Floor Statements

Madam President, over the weekend we learned the extent of the bonuses being paid to some of the same people at AIG who got this company in the position it is in. Many of us on both sides of the aisle expressed absolute outrage that these bonuses could be paid. Yesterday, the White House joined that chorus and promised to do everything possible to get the taxpayers' money back. Well, we certainly appreciate those efforts. However, it could have been handled a little differently. It would have been better if this pledge had included action 2 weeks ago. Just 2 weeks ago, the

Treasury agreed to give AIG another $30 billion in taxpayer money--just within the last 2 weeks. For example, wouldn't the Treasury and the taxpayer have had more leverage over AIG's executive contracts before providing another $30 billion in tax money for them? Once that money was handed over to AIG, the leverage was lost. That would have been the perfect time to make sure this didn't happen.

It is my hope the Treasury will be vigilant in safeguarding taxpayer funds from here on. I certainly expect them to look for every possible legal way to live up to the pledge made yesterday on behalf of the taxpayers of the United States.

Madam President, a lot has been written over the past several days about the inmates at Guantanamo, and none of it makes the administration's decision to shut this facility down by the end of the year any less challenging than it already was. This is an issue which has grave implications for our Nation's security, and we really need to get it right. So this morning, I wish to spend a few minutes explaining why the administration would do well to reconsider its approach to Guantanamo, an approach that looks even hastier now than when it was first announced back in January.

One of the most obvious problems the administration faces on this issue is what to do with these inmates once Guantanamo is closed. This is not a new concern. Ever since the United States started using Guantanamo as a detention facility after the invasion of Afghanistan, Government officials and legal thinkers have tried to come up with ways of dealing with enemy combatants who don't fall into the traditional categories of war. No one denies that the United States is legally entitled to capture and to hold enemy fighters to prevent them from returning to battle, but their release and repatriation have proved to be extremely complicated. As the years have passed, these questions have become even more complicated--not less--than they were back in 2001.

Just this week, a number of European countries that had previously offered to help the administration find a new home for about 60 of the remaining 241 inmates at Guantanamo began to backpedal. Some of these countries now indicate they won't take any of these inmates unless the United States agrees to take some of them as well and agrees to put them in American prisons. This is clearly a dodge since the American people appear to be even less interested in housing these inmates than the Europeans are. Well, if there is no place for these terrorists to go in Europe and no place for them to go in the United States, an obvious question arises: Where else can they go? At the moment, there is no answer to that most important question.

When the question of sending detainees to U.S. soil was put to the Senate in the summer of 2007, the vote against it was 94 to 3. We had that vote right here in the Senate in the summer of 2007, and by a vote of 94 to 3 Members of the Senate said they did not want these Guantanamo prisoners on U.S. soil. This is not only a good reflection of where public opinion is on the issue, it is also notable that four of the votes cast were Senators from Kansas and Colorado, States that are most often mentioned as possibilities to house the inmates. One of these Senators, Ken Salazar, is now in the Obama administration, and former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who also opposes sending inmates to Kansas, is the administration's pick to head the Department of Health and Human Services. So the bottom line here is that it is hard to find anyone anywhere, even inside the Obama administration, who wants their State to become the next home to captured violent terrorists.

Now, there is a reason no one wants to have these guys nearby. Over the years, the pool of prisoners at Guantanamo has become only more dangerous, not less, and those who remain include dozens of proud and self-proclaimed--proud and self-proclaimed--members of al-Qaida. Many have been directly linked to some of the worst terrorist attacks in history, including some who had direct knowledge--direct knowledge--of September 11. Others have trained or funded terrorists, made bombs or presented themselves as potential suicide bombers.

We recently got a vivid glimpse into the minds of these men when a number of them responded in writing to the Government's charges against them. Here are some of the excerpts from the document which was signed by five men whose names appear on the chart right behind me:

With regard to these nine accusations that you are putting

us on trial for--

So said one of the terrorists--

to us, they are not accusations. To us, they are badges of

honor which we carry with pride . . . therefore, killing you

and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you,

responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be

great legitimate duty in our religion.

Later on, these men refer to the September 11 attacks as ``the blessed 11 September operation.''

Toward the end of the document, they make a statement and a prediction. Here is what they said:

We ask to be near to God, we fight you and destroy you and

terrorize you. . . . your end is very near and your fall will

be just as the fall of the towers on the blessed 9/11 day. .

. . so we ask from God to accept our contributions to the

great attack, the great attack on America, and to place our

nineteen martyred brethren among the highest peaks in

paradise. . . .

One of the most chilling statements in the document is the simple assertion by these men, quoted on the chart behind me:

We are terrorists to the bone.

``We are terrorists to the bone.''

This is how they see themselves. These are the men the administration wants to release from Guantanamo?

Not only are most of the remaining inmates at Guantanamo extremely dangerous, they are also increasingly likely to return to battle if they are transferred back to their home countries. According to Pentagon reports, detainees who have been released from Guantanamo appear to be reengaging in terrorism at higher rates, with the current rate of those either suspected or confirmed of reengaging in terrorism at about 12 percent. About 12 percent of those who have been released are back in the fight.

More than a third of the detainees who have already been released were from Saudi Arabia, which has its own detention and rehabilitation system. But our confidence in that system has been shaken by recent reports that Saudi detainees who returned home have gone back to fighting.

Last month, two Saudis who were released from Guantanamo and who passed through the Saudi rehabilitation program appeared in a video as members of al-Qaida in Yemen. One of them, Ali al-Shihri, is thought to have been involved in a deadly bombing on the U.S. Embassy in Yemen last September.

Al-Shirhi was released to Saudi Arabia from Guantanamo in 2007.

Even more worrisome than the Saudi detainees, however, is the prospect of releasing Yemeni detainees to Yemen since Yemen has shown little ability to control even the most dangerous terrorists we release. Of the 100 Yemenis who remain at Guantanamo, about 15 have been cleared for transfer to Yemen. Another 15 may face trial in the United States. Some of the remaining Yemenis could go to Saudi Arabia, but the Yemeni Government is protesting the move.

Other inmates who have been released have shown up on the battlefield in places like Pakistan and Iraq. One former inmate from Kuwait traveled to Syria after his release, snuck into Iraq, and plotted attacks against U.S. forces there. He eventually drove a truck packed with explosives into a joint American and Iraqi military training camp, blowing himself up, and killing 13 Iraqi soldiers.

Each one of these concerns is serious enough to warrant a reconsideration of the administration's decision to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Taken together it is hard to imagine the administration is not already having second thoughts. Of the alternatives that have been considered, some, like a transfer of detainees to Europe, may no longer be viable.

But even if these inmates were sent to Europe, one all-important question would remain: What then? Will they be released? With a recidivism rate now hovering around 12 percent, this is a risk that is simply too dangerous to take--especially when it only takes

one terrorist to inflict unimaginable horror.

According to the European Union's own rules, a detainee who is released within a 25-nation area within the EU is free to move about these countries without even a passport check. A member of al-Qaida who is sent to Europe and subsequently released could easily reenter a transnational terrorist network--and the recidivism rate suggests that this is not at all unlikely.

Guantanamo itself, on the other hand, has proven to be a completely secure facility: in more than 7 years of use, not a single prisoner has escaped Guantanamo to maim or kill a single innocent person. Let me repeat that: in the more than 7 years that we have used Guantanamo as a detention facility, not a single prisoner out of the roughly 800 who have been housed there has escaped to maim or kill a single innocent person.

No one has credibly argued that the inmates are poorly treated: three meals a day, a full library or books, magazines, and DVDs, and medical care that is said to be excellent. Indeed, one European official who visited in 2006 called Guantanamo ``a model'' prison and better than the ones in Belgium. This is not Abu Ghraib.

Attorney General Eric Holder is in charge of the review of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. He captured the dilemma over Guantanamo after a recent trip there when he offered a glowing report on the facility, said the prisoners were being treated well--and then reiterated the administration's intent to close it within the year. On some level, the Attorney General must realize how illogical this seems. If he doesn't, then for the sake of the safety of the United States and its citizens, it is my hope that he realizes it before the end of the year.

President Obama was right and courageous to rethink an artificial deadline on withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. As we approach another artificial deadline, it is my hope that he rethinks this decision irrespective of what they may think in certain European capitals. Any shift in our policy on these detainees must meet a simple test: Will it keep us as safe as Guantanamo has from men like the ones whose names appear behind me? If the answer is no, then the policy we have is best. At the moment, the only safe option is to keep the inmates at Guantanamo in one place--and that's right where they are.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the court order to publish the Islamic Response to the Government's nine accusations and the Response itself.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED, WALID

Mr. President, Americans are beginning to get a sense of what the administration's budget means to them. I think it is fair to say that most of them are worried that it spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much.

At a moment when the economy is already seriously challenged, when more people every day are struggling just to make ends meet, and when the national debt is already staggeringly high, Americans were hoping for relief. Instead, they got a budget that threatens the biggest tax hike in history, record spending, and massive debt. This budget literally shocked a lot of people. Spending in this budget is so massive that some estimate more than 250,000 Government workers will be needed to spend it all.

This is consistent with the approach the administration and the Democratically controlled Congress have taken since the beginning of the year. In just 50 days since Inauguration Day, the Democratically controlled Congress voted to spend $1.2 trillion, which works out to $24 billion a day or $1 billion an hour--most of it borrowed--and we are doing this all, of course, in the midst of a recession.

People across the country are understandably nervous about this kind of spending which won't create the jobs that are promised and which will cause further tax hikes in the future to pay for all the borrowing.

Today, I wish to focus on the tax portion of the budget, the various tax hikes the administration, of course, will need in an attempt to cover the budget's $3.6 trillion price tag.

The administration says that 95 percent of Americans will not see a tax increase under this budget plan. Well, Americans might not see an immediate increase in their income taxes, but there is more than one way, as they say, to skin a cat, and there is more than one way for Government to take money out of your pocket. I will mention just three that the administration has proposed.

First, there is the proposed new energy tax which would tax everyone who uses energy, which, of course, is 100 percent of the population.

The administration estimates that its cap-and-trade proposal would raise about $650 billion from gas and electric companies and other businesses. The first thing to note about this tax is that no one, not even administration officials, thinks this figure is even close to the amount that will actually be raised, and no one, not even administration officials, believes that every cent of it won't be passed along to consumers. The President himself said during the campaign that his cap-and-trade plan would cause utility rates to ``skyrocket.'' This is President Obama himself who indicated during the campaign that he thought utility rates under his plan would skyrocket. More recently, OMB Director Orszag publicly reaffirmed the administration's view that cap and trade would increase energy taxes for everyone. This means that anybody who turns on a lightbulb will feel the pain. How bad will it be? Well, researchers at MIT were a little more specific than the President and Mr. Orszag. These researchers at MIT predicted that the proposal would cost the average American household $3,128 a year. Now, this is the average American household under this budget and the energy taxes it will levy: $3,128 per household.

Most of the utilities and manufacturers that take a direct hit from the energy tax are big businesses, but what about the small businesses which account for nearly three-fourths of all new private sector jobs? Well, there is a tax for them too. Thanks to an income tax hike on anyone earning more than $200,000 a year, many will see their taxes go up significantly. Think of a general contractor, a family restaurant, a startup technology firm. These are the engines of our economy. They are struggling now. They will struggle even more once these tax hikes go into effect.

Businesses with 20 or more employees get hit particularly hard. These businesses account for two-thirds of the small business workforce. The President's budget includes a tax increase on more than half of those businesses.

It is an iron rule of economics that taxes influence the decisions of those who are taxed. And businesses that have less income as a result of higher taxes are likely to do three things: cut jobs, put off buying new or better equipment, and take fewer risks. The real-world consequences of those decisions are immense: more jobs lost, less innovation, fewer new products, and lower salaries for employees, almost all of whom are probably making less than $200,000 a year.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are losing their jobs every month. Millions fear losing their homes. In response, the administration has promised in this budget a tax hike on the Nation's biggest job creators. These businesses are shedding workers already. Higher taxes will force them to shed even more.

I understand the administration's desire to make good on its promise of reforms. Most Americans understand that reforms are needed in health care, education, energy, and other areas. But they want the administration to fix the crisis in the financial sector first. Until we devote our full attention to that crisis, all other recovery efforts will be in danger of coming undone. With the highest unemployment rate in 25 years, Americans simply don't see the sense in raising taxes on small business.

Americans from all walks of life--and both political parties--are worried about something else in the budget. They don't understand why charitable organizations and the people they serve should suffer in order to pay for new or expanded Government programs. Yet in an attempt to pay for all of its spending proposals, the Obama budget reduces the deductions for charitable donations.

At a time of economic distress, when more people than ever depend on these organizations, the administration's budget reduces the incentive for people to donate to them. This will affect donations everywhere, from the Salvation Army to the Juvenile Diabetes Research Association, to educational nonprofits such as universities and art museums. According to one study, this proposal can lead to $9 billion less in charitable giving each year.

The proposal on charitable giving appears to follow the European model, where people rely on the state to support cultural institutions. In Europe, people rely on the State to support cultural institutions, but nonprofits across our country are mobilizing against the idea and for good reason: people who give money to these institutions should not be penalized for it, and charities and nonprofits themselves certainly should not be expected to subsidize the administration's policy dreams.

These are hard times. Why make them even harder? That is the question a lot of people who have seen this budget are beginning to ask. They are looking at the highest tax increase ever, higher taxes on small business, a proposal that would divert billions of dollars away from the Nation's charities, and a light-switch tax that will touch every single American, and they see a lot more hardship. These tax hikes are precisely the wrong prescription at a time of already serious economic distress.

The budget plan has a number of fatal flaws. But in the midst of a financial crisis, American workers don't need another reason to fear they will lose their jobs, small business owners shouldn't be further discouraged from investing, and the Nation's charities should not have to fear that even less money will come in. This budget doesn't just spend and borrow too much, it taxes too much.

Mr. President, regarding the AIG bonuses, it is hard to overstate the outrage that I and others experienced over the weekend to learn that AIG, which already has received nearly $175 billion from the American taxpayer, is planning to hand out $165 million in bonuses to its employees. This is absolutely appalling, and it is particularly disturbing given the fact that I sent a letter to Secretary Paulson more than 5 months ago insisting that if taxpayers were going to help private businesses, then the Treasury would need to use its ``full enforcement powers to prevent any misuse of taxpayer funds.''

The administration needs to get the message from the taxpayers on this issue. Going forward, the American people need to have complete certainty that taxpayer money is not wasted in this particular manner again. It is my hope the administration will continue to press AIG on these bonuses and that it will pursue any and all lawful means of recovering these payments to the very people who were responsible for creating this mess in the first place.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, yesterday I noted that in the middle of the current economic crisis, the administration's budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. Yesterday I focused primarily on the fact that it spends too much. This morning I wish to expand a little bit more on that issue.

As I noted yesterday, the current Congress is on a remarkable spending binge. In the first 50 days of the new administration, Congress has approved more than $1.2 trillion in spending which translates into $24 billion a day, or $1 billion every hour since Inauguration Day. The budget, which we just learned about a while back, continues that trend.

Earlier this week, Congress approved a Government spending bill that increased spending by 8 percent over last year, about double the rate of inflation. The budget proposes another spending increase over last year's budget of an additional 8 percent. A lot of people are wondering why, in the midst of a recession, when millions of Americans are losing jobs and homes, the administration is proposing to spend tax dollars as if we are in the middle of the dot.com boom.

According to the administration's budget plan, the State Department sees a 41-percent increase in spending next year--a 41-percent increase in spending at the State Department. HUD sees an 18-percent increase.

The budget also proposes a ``slush fund'' for climate policy that will be larger than the entire annual budgets at the Department of Labor, Treasury, and Interior. Let me say that again: A slush fund for climate policy that will be bigger than the budgets of the Department of Labor, Treasury, and Interior.

Americans want reform in education, health care, energy, and other areas, but they want the administration to fix the economy first. That is the first priority. At this point we seem to be getting proposals on everything but the financial crisis. That is what is crippling our economy.

This budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. If we want to earn the confidence of the American people for our programs and plans, the first thing we need to do is to get this excessive spending under control.

Madam President, one of America's bravest soldiers has fallen, so I rise to speak about SGT William Patrick Rudd of Madisonville, KY. On October 5, 2008, Sergeant Rudd tragically died of the wounds sustained during a ground assault raid on senior leaders of al-Qaida in Mosul, Iraq. He was 27 years old.

Sergeant Rudd was an Army Ranger on his eighth deployment in support of the war on terror. He had previously served five tours in Iraq and two in Afghanistan.

For his many acts of bravery over years of service, he received several medals, awards, and decorations, including the Kentucky Medal for Freedom, three Army Achievement Medals, the Army Commendation Medal, the Joint Service Commendation Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Purple Heart, and the Bronze Star Medal.

Army Rangers are among the most elite members of our fighting forces. They undergo grueling training to wear the honored Ranger Tab on their sleeves. For Sergeant Rudd it was the life he always wanted.

``I really enjoy what I'm doing and I think I'm really good at it,'' Sergeant Rudd told his friend and fellow Ranger, SSG Brett Krueger. This was just a few days before his death. ``I told him he was,'' Staff Sergeant Krueger remembers.

Sergeant Rudd said, ``And I don't picture myself doing anything else as successful and as comfortable as what I do now.''

Sergeant Rudd's parents also remember their son--who went by his middle name, Patrick--as a young man firmly dedicated to his fellow Rangers and the cause they fight for.

``He died for the country,'' says William Rudd, Patrick's dad. ``He loved the Army Rangers. He loved his men. . . . He didn't join for himself. You might say he joined for everyone else over here.''

Patrick's mother, Pamela Coakley, also remembers her son's sure sense that he was on the right path. ``One thing he told me, if this ever happened . . . was just to know that he died happy and proud,'' she says. ``And that's what stuck with me, because those big brown eyes looked into me. I know he was serious.''

Pamela also remembers Patrick's fascination since he was young with the men and women who fight on the side of the good guys. ``CIA, FBI, ever since he was a little boy growing up. . . . U.S. Marshals . . . his cousin was a State trooper, and he always wanted to be in that field,'' she says.

Young Patrick also loved the outdoors, camping, and riding horses. In fact, the family owned horses and Pamela remembers a time when one of hers was injured. She feared the horse would not survive. But 12-year- old Patrick gave the horse shots, cleaned its wounds, and it lived. ``He was always my little man,'' Pamela says. ``He was always my son, but really the man of the house, too.''

Patrick also looked after his sister, Elizabeth Lam, and that included sending a message to her would-be boyfriends. ``On my first date, he sat on the front porch with a shotgun,'' Elizabeth said, ``on my very first date.''

Patrick graduated from Madisonville-North Hopkins High School in 1999 and then worked at White Hydraulics in Hopkinsville, after which he

joined the Army in October of 2003. ``He had spent two years thinking about it, knowing that he needed a different direction in his life and wanting to defend our country,'' Patrick's dad, William, recalls. ``I'm pretty sure he had his mind made up he wanted to be a Ranger when he went through Basic,'' adds Patrick's stepbrother, Josh Renfro.

Assigned to B Company, 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, based out of Fort Benning, GA, Patrick became a vital part of his Ranger team. Because he was a NASCAR fan and his favorite driver was Ricky Rudd, his fellow Rangers gave him the nickname ``Ricky.''

``He was a good-hearted person who loved life,'' said SSG Brett Krueger. ``You could never catch him on a bad day. . . . everyone loved him dearly. . . . A lot of younger guys looked up to him.''

SGT Dusty Harrell explains why. ``He spent countless hours passing down knowledge to younger soldiers, to help them be successful.''

Jack Roush, owner of some of NASCAR's most successful teams, heard of the loss of Sergeant Rudd. To honor the Ranger and NASCAR fan, he had a decal of Patrick's name placed on David Ragan's No. 6 car during a race in Atlanta.

At the same time, the Atlanta Motor Speedway donated 200 tickets to members of Patrick's unit to attend the race. Patrick and the other Rangers became close friends who spent time together in and out of uniform. Sergeant Harrell remembers a time when he and Patrick went fishing together in Georgia, and he learned that Patrick, a brave Army Ranger, was afraid of snakes. Sergeant Harrell got a bite on his line and reeled it in to find a water moccasin on the hook. By the time he turned around to share a reaction with his friend, ``Ricky was already up the hill.''

Staff Sergeant Krueger, Sergeant Harrell, and more of Patrick's fellow soldiers came to Madisonville to share their memories of Patrick with his family. After speaking with them, Pamela said, ``It made me feel like I still had sons.''

After the loss of a brave young soldier such as Patrick Rudd, we must keep his loved ones foremost in our minds. We are thinking today of his mother Pamela Coakley; his father William Rudd; his stepmother Barbara Rudd; his sister Elizabeth Lam; his stepbrother Josh Renfro; his grandparents Judy and Bennie Hancock; and many other beloved family members and friends.

Pamela says she has faith she will see her son again someday. For now, she has 27 years' worth of cherished memories, and in many of them Patrick is still her little man, defender of his sister's honor, and doctor to horses.

``I don't envision the war stuff,'' Pamela says. ``I see Patrick sitting on the kitchen counter. I see him sitting down by the creek or laying on the bed with his dog Harley. That's what I see.''

I know the entire Senate rises with me to say we honor SGT William Patrick Rudd for his service, and we will forever remain reverent of his enormous sacrifice on behalf of our Nation.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am going to proceed on my leader time.

Mr. President, we have seen the numbers. Unemployment is at a 25-year high. Millions are worried about holding on to their jobs and their homes. With every passing day, Americans are waiting for the administration to offer its plan to fix the banking crisis that continues to paralyze our economy. Every day, it seems, the administration officials are unveiling one new plan after another on everything from education to health care. Meanwhile, the details of a banking plan to address our main problem have yet to emerge.

We need reforms in health care and education and in many other areas. But Americans want the administration to fix the economy first. Unfortunately, the budget avoids the issue entirely. It simply assumes this enormously complex problem will be fixed, and then it proposes massive taxes, spending, and borrowing to finance a massive expansion of Government. It assumes the best of times, and, as millions of Americans will attest, these are not the best of times.

Over the next few weeks, the Senate will debate the details of this budget. One thing is already certain: It spends too much, it taxes too much, and it borrows too much. This budget would be a stretch in boom times. In a time of hardship and uncertainty, it is exactly the wrong approach. The budget's $3.6 trillion price tag comes on top of a housing plan that went into effect last week that could cost a quarter of a trillion dollars, a financial bailout that could cost another $1 trillion to $2 trillion, and a stimulus bill that will cost, with interest, more than a trillion dollars. Some are now talking about yet another stimulus. The national debt is more than $10 trillion, and yesterday we passed a $410 billion Government spending bill that represented an increase in Government spending over last year of twice the rate of inflation. In just 50 days, Congress has voted to spend about $1.2 trillion between the stimulus and the omnibus. To put that into perspective, that is about $24 billion a day or about $1 billion an hour--most of it, of course, borrowed. There is simply no question that Government spending has spun out of control.

Given all this spending and debt, the cost of the budget might not seem like much to some people. But this is precisely the problem. To most people, it seems that lawmakers in Washington have lost the perspective of the taxpayer. It is long past time we started to think about the long-term sustainability of our economy, about creating jobs and opportunity for future generations. That will require hard choices. The omnibus bill avoided every one, and, unfortunately, so does the budget.

Stuart Taylor of the National Journal recently praised the President in two consecutive columns. Yet he was shocked by the President's budget. Here is what Taylor said about the budget:

``. . . Not to deny that the liberal wish list in Obama's

staggering $3.6 trillion budget would be wonderful if we had

limitless resources,'' Mr. Taylor wrote. ``But in the real

world, it could put vast areas of the economy under permanent

government mismanagement, kill millions of jobs, drive

investors and employers overseas, and bankrupt the nation.''

There is no question, in the midst of an economic crisis, this budget simply spends far too much. In order to pay for all this spending, the budget anticipates a number of rosy scenarios. It doesn't explain how the economic recovery will come about, it simply assumes that it will. It projects sustained growth beginning this year and continuing to grow 3.2 percent in 2010.

Let me say that again. It projects sustained growth beginning this year and continuing to grow 3.2 percent in 2010, 4 percent in 2011, and 4.6 percent in 2012. While we all hope to soon return to this growth, we cannot promise the growth we hope to have, especially when this growth is far from likely, particularly given a host of new policy proposals in the budget itself that are certain to tamp down growth even more. There is simply no question that this budget spends too much.

But even if this growth does occur, it would not be enough to support the

spending proposals. That is why the budget calls for a massive tax hike. In fact, this budget calls for the largest tax increase in history, including a new energy tax that will be charged to every single American who turns on a light switch, drives a car, or buys groceries. Unless you are living in a cave, this new energy tax will hit you like a hammer.

During the campaign, the President said his plan for an energy tax will ``cause utility rates to skyrocket.'' He was right. The new energy tax will cost every American household. I can't imagine how increasing the average American's annual tax bill will lift us out of the worst recession in decades.

There is more. A new tax related to charitable giving would punish the very organizations Americans depend on more and more during times of distress. One study suggests that the President's new tax on charitable giving could cost U.S. charities and educational institutions up to $9 billion a year--money that will presumably be redirected to the 250,000 new Government workers the budget is expected to create. There is no question that this budget taxes too much.

Remarkably, the largest tax increase in history and a new energy tax still aren't enough to pay for all the programs this budget creates. To pay for everything else, we will have to borrow--borrow a lot. This budget calls for the highest level of borrowing ever.

Now, if there is one thing Americans have learned the hard way over the past several months, it is that spending more than you can afford has serious, sometimes tragic, consequences. Yet Government doesn't seem ready to face that reality--not when it is spending other people's money and not when it is borrowing from others to fund its policy dreams.

It is not fair to load future generations with trillions and trillions of dollars in debt at a moment when the economy is contracting, millions are losing jobs, and millions more are worried about losing homes. It is time the Government realized that it is a steward of the people's money, not the other way around, and that it has a responsibility not only to use tax dollars wisely but to make sure the institutions of Government are sustainable for generations to come.

I don't know anybody who would borrow money from people thousands of miles away for things they don't even need. Yet this is precisely what our Government is doing every single day by asking countries such as Saudi Arabia, Japan, and China to finance a colossal budget in the midst of an economic crisis.

The administration has said it intends to be bold, and I have no doubt this budget reflects their honest attempt to implement what they believe to be the best prescription for success. We appreciate that effort. We simply see it differently. A $3.6 trillion budget that spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much in a time of economic hardship may be bold, but the question is, Is it wise? Most of the people who have taken the time to study this budget have concluded it is not wise. Republicans will spend the next few weeks explaining why to the American people.

Americans want serious reforms. But in the midst of a deepening recession, they are looking at all this spending, taxing, and borrowing, and they are wondering whether, for the first time in our Nation's history, we are actually giving up on the notion that if we work hard, our children will live better lives and have greater opportunities than ourselves.

Americans are looking at this spending, taxing, and borrowing, and they are wondering whether we are reversing the order--whether we are beginning to say with our actions that we want everything now--and putting off the hard choices, once again, for future generations to make. That would be a most important question in this upcoming budget debate.

It is important, once again, to sum up the core problem with the budget we will be voting on in a few weeks: It spends too much, taxes too much, and it borrows too much.

Mr. President, I wish to address the so-called card check legislation which was introduced in both the House and Senate yesterday.

As Americans, we expect to be able to vote on everything from high school class president to President of the United States in private. Workers expect the same right in union elections. This legislation goes against that fundamental right of political expression without fear of coercion.

We have had the secret ballot in this country for 100 years--130 years, at least--and it was common even before then. We have said to other countries around the world: If you want to have a democracy, you have to have a secret ballot. And yet this measure, to put it simply, would be better called the ``Employee No Choice Act.'' It is totally undemocratic. To approve it would be to subvert the right to bargain freely over working terms and conditions. It would strip members of a newly organized union of their right to accept or reject a contract.

In addition, this bill ushers in a new scheme of penalties which are antiworker and which apply only to employers and not to unions. Even though Americans have regarded secret ballot elections as a fundamental right--as I indicated earlier, for more than a century--some Democrats seem determined to strip that right away from American workers.

If this were not bad enough, a study released last week by economist Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar showed that if enacted, card check legislation could cost 600,000 American jobs--600,000 American jobs potentially lost. At a time when all of us are looking to stimulate the economy and put Americans back to work, we are threatening to undermine those efforts with this job-killing bill.

Republicans will oppose any legislation which attempts to undermine job creation, and we will oppose the effort to take away a worker's right to a secret ballot.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, the bill the Senate will vote on later today represents a missed opportunity. In the midst of a serious economic downturn, the Senate had a chance to show it could impose the same kind of restraint on itself that millions of Americans are being forced to impose on themselves at the moment. The bill costs far too much for a government that should be watching every dime. If the President is looking for a first bill to veto, this is it.

The original version of the bill showed no recognition whatsoever of the current economic climate. With the stock market plunging, unemployment at a 25-year high, and millions struggling to pay their mortgages, the bill sent over from the House included an across-the- board 8-percent increase in spending over last year. That is twice the rate of inflation.

Republicans in the Senate tried to cut the bill's cost. Our ideas would have saved billions of taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, every single effort was turned aside.

The senior Senator from Arizona proposed an amendment that would have held spending in the omnibus at last year's level. The senior Senator from Texas offered an amendment that would have cut spending on the 122 programs that were already funded in the stimulus bill--the so-called double dipping that many of us warned would take place if Congress moved the stimulus before the omnibus. Remarkably, even that was too much for some. The junior Senator from Oklahoma proposed an amendment that would have cut projects that benefited a lobbying firm under Federal investigation. That too was rejected.

These Republican ideas were sensible, commonsense ways to cut spending. Unfortunately, the majority did not like any of them. This would have been irresponsible in good economic times.

At this moment, this total unwillingness to cut a single dollar from this bill is simply indefensible.

Just as troubling as the lack of restraint is a provision to literally shut down the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program which helped 1,700 students in the District of Columbia attend private schools last year at a fraction of what the city spends per pupil on public education. This program is clearly--clearly--popular among parents, since the city receives four applications for every available slot. Yet our friends on the other side will reject an amendment to preserve it.

On this issue, it is incredibly difficult to see how the majority can match their rhetoric with their actions. It should be unthinkable to terminate a program aimed at giving inner-city students the same educational opportunities that middle-class or affluent students enjoy.

Republicans tried to improve the omnibus with commonsense proposals that Americans support. The junior Senator from Arizona proposed an amendment that would have required the Secretary of State to certify that none of the funds made available for reconstruction efforts in Gaza are diverted either to Hamas or to entities controlled by Hamas. The junior Senator from South Dakota offered an amendment that prohibits the use of funds for any effort aimed at reviving the fairness doctrine, which limited free speech until its repeal more than two decades ago. Unfortunately, the majority said no.

In the midst of an economic crisis, a government has an obligation to show restraint. But as our friends turned aside every effort to trim back spending on the omnibus bill, it became clear that many in Congress still think Government operates in a different realm of reality than the rest of the country. Apparently, they do not think the Federal Government is obligated to make any of the tough decisions that millions of American families are making every single day.

Spending and borrowing at this dizzying rate is simply unacceptable. We need to be thinking about the long-term sustainability of our economy and creating jobs and opportunity for future generations. We should have started on this bill by insisting that it include some of the hard choices on spending that Americans themselves are making every single day.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, let me add to our friend and colleague from Vermont for this side of the aisle how much we admire and respect his extraordinary record. He and I had an opportunity to serve together as either ranking member or chairman--we switched hats several times--of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of Appropriations.

I will pick out one area for which I think Pat Leahy is known around the world, and that is his efforts with regard to demining all over the world.

He has made an extraordinary contribution, not only to his State but his Nation. I know I speak for all Republicans in congratulating my friend from Vermont for his--how many votes is this?--13,000th vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the accomplishments of the North Laurel Middle and High School cheerleading squads from the city of London in my home State of Kentucky. Recently, both teams won national championships in the Universal Cheerleaders Association, at competitions held in Orlando, FL.

Both teams overcame setbacks and injuries but still triumphed. Through hard work and dedication, they were able to clinch the national titles for Kentucky. Recently, the Sentinel-Echo newspaper in London, KY, published an article detailing the victories of both teams.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the cheerleaders and coaches from North Laurel Middle and High Schools for their performances in the national competition. I further ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record, as well as the names of the participants and coaches.

Mr. President, let me say that the majority leader and I have spoken on a number of occasions about the importance of the amendment process to all 41 Republican Senators. In fact, all 41 Republican Senators sent the majority leader a letter some time back indicating how important we believed it was. We are proceeding correctly on this bill. I say to my friend the majority leader, we basically have compiled our list of additional amendments. My Members believed strongly that we should have an opportunity to offer those and get votes. We will be able to do that. We will be able to move forward sometime next week. The manner in which he has outlined that we will proceed Monday and Tuesday makes sense, and we will be as cooperative as possible in moving forward with our amendments and getting votes on them.

Mr. President, I see the Senator from Florida here. A constituent of his was here this morning to give the opening prayer.

I have a couple of consent agreements, I say to my friend the majority leader, that I believe are objected to on his side.

I will withhold on propounding these requests because

Mr. President, we join the Senator from Florida in welcoming his pastor this morning. I am pleased to see that he will be forgiven for his sin of advocating the success of the Cowboys and the Gators.