Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to honor U.S. Army Sergeant David Stelmat of Littleton, NH. On March 22, 2008, Sergeant Stelmat was tragically taken from us, along with two fellow soldiers from the North Carolina Army National Guard's 1132 Military Police Company, when his humvee encountered an improvised explosive device in Bagdad, Iraq. At only 27 years old, SGT David Stelmat, or DJ as he was known to his friends and family, will always be remembered as an adventurous, fun- loving young man who enjoyed the outdoors. The attacks of September 11, 2001, were the worst our Nation has ever experienced. Terrorists hijacked commercial airplanes, turned them into weapons, and brutally steered them into the World Trade Center Towers in New York, the Pentagon only miles from here, and the last plane lost on a field in Pennsylvania as a result of the heroic stance of the passengers aboard. It has become part of New Hampshire lore that in the wake of this tragedy, when our Nation was looking to heal itself, DJ, a 1998 graduate of Profile High School, along with a friend, climbed to the top of the Old Man of the Mountain and placed an American flag in the iconic profile. Pictures of DJ's action quickly spread and served as a patriotic symbol of our State and our country. Upon returning home from military service to our Nation as part of the infantry in Afghanistan, DJ attended the New Hampshire Technical Institute in his ardent desire to become an emergency medical technician. I am sure that this patriotic need to help our Nation heal after September 11 came from the same source of motivation which led to his burning desire to achieve his goal of military service as a combat medic. In January 2006, DJ joined the New Hampshire National Guard's 237th Military Police Company. In August of that year he completed training as a health care specialist. After receiving training, he deployed with the 1132nd Military Police Company. As a testament to his service, Sergeant Stelmat's awards include a Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Armed Forces Reserve Medal with ``M'' device, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, Combat Action Badge, Expert Rifle Weapons Qualification Badge, and an Overseas Service Bar. My deepest sympathy, condolences and prayers go out to DJ's loved ones, especially his parents. The service and sacrifice of Sergeant Stelmat remind me of the words of another son of New Hampshire, Daniel Webster, who said, ``What a man does for others, not what they do for him, gives him immortality.'' As combat medic, there is no doubt but that DJ put his country and his fellow soldiers before himself. For this selflessness, we are eternally grateful. May God bless U.S. Army Sergeant DJ Stelmat.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and to call up amendment No. 4501.

Mr. GREGG. Well, I am shocked, shocked to hear an objection from the Senator on this very reasonable request to call up an amendment so this bill, which is a fairly significant bill, could be voted on by the Senate in parts, because there are some parts of this bill which aren't that good, and this amendment addresses one of those parts. Specifically, this amendment says the net operating loss carry-forward provisions, which cost $17 billion over the first 3 years of this bill, would be eliminated. There are already in law net operating loss provisions. What this bill does, however, regrettably, is expand those provisions dramatically and benefits one small segment of our commercial society, to the disadvantage of other segments of our commercial society and to the distinct disadvantage of our children and our children's children who have to pay for all the money that is going to be spent in the area of a tax credit or deduction. This $17 billion will go to benefit the same industry, or part of the industry, which created the problem which this stimulus package is trying to address. It is a lot like that story of the fellow who shot both his parents and then threw himself on the court and asked for mercy because he was an orphan. What we have is the housing industry requesting a $17 billion tax break specifically for them because they created an economic meltdown by speculatively building thousands of houses--thousands more than we needed--and then selling those houses to people through the subprime mortgage process, which turned out to be a very poor idea for many people who bought houses with a subprime mortgage. At the time these housing construction industry companies did this, they made a lot of money--a lot of money. Now they are losing money. And they are saying, with a straight face, in this bill: We need a $17 billion tax break, which allows us to go back and eliminate the taxes we paid on the profit we made during the good days of the housing bubble and get a tax rebate to reflect the fact that we are losing money today, which recovers the taxes we paid 3 and 4 years ago. How outrageous is that? In addition, of course, housing contractors who were responsible--and who during this period of the bubble did not overbill or did not overly utilize subprime mortgages but, rather, built in a reasonable manner and are still doing well and are still making money--are going to find that their competitor down the street--who was potentially excessive, building a lot of inventory that was not necessary, selling it through subprime mortgages and then finding they are stuck with it today and thus losing money today--is going to get a tax benefit representing $17 billion. So the contractor who actually has been responsible and has run their business in probably a conservative and constructive way is going to have to compete with the profligate contractor, potentially, who is losing money but is suddenly going to get a huge windfall as a result of this bill in the way of a tax rebate. Where is the fairness in that? In addition, of course, it undermines the whole concept of the free marketplace. I mean, the marketplace says: If you take a risk and you make an investment and you make a lot of money--which is what happened here--and then that risk turns out to turn on you and you start to lose money, the Government shouldn't come in and say: Oh, that is okay, we are going to insure your losses with a tax break--which is essentially what is happening. We are going to insure them to the extent of $17 billion over the next 2 years. That is not a capitalist system. That is a French system. That is sort of modified socialism. It essentially says: You can't lose. You can go out and make money, and if you start to lose money, we will give you a tax credit. So the American taxpayers get to pay so you don't lose money. Then who pays for all this? Who pays for this $17 billion? Well, these folks sitting right down here--the pages--will pay for this. We are not going to pay for it this year. We are not offsetting this cost. This goes on the national debt. Interest will accrue on it. When these young pages graduate from high school and then move on to college--and I know they are all going to go to college--and then they move out of college and start to get a job, you know what they will have to do? They will have to pay taxes, and part of the taxes they are going to be paying 8, 9, 10 years from now is going to go to pay for this tax deduction which we are passing today to benefit an industry which created the bubble, which created a recession. We are giving them this type of insurance through this type of tax break. That is not fair. It is not fair to the next generation to pass this bill on to them. It is not fair to competitors who were conservative and managed their businesses well, that we are going to give this tax break to people who were not so successful or were successful but today aren't doing well. It doesn't make any sense. It is almost a bill of attainder. It should be unconstitutional--the idea we are going to pass a tax that benefits this one segment of the industry. By the way, it is not going to stimulate the economy because most of this benefit is going to probably come to fruition after the recession is pretty much over. Probably not before the third or fourth quarter of this year and into next year will these dollars start to reflow into these industries. So as a practical matter, most economists are saying that to the extent we have a recession--and I happen to believe we have one--it is going to be shallow and short, which means it will probably be over. With all the Fed is doing, I think it will definitely be over by the end of this year, at the latest. So this makes no sense. At the minimum, the Senate should at least have the right to vote on this policy. I mean, why not at least have a vote on this policy? It is a huge piece of policy, by the way. It seems to me we should have the right to have a vote on this policy. So all I have asked for is not that we accept the ideas I have put on the table, which is that this tax benefit makes no sense economically, that it makes no sense from the standpoint of a capitalist system, it makes no sense from the standpoint of the debt to pass on to our children, and it makes no sense from the standpoint that the people who are benefitting from this tax benefit were the biggest beneficiaries from the runup of the speculative market. I am not saying people have to accept those arguments, although I find them logical, reasonable, and I hope most people would accept them. I am saying let's vote on them. Let us have a vote on whether those arguments make more sense or the idea of putting this tax benefit in this bill makes more sense. So that is why I have asked, on a number of occasions, for a vote on this item. I regret that there has been an objection, on occasion, to my request for this amendment to be brought up. I am tempted to renew that request at this time, but I sense somebody else might object--this time probably from the audience, as the last objection came from staff. But in any event, I can appreciate the fact that there would be an objection, so I will not raise it again. I will simply reflect the fact that I have made this point, and hopefully at some point there will be a relenting on the other side of the aisle to having a vote on this item. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so I may offer an amendment.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am most surprised to hear my colleagues on the other side object to my request to call up an amendment, to have it called up and be heard. I thought the Senate was here to do business. I think it is reasonable as part of doing that business that we should address the largest item in this bill that involves passing a cost on to our children, which is the net operating loss proposal. Now, the way this net operating loss works is that homebuilders--that is who it is directed toward, although anybody can take advantage of it; I do not think it is limited to the homebuilders who built all of those homes and made these massive amounts of money by offering people subprime mortgages which they then took the proceeds from over the last 4 or 5 years, which subprime mortgages have now caused this Nation to go through a massive contraction and which have created one of the largest bubbles in the history of Government, in the history of commerce. Those folks, having made a huge amount of money--I mean massive amounts of money, and, in fact, in the last quarter, they were the largest earning sector in our economy--those folks are now asking that they get an additional $20 billion bailout, $20 billion bailout by allowing them, now that they are losing money, to go back and take a tax deduction of their losses against the gains which they had in prior years. This is as if you said to someone in business, say somebody running a small grocery store: OK, if you make money for 4 years, make a lot of money, and then you find you cannot compete or you have made some business error in your judgment and you lose money for a couple of years, we, the Government, are going to come in and give you insurance so you never lose money. You are able to go back during the years when you made money to recover the taxes you paid and use it today to give you profits. My goodness, I think Adam Smith would be rolling over in his grave to hear this concept of economics. This is Komisar economics where nobody can lose, except for the taxpayer in the next generation who has to pay this bill. Remember, this $20 billion is going to be paid by somebody because it is being spent around here in the operation of the Government. And who is going to pay it? Well, it is obviously not going to be the homebuilder, the large corporations which ran up these huge profits. They are actually going to take that money in, take it in as income. No, that is going to be paid for by John and Mary Smith, John and Mary Smith working for a living today, or their children because it will go on the Federal debt--$20 billion on the Federal debt as a result of this little piece of chicanery. It is unbelievable that we would claim this was a stimulus to begin with. In fact, if we are in an economic slowdown and if that economic slowdown is tied to the housing industry, none of these revenues will benefit that economic slowdown because they do not come in this year. They will be claimed this year, and they will be reimbursed next year. I think the estimate is that almost all of these recovery costs, recovery of taxes owed and paid as a result of getting this extra loss carryback, will occur in the next budget year, 2009. So, as a practical matter, it is not going to help in the next 6 months, which is when all of the major economists who have discussed this issue say we need some stimulus in the economy. No, it is not. It is simply a bonus payment from one group of people, the American taxpayers and their children, hard-working Americans, to another group of people, the speculative housing industry that ran up these huge expansions in the housing inventory over the last 3 years and then sold them in the subprime market in a way which many people have said in many instances were not appropriate, that they took advantage of the borrowers and then took those proceeds in as income, paid taxes on them, and now they want their taxes back because they are suddenly losing money. Well, if you made money for 3 or 4 years--and a lot of money--you should not have a bonus given to you during the years when you are not making money simply because you happen to be one sector of this economy called the housing industry. In fact, just the opposite should happen, quite honestly. The market should be allowed to work here relative to the large housing manufacturers. There is some legitimacy for doing something about homeowners who got hit with a subprime mortgage which is resetting at a rate that is astronomical on them today and they are willing to pay and could pay for and maintain their home if they had a reasonable mortgage rate. There is some reason for arguing those folks might and should get some support, or at least some assistance so they can stay in their homes, they can continue to pay their mortgages. But there is no practical commercial argument which justifies taking tax dollars from working Americans and paying them to homebuilders because homebuilders suddenly start to lose money--after they had great years. It is not like this has been a distressed industry over a long period of time. This is an industry which has always been cyclical. This cycle was a creation of their excess, nothing else. They were greedy. They built a lot of homes the market did not need. They sold them to people who could not afford them. They sold them with instruments which were totally inappropriately structured: the subprime mortgages. Then they took all that profit, and they used it. But, unfortunately, they had to pay taxes on that profit. So now they want their taxes back, and they want the American people to subsidize them on it. Well, under no color of an open market, of a capitalist system--of even a marginally capitalist system; I do not think even France would accept this as a concept--should somebody who made a huge amount of money, created a speculative bubble, benefit from the taxpayers when that bubble bursts. Yes, the people who were harmed inappropriately, the folks who bought those subprimes and did not understand the nature of them and maybe were misled relative to the nature of them, they justifiably could have some support, as long as they are the primary owners of that home and it was not bought for speculation and they are able to support a reasonable mortgage rate. Maybe there is some way to adjust that. But this bill does not do that in this area. This net loss carry-back is simply a gift--pure and simply a gift--to one segment of our industrial community which participated in a very lucrative few years and now is having a hard time, created the problem which we now confront, and now wants to be given a gift. Unfortunately, this gift has to be paid for, as I said before. We are going to run, this year, it looks like, a deficit somewhere of around $400 billion to $420 billion. That is the deficit we are going to run. That is up from a deficit which was under $200 billion last year. That is a huge increase in our deficit. Now, who pays a deficit? Who pays for a deficit? Well, our children pay for it. All this goes on to our children's backs. They are the ones who pay the cost of paying off the debt, which is borrowed in order to finance a deficit. So why would we want to say to them: OK, future Americans--young people coming through school today, going to college, thinking about starting a family, thinking about maybe having children and sending their kids to college--why would we want to say to them: We are going to stick you with a $20 billion bill so we can take care of the large housing manufacturers in this country who basically created a major disruption in our economy by putting on the market a massive inventory of homes we did not need and then using practices which were at the margin to draw people into buying those homes through subprime mortgage lending? Why would we say that to them? How can we possibly, as a government, justify doing that to the next generation? But that is what we are going to do with this bill. We are putting $20 billion on their backs. Where is the money going? It goes into the pocket, primarily--at least that is the game plan; it is not specifically written so--it will be taken advantage of solely by manufacturers of homes. And I suspect there are going to be some other industries which will suffer losses in this economy that may take advantage of it. But it was written primarily to take advantage of the homebuilder industry, which is obviously an honorable industry, but it is also an industry which goes through cycles. In this cycle, there is no reason we should be stepping up with this special gift to that part of our economy when we do not have any money to make the gift with, when we have to borrow the money to pay for the gift. So that is why I have offered this amendment--or tried to offer this amendment. Now, it seems to me if everybody is so comfortable with this legislation and this idea of a net loss carry-back being extended and expanded, they should be willing to vote on this amendment. Is there no courage on the other side of the aisle? Are the sponsors of this concept afraid to vote and stand up for this bill with this proposal? It appears so. I am not offering an alternative. I am just saying let's have an up- or-down vote on whether we should give a $20 billion gift to one segment of our commercial society at the expense of the next generation that has to pay the debt for this bill. I am just saying, stand up and be counted, so to say, as to whether you are for or against this amendment. So, again, I will renew my request. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that my amendment relating to net loss carry forward, which strikes the provisions of the net loss carry forward, be called up.

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

Mr. GREGG. Well, I guess that makes the point. It is too bad. I would hope people would ask why. Why can't we have a vote? What is the fear out there? Are we so concerned about this segment of our industry that we are not willing to vote up or down on whether this type of a $20 billion event should occur? I hope not. It seems to me it is reasonable that the Congress should vote on that. The Senate should vote on that. Mr. President, $20 billion is a lot of money. Do you know $20 billion would run the State of New Hampshire for 5 years? This is a lot of money. This is big-time dollars. Twenty billion dollars is going to cost our children a lot because it compounds with interest. You just do not borrow it. You borrow it and have to pay interest on it. Of course, the interest gets paid to the Chinese or the Indians or the Saudis because they are the ones who probably buy the debt. So not only do we end up with a $20 billion bill we pass on to our kids, but we end up with our kids having to pay interest to the Saudis or the Chinese to support that debt. Also, that one segment of our society which participated in the robustness and the excitement of large economic expansion, and maybe inflated that expansion rather dramatically, does not have to bear the burden of their excesses. Well, as I said, Adam Smith would be a little stunned to find this is the way the market has worked and the Government of the United States-- which is allegedly the Government of a capitalist system--functions. So I will probably renew this request later on because it does seem to me, since this is by far the single biggest spending item in this bill, or tax item in this bill, it should have an up-or-down vote and an open debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, on February 29, 2008, James H. Adams of Pittsfield, NH, retired as manager of the New Hampshire/Vermont District of the U.S. Postal Service after 35 years of service. I wish to thank Jim for all he has done for the people of New Hampshire over that time and for his efforts which have resulted in New Hampshire's outstanding reputation for mail operations, customer service, and worker safety. Starting as a letter carrier in Manchester in 1973, Jim's career began when the price of a stamp cost a whopping 3 cents for a first class letter. His determination and drive for self-improvement soon led to night school classes and a degree in business management, and his talents were recognized with promotion to delivery supervisor, then superintendent of postal operations, in Concord, NH. He left our State for a time, tackling the duties of director of marketing for the Post Office in Syracuse, NY, then in a number of positions of increasing responsibility with the Postmaster General's Office in Washington, DC. During his time in Washington, Jim worked with five U.S. Presidents and helped to develop several commemorative stamps, including those honoring our troops of Desert Storm, POW/MIAs, and even Elvis. He unveiled five World War II commemorative stamps to President George H. W. Bush in the Oval Office and was relied upon in Washington for his professional and personal knowledge of all facets of postal operations, his competent advice, and for the personal integrity with which he always conducted himself. His return to New Hampshire to head the district in 1997 led to dramatic improvements in its operations. Overseeing a $500 million budget and 7,000 employees, Jim turned the district into one of the top 10 safest in the Nation. Similarly, with 6 million pieces of mail delivered each day in New Hampshire and Vermont, Jim's efforts led to a 96-percent on-time mail delivery record and the establishment of customer service that has been recognized as Best in the Nation for each of the past 6 years. Beyond his professional accomplishments, which are many, Jim has remained true to his small-town roots and the honesty and decency of his upbringing. Pittsfield and all of New Hampshire can be proud of him and his success, and I am especially glad to have had the opportunity to work with Jim to serve the people of New Hampshire. Whether helping obtain a sought-after ZIP Code number to serve an entire community or making a personal commitment to ensuring an elderly or disabled customer off the beaten track received their mail at home, Jim dedicated himself to meeting the needs of those who counted on the U.S. mail coming through. He can take great pride in his record of service. I want to take this opportunity to thank him, to recognize his contributions, and to wish him well in all his future endeavors.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: Where actually do we stand right now?

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the effect of agreeing to the motion to reconsider?

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

Mr. GREGG. We have about 40 votes left.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, it is important to note this is a reprioritization within the budget. I happen to agree with this reprioritization, but it comes out of what is known as the 920 account, which means in order to pay for this, it is an across-the-board cut to all other accounts. I think the Senator is correct that if we are going to prioritize spending, I am willing to do an across-the-board cut to all accounts to put more money into NIH and more money into LIHEAP. I suggest we take it on a voice vote, unless the Senator wants a recorded vote.

Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

Mr. GREGG. We are agreeable to a voice vote on the Kennedy amendment.

Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me join in complimenting the chairman of the committee. He is also a professional and a very enjoyable person to work with. Whether it is his birthday or he is sick, he does a great job around here. I think the comity which we have and the professionalism that is shown, between our staffs especially, who do an extraordinary job, under tremendous pressure, is the way the Senate should work. Obviously, we are debating and engaging on very significant issues of public policy, but they should stay as political and substantive policy debates. The actual operation of the Senate and the management of a piece of legislation such as this needs to be done through cooperation between the two sides, and as a result of the tenor the chairman sets in the committee, it is. However, as he said, I do disagree. I do disagree with the bill that has been brought forward. In my opinion, it is a lost opportunity of immense proportions. This Nation faces so many very significant issues--the most significant, of course, being the threat of Islamic terrorism and an attack on our shore again. But that is followed fairly closely by the equally significant issue, in my opinion, of the looming fiscal meltdown of this Nation as a result of the costs which we have put on our children, costs which they will have to bear dealing with paying for the benefits of the retirement of the baby boom generation. In addition, there are issues such as tax policy and issues such as health care this country needs to deal with. Everybody who fills up their gas tank with gasoline any day of the week knows we better get our hands around the cost of energy or we are going to be in big trouble. This budget does virtually nothing in any of these areas and, in many of these areas, in my humble opinion, significantly aggravates the problems. The opportunity was there to do things--to do significant things--to take significant steps, to be creative, to be imaginative, to even be bipartisan, which would have been nice, but those opportunities were passed. Right upfront, this budget underfunds the troops in the field. Now, they are not alone. The administration sent up a budget that did the same thing. But then later, I give the administration credit for correcting their mistake and the Secretary of Defense came forward and said what the right number would be. Last year, the budget and the administration reflected a correct number on what was needed for the troops, but this budget grossly underfunds the troops in the field. Even if you subscribe to the view of some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, which is that these troops should come home tomorrow and acknowledge surrender, you can't get them home. They are going to be left in the field without the equipment they need, without the tools they need to fight this war under the number in this budget. In addition, this budget dramatically expands spending. My colleague loves to use a chart which shows two lines together and it is only 1 percent. Well, folks, 1 percent on $3 trillion is real money, at least in New Hampshire. That is $300 billion of increased spending on the discretionary side of the ledger. When you put in the entitlement side of the ledger, it adds up to over $700 billion of increased spending. Also, it gets built into the baseline. In other words, when you spend that extra $22 billion this year, which adds up to over $300 billion over 5 years, that becomes a figure off which the next year's spending occurs. So it gets bigger and bigger and bigger. It grows and grows and grows. There is no attempt in this budget to try to discipline spending on the discretionary side of the ledger but, more importantly, there is absolutely no attempt in this budget for disciplined spending on the entitlement side of the ledger. We know we are facing a fiscal meltdown as a result of the costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security when this huge generation, of which I am a member and of which my colleague is a member, retires. Sixty-six trillion dollars of unfunded liability will be put on the backs of our children. What does that mean? That means their taxes will go up so much in order to support our generation that they will be unable to afford the lifestyle of our generation. They will not be able to send their kids to college. They will not be able to buy that first house. They will not be able to enjoy the comforts of a lifestyle of affluence this country has obtained, the most affluent country in the world, because entitlement costs will not be able to be borne. This bill does absolutely nothing in this area. Why? Why do we leave this problem to the next generation? We are the ones who are creating this problem. The administration at least had the courtesy to send up a whole series of ideas and they were all fair and they were all reasonable and none of them impacted the vast majority of Medicare beneficiaries or Social Security beneficiaries. Yes, they did impact Warren Buffett. They suggested the Warren Buffetts of this world--I guess there is only one Warren Buffett--the people who have high incomes, the people with over $80,000 of personal income or $160,000 of joint income, that they should pay a fair portion of the cost of their drug insurance under Medicare. Today, they pay virtually nothing--well, a very small amount anyway, less than a quarter of a percent--a quarter of it. But that idea was not included in this bill, although there will be an amendment to have it included in the bill. Ideas on improving technology weren't included. Ideas on improving malpractice weren't included. All ideas to get entitlement spending at least partially under control--in fact, the administration proposals which would have reduced the outyear liability which we are passing on to our children and which they can't afford, reduce that liability by almost a third in the area of Medicare, nothing in this bill, absolutely zero. How much saving is in this bill in discretionary accounts? Zero. How much saving is in this bill in entitlement accounts? Zero. In fact, in both accounts, there are significant expansions and spending. Then there are the games. This bill is replete with games to try to make it look like it is more reasonable and fair and cost-effective than it is. The most obscene game being played around here is the reconciliation instructions. Reconciliation, as we know--those of us who work here--is the one tool of significance which the Budget Committee has. It allows us to change how entitlement programs are funded and slow their rate of growth--that was the purpose of reconciliation--and do it without the changes being subject to the filibuster rule. It is a vehicle basically directed on the purposes of the Senate. What has happened in this bill? There is no talk of reconciliation. What happens on the House side? They have a $750 million reconciliation instruction, which is a fig-leaf instruction, under which they intend to build a massive expansion of programmatic activity. The House doesn't need reconciliation. The House is doing the dirty work of the Senate because the Senate leadership on the Democratic side is unwilling to put forward what they are planning to do. It is the ultimate, cynical game of hide and seek with the budget. That is why I call this the fudge-it budget. There is another fudge- it number in this budget, and that is this alleged tax gap the Senator from North Dakota talks about so much. He talked about it last year. Last year, he said we could get $300 billion. We got zero. In fact, we ended up cutting the IRS last year--the other side did--so they couldn't even collect as effectively as they were collecting the dollars that were coming in. This tax gap number may exist at some level, but there is no record at all that it is ever going to get collected. And you certainly should not be taking credit for it, claiming that is the way you are going to pay for the tax increases in this budget. This budget has tax increases. Again, the chairman says it is only 2.6 percent. Well, 2.6 percent on $3 trillion is approximately $800 billion. What does it mean in real terms? Well, it means they are going to allow to expire the tax rates on capital gains, dividends, estate taxes, R&D credit, energy credit, tuition tax credit--on a whole series of items that benefit a lot of America. The claim we hear from their national candidates on the Democratic side is that we are just going to tax the rich; we can pay for everything we want to do if we just tax the rich. If you take the top tax rate from the present level of about 35 percent up to the Clinton years' level of 39.6 percent, you raise $25 billion year. You cannot pay for even 10 percent of what the Democratic party is planning to spend with $25 billion a year. They have $300 billion in this budget alone. Senator Obama has proposed another $300 billion of annual increases in spending. They are short hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue by taxing the rich. Where is that money going to come from? I will tell you where. It is obvious. It is going to come from hard-working middle-class American families. Our estimate is that this tax package is going to cost the average small business $4,100--small business, which is the backbone of American job creation. This budget is a direct attack on their capacity to create jobs with that type of a tax increase. This budget is going to cost the average senior in America--18 million seniors--$2,200 each. That is what this package is going to cost in tax increases to pay for the spending that is in the program. My colleague on the other side of the aisle is fond of saying: We didn't raise taxes last year; our budget is not going to raise them. This budget has built into it the expectation that taxes are going to go up by $1.2 trillion. And then they spend the money. They spend the money, so they have to raise the taxes. So they cannot claim it both ways, but they try to. That is why I call it the ``fudge-it budget.'' Individuals in this country--43 million Americans--will have to pay $2,300 each to pay for this budget. That doesn't count what Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are proposing on the campaign trail. As I said earlier, Obama has already proposed $300 billion of new spending every year. That is $1.2 trillion over the 5 years. That would double this figure, and it would mean American families would have to pay over $4,500 a year for all of the Obama plans for spending, which mirror Senator Clinton's plan--I don't want to just pick on Senator Obama uniquely. On top of this budget, you would have $2,300 plus $2,300, or $4,600 of new taxes on every family in America. Those are not rich families. It is every family who pays taxes of any significance, families who make more than $50,000, to put it into context. Individuals who make more than $30,000 will have to pay this tax. The irony is that we hear, as I mentioned, we are going to just tax the rich. In this budget, they already assume that the tax rates on the wealthy are going to go from 35 percent to 39.6 percent in years 11 and 12. Then they spend that money. So when these proposals come forward from their national candidates that we are going to put another $300 billion on the books of new spending next year and we are going to get it from the rich--well, they have already taxed the rich. That is already assumed in here. Who will really pay for it? Working, average Americans and small businesses. Talk about stifling an economy. Nothing will stifle an economy more than that. This check reflects it. Under this budget, Americans are going to have to write Uncle Sam a check for $2,300 a year. The spending is built into the baseline, and the taxes are coming down the road. It is, regrettably, in my opinion, a budget of missed opportunities and a budget that is misdirected. What we need in this country is the willingness to step forward and take aggressive steps to get spending under control, especially in the area of entitlements, and to reform our tax laws so they are more efficient and more effective in collecting obligations. But none of that is assumed in this budget, and none of it is attempted in this budget. We need to support our troops in the field. None of that is assumed in this budget. Whether or not you agree with the policies of fighting terrorism that the President is pursuing, you have to feel that the troops need our support. This budget does not have that support. We need to have a budget that doesn't constantly game itself, where we set up alleged enforcement mechanisms, such as pay-go, and then manipulate the budget so we go around those enforcement mechanisms. We need to have something here that protects the integrity of the few disciplining initiatives we have, such as reconciliation, rather than right out of the box, with true cynicism, set up a scenario where you are going to game the reconciliation instructions to use them to expand the size of Government instead of controlling the rate of growth of Government. Most importantly, we need a budget that understands that it is not our money, it is not the Federal Government's money, not the money of the Members of Congress. It is the money of the people who are working out there every day, trying to make ends meet, trying to fill up their gas tanks and pay for the heat in their houses, trying to send their kids to school, trying to pay their mortgage. It is their money, for goodness' sake. Around here, it is treated as if it is our money and as if it is a generous act on our part to let people keep their money. Well, the purpose of the budget should be to structure itself so that we control spending in a manner that allows us to keep taxes under control and doesn't raise the tax burden on working American families. We are going to be here voting a long time on a lot of issues. A lot of these issues will be raised during those votes. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from North Dakota and the way we have gotten to this point. I, obviously, disagree with the budget as presented.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator entertain a question on that?

Mr. GREGG. I object. I object to laying it on the table.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I believe Senator Vitter is the next speaker in order. Amendment No. 4309

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the managers' package be agreed to.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, as I understand it, the next two amendments will first be Kyl, and then we will go to the DeMint amendment, which has been anxiously awaited by large numbers of people.

Mr. GREGG. In between we agree to have a finite list, and we will read them and that will be it.