Without regard for his own safety, Sergeant First Class Hawks came out from behind cover to draw and return enemy fire while directing his unit into position to more effectively engage the enemy. He also directed fire from Apache gunships overhead. He passed up a chance to move to a safer position and insisted on staying in the best vantage point over the enemy.

``There were times when some of the guys thought that we weren't going to make it,'' Sergeant First Class Hawks was quoted as saying after the ordeal. ``But I was thinking, you may not, but I am coming out of this. That was my whole thought process.''

SFC Larry Hawks's service is continuing proof that there is no finer fighting man on the face of the Earth than the American soldier. Accordingly, a ceremony was held last December at the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, in Fort Bragg, NC, for him to receive this honored award.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Sergeant First Class Hawks for the many sacrifices he has made to our country. We Kentuckians are honored to know and be among such heroes.

I also ask unanimous consent that the full article from the Brownsville, KY, Edmonson News of March 19, 2009, detailing SFC Larry Hawks's service and the actions that led to the awarding of his Silver Star, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a dedicated philanthropist from my home State of Kentucky, Jerrilyn Dyer. Mrs. Dyer is well known in her community for her bright smile and comforting personality.

Mrs. Dyer has contributed countless hours to Kentucky through her volunteer work, including helping at the Pattie A. Clay Hospital Gift Shop and with the Home Meals Delivery service, helping to better the lives of so many over the years. In addition to her work in Kentucky, she was also well known for her volunteer work in Indiana particularly in Madison County.

Along with all her volunteer work, Jerrilyn is a dedicated wife, mother, and grandmother and finds time to travel with her husband of 49 years, Jack, and enjoys spending time with her two children and four grandchildren.

Recently, the Richmond Register in Richmond, Kentucky, published an article detailing Mrs. Dyer's service and accomplishments. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Jerrilyn Dyer and her service to the Commonwealth.

Mr. President, the majority leader said it well. No one has done more for his country than John McCain. We are all privileged to be able to serve with him in the Senate.

Mr. President, anyone who turned on C-SPAN2 over the past 2 weeks could be excused for wondering what has been going on here in the Capitol. Most people outside Washington do not know much about reconciliation instructions or points of order. But behind the legislative lingo, an extremely important debate has been taking place on the Senate floor. It is a debate about the future of our country. And in the course of that debate, two very different philosophies have emerged. On one side are those who think American lives will improve in direct proportion to the size of the Federal Government; that the answer to all the challenges we face as a nation is to just simply follow Europe, where people look to the government for almost everything from the cradle to the grave. On the other side are those who think Government has an important role to play in keeping people safe and creating the conditions in which Americans can succeed and that Government can also play a role in helping people weather temporary or permanent troubles and even to provide temporary help to private institutions if the failure of those institutions imperils the well-being of the whole.

But in all these areas, the role of Government is limited. Liberty and freedom are primary. The first group defends the administration's budget proposal which we first saw a couple of months ago and which outlines the administration's vision for America over the next several years. The second group has warned about the consequences of the budget, which calls for a dramatic and potentially irreversible shift of our Nation to the left in the areas of health care, education, and private enterprise, and which in order to get there imposes the biggest tax hike in history, massive spending, and a titanic amount of debt our children and grandchildren will have to pay back.

This is a debate that has been worth tuning in to because its outcome affects absolutely everyone. So I would like to highlight just a couple of things we have seen over the course of this debate that everyone should know.

The first thing people should know is the one thing that many already do know: The administration's budget simply taxes too much, spends too much, and borrows too much at a moment, interestingly enough, when we can least afford it. There is good reason to believe the American people agree. Several of the amendments Republicans have proposed adding to the budget as a way of protecting American businesses and families have been approved by wide, bipartisan margins.

The American people cannot afford new taxes, and that is why Senators approved the Johanns amendment yesterday, an amendment which forces an open debate on the budget's proposal for a massive new national energy tax that would hit every American family by up to $3,100 a year. As the senior Senator from Missouri put it on Tuesday, ``Families are struggling to make ends meet, unable to pay their mortgage, bills or debts . . . We should oppose an energy tax.''

The junior Senator from Nevada also knows Americans cannot afford having their taxes raised, especially in a recession. That is why he offered an amendment yesterday that would make it harder to raise taxes on middle-class couples. As he put it, ``Americans are struggling to pay for life's essentials . . . What we should be discussing is extending tax relief,'' not raising taxes. This is common sense. His amendment passed.

The junior Senator from Texas knows that business owners cannot afford a tax hike. That is why he offered an amendment that would make it harder for Democrats to raise taxes on small businesses. This is also common sense. His amendment also was adopted overwhelmingly.

Americans know the trouble they get into when they spend money they do not have, and they do not want Government to spend money it does not have. That is why the junior Senator from Alabama came to the floor Monday and lamented the lack of fiscal responsibility in this budget.

The American people are worried about the size of the national debt, and they are worried about a budget that doubles that debt in 5 years and triples it in 10--a budget that adds more debt in 5 years than the entire debt accumulated under every President from George Washington through George W. Bush. The senior Senator from Tennessee is worried about the size of the debt too, and that is why he offered an amendment to keep the growth of that debt relative to the GDP in check. As he put it on the Senate floor on Tuesday:

This is not a matter of not letting the horse get out of

the barn. This recognizes that the horse is already out of

the barn and we're trying to put a fence around him before he

gets into the next country.

Democrats rejected that amendment too.

Throughout this debate, Americans have started to focus a lot on the national debt, and they have heard some troubling things.

If they were listening Tuesday, they would have heard a very illuminating discussion on the topic between the senior Senator from Tennessee and the senior Senator from New Hampshire. The senior Senator from New Hampshire said that at the end of this budget, every American household will have an obligation relative to the Federal debt of $133,000--$133,000 per household. The senior Senator from Tennessee asked who holds that debt. The answer, of course, is that China is the primary holder of that debt, along with Russia and oil-producing nations in the Middle East.

Americans are worried about more Government spending, higher taxes, and higher debt that we may never be able to repay, and a lot of groups that represent these Americans are amassing against these things. Groups opposed to this budget include the National Association of Manufacturers, the Tax Relief Coalition, the American Conservative Union, Americans for Prosperity, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Club for Growth, the Council on National Policy, Associated Builders and Contractors, Independent Electric Contractors, International Foodservice Distributors Administration, and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors. These groups represent millions of small business owners, independent contractors, and millions of ordinary Americans who do not want to see their dreams fade away because of someone else's vision of what Government should do for them.

Americans want the freedom to do for themselves, and they worry freedom may slip away if this budget passes in its current form. They cannot afford a new national energy tax that could cost every American household up to $3,100 a year. They do not want to have to pay for 250,000 bureaucrats who will be needed just to spend the money this budget wants to spend. And they do not want their children literally buried in debt. What Americans want is for Republicans and Democrats to work together to craft a budget that let's them keep their hard-earned wages, spends their tax dollars wisely, and does not saddle their children and grandchildren with debt. That is what they have not seen this week.

What they also will not see are the backdoor negotiations where the chairman of the Budget Committee, the senior Senator from North Dakota, has said he will strip out many of these good amendments we have adopted this week and where some budget writers intend to fast track a massive new energy tax even though we passed an amendment to keep that from happening. Americans oppose this energy tax. And if the senior Senator from North Dakota has as much influence over the outcome of the budget as I hope he does, then he will make sure that the will of the Senate and the American people is reflected in the final product. I hope he will make sure that a new national energy tax costing American households up to $3,100 a year is not rushed through Congress on a party-line vote.

So the drama that has unfolded in the Senate put two very different philosophies on display. It showed Republicans fighting to keep our Nation from an irreversible drift to the left, and it showed some Democrats agreeing to

some of our proposals. But the proof of their commitment is in the final product--what finally comes out of conference.

This debate isn't over with the passage of this budget today, and Republicans are not finished fighting on behalf of the priorities of the American people--not even close.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, our good friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, has cast his 10,000th vote. Senator Grassley has been a distinguished Member of this body for 29 years and, in my view, the Nation is always a lot better off when people are paying very close attention to Chuck Grassley.

Over the course of the past two centuries, nearly 2,000 men and women have served in the Senate. Fewer than 30 have cast more votes than Chuck Grassley. Only one other Senator from Iowa has served longer. This year Senator Grassley will mark 50 years of public service to the people of the Hawkeye State. While some Members of Congress have a tendency to lose touch with their constituents, Senator Grassley has always worked hard to make sure he never did. He has made it his business to stay connected to the folks back home by holding at least one townhall meeting a year in all of Iowa's 99 counties and by responding to every letter, postcard, e-mail, and phone call his office receives from Iowans.

He also stays close to the land by working his family farm, even while he keeps up with his duties in Washington. Chuck Grassley may be a U.S. Senator, but he has always preferred to be known as ``a farmer from Butler County.'' Visitors to the Grassley farm say it is not uncommon to see Senator Grassley pulling a cell phone out from under his baseball cap while riding on his tractor. Remind me never to borrow Senator Grassley's cell phone.

A 1955 graduate of the University of Northern Iowa, Senator Grassley ran for the Iowa House at the age of 23 and lost. But this is a man, the Des Moines Register once wrote, for whom the word ``dogged'' was invented. Three years later, at age 25, he won that seat in the House, and Iowa voters have been reelecting him ever since, including five terms in the Senate.

Over the years, Senator Grassley has distinguished himself for his tenacity and his commitment to the public interest. Whistleblower amendments that he has sponsored have recovered $18 billion to the U.S. Treasury. He has kept a watchful eye on spending at the Pentagon and, as the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, he has been an equal opportunity foe of loopholes, closing them to corporations and individuals alike. He has also done the hard work of following up on these and other accountability measures he has authored over the years.

Senator Grassley has a lot to be proud of in his career. He and Barbara are also rightly proud of their 54 years of marriage, their five children, and nine grandchildren. Chuck couldn't have foreseen such an eventful life when he and Barbara met, and Barbara probably certainly didn't expect that 30 years of marriage would pass before she finally got her diamond engagement ring. We all know it is probably because Chuck didn't want to spend that money.

Senator Grassley has been a farmer, a father, a government watchdog, a steward of the Nation's finances; in short, he is a real statesman. The Senate would not be the same without him, and the Nation, I firmly believe, would be a lot worse off without the remarkable service of Chuck Grassley. Senator, congratulations.

(Applause, Members rising.)

Mr. President, I wish to proceed for a few moments on my leader time. I am speaking in effect for Senator Kyl, who has been our leader on the issue of the death tax for many years.

The Lincoln-Kyl amendment, on which we are about to vote, would decrease the burden on those who get hit with the death tax by increasing the exemption by $1.5 million to $5 million

and by reducing the rate of taxation down by 10 percent to 35 percent.

No one should have to be taxed on their assets twice, and no one should have to visit the tax man and the undertaker on the same day. It is the Government's final outrage. But if we can't repeal this tax, then we should at least lower it at a time when Americans are already burdened by shrinking retirement savings.

This budget, in keeping with the administration's plan, seeks to keep the death tax exemption at $3.5 million and the tax rate at 45 percent. By offering an amendment that would lower the rate and the exemption, Senators Kyl and Lincoln are offering crucial support and protection to small businesses, family ranchers, and farms.

This amendment has wide bipartisan support, including Senators Nelson, Pryor, and Landrieu--all on the Democratic side--and Senators Grassley, Roberts, Enzi, and Collins on the Republican side. It also has strong support from the small business community, which desperately needs relief at the current moment. It would spur economic growth, which we need, and it makes good overall economic sense since the death tax costs more to comply with than it raises in revenue.

The Lincoln-Kyl amendment is important, it is timely, and I strongly urge its support.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, let me briefly echo the remarks of the majority leader and congratulate Chairman Conrad and Ranking Member Gregg and say we have a lot of freshmen Senators. You probably think this is a tough day. I might mention to you, this is one of the least tough budget days we have had in the time that I have been here. I think I see the Vice President smiling. He would agree with that.

That is a tribute largely to Senator Gregg and Senator Conrad. Thank you so much for an excellent job.

Mr. President, throughout this debate, Republicans have shown that this budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. At a time when many are struggling just to get by, Democrats in Congress want to enact the largest tax increase in history, including a national energy tax that could cost every American household up to $3,100 a year. They want to double the national debt in 5 years and triple it in 10. And they want to increase nondefense spending so much that the Government would have to hire up to 250,000 bureaucrats just to get the money out the door. Let me say that again. The Government would have to hire up to a quarter of a million bureaucrats just to get the money out the door. This is not the type of job creation Americans have been hoping for, and this was not the budget Americans wanted. Rather, they are demanding that Republicans and Democrats work together to craft a budget that lets them keep their hard-earned wages, spend their tax dollars wisely, and does not saddle their children and grandchildren with mountains of debt.

Republicans have tried to work with Democrats to pass such a budget by offering amendments that reflect the views of most Americans and soon will sponsor a series of amendments to prevent tax increases on individuals, families, and businesses. The junior Senator from Texas, for example, has an amendment that would make it significantly harder to raise taxes on small businesses. The President has noted repeatedly that small businesses are at the heart of the American economy, are responsible for half of all private sector jobs, and have created roughly 70 percent of all new jobs in the past decade. Republicans will propose an amendment by the junior Senator from Nevada which would make it significantly harder to raise taxes on couples making less than $250,000 a year.

Americans are worried about tax hikes. They are also worried about the colossal amount of debt this budget would leave to our children. This budget proposes to borrow an equivalent amount of money in the next 5 years to all of the money the Government has borrowed from 1789 to January 20, 2009. So the senior Senator from New Hampshire sponsored an amendment to require a supermajority to adopt any budget resolution that would more than double the entire public debt cumulated from 1789 to January 20, 2009. The Democrats rejected that amendment.

In other efforts to control debt and curb Federal spending, Republicans will offer a number of additional amendments, including another amendment from the senior Senator from New Hampshire that would take the first step toward the creation of a bipartisan task force to confront the Nation's long-term deficits; an amendment from the senior Senator from South Carolina that would help to ensure that Social Security remains a self-sustaining, solvent program; an amendment from the senior Senator from Idaho that would take the Democratic spending levels and try to ensure spending does not exceed those levels. Republicans will sponsor further amendments that would correct many of the other problems with this budget.

Additionally, Republicans have resisted efforts to fast track major policy changes through reconciliation. The junior Senator from Nebraska has offered an amendment that would prohibit the use of this rule in connection with a national energy tax. Some Democrats said they do not support using reconciliation for this legislation. We will insist on having a vote on the Johanns amendment.

These Republican proposals should have the support of Senators on both sides of the aisle. We should all want to cut the massive taxing, borrowing, and spending in this budget.

The budget debate is always one of the most clarifying weeks of the year. Rarely do the American people get to see the differences between the two parties as clearly as they do during this debate. Rarely has the difference been so stark.

Mr. President, on another subject and admittedly a lighter note, I rise today to pay tribute to a group of young women from the University of Louisville who reached an amazing milestone this week. The U of L Lady Cards made basketball history with their first NCAA Final Four trip.

The Lady Cards, coached by Jeff Walz and led by All-American Angel McCoughtry and senior forward Candyce Bingham, are heading to St. Louis this weekend to play in the women's NCAA Final Four.

Today, I wanted to recognize this history-making team. The Lady Cards had an amazing season, and it is not over yet. On Sunday, they will face Oklahoma, with the winner advancing to the final game on Tuesday.

This has been a fun team to watch this season. Their style of play will inspire future generations of Lady Cardinals. I am sure there are a lot of young athletes in Kentucky who look up to the home team and will be cheering them on to victory this weekend.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the names of the players and coaches.

I yield the floor.