Floor Statements

Madam President, here we go again. We all know the Senate has limited time left this year to debate important legislation. It is becoming more and more clear the Democratic leadership is staunchly opposed to doing anything that would alleviate the seemingly endless upward pressure on energy prices. Given their unyielding desire to increase taxes on much of the energy industry, I can only assume the Democrats in Congress believe that steadily increasing energy prices simply provide political fodder upon which they can capitalize. Democrats in both Chambers appear beholden to the environmental agenda, a radical agenda that wholly disregards America's economy.

Oblivious to prices at the pump and indifferent to from whom we import our oil, far-left environmentalists and their cohorts in Congress are failing in their duty to the American public. The Congress has stymied efforts to produce trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, trillions of barrels of oil, and prevented the construction of new refineries, nuclear powerplants, and hydroelectric facilities through public policies that limit energy supply. We cannot afford to take any option off the table.

The security concerns of America and our businesses and consumers still demand energy. In oil alone, we consume over 20 million barrels a day. Since we only produce just over 8 million barrels per day, the gap must be made up by purchasing oil from hostile or undemocratic nations, such as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria to meet our energy needs. We spend over half a trillion dollars each year importing foreign oil, and it is far past time to rectify this unhealthy dependency.

The global price for petroleum reaches new highs every day and petroleum-related imports have caused our trade deficit to increase by billions of dollars.

According to a study by the Congressional Research Service, in 2005 and 2006 alone, our trade deficit rose by $120 billion. As oil prices continue to rise and domestic energy production is further obstructed, America's trade balance will only fall deeper into the red.

As a Senator from energy rich Colorado, I am on the front lines of the battle to increase our domestic energy production. The Democrats continue to delay efforts to tap into a natural gas reserve below the Naval Oil Shale Reserve, often referred to as the Roan Plateau, that contains approximately 8.9 trillion cubic feet. We need this clean source of energy now.

Moreover, below the vast lands of Colorado and Wyoming lies roughly 1.5 trillion barrels of potentially recoverable oil. This amount dwarfs the reserves of Saudi Arabia and other petro-rich nations, and new technologies continually emerging would allow us to responsibly extract this oil to help meet our demands. The benefits to Colorado and the American economy would be tremendous.

Additionally, national environmentalist groups have succeeded in pressuring Members of Congress to mandate a lock-down of what could be an immense treasure chest of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

In subverting the widespread local support of Alaskans and in prohibiting the potential extraction of 5 to 15 billion barrels of oil, environmentalists stubbornly resist even moving forward with comprehensive testing that could result in the environmentally responsible development of parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The U.S. Geological Survey announced this month that 3 to 4 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil exists under North Dakota and Montana's Bakken Formation. This is 25 times more than was estimated to exist in 1995. These numbers are staggering, and there are other examples where our aversion to responsible development defies common sense.

Of course, we must continue our dedicated efforts to explore alternative sources of energy to meet our demands, but it is possible to develop sections of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, extract natural gas from the Rocky Mountain west and harvest resources offshore in economically feasible ways and also protect our natural wonders.

We should not take increased production of any domestic oil off the table. The longer we completely deny access to domestic supplies, the more we exacerbate our current energy shortages.

We cannot solve the problem of soaring gas prices facing America today with one solution, but we certainly

should not allow the relentless push of environmentalists' narrow agenda to make this crisis even worse. What will the average gallon of gas in America have to cost for the Democratic leadership in Congress to step to the plate with a comprehensive solution for our consumers?

We should seek to develop our renewable resources along with oil, gas, clean coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric energy in a manner that prevents foreign interests from taking over energy for their own purposes.

It is time for congressional leaders to be a part of the solution and not the problem. It is time to put every idea on the table. It is time for common sense.

In the State of Colorado, we have a plethora of energy sources. We obviously rely on renewable energy because we have lots of sun and wind, we have hydroelectric, we have uranium to produce nuclear power. None of these or our rich resources in petroleum and coal that exist throughout the country should be taken off the table.

For us to subject ourselves to a harsh extreme environmental agenda does not make sense. This country should continue to work to develop all of those resources. Obviously, the future of this country is on the renewable side, but we have to deal with today's problems, today's price at the gas pump, and therefore we need to produce domestic resources in addition to supporting the renewable technologies we are currently developing.

If we do that, we will most successfully address the high cost at the gas pump today. Congress should be working with industry to make sure we have more plentiful supplies of gas and petroleum products in addition to developing other sources of renewable energy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on April 29, 1958, the District Court in Pueblo, CO, established the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. That action resulted in a firm water supply for the Arkansas River Basin, providing much-needed supplemental water to communities which are home to the wonderful people of this region.

The Arkansas River Basin includes communities whose livelihoods have always depended on water: farming, ranching, steel manufacturing, small businesses. The economic tide in this region has ebbed and flowed during that 50-year period, but its riches lie not in dollars but in its people.

The Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District has served the region and people honorably and with diligence. The district works hard to help the Arkansas Valley realize the importance and value of a well- managed water supply.

Currently, the district is spearheading a plan to at last construct the Arkansas Valley Conduit, originally authorized as part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project. The conduit was deemed necessary five decades ago, and the need for clean and safe water supplies for the people of the valley has only increased as water quality is threatened and federally acceptable standards have increased. But the Lower Arkansas Valley, which this project will serve, needs assistance in providing that safe water supply and in meeting those standards.

This Arkansas Valley Conduit is a top priority to me as I near the end of my tenure in the Senate. As one of the final components of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project and as a major goal of the now 50-year-old Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, I congratulate the district on their hard work to make this project feature a reality, and thank them for all they have accomplished in their half century of commitment to the Arkansas Valley.

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

I ask unanimous consent that I speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue that is very important to the hard-working men and women of our great country; that is, tax reform. I believe the Federal tax burden is excessive and overly intrusive. Reform of the IRS and the current tax system is long overdue.

If our Democratic colleagues have their way, the Tax Code will continue to be excessive and overly intrusive. In recent years it has become abundantly clear to me that we have lost sight of the fact that the fundamental purpose of our tax system is to raise revenues to fund our Government.

In its current application, the U.S. tax system distorts the economic decisions of families, of businesses, leading to an inefficient allocation of resources and hindering economic growth.

Our tax system has become unstable and unpredictable. Frequent changes to the Tax Code have caused volatility that is harmful to the economy and creates additional compliance costs. The tax system was originally intended to be an efficient and simple system designed to raise revenues for our national defense, social programs, and vital Government services. However, the current tax system is now so complex that approximately $150 billion is spent each year by taxpayers and the Federal Government to make sure that taxes are tallied and paid correctly. This is an enormous expense and a waste of resources. At present, the United States has instituted a tax system that thwarts basic economic decisions, punishes wise and productive investments, and rewards those who work less and borrow more.

As it stands, the quagmire that is our existing Tax Code penalizes savings, contributes to the ever-increasing cost of health insurance, and undermines our global competitiveness. More disturbing is the fact that Americans spend more than 3.5 billion hours doing their taxes, which is the equivalent of hiring almost 2 million new IRS employees; more than 20 times the agency's current workforce, I might add.

On average, Americans spend the equivalent of more than half of one work week; that is, 26 hours, on their taxes each year, not to mention the amount of time they work to pay the taxes themselves. At the end of the day, despite our lengthy codified tax law, there is no evidence to suggest that Americans know how much they should be paying in taxes in any given year or why.

Our Tax Code should aspire to be clear and transparent, rather than multifarious and convoluted. Everyone should be able to have a basic understanding of the Tax Code, knowing how and why they are taxed. The Tax Code's constant phase-ins and phase-outs are a nuisance at best and a negative force, at worst, in the daily economic lives of American families and businesses.

Moreover, taxpayers with the same incomes, family situation, and other key characteristics often face different tax burdens. This differing treatment creates a perception of unfairness in the Tax Code and has left many Americans discouraged.

At present, how much or little taxpayers pay in taxes is sometimes dependent on where they happen to live and the choices made by their employers.

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan, a true visionary in this area, signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which reduced top marginal individual rates from 50 percent to 28 percent, increased the standard deduction, and reduced the top corporate tax from 50 percent to 34 percent. In doing so, this reform act simplified the Tax Code, broadening the income tax base, allowing for lower marginal rates, and curtailing the use of individual tax shelters.

While the 1986 act was a step in the right direction, unfortunately, it did not produce a long-lasting transformation of our tax system. Today, our tax system bears little resemblance to the simple low-rate system promised by the 1986 reform. This is due to constant tweaking over the years. More than 100 different acts of Congress have made nearly 15,000 changes to the Tax Code.

Public opinion polls indicate that Americans believe taxpayers should not have to pay more than one-fourth of their income to the Government. The current Tax Code hardly reflects this perspective. Depending on the level of income, the amount of deductions, and the type of family, one's income can be taxed at 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent, or 35 percent.

I support broad-based tax reform and a simplified tax system. It is my belief that any reform to the current tax system should benefit the middle class. The vast majority of taxpayers are the middle class, and they have borne the burden of the current system.

While I was a member of the Colorado Legislature, we implemented a 5- percent flat tax for Colorado. I believe we should take a similar approach on the Federal level. While I would be willing to consider a flat tax or a sales tax or other plans on the Federal level, it is important that any replacement

plan be simple and fair. The replacement system must provide tax relief for working Americans. It must protect the rights of taxpayers and reduce our collection abuse. But most importantly, a new system must eliminate the bias against savings and investment and against economic growth and job creation.

No one can deny that our Tax Code is in dire need of reform. Its complexity, lack of clarity, unfairness, and disproportionate influence on behavior has caused great frustration. Our current Tax Code has been shaped by goals other than simplicity, by intentions other than helping the taxpayer plan ahead, and by objectives other than expanding our economy. Not only has it failed to keep pace with our economy, frequent changes have made it unstable and unpredictable. Years of hodgepodge Government interference and ad hoc meddling have left our Tax Code in shambles. While we cannot change the past, we can learn valuable lessons from the same and remedy our mistakes.

If we do not take steps to immediately simplify and reform the Tax Code, it will become more complex, more unfair, and less conducive to our economy's future growth.

Small reforms are not enough. A total overhaul of the existing system is the only chance we have of righting this wrong and getting our economy and our deficit back on track.

Raising taxes is not an option. Our Democratic colleagues seem to believe that raising taxes or doing nothing about taxes is the best policy. Just last month, Democrats proposed raising taxes on the average American family by $2,300 per year. Earlier this year, Democrats passed a proposal calling for the largest tax hike in history. If Democrats continue down this path of tax increases and a do-nothing tax policy, more and more American families will suffer.

It is important to point out that to do nothing on the Tax Code means a tax increase is going to happen within the next several years. A do- nothing policy on taxes will allow for the expiration of several key tax provisions. It will further the reach of the AMT, the alternative minimum tax. We will see a tax increase of more than $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years.

At a time of economic uncertainty, raising taxes and taking money out of the pockets of the American people should not be the goal of the Congress. We must act now. We have a responsibility to our constituents and the Nation to resolve the predicament the current tax system has put us in. If we do not act sooner rather than later in reforming our tax system, it will continue to become more complex and cumbersome.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to amendment No. 4519 offered by my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma.

This amendment mandates a 1 percent across-the-board redirection of funds each year from all amounts appropriated to programs in this bill for the sole and specific purpose of removing assets--mostly old buildings and facilities--from Park Service operated lands that are determined to be surplus to need.

This 1 percent ``off the top'' charge has the effect of setting the disposal of National Park Service surplus assets above all other programs that are in this bill. In essence, it ties the hands of the appropriations committee to determine what amounts should be devoted to the disposal of Park Service surplus facilities each year.

Also, there is no connection between the wide variety of programs and projects that are in this public lands bill, and would be assessed this 1 percent charge, and the need to remove old buildings from parks. Put simply, this amendment does not make good sense.

As the ranking member of the Interior Appropriations subcommittee that provides the funding for the Park Service, I simply can't support such a proposal. It is up to the Appropriations Committee to review the agency's budget each year and set the appropriate funding levels for the various activities of the Service, including the disposal of surplus facilities.

Budget priorities change each year based on many factors, including the shifting needs of the agencies and the amount of money we have to work with under the budgetary caps set by Congress. That is why we have an annual appropriations process to weigh these variables.

To transfer 1 percent of funds appropriated under this act for one purpose forevermore takes away the Appropriation Committee's discretion, and indeed, its obligation to set priorities each year for the needs of our Nation's parks.

Last year, the Interior subcommittee provided the National Park Service nearly $1 billion to address maintenance and construction needs. I believe these funds are sufficient to allow the Park Service to address the most critical maintenance requirements including the removal of unneeded assets.

I urge my colleagues to support the chairman and ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources committee and oppose this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, homeownership has long been the American dream, and over the last decade record numbers of families have been able to achieve the dream of homeownership. Unfortunately, too many homeowners now find themselves in mortgages they can't afford. Many of them knowingly or unknowingly took out exotic mortgages that made wildly unrealistic assumptions about the housing market; namely, that housing values would continue to dramatically increase.

As we all now know, home price growth was unsustainable. Unfortunately, too many families are now facing the possibility of foreclosure. Just as ownership brings many benefits to families and neighborhoods, foreclosures have dramatic negative consequences for both individual homeowners and the economy as a whole.

We have seen a rapid increase in the number of foreclosures, and many experts predict that the number will continue to climb in the near future. Obviously, this creates great hardships for the families facing this possibility. Accordingly, Congress is currently considering various proposals to help prevent foreclosures.

As part of any proposal, though, I think we must be careful not to reward irresponsible behavior. Borrowers have a responsibility to understand the terms of their loan, and lenders have a responsibility to provide them with clear, accurate information in order to help them understand the terms. Borrowers have a responsibility to only borrow what they can repay, but lenders have a responsibility to only lend to those who can repay.

Should Congress choose to provide relief, it should not do so in a manner that is simply a ``bail out'' for either lenders or borrowers who acted irresponsibly. We should also not set a broad precedent that the Government will simply bail people out whenever they lose money or face tough times in the housing market. Financial investments involve both risk and reward, and contracts are legal documents; we need to reinforce accountability amongst all parties for these elements.

I also believe that any efforts to address foreclosures should be done in a thoughtful, comprehensive manner. Any effort to provide foreclosure relief must carefully address any risk to taxpayers.

As part of the housing package before the Senate, we are considering an amendment which would give bankruptcy judges the ability to modify mortgage contracts after the fact.

The bankruptcy modification provision would undermine the recovery of the housing market and the economy by creating a credit crunch: It would have a negative impact in the financial markets, making it difficult to value mortgages that underlay securities. The provision will discourage securitization, and securitization encourages homeownership. Securitization frees up capital to go back into making more mortgages. Approximately 84 percent of primary home mortgages are securitized; however, looking at second homes, where the mortgage can be modified in bankruptcy, we see that only 9 percent are securitized. Justice Stevens of the Supreme Court reiterated in the Nobleman case that ``the favorable treatment of residential mortgagees was intended to encourage the flow of capital into the home lending market.''

The cramdown amendment would significantly increase the cost of homeownership: This provision will inject risk into the lending process. Whether the other side likes it or not, the markets will price to this risk by increasing the cost of mortgages for primary residences in the form of higher interest rates, down payments, points and fees. It is a basic tenant of the free markets that more risk requires a risk premium. Even the Congressional Budget Office noted in a recent report that one of the costs of the bill ``would be higher mortgage interest rates.'' Estimates are that the provision will increase mortgage interest rates by 1.5 percent to 2 percent. Assuming an increase of 1.5 percent, for a Colorado family with an average sized loan--$184,362-- their monthly mortgage payment would increase by $184. For those families who can still afford a home, it will cost them anywhere from $23,000, in rural areas, to well over $500,000, in many metropolitan suburbs, in extra interest over the life of a 30-year mortgage. That money should be used for bills, their children's education, or other expenses.

The other side likes to claim that the talk of increased interest rates is little more than a scare tactic. They couldn't be more wrong. These effects are not merely a hypothetical. We have seen the effects in a real life case example:

secondary homes. A bankruptcy judge can currently change the balance on a mortgage for a second home. As a result of this, the cost of buying a second home is higher--interest rates, down-payment, shorter repayment period--than a primary home. Title IV will increase the cost of buying a primary home similar to the cost of buying a second home.

The bankruptcy provision would have a price far too high: Every quarter point increase in mortgage interest rates will prevent 1.1 million Americans from being able to afford a home. This provision could price homes out of reach for 9 million Americans. Those advocating for this ill-advised provision have estimated that it could help as many as 600,000 families, although more realistic estimates put this number closer to only 15,000. We can surely find a better way to help a small number of families than to deny homeownership to 9 million families and increase costs for millions more. Quite simply, the cost for this provision, in terms of what it will mean for families, is far too high. Congress shouldn't be forcing families into bankruptcy for mortgage relief.

The bankruptcy amendment is bad policy: The provision would reopen the bankruptcy code and would undo the 2005 requirement for prebankruptcy counseling. Senator Durbin's proposal would grant new powers to bankruptcy judges to change the terms of primary mortgages. Judges have little, if any, expertise in the complexity in mortgage terms. The bankruptcy code is not the right area to address the subprime issues and mortgage markets. The Senate Banking Committee, the House Financial Services Committee, Federal banking regulators, and industry are all working. These are the appropriate areas.

The bankruptcy provision will discourage other alternatives: It will undermine efforts to put the two parties to the mortgage contract together. Borrowers must file for bankruptcy in order for the proposed changes to work. The HOPE NOW Alliance has helped more than a million homeowners through workouts and repayment plans. In Colorado, the Foreclosure Hotline received thousands of calls and has been able to help 80 percent who called. The hotlines are not perfect, and they cannot help all borrowers, but they are helping many. The 1 million plus families helped didn't have to pay a bankruptcy attorney; they didn't have to deal with the long-term problems caused by filing for bankruptcy; the Federal Government didn't have to spend taxpayer dollars. That is a far better approach. Drying up the credit markets and making loan terms less favorable will make it far more difficult for homeowners to refinance their loans, thus creating new problems where none existed previously.

I know that many families are hurting from foreclosures, but this amendment isn't the right approach, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Major Perry Jefferson. On April 3, 1969, Major Jefferson was an aerial observer on board an O-1G Bird Dog observation aircraft conducting a reconnaissance mission in the Ninh Thuan Province of Vietnam when the aircraft crashed. After an extensive search, Major Jefferson's body was not recovered and he was subsequently listed Missing in Action. However, in 2001, after 32 years, a Vietnamese national turned over remains that were identified to be that of Major Jefferson. Today, Major Jefferson was finally laid to rest in our nation's most hallowed grounds in a moving ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery.

While growing up in Colorado, Major Jefferson developed a love for geology, wilderness and the mines of Colorado; so much so, that his code word was Geneva Creek, after a tributary of the North Fork South Platte River in central Colorado. A graduate of Southern Methodist University, Major Jefferson joined the Colorado Air National Guard as a technician and intelligence officer with the 120th Tactical Fighter Squadron when it was mobilized to Vietnam in 1968. Major Jefferson was a committed patriot. While in Vietnam, he served his Nation with great distinction. Major Jefferson embodies the spirit and character of Colorado, and I commend his service and sacrifice.

The return of his remains brings closure to his family and friends. I am grateful to have this opportunity and I hope that the 96,000 Americans missing and unaccounted for while serving their country will eventually receive a similar honor.

Mr. ALLARD submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation:

S. Res. 502

Whereas 2008 marks the 25th year of excellence and service

of the Space Foundation;

Whereas the mission of the Space Foundation is to advance

space-related endeavors to inspire, enable, and propel

humanity;

Whereas the Space Foundation has become the leading

nonprofit organization advancing the exploration,

development, and use of space and space education for the

benefit of all humankind;

Whereas the Space Foundation embraces all aspects of space

including commercial, civil, and national security;

Whereas the current national security environment requires

extensive use and advancement of space-based assets;

Whereas the Space Foundation has contributed to space

education programs in all 50 States and also in Europe and

Asia;

Whereas the Space Foundation is regarded internationally as

a leading space advocacy organization, and is a member of the

United States Delegation to the United Nations Committee on

the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space; and

Whereas the Space Foundation hosts the National Space

Symposium and Strategic Space and Defense, 2 of the top

conferences for space professionals: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate--

(a) recognizes the contributions made by the Space

Foundation; and

(b) commemorates the Space Foundation's 25 years of

excellence and support to the Nation.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I rise to commemorate the Space Foundation's 25th anniversary. Throughout this time, space has become an integral part of our national security and everyday life. The Space Foundation has been instrumental in our advancements in space, and I am proud to recognize their 25th anniversary.

The Space Foundation is a nonprofit organization which was founded in 1983 by a small group of innovative individuals in Colorado Springs, CO. It began as an organization ``to foster, develop and promote, among the citizens of the U.S. and among other people of the world, a greater understanding and awareness of the practical and theoretical utilization of space for the benefit of civilization and the fostering of a peaceful and prosperous world.'' They have certainly lived up to this creed and have more than excelled in their promotion and edification of space.

The Space Foundation is a leader in exploration and development. They work with all components of space including commercial, civil, and national security. The Foundation is regarded internationally as a leading space advocacy organization, and is a member of the U.S. Delegation to the United Nation's Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.

The Space Foundation has recognized the need for increased attention to space education. Their one-of-a-kind program allocates resources and helps prepare teachers to not only teach children about space, but to excite them about space. They have connected with teachers in all 50 States as well as countries in Europe and Asia. Beyond the classroom, the Space Foundation seeks to raise awareness and involvement in community programs. They hold two of the three top conferences for space professionals in the world: Strategic Space and Defense and the National Space Symposium. The National Space Symposium is the premier space policy and program forum in the world. It is a unique opportunity for interaction and discussion among the world's space community.

There is no question that space will continue to play an increasingly important strategic role in both technological advancement and national security. The Space Foundation will undoubtedly continue to play a major role in this arena. I commend the Space Foundation on their 25th anniversary, and wish them continued success in the future as they remain an invaluable advocate for space.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the 310th Space Wing, which was officially activated on Friday, March 7, 2008. This newly created wing is comprised of 16 subordinate units located at Colorado's Schriever AFB, Peterson AFB, and Buckley AFB, as well as Vandenberg AFB, CA. This wing is an expansion of the 310th Space Group, currently based at Schriever AFB in Colorado Springs, CO.

Over the last 15 years the outstanding members of the 310th Space Group have played a critical role in space operations, providing unrivaled support in operating and defending our space systems. This expansion is a testament to both their performance and mission, while also reinforcing my belief that space is a vital component to fighting and winning our nation's wars.

The 310th's history dates back to World War II when it began as the 310th Bombardment Group on March 15, 1942. The unit flew B-25 ``Mitchell'' bombers in support of operations in Tunisia, Sicily, Italy, Sardinia, France, Austria, and Yugoslavia. During those campaigns, the 310th perfected ``skip bombing'' techniques against bridges, airborne, and rail yard targets. Developed to allow aviators to come into the target area low and fast to avoid deadly anti-aircraft fire, the bombs actually ``skipped'' over the surface of the water in a manner similar to skipping a stone and either bounced into the side of, or exploded over the target, proving extremely effective.

The 310th was reactivated 1997, as the 310th Space Group, and rapidly grew to meet the Air Force Reserve's expanding role in space operations. As the cochairman of the Congressional Space Power Caucus and a Coloradoan, I am extremely proud of the 310th and all who serve in it and congratulate them on their success in becoming a wing.

Mr. President, I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, on the campaign trial, Senator Obama has called for about 188 proposals of new spending. What this amendment consists of is this. We take 111 of those new spending proposals and we put them in this amendment. If you look at it with the 2009 5-year budget, it will cost this country around $1.4 trillion. The argument has been made on the campaign trail this will be paid for by taxing the rich. That is not possible.

If you apply tax increases to those who make $250,000, or more per year, all you come up with is about $225 billion. That is not even close to what it takes to pay for all these new proposals. What you are going to do is have to cram your hands into the pockets of small businesses and the middle-class families and yank the money out of their pockets and send it to Washington to pay for a bloated bureaucracy.

The point of this amendment is you cannot pay for all the spending by taxing the rich.

Mr. President, my amendment will cut the Federal deficit and eliminated Government waste by reducing spending 5 percent on programs rated ``ineffective'' by the OMB and use the savings to pay down the Federal debt.

Five percent is the expected increase under this budget. We are not cutting any programs or zeroing anything out, just saying that an ``ineffective'' rating probably means they do not deserve an increase.

The PART program was initiated by Congress, a result of the Government Performance and Results Act, Public Law No. 103-62. It is time we followed through on our efforts to increase Government accountability and efficiency. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. President, do I have any time left?

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I stand in opposition and ask for a ``no'' vote and ask for an ``aye'' vote on the Allard amendment.

What the Allard amendment does is redefines the child. The way the law right now reads, a pregnant woman is under the definition of a child. All we do is move the child out from the definition of the pregnant woman and say that the child is in the period from conception to birth, and then the rest of the program. If this is a health program for children, then we define the child as part of that population of children. The pregnant woman, who is the adult, would be kept separate.

As far as I am concerned, it is just a truth-in-labeling provision so we have a distinction between the child and mother. We have surgical procedures now that are just for the unborn child and not necessarily a surgical procedure, technically, on the woman.

Mr. President, can I make one more point? My amendment is a pro-life vote.

Mr. President, I call up the Allard amendment.

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

I will yield.

On the Allard amendment, it will codify the current unborn child rule by amending the SCHIP reauthorization reserve fund.

Many States' definition of coverage for a pregnant woman leads to the strange legal fiction that the adult pregnant woman is a child. This amendment will clarify in statute that the term ``child'' includes the period from conception to birth and will not include a pregnant woman in the definition of a child.

I ask for an ``aye'' vote. This is a pro-life vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

What is the regular order?

What is the regular order?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment, and I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, and I will respect those wishes. I will move right to the debate on the amendment.

Mr. President, one of my goals for this debate is to fight what I see as an erosion of fiscal discipline in the budget. I have offered an amendment to fully--I planned on offering an amendment to fully budget for the war, a war we know we are going to pay for but we are underbudgeting for by about $100 billion. I had planned on offering an amendment to tighten the requirements on reserve funds so they cannot be gimmicked into adding billions of dollars in spending. I plan on offering an amendment to curb the use of time shifts to allow budgets to falsely make claims on spending levels when the true picture is unchanged. I had planned on offering an amendment to allow authority to fight Medicaid waste, fraud, and abuse to be extended.

I am offering another ``truth in budgeting'' amendment now. I think we

need to work harder to tie what is in this budget with what is actually going to be spent by the U.S. Government.

As a component of that work, I want to add an amendment--an amendment I intend to vote against, but an amendment I think needs to be a part of this process--that will budget for some of the rhetoric we are hearing on the campaign trail. Three of these amendments could be offered, but I am going to offer only one.

Senator Obama has offered 188 campaign proposals that would add up to at least $300 billion in new annual spending. That has a 5-year cost of more than $1.4 trillion. Of the 188 new spending proposals, the $300 billion pricetag only covers 111 proposals. There are another 77 proposals with unknown cost estimates that will add billions to this number. This new spending, if enacted, would represent an almost 10- percent increase over the President's budget for fiscal year 2009.

To put this in perspective, this $300 billion spending proposal would cost more than 42 States' budgets combined when we look at their general fund expenditures. It is more than the United States spent last year on imported oil, and it is more than 60 percent larger than any 1- year Federal spending increase ever.

Who will pay for the proposed $300 billion increase in spending? The middle-class American taxpayers and small businesses, which are the engine of growth for our economy, that is who. Raising taxes on just the rich simply won't cover it.

Under pay-go budget rules, new spending or tax cuts are paid for by spending cuts or tax hikes. The CBO budget baseline already incorporates the extra revenue due to higher tax rates, so the end of the Bush tax cuts won't pay for the proposed spending and still satisfy our pay-go requirements.

Senator Obama has promised to pay for his record new spending increases with a tax increase on families making $250,000 and over. However, this increase would only yield $225 billion over 5 years. Now, that is a far cry short of the $1.4 trillion required under his new spending plan. So we will need to raise taxes on the middle class and small businesses or deficit spend. Those are the choices we have.

According to CBO, President Clinton's 1993 tax increase raised taxes $240.6 billion over 5 years. The late Senator Patrick Moynihan called it the ``largest tax increase in the history of public finance in the United States or anywhere else in the world.'' This proposal will increase spending $300 billion in a single year.

To finance the first year of this proposed spending--the $300 billion--Congress would need to increase taxes on the top 1 percent of taxpayers by 57 percent. Under that scenario, taxpayers with incomes over $365,000 would see a tax hike of at least $40,300 on top of what they are currently paying. That is simply not realistic. So if Congress decides to widen the pool of taxpayers footing the bill, it would have to raise taxes on the top 5 percent by 38 percent. It would have to raise--the top 10 percent of taxpayers, it would have to raise their tax rates by 32 percent; or the top 25 percent by raising their tax rates 26 percent; or the top 50 percent of taxpayers by raising their tax rates 23 percent.

The top 50 percent of American taxpayers, who already pay 96.9 percent of all Federal income taxes, are those who earn $31,000 of adjusted gross income or more.

To translate this point into language everyone can understand, if you have an income of $104,000 or more, the plan would cause your tax bill to go up at least an additional $5,300 a year. If you have an income of $62,000 or more, the plan will cause your tax bill to go up at least-- at least--$2,300 a year. This is on top of the $2,300 increase already assumed by the failure to extend the current tax policy that was put in place by this President and a Republican Congress. But we are not just looking at new spending. He also wants to balance the budget and stop spending the Social Security surplus. If he follows through with these promises, it would mean the average taxpayer earning $62,000 would see their income tax bill rise 5,300 or 61 percent, or the average taxpayer earning $104,000 would see their income tax bill rise by 12,300, or 74 percent. The average taxpayer earning $365,000 would see their income tax bill rise by an astounding $93,500. That is a 132-percent increase.

Keep in mind that all these tax increases would be on top of the $2,300 tax increase 43 million families will feel, when the current tax policy expires; the $2,200 tax increase seniors will experience, when the current tax policy expires; and the $4,000 tax increase small business will have to pay, when the current tax policy expires.

If such a massive hike is deemed politically undoable, all of this staggering spending would simply be added to the Federal debt each year, to the tune of over $1.4 trillion over 5 years. That debt would be passed along to our children and grandchildren, with interest.

I will oppose this amendment. But I think we need to include these proposals in our budget debate. I refer to, and other Members have referred to, this as the ``Obama spend-orama.'' It is a huge spending proposal that he is talking about in the campaign, which we can expect him to present to Congress if he is elected President. The consequences are a huge increase. When you pay for that, he is going to have to implement a huge tax increase. That is on top of the expiring taxes that will be taking place in the next 2 or 3 years.

So we have a tax increase built into current law that will be compounded by this type of spending plan.

My point is that the taxpayers of this country simply cannot afford this kind of budgeting. Their taxes are too high. They are going to be too high in the next 2 or 3 years. We are going to have tax increases when our economy can least afford to deal with them.

So I ask my colleagues to join me in voting against this ``Obama spend-orama'' amendment. I think it is the wrong answer in today's world. We need to have the American people keep their money in their own pockets so they can spend it on their own family needs, so it can be used in their local communities to take care of the needs of those communities in which they live. Sending it to Washington and sending it back in some type of programmatic dollars simply will not do the trick to keep our economy growing, and that is certainly not what I want to see.

I came to Washington to make sure we kept power at the State and family level. So I am proposing this amendment so we can have this debate and move forward with this budget policy, which we may have to deal with after this particular Presidential election.

Mr. President, I see Senator Burr. I will yield the floor so he can raise his concerns.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Carolina for his comments. He is entirely right. This is an appropriate time to consider this because we are talking about the budget of 2009. Whoever is going to be the next President, we are talking about his or her budget. We are talking about the same year he or she will be in his or her first year in office.

There is a debate going on out on the campaign trail for President, and I think we need to seriously look at the proposals that are being put forward on the campaign trail. This particular amendment looks at, right now, the leading Democrat candidate for President, the proposal he is going to be making, with the 188 programs he is promoting out there. We have done an analysis on 111 of them. Spending just goes through the roof. Consequently, taxes will go through the roof. If you don't raise taxes to take care of the spending program, then your deficit spending is going to go through the roof.

I think this is a meaningful amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote no, and my view is that, if you make this argument that you are going to make the rich pay for all these programs, that just cannot happen. It will filter down, and the middle class and small businesses are the ones that will carry most of it.

I have mentioned this before on the Senate floor, and I will say it again. If you want economic growth in this country, it comes out of the small business sector. When you raise their taxes markedly, it is going to have an adverse effect on the economy. So this is the wrong solution at the wrong time. I ask my colleagues to vote no on this important amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss my amendment to codify the unborn child rule in the pending budget resolution, by modifying the SCHIP reserve fund.

This needs to be done, and it needs to be done during this budget year.

I am not here to argue SCHIP. There is a SCHIP reserve fund already in the budget. I am merely seeking to ensure that since it looks like we are going to pass this reserve fund, we make sure to address the unborn child as a patient.

We attempted to codify the unborn child rule during the SCHIP debate, but unfortunately we were not successful. I am hopeful that we will be successful on this attempt.

The unborn child rule is a regulation that, since 2002, has allowed States to provide prenatal care to unborn children and their mothers. It recognizes the basic fact that the child in the womb is a child.

When a pregnancy is involved there are at least two patients--mother and baby.

It only makes sense to cover the unborn child under a children's health program.

We have previously modified the SCHIP statute to allow States to cover ``pregnant women'' of any age.

My amendment would codify the principle of the rule, by amending the SCHIP reserve fund to codify the current unborn child rule to clarify that a covered child includes ``the period from conception to birth.''

Many States' definition of coverage for a pregnant woman leads to the strange legal fiction that the adult pregnant woman is a ``child.''

Surely it was not the intent of anyone who developed the State Children's Health Insurance Program to allow a loophole for States to define a woman as a child.

Surely we can agree that the child who receives health care in the womb is a child receiving care along with his or her mother.

There are many conditions that can affect a mother's health during pregnancy that are not related to her pregnancy.

Under current statute pregnant mother could not get coverage for any condition that isn't related to her pregnancy. Without a codification of the unborn child rule, we cannot guarantee that these services continue.

Many medical advances, such as surgeries, have allowed for the unborn child to be treated as a patient separate from the pregnant mother. They should therefore be able receive coverage as a patient.

We should be allowing mothers to stay healthy, so that they will have healthy babies.

This also leads to reduced costs associated with premature or low- birth weight babies.

Eleven states are already using this option to provide such care through the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

If the intent of the Senate is to provide coverage for the pregnant woman and her unborn child, then there should be no problem in supporting my amendment.

We should ensure that pregnant women and their unborn child are both treated as patients.

This is a matter of common sense.

Every obstetrician knows that in treating a pregnant woman he is treating two patients, the mother and her unborn child.

Keeping this coverage in the name of the adult pregnant woman alone is bad for the integrity of a children's health program, bad for the child, and even bad for some of the neediest of pregnant women.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Amendments Nos. 4234 and 4235

Mr. President, unfortunately, the resolution before us continues the erosion of fiscally responsible budget processes. I have offered four amendments to this budget that will, I believe, increase economic discipline.

I joined the Budget Committee because I believed the best way to enforce fiscal responsibility and guarantee appropriate Federal spending was to have a rigid and meaningful budget. Fiscal discipline begins in the planning--the budgeting--stage. This is where the choices are made, and the decisions are reached, that will ensure that the income matches the spending and that taxpayers dollars are used wisely. But the budget has been moving away from this. Our discipline has been eroding.

We have seen increases in ``reserve fund'' shenanigans, we have seen the use of reconciliation--a process originated to cut government spending for spending increases, and we have seen a mockery of the pay go rules; there was $143 billion in pay-go violations last year.

I believe this Budget Committee should be committed to rigid budget discipline, not politically expedient gamesmanship.

One of my amendments is to fully budget for the expected costs of the war. I know there will be those who say that they are just following the President in allocating $70 billion in fiscal year 2009. But the budget is a congressional document. Say what you want about the genesis of the ideas in this document, but let me repeat--it was written and prepared on the sixth floor of Dirksen, not in the White House.

We know the war is expected to cost $170 billion this year. Everyone knows this. We had testimony in committee supporting this number. And so we have an obligation to budget for that amount.

If we are going to pay for this war, fiscal discipline and legitimate budgeting requirements demand that we include those costs. There is no legitimate reason to fail to include the known estimates of the war into our budget. Failure to do so is gimmickry, and devalues the budget exercise we are engaged in. Hiding the war costs from view, when every Member knows we will be spending, is ridiculous.

On another matter, this budget resolution has an increase in ``reserve funds.'' There are 37 this year, up from 24 last year. They contain up to $300 billion in spending that hangs over our treasury and taxpayers as a threat. I have heard them referred to as harmless, but any device that serves to weaken the authority and legitimateness of our budget is not harmless.

Many feel that these reserve funds have become an over complicated type of sense of the Senate, but I feel they weave weakness into what should be a rigid and honest document. I have offered an amendment that will prohibit time shifting tax receipts or spending levels to exploit the reserve fund language. If these reserve funds and their spending assumptions are going to be included, we need to see that they are fully walled off and under strong restrictions that will prohibit them from being realized without proper spending reductions.

I have also offered an amendment to prohibit time shifts on a larger scale, not just in reserve funds but in the budget itself. Time- shifting incomes and spending to change where they impact the budget cycle produces no real economic effect, except allowing more spending by evading limits. This practice needs to end.

The last amendment I have offered will ensure the ability of the Secretary of HHS to combat waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid and

Mr. President, I believe I am scheduled to give a speech for about 10 minutes or so.

Mr. President, I spoke last week in the Budget Committee, of which I am a member, about the differences between this year's consideration of the budget resolution and last year's.

Last year, we were obligated to accept the assurances from the majority that under their new regime pay-go would be respected, spending would be curbed, the entitlement crises would be addressed, and the debt would be attacked.

I do want to take a moment to respond to the attempt of my colleague from Rhode Island--who just left the floor--about trying to say this is all President Bush's problem. It is not. It is all of our problem. For example, the budget we have before us has over $2 trillion that it adds to the national debt. There are some basic reforms we have to do if we are going to correct the debt problem that has been accruing over the years. We have to reform entitlements especially.

We now, however, have results in this budget, not predictions. When all was said and done last year, there was an $83 billion increase in discretionary spending. There was $143 billion in pay-go violations. We did not close the tax gap. We added to the debt. We did nothing for entitlement reform. Reconciliation was used to add spending, not reduce it. Reconciliation was originally put in for that sole purpose: to reduce spending. We assumed tax increases.

So as we begin consideration of the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution, I hope everyone is aware of what was promised last year and what transpired. I hope they will use that knowledge when considering this budget document.

I would like to talk about the items that concern me in this budget. Now that our economy is trending in the wrong direction, and when we really need the benefits of a reasonable and progrowth tax policy, we are going to depress our economic growth by adding to the debt and increasing taxes in this budget.

We are not addressing the entitlement crises in this budget. Everyone knows it is there. It is a huge avalanche of debt waiting to bury our future. The sooner we act, obviously, the better. The longer we wait, the more drastic it will be, and more expensive. But we do nothing. We are not even doing something as productive as fiddling. We are just talking, year after year, and perhaps wishing our national debt will go away.

In this budget, we are raising taxes on the middle class. This budget cannot be paid for by closing the tax gap. It cannot be paid for by closing loopholes. It cannot be paid for by shifting dates around on revenues or outlays. And it surely cannot be paid for by increasing the taxes paid by the super-rich, the rich, or just the very-well-to-do. It will only be paid for by reaching down into the average earners and raising their taxes as well. Under this budget, the average family with children will pay $2,300 more each year. Seniors will pay $2,200 more each year. Small businesses will pay $4,100 more each year.

When we consider these tax increases, let's remember, last year we were assured we would see tax relief. The first vote we were presented on the budget last year was to budget for an

alleged middle-class tax cut. But this never materialized.

What has materialized is spending increases. This budget adds $210 billion over 5 years. The gross debt will expand by $2 trillion by 2013. This year, we are spending three-quarters of a billion dollars of the Social Security surplus. This year, we are increasing spending by $22 billion, without fully funding the war.

Now, about that. I know there will be those who say they are just following the President. But the budget is a congressional document. Say what you want about the ideas in this document, but it was written and prepared on the sixth floor of Dirksen, not in the White House. The ``they did it first'' argument is not one I accepted from my children, and I am not going to accept it here.

We know the war is expected to cost $170 billion this year. We have an obligation to budget for that amount. It is honest budgeting. I will be offering an amendment to do just that. If we are going to pay for this war, fiscal discipline and legitimate budgeting requirements demand that we include those costs.

There are those who do not want to fund our campaign in Iraq. There are those who want to end the war as soon as possible, regardless of the damage that might do. They are entitled to those views. But there is no legitimate reason to fail to include the known estimates of the war into our budget. Failure to do so is pure gimmickry and devalues the budget exercise in which we are engaged. Hiding the war costs from view, when every Member knows we will be spending more, is ridiculous.

On that topic, my second great concern with this budget is the budget continues the erosion of fiscally responsible processes. We are seeing increases in reserve funds. There are 37 this year, up from 24 last year. They contain up to $300 billion in spending that hangs over our Treasury and taxpayers as a threat. I have heard them referred to as harmless, but any device that serves to weaken the authority and legitimateness of our budget is simply not harmless.

Many feel these reserve funds have become an overcomplicated type of sense of the Senate, but they weave weakness into what should be a rigid and honest budget document.

Another erosion of fiscal discipline is the use of reconciliation--a process originated to cut Government spending--for spending increases. We saw that last year. We have heard rumors and intentions of it being done again this year. Unfortunately, this will be something we are not sure of until it is too late, and that is when the conference report is before us.

We also see pay-go rules being verbally respected but ultimately dodged through various ploys. The first year test of deficit neutrality was dropped. We have shifted the timeliness of tax payments and spending costs to meet technical definitions that have no basis in reality. We have enacted wildly unrealistic program cuts and sunsets to hide true costs. Pay-go has been promised and praised, but it allowed $143 billion in deficit spending to occur.

I noticed when we started the session this year, Senator Gregg, our ranking top Republican on the Budget Committee, was pointing to his Swiss cheese example of how they have been able to get around the pay- go rules.

I believe Congress, and especially the Budget Committee, should be committed to rigid budget discipline, not politically expedient gamesmanship. I would urge a return to a tighter and more credible budget document. I plan to offer several amendments to shore up the fiscal discipline we are seeing erode in this budget.

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

Mr. President, I withdraw that request.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for 15 minutes.

That is acceptable to our side. I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I think it would be helpful for us to spend some time before the fiscal year 2009 budget bill is before us to review the fiscal year 2008 budget. This is something we could not do last year. Last year, the majority was in their first year and in sort of a honeymoon phase. They had the benefit of the doubt and no recent record to be saddled with. They could make pledges and promises, they could make forecasts and make predictions, and we were under an obligation to wait for those results. The charge of tax and spend was from the past. Perhaps things were different.

Well, the Democrats' 2008 budget raised taxes by $736 billion. It assumed the largest tax increase ever, hitting 116 million people. It failed to extend middle-class tax relief, as promised. The Democrats' fiscal year 2008 budget

increased spending by $205 billion. It hiked nondefense discretionary spending $205 billion over 5 years. That is $350 billion over 10 years. It manipulated reconciliation to spend $21 billion in entitlements. It allowed entitlement spending to grow by $466 billion over 5 years.

The budget and its supporters repeatedly ignored, waived, or gimmicked pay-go to the tune of $143 billion. The Democrats' fiscal year 2008 budget grew the debt by $2.5 trillion. It passed the debt along to our children, who will each owe $34,000 more. The Democrats' fiscal year 2008 budget ignored entitlement reform. It failed to offer any real solutions to the $66 trillion entitlement crisis.

The budget and its supporters rejected reasonable proposals to address this entitlement crisis and, instead, allowed entitlement spending to grow by $466 billion over 5 years. The budget wildly overstated revenues from closing the tax gap to justify more spending. That bill was, in fact, a classic Democratic tax-and-spend bill.

The majority had a clean slate, a new dawn. They went with the worst policies of the past--bigger taxes, bigger spending, bigger debt, and larger government. One example will show we are dealing with what can only be described as either cold cynicism about the value of their rhetoric or gross ignorance of government realities. The SCHIP authorization bill increased entitlement spending $35.4 billion over 5 years and $71.5 billion over 10 years. However, a blatant budget gimmick drastically cut the program's funding in 2013 by 85 percent to avoid a pay-go point of order. Nobody seriously expects this funding cut to occur. Nobody seriously believes this qualifies as paying as you go. Yet both claims were made on this floor.

I voted against the fiscal year 2008 budget. The budget represented a 6.8-percent increase in domestic Federal spending in 1 year. And let us look at the debt figures. We see the debt is increasing unimaginably. We are seeing a tremendous growth in the deficit, increasing by $440 billion. We see mandatory spending growing unchecked by $411 billion in fiscal years 2008 through 2012. We spend more than $1 trillion of the Social Security surplus. Unfortunately, what we end up with is a growth in the debt of over $2.2 trillion.

Yet the deficit is increasing while more taxes are expected to be collected. If the tax increase goes into place--and that happens because there was no provision to make the tax cuts that were passed in the Republican Congress in 2001 and 2003 permanent--by default these taxes are going to increase by over $736 billion. So we have a deficit that is increasing even though we have a dramatic increase in revenues which were taken into account in this budget. That is going to be the largest tax increase in the history of this country contributing to overspending.

We are entering a new phase in our economy, a time when the negative effects of the housing crunch are coming due. But the housing problems are attacking the prosperity that resulted from our earlier tax policies. The tax cuts we put in place in 2003 stimulated the economy. As a result of those tax cuts, there was more money available for local governments to help pay for their programs, including State governments. There was more money available for the Federal Government. That is why it was so easy for the majority party to put together that budget last year, because of the large amount of revenues coming in to the Federal Government. I attribute that to the fact that we cut prices for the working men and women of this country, primarily those who own their small businesses and, by the way, who put in more than 40 hours a week. Many times they work 7 days a week to keep those small businesses operating, supporting their communities. That is where we generate the revenue.

Now that our economy is trending in the wrong direction, and when we need the benefits of a reasonable and progrowth tax policy, the reality is going to be that we are going to depress our economic growth. We are talking about increasing taxes on corporations that do business all over the world. Well, they are in a competitive environment. They have to compete with other countries. We cannot constrict our economy to strictly American borders. We have to extend beyond that. If we want to get our economy going, we are going to have to talk about trade. We are going to have to talk about doing business all over the world.

Let's look and see how individuals are going to be impacted by this tax increase that will happen by default because we do not keep it from expiring in the outyears. A family of 4, earning $40,000 a year--that is if both the husband and the wife are working and making $20,000 each--will face a tax increase of $2,052. We have 113 million taxpayers who will see their taxes go up an average of $2,216.

Now, if we look at this a little further, we see that over 5 million individuals, families who have seen their income tax liabilities completely eliminated, will now have to pay taxes. That is the new tax bracket we have created to provide tax relief for many of those working families. So that is going to expire. When that expires, that is going to impact 5 million individuals and families who will begin to have to pay taxes that they were allowed to get by without having to pay so they could pay for the education of their kids, so they could pay for health care, so they could pay for the needs of the family, food and shelter.

We are not talking about individuals who are making a lot of money in this case. Forty-five million families with children will face an average increase of $2,864; that is the marriage penalty. Fifteen million elderly individuals will pay an average tax of $2,934. These are the people who are on retirement. Twenty-seven million small business owners will pay an average tax increase higher than any of those groups that I mentioned of $4,712. That is where our economic growth is generated--or was generated.

People of Colorado have asked me: How is this likely to affect me as a Coloradan? Let me talk a little bit about how this could affect taxpayers of the State of Colorado.

In Colorado, the impact of repealing the Republican tax relief would be felt widely. For example, more than 1.6 million taxpayers statewide who are benefiting from a new low 10-percent bracket would see their tax rates go up; 590,000 married couples could face higher tax rates because of an increase in the marriage penalty; 432,000 families with children would pay more taxes because child tax credits would expire; and 310,000 Colorado investors, including seniors, would pay more because of an increase in the tax rate on capital gains and dividends.

Remember, seniors who have retired have a lot at stake when we talk about capital gains taxes and dividends because they put their money in the stock market. They have put it in investments. As retired individuals, they are finding that they are beginning to pull that out for their retirement. The consequences are that without that tax break, they would not have been able to save as much money toward their retirement.

Tomorrow, we are going to get our first glimpse of the majority's proposed fiscal year 2009 budget. We have more clarity now on what we can actually expect when pay-go--which some refer to as ``tax gap''-- and spending curbs and other terms are thrown at us by the supporters of that budget. We know that last year the words might have implied one thing, but the numbers said an entirely different story: Spending went up, the deficit went up, and taxes went up. Let's hope this year is a better year for the taxpayers and the citizens of this country.

I yield the yield floor.

Mr. President, I personally thank the Senator from Florida for a fine statement. I listened very carefully to what he had to say on FISA, and then his message of hope to the Iraqi people. I have had an opportunity to serve with the Senator from Florida in the Senate and I feel very honored to be able to do that. I also had an opportunity to interact with him when he was a member of the President's Cabinet. He is a leader whom I think has a future and I certainly appreciate his leadership here in the Senate as well as in the President's Cabinet. I thank him for his dedication to our country.

I also want to recognize Senator Bond, the Senator from

Missouri. He spoke before Senator Martinez. I thought he gave a very meaningful talk about the importance of FISA, along with Senator Martinez. He has a personal interest in what happens, not only as a Senator from the State of Missouri, but he has a son who serves in Iraq. So he gets a firsthand report, and I know he spends a lot of time studying it. He certainly has become one of the more knowledgeable people in the Senate as far as intelligence matters are concerned. I think it behooves all of us to listen to his presentation and the message he is sending.

I rise today to discuss S. 2634 in light of the current situation regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The bill we are discussing calls upon the Secretaries of Defense, State, and Homeland Security, along with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Director of National Intelligence, to jointly submit to Congress a report setting forth the global strategy of the United States to combat and defeat al-Qaida and its affiliates. I can't imagine that this proposal would have any effect--given, for instance, that the Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has been calling for an extension of the Protect America Act, and the House refuses to listen. Director McConnell feels an extension is necessary to combat and defeat terrorists, including all al-Qaida, but that proposal doesn't seem to matter much.

As we all know, the existing authorities provided by the Protect America Act expired nearly 2 weeks ago. On February 16, the House Democratic leadership allowed these provisions to expire without a vote. So for the last 2 weeks, our intelligence community has lost out on opportunities to gather intelligence and to continue to keep our Nation safe.

As a majority of Senators know, the recently passed Senate version of FISA is a solid, workable, bipartisan bill that would greatly enhance the protection of this country. In addition, it would increase civil liberty protections and the protections of the privacy rights of Americans.

The Senate passed FISA modernization with bipartisan support. Since then, the House has failed to take up the provisions. What is most distressing, and quite frankly the most insulting factor in this situation, is that within the same week the House chose not to take up and make permanent essential provisions from the Protect America Act, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found time to conduct a hearing on steroids in professional baseball that amounted to nothing more than a media circus. It is for reasons such as these that Congress has some of the lowest approval ratings in history. To top it off, the House promptly adjourned for a week of recess as the FISA provisions expired. If nothing else, this action--or more correctly inaction--presents the appearance that House leadership is prioritizing media-friendly events above the hard work of keeping our Nation safe and providing our intelligence agencies with the tools they need.

FISA in its current form is not sufficient to fight the war on terror. This issue, as much as any issue brought before Congress, needs to be clarified in a timely fashion. Time is most certainly not on our side, and continued delays in the passage of this bill will simply prolong our existing vulnerabilities.

Director of Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote on February 22 that:

We have lost intelligence information this past week as a

direct result of uncertainty created by Congress's failure to

act.

Mr. President, is this a comment we simply want to disregard? Are House Democrats under the impression the DNI and Attorney General are bluffing? These claims need to be taken seriously, and political posturing simply will not suffice at this point.

Our intelligence community must act quickly in order to be successful. As lives literally depend on their expeditious decisions, it is not in our best interests to deprive our intelligence community of the ability to collect necessary foreign intelligence information. Having the ability to collect and obtain correct information at the right time is of critical importance to our struggle against radical Islamic terrorists who have grown increasingly brazen in their tactics. Additionally, our enemies have become more adept to changes in technology. The world moves quickly, and we have no choice but to keep up with the changes if we are to keep our country safe. The absence of a legislative framework creates an ambiguous environment that presents our enemies with opportunities to exploit our weakened defenses.

Nearly 2 weeks later, these provisions are still surrounded with uncertainty, as the House has failed to act on the bipartisan legislation put forth by the Senate. The information that has been lost in the last weeks is lost forever. We will never know what happened and, hopefully, we will never learn what we missed during this time the hard way. If we think the enemy is not watching the actions of Congress, we are simply fooling ourselves. Simply put, this is too critical an issue to be playing politics.

We are only hurting ourselves and insulting the men and women of our military and intelligence community who risk their lives every day while gathering and acquiring certain intelligence data, if we are going to waste their efforts by bogging down the collection of critical information. We know full well we must do a better job of connecting the dots in our enemies' communications, and the challenge is only increased with the Internet, cell phones, and other forms of communication. We don't need to unnecessarily place Americans in greater danger. To needlessly fail to detect a terrorist plot is one of the most egregious disservices that our Government could commit. The fact is, we are not on the same playing field as our enemies. As Americans, we have higher standards. We abide by laws and protocols which our enemies do not follow.

Protecting the civil liberties of Americans has always been one of the cornerstones of our democracy. However, a balance must be struck between protecting civil liberties and protecting our citizens from foreign threats. I believe this balance has been struck through the Senate bill. The legislation strikes this necessary balance. In changing times, revision of our surveillance laws needs to occur.

In the time between the court ruling requiring the Government to obtain FISA Court orders for foreign surveillance and passage of the Protect America Act, collection of foreign intelligence information decreased by 66 percent. We cannot ignore that fact. We are not making our Nation safer if our intelligence-gathering capabilities are functioning at one-third of their capacity. As such, Congress addressed these concerns through the Protect America Act. But now we have essentially taken a step back, and that is inexcusable.

As it stands today, there currently exists a legal uncertainty for the telecommunications companies assisting us in this critical task of gathering intelligence. This simply makes it more difficult to collect the vital information needed to keep Americans safe. I cannot emphasize enough how paramount it is to have the assistance of private telecommunications carriers to carry out intelligence gathering.

The Senate bill provides protective immunity to those carriers whose cooperation will be needed in the future. It also provides retroactive immunity to private carriers from civil lawsuits arising out of their alleged cooperation with the National Security Agency in their terrorist surveillance program between September 1, 2001, and January 17, 2007. Also, this immunity does not extend to Government officials or to any criminal proceedings that may arise in the future out of the terrorist surveillance program.

Thus far the House version does not offer immunity to the telecommunications companies. I hate to even allude to the fact that failure to offer this immunity stands to benefit only two groups-- terrorists who exploit our system and trial lawyers who file class action suits--but I feel I must.

Mr. President, the U.S. Government owes these patriotic companies and their executives protections based on the good-faith effort they made in working with our intelligence community, assisting in their efforts to discover and thwart attacks against our Nation. The Senate Intelligence committee found and stated in its report that, without retroactive immunity, the private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful Government

requests in the future, resulting in what the committee calls ``a possible reduction in intelligence.'' This is simply unacceptable for the safety of our Nation.

Because the companies stepped up to help their country in a time of war, they have been the subject of over 40 lawsuits, and counting. It doesn't take an accountant to realize these claims and the litigation involved could end up costing hundreds of billions of dollars. These companies could end up in bankruptcy, and the trial lawyers will continue to get richer.

The bottom line is the FISA temporary provisions need to be reauthorized as soon as possible. The temporary provisions expired on February 16, almost 2 weeks ago, and since then leaders in the intelligence community have stated that we have lost important information as a result of Congress's failure to act. It is unacceptable and irresponsible to ignore the needs of our intelligence community at this stage of the legislative process. The House owes it to America to accept the Senate bill or expeditiously work out changes in a conference so we can provide the protection the American people deserve and demand.

I see my colleague from the State of New Mexico is prepared to make his comments. I publicly thank him for his service over the years. He is a great leader. I appreciate what he has done for America.

I yield the floor.

energy

Mr. President, I wish today to honor the service and sacrifice of CAPT Shane Stewart.

My wife Joan and I were deeply saddened to hear of the tragic death of CAPT Shane Stewart this past Saturday in Weld County, CO, as he was en route to render aid to a sick caller in the town of Ault.

It takes a person of great courage to become a firefighter. It takes a strong, hard-working, and considerate individual, who like in many small communities across America, volunteer their time and effort, at sometimes great risk to themselves, to become a volunteer firefighter. It takes a special someone who is willing to pay the ultimate price in protecting the safety of others.

Captain Stewart was just this person. And unfortunately, Captain Stewart paid the ultimate price on February 23. He was 33 years old. Shane is the first firefighter killed in the line of duty in the Ault- Pierce Fire Protection District.

The Colorado native was born in Sterling and grew up in Greeley. Shane was employed by the Colorado Department of Transportation and concurrently served as a volunteer firefighter when called to duty. Volunteer firefighters are the backbone of many of our small towns and communities. In fact there are a total of 15,000 firefighters in Colorado with 9,450 being volunteers in their respective communities. Shane joined the Ault-Pierce Fire Protection District as a volunteer firefighter in August 2004.

Shane came from a family steeped in firefighting tradition. Shane's father and brother are also volunteers with the 21-member department.

Captain Stewart was a father, brother, and a son. He is survived by his wife Cyndee, sons Blake and Logan, parents Paul and Jeanette, and his brother Sean. Shane was well liked by his peers and was someone you would like to have as a friend and colleague.

The Ault-Pierce Fire Protection District lost a valuable member of its community, as did the State of Colorado. We are all forever grateful for Captain Shane Stewart's service and dedication as a firefighter. His service to all of us is highly commendable, and his contributions will be remembered.

I extend my deepest sympathy to the family of CAPT Shane Stewart. May his bravery and unwavering sense of duty serve as a role model for the future generation of firefighters.