John Thune

Mr. THUNE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize a group of 122 South Dakota World War II veterans who traveled to Washington, DC, on May 1 and 2 to visit the World War II Memorial. This trip was made possible by the Honor Flight Network, a nonprofit organization dedicated to bringing World War II veterans to Washington, DC, to visit the World War II Memorial at no cost to the veterans. South Dakota's veterans have played an important role in making our Nation great. Through their sacrifices, America has triumphed, remained a free and vibrant nation, and helped others obtain their own freedom. I was honored to welcome these American heroes to our Nation's Capital to see the symbols of the freedoms they have protected around the world. I am humbled by their sacrifice and appreciated the opportunity to meet with them and thank them for their service. We cannot thank our veterans enough for putting their lives on the line when America's security demanded it. The Honor Flight veterans, in alphabetical order, are as follows: Robert Anderson, Ray Anderson, Arlie Asmussen, Robert Bailey, Albert Barber, Raymond Baumgart, Rudolph Becker, Robert Benz, Edmund Bouvette, Tom Brady, Mark Breuer, Thomas Briggs, Don Brommer, Robert Camp, Robert Carlson, Ralph Christensen, Maynard Christiansen, Elmer Cohlman, Hobart Cole, Leonard Conrad, Cloyd Conroy, Burdell Coplan, Stanley Dahl, Earl Dains, Harland Danielsen, Howard Daugaard, Lyle Davis, Charles Dawes, William Degler, Mildred Diekman, Dale Dieltz, Delmer Dooley, Merle Driggs, Clair Ellingson, Harry Erickson, Edward Erlandson, Gerald Erlandson, John Erlandson, Orwin Fodness, Howard Franey, Kenneth Freeman, Harvey Glover, Fred Gorter, Peter Gortmaker, Kenneth Gregersen, Emmett Guthmiller, Donald Haan, Keith Hagerman, Glen Hansen, Paul Harris, James Harris, Kenneth Harthoorn, Harold Hatting, Raymond Heger, Richard Hempel, Dale Hendricks, Fay Hendricks, Noel Henrichs, Orville Hill, Verlyn Hill, Eugene Hoekman, Walter Holtkamp, Claude Hone, George Huizenga, Harry Irwin, Albert Jager, Louis Jarding, Roland Jensen, Arden Jensen, Ervin Jensen, Ralph Johnshoy, Billy Jones, Erland Juntunen, John Kagel, William Kerr, Alfred Knaack, Ralph Kock, Hampton Lane, Fred Lassle, Cleone Lauer, Eugene Lauer, Howard Lee, John Lewis, Howard Livingston, Richard Luther, Duane Lyman, Morris Magnuson, William Merrill, Norbert Miles, Quentin Miles, Duane Miller, John Miller, Kareen Millis, David Moore, James Moore, James Morton, Harold Muetzel, Howard Opheim, Arnold Pederson, Delbert Petersen, Wayne Pool, Wade Pringle, Roy Radloff, Vernon Ramesbotham, Carl Renz, Kenneth Salisbury, Gerald Sanborn, Ray Schmitz, Ronald Scott, Lloyd Seger, Thomas Simpson, Lowell Stagebert, Herman Ulrich, Robert Van Ningen, Frances Vanderbush, Ivan Vitek, Steven Wachtel, George Wagner, Eugene Weidenbach, John Wilds, Robert Williams, and Ernest Zimbelman. It gives me great pleasure to honor those who have defended our freedom and to recognize the service and sacrifice of these courageous South Dakotans who served during World War II. I am proud that they were able to see the memorial that was built in their honor.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the amendment I offer today essentially follows along with the bill I introduced earlier called the TARP Reduction Priority Act. Essentially, this amendment reduces TARP authority by any amount of principal returned by a financial institution to the Treasury. Again, by way of background, I spoke to this amendment a little bit last week. On October 7, 2008, as we all know, Congress passed the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, authorizing $700 billion for the purchase of toxic assets from banks with the goal of restoring liquidity to the financial sector and restarting the flow of credit in our markets. The Department of the Treasury, without consultation with Congress, changed the purpose of TARP and began injecting capital into financial institutions through a program called the Capital Purchase Program rather than purchasing toxic assets. Financial lending was not increased with implementation of the CPP, and $218 billion, I believe, has been allocated thus far, despite the goal of the program. These institutions receiving funding through the CPP are now faced with additional restrictions related to accepting those funds. A number of community banks and financial institutions have expressed their desire to return the CPP funds to the Department of the Treasury, and Treasury has begun the process of accepting receipt of these funds. However, because of the financial stress test that Treasury is currently conducting, it is possible Treasury will restrict banks from returning funds they received from the Capital Purchase Program. In his testimony before the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel on April 21, 2009, Secretary Geithner stated that Treasury estimates $134.6 billion of TARP funds are still available. In that figure, he includes $25 billion which Treasury expects to receive back from banks under the CPP. Geithner also stated that he believed the $25 billion is a conservative number and that private analysts predict more will eventually be returned. Section 120 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act terminates the authority for TARP funds on December 31, 2009, and the Secretary can request an extension to the deadline not later than 2 years after enactment, which was October of last year, 2008. So keep in mind this restriction applies only to Treasury's issuance of new loans and does not cover the reuse of previously issued assistance that was returned to the Treasury. So, essentially, my argument for why this piece of legislation, this amendment, is important is, until the December 31, 2009, expiration date or possibly longer, as I said earlier, if the Secretary is granted an extension, without this legislation Treasury can continue to use TARP funds, including those repaid, in any manner they see fit. This is certainly not what Members of Congress envisioned when this legislation passed last year. These are taxpayer dollars. They should not become a discretionary slush fund for Treasury. Under the Constitution, Congress controls the power of the purse, and there are major concerns regarding the Treasury's handling of TARP funding. If the Treasury Department believes it needs additional funding to address problems in the financial sector, they should come to Congress to get that authority. The inspector general, Neil Barofsky, stated in his quarterly report to Congress that 12 separate programs are being funded under TARP involving up to $3 trillion of Government and public funds. Amazingly, this is the equivalent to the size of the entire Federal budget, certainly not what Congress was told the funding would be used for. Mr. Barofsky also mentioned on April 4, 2009, the CBO report which estimated that TARP will cost the Government $356 billion, meaning the Treasury will only be able to recover about $344 billion, or approximately 49 percent of the $700 billion that was originally authorized. When this program, as I said earlier, was initially pitched to Congress, Secretary Paulson argued that the Government could end up making money once the toxic assets were sold, after the economy recovered. Clearly, based on what the inspector general is saying, that does not appear to be the case. Because if the numbers CBO is using are correct, they are estimating that TARP will cost the Government $356 billion, and therefore only about $344 billion or 49 percent of it will actually be recoverable of the original $700 billion. Barofsky's report spans 247 pages. It says that: The very character of the program makes it inherently vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse, including significant issues related to conflicts of interest facing fund managers, collusion between participants, and vulnerabilities to money laundering. It would seem irresponsible to continue recycling money in the TARP if the very nature of the program makes it susceptible to fraud. In fact, the special investigator's office already has 20 criminal investigations underway. What amendment No. 1030 does is amend the underlying bill to say that TARP funds that are repaid by financial institutions, if they choose to do it--and that is going to be in consultation with Treasury--if the funds come back in--and according to Secretary Geithner, about $25 billion of the amount they say is available under TARP, still available to lend, consists of moneys being paid back by financial institutions-- that when those moneys come back in, they should reduce the amount, the principal amount of TARP available to be used. Again, I offered a similar amendment to the fraud recovery bill a couple weeks ago. In that case, I offered it with the intention of having any funds paid back under TARP by financial institutions to be dedicated to paying down the public debt--in other words, to debt reduction. Under that arrangement, it was considered not to be germane. So when cloture was filed, it fell postcloture. It was not, therefore, able to be voted on. We worked with folks who are involved in trying to make sure this is germane, that it fits within the parameters of the bill under consideration. It addresses it in a slightly different way; that is to say, whatever TARP funds are repaid, it reduces the amount of TARP authority available to be used. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. It is a responsible thing to do. These are taxpayer dollars. Many of us, when we supported this last fall, had an understanding about how the funds would be used. They were used differently. It would appear at this point that much of the moneys put out under the program, which at the time we were told would be paid back, that will not be the case. As much as half or more of this is probably going to be lost. It seems to me the dollars that are paid back should not be recycled or reused. They ought to reduce the amount of TARP lending authority that is available. It is a fairly straightforward amendment. I urge colleagues to support it. At the appropriate time, I will ask for the yeas and nays. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to call up and make pending amendment No. 1030.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, very briefly, to summarize, what my amendment does is reduce TARP authority by any amount of principal returned by a financial institution to the Treasury Department. This amendment, as I said before, is necessary because until the December 31, 2009, expiration date, and possibly longer if the Secretary is granted an extension without this legislation, Treasury can continue to use TARP funds, including those repaid, in any manner they see fit. These are taxpayers' dollars. They should not become a discretionary slush fund. These are dollars that, when they are repaid to the Treasury by the financial institutions, ought to be used to reduce the amount of TARP funding authority that is available. As of May 1, the new administration has accumulated $580 billion of new debt. That is about $5.5 billion new debt per day. I understand we should not be tying Treasury's hands when we are still in the midst of a financial crisis, but Congress has the responsibility to decide how the tax money is spent, not the administration. If more money is needed in the financial sector, then Treasury needs to present a plan to the Congress and let those of us elected by the taxpayers decide whether additional tax dollars should be placed at risk or spent. That is what the amendment would do. I urge my colleagues to adopt it. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if I might speak to the amendment for a few moments. I offered a similar amendment last week to the fraud recovery bill and was told at the time--and, of course, cloture ultimately was invoked on that bill, and I was told it was not germane. So it fell postcloture. In order to make it germane to this underlying bill--in fact, I was told at the time last week, when I brought it up, it would be germane to the housing bill, which would be considered next. So I decided I would offer this amendment again. But running into the same sort of question about whether this amendment would be germane postcloture, I have adapted the amendment so it is germane to the underlying bill. I will tell you, I would have preferred keeping it in its original form because, essentially, it would have taken TARP moneys repaid to the Federal Treasury by lending institutions and applied them to debt reduction. That was the amendment in the form it was in last week when I offered it to the fraud recovery bill. I still think that is a good, sound idea: As TARP funds are paid back into the Federal Treasury, rather than being recycled or used on some other Government program, we apply it to debt reduction. Lord knows we are spending and borrowing enormous amounts of money. The least we could do when these moneys are paid back is put them toward paying down the Federal debt so we are not handing this enormous--enormous--bill to our children and grandchildren. But, as I said before, in order to get this amendment in a form that it would be germane postcloture, I have revised it. I will describe it in a minute. But I wish to start by saying, on October 7, 2008, we all know Congress passed the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. It authorized $700 billion for the purchase of toxic assets from banks, with a goal of restoring liquidity to the financial sector and restarting the flow of credit in our markets. The Department of Treasury, however, without consultation with Congress, changed the purpose of TARP and began injecting capital into financial institutions through a program called the Capital Purchase Program, or CPP, rather than purchasing toxic assets. Financial lending was not increased with the implementation of the CPP and the expenditure of $218 billion of TARP funds, despite the goal of the program. Those receiving funds through CPP are now faced with additional restrictions related to accepting those funds. A number of community banks and large financial institutions have expressed their desire to return those CPP funds to the Department of Treasury. Treasury has, in fact, begun the process of accepting receipt of these funds. However, because of the financial stress test Treasury is currently conducting, it is possible Treasury will restrict some banks from returning funds they received from the CPP. I mentioned last week when I offered the amendment to the fraud recovery bill that there were banks I was aware of that were not able at the time to return funds to the Treasury. They were told they couldn't. They had money from the TARP, they were banks that were in good financial standing, and they wanted to pay back that TARP money and couldn't do it. I believe now, at least, the Treasury is working with a number of banks to try and receive some of these monies that the banks want to pay back, but it is entirely possible, because of these stress tests, that some banks will be restricted from returning funds they received from the CPP. In his testimony before the TARP congressional oversight panel on April 21, 2009, Secretary Geithner stated that Treasury estimates $134.6 billion of TARP funds are still available. What is interesting about that number is that in that figure, he includes $25 billion they expect to receive back from banks under CPP. Geithner also stated he believes that $25 billion is a conservative number and that private analysts, of course, are predicting that more--much more--is going to be returned. But the important point is that of the $134.6 billion that Treasury Secretary Geithner referred to in terms of TARP funds that will be available, $25 billion of that is in the form of payments they expect to receive back from banks under the CPP. So my point is there is money coming in, and rather than using that to pay down the debt, which I think many of us assumed was going to be the use of those funds if they came back in, that they are sort of planning on, it looks like, recycling back into TARP or, perhaps--I hope not but perhaps--using them for some other purpose. Section 120 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act terminates the authority for TARP funds on December 31, 2009, and the Secretary can request an extension to that deadline not later than 2 years after enactment, which would be October of 2010. But keep in mind, that restriction only applies to Treasury's issuance of new loans and does not cover the reuse of previously issued assistance that was returned to the Treasury. So there is no prohibition on the Treasury using these recycled TARP funds. The TARP Reduction Priority Act, which is the subject of my amendment, reduces TARP authority by any amount returned by a financial institution to Treasury. So instead of having TARP monies that are returned from the banks back into the Treasury applied to debt reduction, what I do now with this amendment--in order to have it fit within the confines of this bill and to remain germane should, in fact, cloture be invoked--is reduce the TARP authority by whatever amount is returned by a financial institution to the Treasury. In other words, the TARP amount--the amount that would be available for lending under TARP--as it is paid back, monies come back from the banks, the TARP lending amount is reduced commensurate with the amount that is returned, so that those monies cannot be recycled. Once they have been out there and returned by the banks, they can't be recycled and reused or put to some other purpose. Let me also say that until the December 31, 2009 expiration date, and possibly longer--again, if the Secretary is granted an extension--that without this legislation, Treasury can continue to use TARP funds, including those repaid in any manner they see fit. It is certainly not what Members of Congress envisioned when this legislation passed last year. These are taxpayer dollars. They should not become a discretionary slush fund for the administration. Under the Constitution, Congress controls the power of the purse, and I, as do many Members of Congress and others around the country, have major concerns regarding the Treasury's handling of TARP funding. If the new administration, the Obama administration, or the Treasury Department believes it needs additional funding to address problems in the financial sector, they should come to Congress for that authority. Inspector General Neil Barofsky stated in his quarterly report to Congress that there are 12 separate programs being funded under TARP involving up to $3 trillion of government and public funds. Amazingly, that is the equivalent amount of the size of the entire Federal budget. It certainly wasn't what Congress was told the funding would be used for. Mr. Barofsky also mentioned in his April 4, 2009 CBO report--he estimated that TARP would cost the Federal Government $356 billion, meaning that the Treasury will only be able to recover $344 billion or approximately 49 percent of the $700 billion that was originally allocated by the Congress. When this program was initially pitched to Congress--and my colleagues in the Senate should remember--Secretary Paulson at the time argued that the Government would end up making money once those toxic assets were sold after the economy recovered. Clearly, this is no longer the case. Barofsky's report spans 247 pages. It says the very character of the bailout program makes it: Inherently vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse, including significant issues related to conflicts of interfacing fund managers, inclusion between participants, and vulnerabilities to money laundering. So again, the point of the amendment is very simple; it is very straightforward. All I am trying to do is to make sure the TARP funds, as they come back in, when they are repaid by banks, are not recycled, they are not reused, they are not put into some program which the inspector general says in his report is inherently vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse; that it actually be used to reduce the amount of the TARP authority. It is the best solution we could come up with short of applying those repaid funds to deficit or to debt reduction which, as I said, was the original form of this amendment, but under the rules of the Senate, to make sure it is germane, this is the approach we have selected. I think it accomplishes the same purpose. It makes certain that the monies that come back in, that are paid back by banks that have received TARP funds are not reused, reallocated, put into some other purpose or some other fund, but it actually is reducing the amount of TARP authority that is available to be used and, therefore, protecting taxpayer interests and taxpayer dollars that were extended under this program in the first place. So I hope my colleagues, when they are making final determinations about which amendments are going to be on the so-called list--and it seems to me, at least, that on a bill such as this, a housing bill, it ought to be wide open to amendments and we ought to be able to get votes on some of these amendments but evidently the leaders on the other side have concluded they are going to limit those amendments and try to come up with some finite list--I hope they will include this amendment on that list. I think it makes sense. It is perfectly fitting with the purpose of the underlying bill, which is a housing bill. TARP funds, of course, were supposed to deal with the credit crisis, the housing crisis, and I would hope this amendment would be one that the other side, as they make those decisions about which amendments are going to be allowed to be debated and voted on with respect to the base bill, that this amendment will be on that list. I think it makes a lot of sense. I hope some of the other amendments my colleagues have offered also will be allowed to be voted on. I think that is the way the Senate is intended to work and to function. All Members of the Senate are supposed to be able to come to the floor and offer amendments and have those amendments debated and voted upon. It seems to me that sort of arbitrarily putting in place a construct that limits amendments and picks and chooses ones that get voted on does not represent the heritage and the tradition of this body. I hope my colleagues who are managing the bill on the floor will decide what I think is in the best interests of this institution, and that is that these amendments all be offered, be debated, and be voted on, and I hope this certainly is the case with the amendment I put before the Senate right now. With that, I yield back the balance of my time and I hope this amendment can be made pending and get voted on whenever we get back on the underlying bill.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 1025 to the pending bill, and I ask that amendment be made pending.

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I would like to pick up where my colleague from South Carolina left off and talk a little bit about the need to have a budget agreement that reflects the will of the American people, to have Republicans and Democrats both engaged, involved in that, not only in Washington in the Senate but Republicans and Democrats around the country. What we saw in this budget was a certain number of amendments that were accepted on the floor of the Senate, Republican amendments, all of which were stripped out in the conference committee with the House--which many of us predicted. But there were lots of good amendments that addressed key, core issues. We had amendments that addressed the issue of climate change, which the door is left open to in this budget. We had amendments that addressed issues such as the deduction for charitable giving, which was an amendment I offered on the Senate floor. It was adopted by a vote of 94 to 3. That was struck in the conference. We had amendments that were offered that were designed to protect those with incomes less than $250,000 a year from having tax increases in the budget. That was an Ensign amendment. That was stripped out. So any Republican input or involvement in this budget process was nullified by the work of the conference committee, the Democrats who led the conference between the House and the Senate. So we are left with a budget that has been sanitized of any of those protections against higher costs for energy, against higher taxes, and a whole range of other things--protection against losing the deduction that is available to people, the tax benefit available to people for charitable giving, that being stripped away and used to pay for other things. The budget essentially now is a Democratic budget. My colleague from North Dakota was here earlier talking about how these problems were all inherited; that the spending all occurred on the past administration's watch and now they are just trying to clean up the mess. I have to point out to my colleagues in the Senate and to the American people that there are certain givens I think we all would subscribe to, one being the fact that we did have a $5.8 trillion debt at the end of the last administration. Many of us have acknowledged that Republicans didn't do a good enough job when we were in charge of keeping Federal spending under control. But that does not negate the fact that in the next 5 years that $5.8 trillion debt is going to double. In 10 years it is going to triple. In fact, if we go back in the annals of American history, go back starting at the time of the Revolutionary War through the last Presidency, that of President George Bush, from George Washington to George Bush, the accumulated debt over that entire time period will be equaled by the public debt that America will pile up in the next 5 years. It will be tripled in the next 10 years. That is a staggering number. When you start looking at doubling of the public debt in a 5-year timeframe, tripling in 10 years, when at the end of the 10 years we have $7 trillion in debt or 82 percent of our gross domestic product that is composed of publicly held debt, we have not seen that kind of number since the end of World War II, since 1948. I would daresay, with all due respect to my colleague from North Dakota who made the point that these are all problems that were passed on by the previous administration, that it was not the Bush administration that put on the table and passed a trillion-dollar stimulus bill. I think it is fair to ask the question, is this trillion dollars in stimulus spending going to be carried on and extended and considered part of the baseline so it will create obligations and liabilities for our Government in the future? We talked about $1 trillion on the floor of the Senate that actually, according to the CBO, when asked the question, if the spending in this bill is extended and not terminated, how much would it cost, the answer was $3 trillion--with interest, over $3 trillion. That was not a Bush administration policy, nor is the fact that the Omnibus appropriations bill that was passed earlier this year, which had an 8.3-percent increase in spending in it, which was more than double the rate of inflation in this country, nor does this more recently passed budget-- is the Bush administration responsible for that? This is the budget that was put forward by the new administration, that was passed in the Senate without a Republican vote. It went to conference where any amendments that were adopted on the floor of the Senate that had been offered by Republicans were subsequently stripped out. This budget is a statement of priorities and reflects the spending choices that are made by the new administration and by this Congress. So we cannot blame the past administration for the trillion-dollar stimulus which, if those programs are extended in the future, end up being not $1 trillion but $3 trillion. We cannot blame the past administration for the more than double rate of inflation increase in spending in the annual appropriations bills we passed earlier this year, and we cannot blame the past administration for a budget, a $3.6 trillion budget, that increases nondefense discretionary spending by 8.9 percent this year and piles mountains of debt on future generations. If we look at the deficits--just the 5-year, which we are limited to--earlier, I used some 10-year numbers. But the 5-year numbers on the deficits we are going to accumulate--2009, the current fiscal year, almost $1.7 trillion; 2010, $1.2 trillion; 2013, $916 billion. Incidentally, this year, 2009, as a percentage of GDP, that deficit is 12 percent--12 percent of our GDP. The benchmark for getting into the European Union is you cannot have a deficit, as a percentage of GDP, that exceeds 3 percent. Some of our European brothers, I assume, with the bad economy, are in excess of that now too, but the point is we are going to have a 12-percent deficit to GDP ratio which is four times the benchmark for entering the European Union. The debt as a percentage of our GDP, the debt held by the public, starts at 55 percent this year, goes to 61 next year, 64 the year after, 66 the year after that, 67 the year after that--in 2014, 67 percent of public debt as a percentage of GDP, and if you extend it out for 10 years, which we saw in the original budget blueprint, we are talking about a debt that is 82 percent of our gross domestic product. That is not something for which the past administration is responsible. These are decisions that have been made by the present administration and this Congress when it comes to spending the American taxpayers' dollars. So you have a stimulus bill which is a trillion dollars, and then again, as I said earlier, if those programs are extended in the future, it ends up being in excess of $3 trillion; you have an Omnibus appropriations bill that passed earlier this year that increased at more than twice the rate of inflation and a budget which increases nondefense discretionary spending in front of us today by 8.9 percent and adds, over the next 5 years, about $5 trillion, $5.5 trillion to the Federal debt. Those are decisions that are being made real-time. A lot of my colleagues on the other side have a sort of Bush administration phobia. They want to talk about everything that has happened before. Well, there comes a point at which you own these decisions. Decisions have consequences, and there are consequences of the decisions that are being made here. A lot of people believe that if we continue this rate of spending and taxing and borrowing, in the future, if we continue to pile up the interest on the debt--again, incidentally, at the end of the 10th year, we will spend more on interest on the debt than we actually spend on national defense, about $4 trillion over the course of the next 10 years in interest on the debt, or $52,000 for every household in America. That is just the interest on the debt. A lot of people think the level of borrowing is going to lead inevitably to higher inflation down the road and therefore higher interest rates and all kinds of other bad economic outcomes that will put this Nation's economy in peril and make it more difficult for us to recover. So if we are going to have a debate here in the Senate about this budget resolution and the conference report that came out, it should be about what is in front of us, not what has happened in the 8 years previous, because this budget is a budget that was presented and submitted by this administration, adopted by this Congress, adopted here in the Senate without a single Republican vote, then went into conference with the House of Representatives where any Republican amendments which were agreed to on the floor of the Senate, many of which got big votes: Well, just let them go ahead, vote for this stuff. We do not want to put out bad votes against these good amendments; we will strip them in the conference with the House. So those amendments, all of them, were stripped out. So we now have in front of us a budget that includes or makes possible the prospect of a climate change or the carbon tax proposal being done through reconciliation. The Senator from North Dakota put out a statement that says: Assume that reconciliation will not be used for changes in legislation related to global climate change. Well, that is really nice, but it is a statement. The amendment that was offered by the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Johanns, which was adopted here on the floor of the Senate, which got 67 votes, was binding, basically said that reconciliation would not be used for climate change legislation. It got an overwhelming vote here in the Senate. A lot of Democrats voted for it. It got stripped in the conference committee, which opens the door to a cap-and-tax proposal that, by some estimates, could cost the average family in this country over $3,000 a year in higher electricity costs. That is not a previous administration issue. This is a real-time budget. This is a real-time issue. These are decisions that are being made by the current administration and the current Congress, make no mistake about it. The final point I wish to make is that in the context of this--and they have been coming down and saying: There is really no tax increase in this. Well, there is. Taxes are going to go up on a lot of people. Well, they may say it is high-income people, but there are a lot of small businesses that are going to be captured under that net. This is not just going to hit the high-income people because a lot of small businesses that are organized as LLCs or subchapter S's or in some way that allows the income they derive from their small business to flow through to their individual tax return are going to pay higher income tax rates. Instead of paying at 33 and 35 percent, they are going to pay at 40 and 42 percent. Taxes are going to go up on capital gains. Taxes are going to go up on dividends. There are tax increases in there, there is no question about that, and the American people are going to find that out very soon. The other thing that did not happen in this budget, in this whole sort of pursuit of new Government spending--and there are reconciliation instructions in here for health care reform which can be very costly to the economy and which there is no way of paying for in the budget. It is just assumed at that point that they will come up with the revenue source for that. But you have a health care reconciliation instruction, a climate tax reconciliation instruction, all of which could cost the economy enormous amounts of money, and yet nothing was done in the budget to deal with the fundamental issue that is driving these deficits and this debt for years and years into the future, and that is entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. All of these programs on the mandatory side of the budget that continue to drive Government spending, to drive deficits and drive debts well into the future, there is nothing that is done to reduce the overall cost of these mandatory spending programs, these entitlement programs, or to reform them. The President said we need to reform these and look at all of these entitlement programs. Well, this budget does nothing of the sort. All it does is increase spending, increase taxes, and add mountains and mountains to the public debt--a debt that we hand off to future generations. So I hope my colleagues will reject and vote down this conference report. It would have been better, it would have been a much improved product had some of the amendments my colleagues on the Republican side had adopted when it was debated here in the Senate been retained in the conference committee. But they weren't. They have been struck, all of them struck, many of which passed by large margins. As I said, I had a couple of amendments on the floor, one with 89 votes and another was 94 votes. You would think, when the Senate makes that kind of statement in support of a particular amendment or policy, you might want to think about retaining that in the conference. Those were struck. The amendment by my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Johanns, which got 67 votes, which directed the conferees not to use reconciliation for climate change legislation, was struck from the conference report. That is unfortunate. This could have been a better budget. It wouldn't have been a good budget because it still spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much, but it certainly would have been improved had some of those amendments been retained. So I urge my colleagues to vote against this, and I hope, now that this budget is going to pass here and we start doing appropriations bills, that this Congress will get serious about controlling Federal spending, about doing the serious work that is necessary to get our fiscal house in order. We cannot afford to continue to pass on these mountains and mountains of debt to future generations. It is not fair to them, and it is not fair to the American taxpayer. It is high time we started focusing on this issue and did something about it. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Stabenow motion to instruct. She is correct that it imposes limitations on climate change legislation as adopted during the budget resolution, with one very important deletion, and that is one that consumers care about the most, which prevents consumers from having to pay higher gasoline prices and electricity rates. If the Senate adopts this motion, it will undermine an amendment I offered to the Senate budget resolution, which passed 89 to 8 in the Senate, which prevents consumers from having to deal with higher gas and electricity rates as a result of climate change legislation. That is an important protection. It is something the conferees need to keep in the budget resolution. I hope the Senate will vote to defeat the Stabenow motion to instruct because it does undermine what we did in the budget resolution with respect to the protections afforded to consumers when it comes to higher gas and electricity prices. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the motion of the Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, that instructs the conferees to include some but not all of the limitations the Senate voted for with respect to climate change legislation. I think the Senate needs to understand that the effect of this motion would be to instruct conferees on the issue of climate change without including the Senate's protection for consumers against higher gas and electricity prices, which was adopted by the Senate by a vote of 89 to 8 during the debate on the budget resolution. The Senate adopted several budget amendments to try to specify what the parameters should be in the debate over climate change legislation. One of those amendments that was adopted was one that was sponsored by me. That amendment specified that climate change legislation could not increase electricity or gasoline prices. It was adopted by the Senate by a vote of 89 to 8. What Senator Stabenow's motion would do if it were agreed to is it would instruct that it would be the Senate's only specific instruction on what should be included in the final budget on climate change legislation, apart from the reconciliation limitations that would be included. So, in other words, other protections, such as those included by my amendment, could be excluded were the conferees to adhere to the instructions in her motion. The bottom line is, Senator Stabenow's motion to instruct would encourage conferees to drop the commonsense protections adopted by the Senate with a vote of 89 to 8 when it adopted my amendment to the budget resolution. Just, again, by way of background, I do not think there is anybody who would argue the point that a cap-and-trade proposal is going to raise energy prices. This motion does nothing to include protection against those higher prices. Under the President's cap-and-trade proposal that was contained in his budget, it would impose what is a massive new energy tax on anyone who drives a car or turns on a light switch. In fact, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood has said the administration is ``not for an increase in the gas tax as long as the economy is bad, people are out of work, people don't have jobs. No one should be promoting an increase in the gas tax.'' The cap-and-trade proposal the President has put forward would do just that. It would also increase the cost of electricity prices. Secretary of Energy Chu just testified recently: I think especially now in today's economic climate it would be completely unwise to want to increase the price of gasoline. The President and his Budget Director have been very clear that prices are going to go up on consumers, and they are going to feel the pain, the economic pain associated with higher prices for electricity and gasoline. The President himself acknowledged that when he was talking about a cap-and-trade proposal some time back. He acknowledged his plan would lead to higher electricity prices, and he said: Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. What happened during the debate on the budget is we adopted my amendment, by a vote of 89 to 8, which specifically stated that any cap-and-trade climate change legislation could not increase electricity rates or gas prices for consumers in this country. The Stabenow motion to instruct, if adopted, would instruct the conferees in an opposite direction. It would exclude that protection that was included in my amendment to the budget resolution. So I ask my colleagues in the Senate to defeat the Stabenow motion. The Johanns motion, on the other hand, to instruct the conferees not to use reconciliation to accomplish climate change legislation is a good motion. I hope the Senate will vote to adopt it. That was also one that was adopted by a fairly large margin when it was voted on during the debate on the budget a couple weeks ago. But let me restate as clearly as I can, if the Stabenow motion is adopted by the Senate today, it would instruct the conferees in a number of areas with regard to cap-and-trade legislation, many of which sound good: invest in clean energy technology initiatives, decrease greenhouse gas emissions, create new jobs in a clean technology economy, strengthen the manufacturing competitiveness of the United States, and I could go on. There are nine of them that are stipulated here. The one that is conspicuously and noticeably absent is the protection against higher prices for consumers in the form of higher gasoline prices and higher electric rates. So it was an amendment adopted by the Senate by a vote of 89 to 8. It would be my view that the Senate should not go back on an overwhelming vote like that, which made it very clear that any climate change legislation should not raise electricity and gasoline prices on American consumers. The Stabenow motion, if adopted, would not include that protection. I ask my colleagues to vote to defeat it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I appreciate the observations of the Senator from Vermont. It is a bill that is broadly supported. I understand the objection he will raise with respect to his committee's jurisdiction and what the bill covers. With regard to my amendment, there is a connection between the underlying bill and what we are trying to accomplish. I previously referenced the inspector general's report about 12 separate programs being funded under TARP that involve up to $3 trillion in government and public funds. Bear in mind, this report spans 247 pages. In that report, it says the very character of the bailout program makes it ``inherently vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse, including significant issues related to conflicts of interest facing fund managers, collusion between participants, and vulnerabilities to money laundering.'' I believe this amendment is related to the underlying bill which deals with fraud recovery. The inspector general's report bears that out.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, on October 7, 2008, Congress passed the Troubled Asset Relief Program as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act--or TARP--and allocated $700 billion for the purchase of toxic assets from banks with the goal of restoring liquidity to the financial sector and restarting the flow of credit in our markets. The Department of Treasury, without consultation from Congress, changed the purpose of the TARP and began injecting capital into financial institutions through a program called the Capital Purchase Program rather than purchasing toxic assets. Financial lending was not increased with the implementation of CPP, and the expenditure of $218 billion of TARP funds disputes the goal of the program. Those receiving funding through the CPP are now faced with additional restrictions related to accepting that funding. A number of community banks and large financial institutions have expressed their desire to return their CPP funds to the Department of Treasury, and Treasury has begun the process of accepting receipt of those funds. However, because of the financial stress test Treasury is currently conducting, it is possible that Treasury will restrict banks from returning funds they received from the CPP. In his testimony before the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel on April 21, 2009, earlier this week, Secretary Geithner stated that Treasury estimates $134.6 billion of TARP funds are still available. What is important about that figure is he includes $25 billion which they expect to receive back from banks under CPP. Geithner also stated that he believed $25 billion is a conservative number, and private analysts predict more will be returned. Section 120 of the Emergency Stabilization Act terminated the authority for TARP funds on December 31, 2009, and the Secretary can request an extension to the deadline not later than 2 years after enactment. Keep in mind that this restriction only applies to Treasury's issuance of new loans and does not cover the reuse of previously issued assistance that was returned to the Treasury. Essentially, to summarize what my amendment does, it requires Treasury to use any of the funds that are recovered through TARP to reduce the national debt. Basically, this amendment prevents the Treasury from reallocating money for other purposes. The amendment establishes the public debt reduction payment account and requires Treasury to deposit any amounts received from repayment of financial assistance through TARP into this account. The Secretary of the Treasury must use the money in the public debt reduction payment account to pay, redeem, or buy any Government obligation included in the public debt. The obligations paid, redeemed, or bought are canceled and cannot be reissued. In addition, the statutory debt limit is automatically reduced by any amount equal to funds that are deposited in this account. I think the amendment is very straightforward, and it really is directed at ensuring that the taxpayer dollars that were allocated for the TARP program, which, as I said before, was about $700 billion last fall, much of which has been expended but much of which now is in the process of being repaid, assuming, again, the mechanism is put in place to allow the Treasury to take receipt of funds that banks wish to repay, TARP funds which they wish to repay--with that money coming into the Treasury--and as I said before, Secretary Geithner earlier this week indicated that it would probably be about $25 billion, at least that we know of now, and there are predictions that it could be much more, that money comes back into the Treasury and could be recycled, reused--what we want to do and what my amendment does is it ensures that those TARP funds that are repaid by banks actually go to reduce the public debt. We know we have incurred an enormous amount of debt. In fact, the inspector general, Neil Barofsky, stated in his quarterly report to Congress that 12 separate programs are being funded under TARP, involving up to $3 trillion of Government and public funds. Amazingly, that is equivalent to the size of the entire Federal budget. This is certainly not what I believe Congress intended or was told, for that matter, the funding would be used for. So Congress needs to have a role in this. If the administration wants additional authority under TARP, they should come here. Congress retains, under the Constitution, the power of the purse. What this amendment simply does is directs those funds that come back in as a result of repayments by banks of TARP funds into the Federal Treasury, that those funds go toward reducing the Federal debt, which, as we all know, based on the budget that was passed a couple of weeks ago, is going to double in 5 years and triple in 10, at a rate of $1 trillion a year. The average deficit over the next 10 years, by the end of the 10-year period, will amount to $17 trillion. The very least we can do for the taxpayers of this country is ensure that TARP funds that are repaid by banks, the taxpayer dollars that were extended to help recapitalize the banks, when those are no longer necessary and banks give that money back to the Treasury, Treasury receives that, that those funds not be recycled, reused, go to some discretionary program to fund other programs of Government, but that they be used to reduce the Federal debt. I believe the taxpayers deserve that. This amendment, No. 1002, would do that. So I would hope my colleagues will support it and, in my view, make it very clear that tax dollars expended under TARP, when repaid, are going to go to debt reduction and not be used for some other Federal Government program. That is what the amendment does. I would urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. THUNE. In response, Madam President, to the Senator from Vermont, my amendment would prevent funds from being reused, recycled, that were directed to debt reduction. I guess my short answer, without having reviewed the Coburn amendment carefully, would be, I suspect, that they are probably mutually exclusive.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1002 to the bill be brought up and made pending.

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I wish to recognize Jonathan Edward Kotilnek, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Jonathan is a graduate of T.F. Riggs High School in Pierre, SD. Currently, he is attending Marquette University Law School, where he is obtaining his juris doctor. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jonathan for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I wish to recognize Brenna Jane Bahr, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Brenna is a graduate of Aberdeen Central High School in Aberdeen, SD. Currently, she is attending the Catholic University of America, where she is majoring in history. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Brenna for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I wish to recognize Tessa Jean Holkesvik, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Tessa Jean Holkesvik is a graduate of Central High School in Aberdeen, SD. Currently she is attending George Washington University, where she is majoring in political science. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Tessa for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Al Schock of Sioux Falls, SD, for his years of extraordinary service to his community as a member of the Downtown Lions Club. Mayor Dave Munson of Sioux Falls will be recognizing his lifetime of accomplishments by proclaiming April 14, 2009, to be Al Schock, Lion King Day. Al Schock has been a dedicated member of the Downtown Lions Club since 1949 and has worked to promote its humanitarian mission of improving lives and communities around the world. He has served in almost every capacity possible, including club president, district governor, and member of the Lions International Board of Directors. Since he first joined the Lions Club, he has shown tremendous leadership by recruiting a total of over 100 new members to the organization. He has also excelled in fundraising for the South Dakota Lions Foundation, having sold over 50,000 tickets to community fundraising events. Schock has also contributed to the community of Sioux Falls through his involvement with the Chamber of Commerce, the Sioux Falls Development Foundation, Augustana College, the YMCA, the First Lutheran Church, Luther Manor health care, and The Banquet. He and his brother, Ozzie Schock, started the Shock Foundation, a nonprofit organization that works to support local charitable organizations. Al Shock's selfless devotion and faithful service to others and to his community is truly commendable. It gives me great pleasure to congratulate Al Schock for receiving this honor, and to thank him for all his years of service to South Dakota and our Nation.