Jim Bunning

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few minutes on the bill itself.

Mr. BUNNING. I wish to speak about the flood insurance bill before the Senate and about the program in general. The flood insurance program is one I care about a great deal. It is vitally important to States such as Kentucky that are surrounded and crossed by major rivers and exposed to flooding. In 2004, former Senator Sarbanes, Senator Shelby, and I sat down to make some important changes to the program and we did. My bill was a step in the right direction for fixing the program. Our reforms established a mitigation program to reduce further losses, charge higher premiums if property owners refused to reduce their risk. Unfortunately, we were not able to address all of the problems in the bill, but I am glad some of the things we wanted to do back then are being done in this bill before us today. As we saw from the storms of 2005, the flood insurance program is not financially sound. This bill builds on the reforms of the 2004 law by ending the subsidy for the most costly and least deserving properties. It requires more at-risk people to purchase flood insurance, and increases penalties on the lenders for not following the law. It also sets up a reserve fund to keep the program from going into debt in future years with significant flood losses. This bill does not fix all of the problems in the program, but it is a strong bill which I support. While I do not like forgiving the program's debt, it is a necessary step to stop policyholders in Kentucky and across this country from having to foot the bill for the gulf coast's problems. Every Senator should think about that $18 billion we are forgiving when they consider the additional cost of amendments being offered. We have 40 years of experience that says the Government is a terrible insurance company. Adding wind insurance will drive out private insurers and put the taxpayers throughout the entire country on the hook for the risks taken by those who choose to live in the path of hurricanes. The sponsors of the amendment claim premiums will reflect the actual risk, but I would point out to them the 18 billion reasons why I do not believe that will happen. Several other amendments are worth mentioning. One would create a Federal backstop for State disaster insurance funds. I understand why the Gulf Coast States would want a Federal backstop for the risk, but I do not understand why my State or anyone else's State should be put on the hook for the decisions of coastal State legislators who choose to socialize insurance. Other amendments would increase coverage limits or decrease the amount policyholders would have to pay. One would even make a certain earmark for an area in Illinois for lower premiums. Those amendments would defeat the entire purpose of this bill. Instead of making the program more financially sound, they would make the current problems worse by charging policyholders less than their actual risk. After some version of this bill becomes law, we will have to keep an eye on how FEMA acts on these reforms. It took FEMA more than 2 years to implement some of the 2004 reforms, and they did that only after the Vice President and the Secretary of Homeland Security intervened. We must make sure the program is run the way Congress intended, not as the bureaucrats think it should be run. I congratulate Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby and their staffs for writing a good bill. I also thank former Senator Sarbanes for his help in writing the 2004 bill and setting the foundation for this bill today. Finally, I wish to say I am glad Senator McConnell has brought up the important issue of energy. The American people are watching gas prices go through the roof, and this summer electric bills are going to do the same. I have heard the other side talk about energy before, but I have not seen them do one thing about the problem. The problem is, we do not have enough supply. The solution is expanding domestic production of energy any way we can. We can drill for oil safely in Alaska, we can get more natural gas from the Gulf of Mexico. But beyond the usual ways to increase production, we can use new technologies to change the game for energy prices. That is why I have supported and will keep pushing coal-to-liquid fuels. We are sitting on hundreds of years' worth of coal, and through a proven and environmentally sound process, we can turn that coal into gasoline for our cars, diesel for our trucks, and jet fuel for our planes. I have met with the Air Force many times. This is one of the most important security issues they face. We cannot rely on Middle Eastern oil to provide fuel for our jet fighters and our tanks. With secure domestic alternative fuels, we can guarantee the military the fuel they need. The American people deserve a Congress that takes action. Every barrel of fuel made in America is a barrel of fuel we do not have to buy from the Middle East. Increasing production of energy in America will bring down energy costs and protect jobs. For too long we have heard about manufacturers and companies moving good-paying jobs to China or the Middle East because of cheap energy. Today, with this package we can do something about it. We can give American companies the energy they need to build cars, fly planes, and produce goods with American workers. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate Mr. Kevin Webb of Glasgow, KY. Mr. Webb was recently chosen to be one of eight speakers at the first ever Ticket to Work Partners Summit held in Louisville, KY. In March 2008 the Social Security Administration launched the Ticket to Work Partners Summit to bring together over 400 of Social Security's partners who actively engage Social Security disability beneficiaries in work through the Ticket to Work Program. Mr. Webb was chosen to be one of eight speakers nationally to discuss how they have benefited from this program. With the help of the Social Security Administration, Mr. Webb was able to start his own business in April 2006. Today he is a proud co- owner with his father, Ron Taylor, of Webb/Taylor Horseback Riding and Boarding. Prior to becoming a successful business owner, Mr. Webb was faced with a number of difficult challenges in finding employment. Despite all of the setbacks and obstacles he had to overcome, Mr. Webb never gave up on his dreams and continued to search for a job that made him happy. Mr. Webb applied for a grant given to five individuals each year by the Kentucky Council on Developmental Disabilities and the State vocation rehabilitation for startup funds for new businesses. With the grant and a fully funded Plan for Achieving Self Support from the Social Security Administration, Mr. Webb and his father were able to launch the Webb/Taylor Horseback Riding and Boarding. Besides starting his own business, Mr. Webb has also worked with elected officials in the Kentucky State Legislature on behalf of individuals with disabilities. In 2003, the Kentucky State Legislature passed the Kevin Webb and Kim Brown Self-Determination Act to require the Commission on Services and Supports for Individuals with Mental Retardation and Other Developmental Disabilities to make recommendations to the Department of Medicaid Services for the implementation of a self-determination model for individuals who are receiving services through the Supports for Community Living waiver program. I would like to congratulate Mr. Webb for his hard work and dedication as he celebrates the two year anniversary of opening Webb/ Taylor Horseback Riding and Boarding. Mr. Webb is truly an inspiration to all Kentuckians and I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I wish to congratulate Ms. Kelly McCormick and Ms. Jeannie Luersen on their selection to participate in the 2009 Special Olympics World Winter Games, to be held February 6 to 13, in Boise, ID. Over 3,000 athletes from 85 countries will compete in 7 sports: Alpine skiing, cross-country skiing, figure skating, floor hockey, snowboarding, snow- shoeing and speed skating. Ms. Kelly McCormick has been a Special Olympics athlete for 17 years. She serves as a global messenger, speaking on behalf of the program at many public events. Ms. McCormick will compete in the Alpine Skiing event. This will be her first time participating in the world games. Ms. Jeannie Luersen has participated in the Special Olympics program for 25 years. This will be her second straight year at the World Games. Having won a Gold Medal in figure skating at the 2005 Winter Games in Nagano, Japan, Ms. Luersen will compete again in the figure skating event. Special Olympics is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year as an international, nonprofit organization dedicated to empowering individuals with intellectual disabilities to become physically fit, productive, and respected members of society through sports training and competition. Ms. McCormick and Ms. Luersen represent Special Olympics Kentucky, which is celebrating its 36th year. I congratulate Ms. McCormick and Ms. Luersen on their achievements. They are an inspiration to the citizens of Kentucky and to athletes everywhere. I look forward to seeing all that they will accomplish in the future.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I wish to congratulate Mrs. Holly Collinsworth of Ft. Thomas, KY, for being named one of the Cincinnati Enquirer's Women of the Year for her dedication and service to our community. This outstanding award is given annually to 10 women in the northern Kentucky and Greater Cincinnati area for their hard work and commitment to making our communities a better place to live. Mrs. Collinsworth, mother of four children, has begun a task never before imagined to help improve Fort Thomas schools. She is currently leading a fundraising campaign that has collected millions of dollars in private money to help renovate the 71-year-old Highlands High School, her alma mater. The school has not been refurbished since the 1960s. With her leadership, over $7.4 million in private donations, State matching funds and grants has been raised to help with the repairs. Mrs. Collinsworth's contributions to the Commonwealth do not stop there. She and husband Cris Collinsworth, former Cincinnati Bengal and current NFL broadcaster, are among the founders of UGive, a nonprofit that matches area students fulfilling their school community service requirements with charities in need of volunteers. The UGive program was started this year and will be up and running by August. Mrs. Collinsworth also serves on the board of the Cris Collinsworth ProScan Fund and cochairs its Pink Ribbon Luncheons which have raised more than $1 million for programs such as breast cancer education and mammograms for low-income uninsured women. I thank Mrs. Collinsworth for her dedication and commitment to the community. She has made a tremendous impact on individuals across northern Kentucky and the Greater Cincinnati area. I appreciate all that she has done and will continue to do in the future. Mrs. Collinsworth is truly an inspiration to all Kentuckians.

Mr. BUNNING

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

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside so I may speak on the bill itself for 15 minutes.

Mr. BUNNING. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, this is an unusually bad bill, and I have opposed it from the very start. The course it has followed almost guarantees that it will be filled with the worst kind of gimmickry, and it is. The Senate may be the most deliberative body in the world, but this bill is anything but the product of deliberation. It is a jumble of disjointed ideas, unlikely to solve the crisis at hand, and it is unpopular. It turns out that the American people do not like the idea of bailing out banks and their neighbors who gambled on home prices. The voters understand what is going on in Washington better than we do. What is more, several of the complicated tax provisions in this bill never benefited from a full review by the Senate Finance Committee. Normally, this is a critical part of the Senate's deliberation. One example of a provision that could use more review is the new deduction for State property taxes. While it may be well intended, this new provision will complicate life for millions of American homeowners who will have to calculate their taxes twice to find out which method results in a lower tax. This complicates tax filings, and any Senator who has said the Tax Code is too complicated should be ashamed to vote for this provision. Because the Senate has not had any serious review of this provision, colleagues also may not know that this provision also allocates more of the Nation's tax burdens to residents of States that impose an income tax, such as Kentucky. The State with the highest income taxes faces the biggest relative tax increase, and this is illustrated in the chart that supporters of this provision hastily distributed to us. For example, the chart shows that 59 percent of Texan homeowners but only 23 percent of Maryland residents will benefit. The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, on which I serve, is not even managing this bill, even though tax provisions account for about two-thirds of its cost. That is kind of hard to explain to the average Senator on the Finance Committee. Another provision that deserves far more scrutiny is the $4 billion in community development block grants that will be allocated to the States and local governments to buy foreclosed properties. To begin with, this current program is very poorly managed. The Wall Street Journal called it among the worst run programs in Washington, and there is a lot of competition for that title. The White House called the program ineffective just 2 months ago, and when the HUD inspector general testified before Congress in 2006, he explained that his agency had recently indicted 159 individuals and recovered $120 million of misappropriated funds. GAO also has criticized the targeting of grant recipients, which is a polite way of saying that the money is going to those with political connections and influence in local governments. Adding money to this program is risky at best. Let's have no illusions. This extraordinarily unwise grant of taxpayers' money is really just a bailout for banks in disguise. It goes to States, but the ultimate beneficiary will be banks that made risky loans. Instead of selling foreclosed properties on the open market, these banks will have the luxury of selling to local officials with whom they may already have a relationship. These officials will be buying properties not with their own funds but with OPM--OPM stands for ``other people's money''--and in this case, the OPM comes from you and me, the American taxpayers, and the millions of unborn Americans whom we are saddling with even more debt. Another provision that could benefit from more thoughtful deliberation is the $100 million spending on counseling. Yes, counseling is a good idea before a homeowner signs a loan they can't afford. But afterward, the real problem is financial. It is too late for counseling. We also don't know all that much about the nonprofit groups that will get the money. Are some of these groups funded mostly by credit card companies? Are they? If so, will they have a clear conflict of interest? Maybe they will actually advise people to abandon their home, to foreclose, in order to pay credit card debt. That would make the foreclosure situation worse, not better. One thing is certain: no amount of counseling is going to put money that they do not have into homeowners' pockets. Now, I have an amendment that I have tried to get a vote on that would do so--put money into homeowners' pockets--and that is why I think it is appropriate to redirect these public funds toward helping homeowners with the cost of refinancing. If we are going to give away $4.1 billion--I will say it one more time--if we are going to give away $4.1 billion in this bill, let's give it back to the taxpayers and do so in a way that encourages homeowners to restructure their mortgages and keep them out of bankruptcy and foreclosure. My amendment would do this. It would use the $4 billion in funding this bill uses to bail out banks and give it back to taxpayers while simplifying the Tax Code as well. The Joint Committee on Taxation says that this amendment would be revenue-neutral over 10 years. It is entirely paid for within the four corners of this legislation. This change in the tax law that my amendment contains is strongly supported by the Mortgage Bankers Association because it would get to the heart of the housing crisis. Let me try to explain. Often, when people are searching for a home, they are more concerned about qualifying for financing than getting the best possible terms on that loan. Millions of homeowners have taken out an adjustable rate mortgage that has a low interest rate for a short period of time, often 2 or 3 years. These loans adjust to a much higher rate after the initial period. The assumption of many homeowners has been that they can refinance later in a conventional fixed mortgage loan for 30 years. But the Tax Code creates an obstacle to this. According to Bank of America research, published in the Wall Street Journal, more than $510 billion worth of adjustable mortgages, including prime and subprime loans, will reach the end of their fixed rate period before December of this year. For the holders of these loans, the options are stark: Refinance or default. It is unlikely that many of them can long afford the high interest rates on these mortgages after the fixed rate period expires. Unfortunately, our tax law has this exactly backward. It encourages homeowners to spend lavishly on first-time financing, but it exacts a penalty when homeowners find they are living beyond their means and need to refinance. My amendment would have changed all this. It would allow homeowners to currently deduct the mortgage interest points that lenders typically charge in connection with a home mortgage refinance. For example, under my amendment, if a homeowner has a $200,000 adjustable rate mortgage and refinances into a 30-year fixed mortgage, paying 1 percent in points, the homeowner would have a $2,000 tax deduction for home mortgage interest paid. That is under my amendment. Under present law, the homeowner would only be allowed to deduct $66. There is no good reason to allow the deduction for home purchase mortgages and to deny it for those who need it to refinance. My amendment would remove a significant financial obstacle to refinancing that would allow struggling borrowers to keep their homes. It would help Americans to get out of first mortgages that they have entered into without being able to shop for the best possible mortgage. Unlike some of the other provisions in this bill, it truly would help prevent foreclosures for many who are about to have their homes foreclosed. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I pay tribute to the Northern Kentucky University women's basketball team. The Norse defeated the University of South Dakota 63 to 58 to capture the NCAA Division II Championship on March 29, 2008. This is the second time the Northern Kentucky University women's basketball team has won the NCAA Division II Championship. The last time the Norse reached the pinnacle of their sport was in the 1999 to 2000 season. The citizens of Kentucky are proud to have these national champs living and learning in the Northern Kentucky community. Their example of hard work and determination should be followed by all in the Commonwealth. I congratulate the players for their success in bringing another championship trophy to the campus of Northern Kentucky University. I also want to congratulate their coaches, along with their peers, faculty, administrators, and parents for their support and sacrifices they have made to help them meet their achievements and dreams. They all represent Kentucky honorably.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, this is a very interesting amendment, since I have had this amendment the last two times a budget went through the Senate. Senator Conrad, the chairman of the Budget Committee, has offered this alternative, but I would note that it contains an instruction that he himself, as chairman, should come up with the savings. This is a very odd instruction that we put in the budget resolution because it does not say where the savings will occur. I hope he has no intention of raising taxes on other Americans to pay for this amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, there is a modification at the desk to my amendment. The Chairman has been notified.

Mr. BUNNING. This is the third time I have addressed on the Senate floor this amendment, the unfair tax that has been on the senior citizens of this country since 1993 when the additional 35 percent was put on. This time it is paid for, not like the last one we voted on. This time it is paid for in my modification. It specifically states it is paid for by an across-the-board cut in discretionary spending. We do not touch the entitlement spending, but discretionary spending is cut by the amount of money we need to pay for this cut for our senior citizens. This is the real cut of taxes for senior citizens. The last one was a ``cover some part of your body'' rather than the real kind of tax cut.

Mr. BUNNING. But the other one did not pay for it.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. I object.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I am proud to be introducing legislation today with Senator Stabenow that will benefit many of the teaching hospitals across the Nation, including 20 facilities in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Teaching hospitals play a critical role in educating, inspiring, and preparing our young doctors to meet the challenges of their new profession. Although necessary, this training adds to the cost of patient care. That is why Medicare pays these hospitals for its share of cost of training new physicians through payments known as direct graduate medical education payments--or DGME payments. Unfortunately, there is some inequity in how DGME payments are calculated. The legislation we are introducing today takes steps to adequately reimburse all hospitals for the cost of training new physicians. Teaching hospitals initially reported their direct costs to the Department of Health and Human Services in the mid-1980s. These reported amounts are now the basis for which each teaching hospital is reimbursed. Unfortunately, there was a disparity in the types of costs each hospital reported, which has lead to large variations in payments between hospitals. Hospitals are also being reimbursed on data that is 20 years old. To help rectify this problem, in 1999 Congress established a floor for calculating Medicare payments for DGME at 70 percent of the national average. In 2001, Congress raised the floor to 85 percent of the national average. The legislation Senator Stabenow and I are introducing today would bring all of Medicare's DGME hospitals up 100 percent of the national average over a 3-year period. This would affect about 600 hospitals across the Nation that are currently being reimbursed below the national average, including the 20 in Kentucky. I am glad we are introducing this legislation today and hope my colleagues can take a close look at it. Adequately paying our teaching hospitals is critically important, and this bill would benefit many hospitals across the country.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I am proud to be introducing legislation today with Senator Stabenow that will benefit many of the teaching hospitals across the Nation, including 20 facilities in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Teaching hospitals play a critical role in educating, inspiring, and preparing our young doctors to meet the challenges of their new profession. Although necessary, this training adds to the cost of patient care. That is why Medicare pays these hospitals for its share of cost of training new physicians through payments known as direct graduate medical education payments--or DGME payments. Unfortunately, there is some inequity in how DGME payments are calculated. The legislation we are introducing today takes steps to adequately reimburse all hospitals for the cost of training new physicians. Teaching hospitals initially reported their direct costs to the Department of Health and Human Services in the mid-1980s. These reported amounts are now the basis for which each teaching hospital is reimbursed. Unfortunately, there was a disparity in the types of costs each hospital reported, which has lead to large variations in payments between hospitals. Hospitals are also being reimbursed on data that is 20 years old. To help rectify this problem, in 1999 Congress established a floor for calculating Medicare payments for DGME at 70 percent of the national average. In 2001, Congress raised the floor to 85 percent of the national average. The legislation Senator Stabenow and I are introducing today would bring all of Medicare's DGME hospitals up 100 percent of the national average over a 3-year period. This would affect about 600 hospitals across the Nation that are currently being reimbursed below the national average, including the 20 in Kentucky. I am glad we are introducing this legislation today and hope my colleagues can take a close look at it. Adequately paying our teaching hospitals is critically important, and this bill would benefit many hospitals across the country.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. No more than 15 minutes.

Mr. BUNNING. I will yield.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that my amendment No. 4192 at the desk be called up for consideration.

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

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I spoke about this yesterday, and I have brought it to this Chamber before on numerous occasions. In fact, the Senate adopted a very similar amendment by unanimous consent last year, and it passed on a recorded vote 2 years earlier. My amendment would repeal an unfair tax that Congress enacted in 1993. The Congressional Budget Office has said that over 15 million senior citizens are affected by the taxation of Social Security benefits. When Congress created the Social Security Program to provide income security for seniors, part of the structure of that program, and one of the reasons for its popularity, was that benefits were not taxed. I will say that again. Social Security benefits were not taxed when the program was created. In 1983, the Greenspan Commission and Congress decided that half of the benefits of some seniors should be subject to taxation and, in 1993, raised that amount to 85 percent of the Social Security benefits that a senior citizen receives. This tax affected supposedly ``wealthy'' seniors, with incomes above $34,000 for single seniors, and $44,000 for a couple. Those are supposedly wealthy senior citizens. The goal of this seemed to be to impose a type of means testing on Social Security beneficiaries--in other words, tilting the benefit structure in favor of low-income seniors, making it more like a welfare program. This is the kind of change Senator Patrick Moynihan often warned Congress about. But the Ways and Means Committee and the President ignored his warnings. If that was the goal, the legislation was fundamentally flawed. The $34,000 and $44,000 amounts were not indexed for inflation. I can assure you that seniors earning these amounts do not consider themselves wealthy at all--particularly with the increased cost of prescription drugs, rent, or mortgage payments, gasoline, particularly with unleaded regular being $3.20 a gallon now, heating oil, and even food prices that seniors are experiencing today. My amendment is fairly simple. It drops the tax back to the pre-1993 level, starting in 2008, this year, in this budget. This means the 85 percent tax would be eliminated, and the maximum amount of Social Security benefits that could be taxed would be 50 percent. The revenue from the 1993 tax was applied to the Medicare trust fund. My amendment would make the trust fund whole by offsetting the cost of the tax rollback by $89 billion over 5 years, with an adjustment to function 920 of the budget. The inspector general's and the CBO's budget operation report identified over $300 billion in potential savings on Government programs over the next 5 years. I believe the committee of jurisdiction can review wasteful Government spending in order to offset this extremely important tax cut for America's seniors. This was an unfair tax on our seniors when it was enacted, and it is time we repeal it. Think of this now. A senior citizen, single, with an income of $34,000 receiving maybe $36,000 from Social Security and other income, and they have to pay 85 percent tax on that Social Security benefit--85 percent. That is the largest, highest taxation of any benefit we receive from the Federal Government--85 percent of anything. Say I receive $36,000 from the Federal Government in Social Security benefits and other income. On the $34,000 I receive from Social Security, 85 percent of that is taxed at the normal rate that I would pay in whatever tax bracket I fall under. The same goes with a married couple. Married couples, both seniors, both have unusual expenses as far as prescription drugs, and some have prescription drugs amounting to maybe $1,000 each per month--maybe $1,000 each per month, home heating oil, gas and electric to heat their homes or cool their homes, groceries-- all these things add up for our seniors today. This tax is completely and totally unfair to the senior citizens we have today. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, as many have in the past. This is something that should have been done a long time ago. I have tried, since its inception in 1993, to get this repealed back to the 50-percent level. I have not been successful. The majority, last year, accepted this amendment by unanimous consent. It went to the conference committee and was kicked out. They accepted it, said they would try to do it, and then because of the cost it was kicked out. What does that tell our senior citizens in the United States--that they are second-class citizens; they have to pay more on their Social Security benefits than anybody else. I don't think that is fair. I think it is time that we did something about it. So, please, I ask my colleagues on the Senate floor, help us this year finally repeal this unfair tax that we added to our seniors in 1993. Mr. President, I will ask for the yeas and nays when the amendment comes up.

Mr. BUNNING

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I wish to speak today as a member of the Senate Budget Committee. I had hoped the budget that was presented before the committee last week was going to be fiscally responsible and would help to address the mounting financial problems families face today, problems such as the rising cost of filling up a tank of gas, increased expenses for health care, and declining equity in the family home. Instead, this budget before us assumes Congress will allow the largest irresponsible tax increase in the history of the United States to go into effect. At $1.2 trillion, it would be the largest tax increase in history, and taxes would go up $2,300 on 43 million American families, $2,200 more on 18 million senior citizens, and $4,100 more on small businesses. Because of this, I was not able to support the budget resolution in committee, and I will be forced to vote against it here unless some drastic changes are made. This tax increase will hit family budgets hard. Let me tell my colleagues what $2,300 means to most American families. The family budget--and we are talking about groceries now--$2,300 is enough to buy 8 months of groceries. Next, we have the bills for gas and electric for heating; $2,300 a year is enough for 43 million American families to buy enough gas and electric for 1 year's heating. It is almost enough money for American families with two cars to buy gasoline at $3.20 a gallon for unleaded regular for almost an entire year. We should not, at this time, be placing more of a burden on the American people with a huge tax increase. Instead, we need to pass a budget that includes progrowth policies to help balance the family budget. This budget proposal increases spending by $210 billion in discretionary spending--an increase of over 9 percent of what we spent in fiscal year 2008. Under this budget, we will see a $2 trillion increase in the debt of the United States by 2013. That is more than $6,000 in extra debt for each and every American citizen. At $3.08 trillion, this budget resolution calls for $10,165 of spending for every man, woman, and child in America--all 300 million of us. But there are only about 130 million taxpayers who file an income tax return. Of those 130 million, only about 14 million had an average income liability of over $10,000 in 2005. Of these, about 11 million had gross incomes between $100,000 and $200,000. That leaves 3.5 million taxpayers--no more than 2 percent--with an income above $200,000. These wealthy few are paying an extraordinary 50.1 percent of all Federal tax revenues. But even if you taxed away half of their income, the additional revenue would not add up to enough to balance the budget and pay for programs in mandatory spending this budget resolution assumes over the long term. The idea that money can be found in a mythical source of funding called the tax gap is unlikely as well. The chairman of the Budget Committee repeatedly has noted that the IRS estimate of the gross tax gap is close to $345 billion per year. However, the idea that anywhere near this amount of money can be raised by closing the tax gap is simply an illusion. It is nothing more than a figleaf meant to conceal the intent of spending beyond the means of the Federal Government. The truth is, we are not really serious about this, and the proof is that we do not have a proposed penny more in this budget for the IRS than the President does in his budget. It would be difficult to drive the long-term history level of voluntary compliance from 85 percent, where it is now, to nearly 100 percent in order to tap into this mythical source of funding because that is what it would take to raise $345 billion per year. But it is hard to see how it can be done without a vast increase in the size of the IRS. We also need to pass a budget that includes the necessary funding to help us stop our addiction to foreign oil. In 2005, Congress enacted a comprehensive national energy plan--the first step toward energy independence. Nevertheless, this year has been a difficult year for Americans facing much higher energy costs. The policies we enacted in 2005 needed to be backed up with Federal funding in the budget, but this budget resolution fails to address important alternative-fuel technologies and other oil replacements. One of our top priorities should be on our most abundant domestic fossil fuel: coal. New technologies will make burning coal both cheaper and more efficient. We are even developing coal-to-liquid technology that can create a synthetic transportation fuel from coal. American coal reserves will be our best tool to overcome our reliance on Middle Eastern oil. I have three amendments I wish to propose to this budget resolution. First, I wish to offer an amendment that will repeal the unfair tax Congress enacted in 1993. I have brought this issue before the Chamber before, so it should be familiar to many of my colleagues. In fact, the Senate adopted a very similar amendment by unanimous consent last year, and it passed by a recorded vote 2 years earlier. When the Social Security Program was created, benefits were not taxed. In 1983, Congress decided that half the benefits of some seniors should be subject to taxation and in 1993 raised that amount to 85 percent of the Social Security benefits. Today, more than 15 million seniors are affected by that taxation of benefits. In 1993, the tax was intended to reach only wealthy seniors by the income levels which were set at $34,000 for a single and $44,000 per couple. This is hardly wealthy today. My amendment is fairly simple. It drops the tax back to the pre-1993 levels, and it is paid for by an offset of $89 billion over 5 years by an adjustment in function 920. Over $300 billion in potential savings on Government programs over the next 5 years has been identified by the inspectors general report and the CBO options report. And it is my hope that the committees of jurisdiction will review wasteful Government spending to offset the repeal of this tax increase on America's seniors. It was unfair then when it was enacted, and we need to repeal it now. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. The second amendment I plan to offer, together with Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Senator DeMint, will make room in the budget to permanently extend the tax incentives for adoption that we enacted in 2001. This is a critical kitchen-table, family-budget issue for many middle-income families in Kentucky and across the country who are contemplating the adoption of a young child or facing costs of adoption. By helping to ease this financial burden, we can encourage the development of more stable families and provide a brighter future for thousands of children. This important goal prompted us to act in 2001 when we passed these important adoption incentives in the form of tax credits. In 2005 alone, 85,000 families, 77 percent with an adjusted gross income of under $100,000, claimed $319.5 million in adoption credits.

Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I would like to mention the last one, and I will be finished. I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mr. BUNNING. Madam President, I was assured I would have time at 5 o'clock to speak for up to 10 minutes.