John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Is there any understanding beyond that about amendments offered by Members on our side, mine included?

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, President John F. Kennedy said: The raising of extraordinarily large sums of money, given voluntarily and freely by millions of our fellow Americans, is a unique American tradition. . . . Philanthropy, charity, giving voluntarily and freely . . . call it what you like, but it is truly a jewel of an American tradition. In 2007, Americans gave more than $300 billion to charitable causes, an amount equal to roughly 2 percent of the gross domestic product. The vast majority of those donations, roughly 75 percent, or about $229 billion, came from individuals who willingly gave their hard-earned dollars for causes greater than their own. Studies have shown that Americans give far more to charity than the people of any other industrialized nation. In fact, relative to the size of our economy, Americans gave more than twice as much as the citizens of Great Britain and 10 times more than the citizens of France. We should be proud of this tradition. Congress should continue to support the 70 percent of all American households that donate to charities to support a wide range of religious, educational, cultural, health care, and environmental goals. These charities provide invaluable public service to society's most vulnerable citizens during difficult economic times. In many cases, these services go above and beyond what any conceivable Government program could provide. For years, Congress has provided incentives through the Internal Revenue Code to encourage charitable giving by allowing individuals to deduct income given to tax-exempt charities. Over time, 41 million American households have taken advantage of this deduction to give to the charities of their choice. Unfortunately for these generous families and individuals, President Obama and his administration have proposed, as part of their budget outline, reducing the allowable deduction for charitable giving. According to one study, President Obama's proposal would reduce charitable donations by as much as $8 to $16 billion per year. Particularly in a time when many charities are already struggling on account of the economic downturn, these entities do not need a change in the Tax Code that would further discourage charitable giving. These organizations that educate our children, care for the sick and the poor, and facilitate religious opportunities should not have to pay the price for additional spending on new Federal programs, as is proposed in the administration's budget. Over the past several days, this proposal has been criticized by Republicans and Democrats, large companies and small companies, universities and churches, constituents and charities of all shapes and sizes. Therefore, I have offered an amendment to H.R. 1388, the national service bill, which is before the Senate right now, which would express the ``sense of the Senate that Congress should preserve the full income tax deduction for charitable contributions through the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and look for additional ways to encourage charitable giving rather than to discourage it.'' Americans have a proud tradition of voluntarily giving to those who are in need. Even in these tough economic times, when there is great temptation to save any earned income for better days, families and individuals continue to support our charities. I believe Congress should continue to support those who voluntarily make that sacrifice, and I hope my colleagues will, when this amendment comes up for a vote, support it. I also point out that a Washington-based coalition of 600 different nonprofit groups opposes this measure and has characterized it as a further disincentive to giving in challenging economic times. It is hard enough, with the economy being in the condition it is these days, people and charitable organizations trying to rely heavily on volunteers and voluntary giving to make ends meet, but it makes it even more complicated when we put policies in place that discourage that. I wouldn't suggest for a minute that anybody who makes a contribution to a charitable organization does that because of the tax treatment only, but I do believe there is an interaction between our tax policy and charitable giving, and that it definitely affects the amount of those gifts. So rather than dialing back the tax treatment we provide to those who make charitable contributions, in my view, we ought to be encouraging more of that. Certainly the administration's proposal, which would take away the favorable tax treatment for those above certain income categories, is going to cost those organizations who rely heavily upon charitable giving an enormous amount of additional dollars they would receive. I hope my colleagues would find their way to support my amendment and express the sense of the Senate that we ought not be going down that path, that we ought to retain the current tax treatment that we have for charitable giving, particularly in a time when the economy is struggling and many people, many organizations that rely on that type of giving, are struggling to make ends meet. I ask that my colleagues, as they consider this particular issue, in light of the underlying bill that does make available new monies for government programs, also give consideration to all of those charitable organizations out there and all of those individuals across this country who, out of the goodness of their hearts, have contributed mightily to make the good causes that are served by these charities move forward. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Let me ask through the Chair, so the understanding would be that the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire would become the pending amendment?

Mr. THUNE. Reserving the right to object, I would also ask, as part of that agreement, that I have an amendment that also be made pending as part of the request of the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. THUNE. I would be happy to make it available to the distinguished manager of the bill. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE. I thank the Senator from Maryland. I withdraw my objection.

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 that the amendment I have at the desk be called up and made pending.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, this next week we will be taking up the budget for fiscal year 2010. Anyone who previously had not been concerned about that debate and what it means for the country and its future probably should be concerned, based upon the most recent CBO report that came out on Friday of last week. It was sobering. It reinforces the point that we have been making about the outline we have seen of the President's budget; that is, this budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. We have spoken extensively about the new spending in the budget. We have talked at great length as well about some of the new taxes in the budget and how it will drive up taxes on small businesses, the largest job creator in the economy, the economic engine that creates two-thirds of the jobs in our economy. We also want to talk about the fact that it borrows too much. The CBO report punctuates that point. I couldn't have put it more clearly than what they came out with last week, which suggests the initial estimates about the President's budget outline, which we received earlier, were dramatically understated and, in fact, it is going to add significantly more to the deficit than what we initially anticipated. In fact, in fiscal year 2009, which is the year in which we find ourselves right now, the CBO has revised its deficit estimate to where it is going to go over $1.8 trillion for fiscal year 2009, which represents 13.1 percent--13.1 percent--of our gross domestic product, which dwarfs anything we have seen at any time in history. So as we enter this debate next week, I think it really is important for all of us in this Chamber to take a good look at this analysis and to try to digest it and, hopefully, for the American people to be able to take a good look at what these numbers mean as well. It is sometimes difficult to even put it into terms people can understand. When I think about $1 trillion, it is a staggering amount of money. We are throwing around numbers in trillions and trillions and trillions today in the abstract. When you try to put it in terms that everyday Americans can understand, it is almost daunting to try to accomplish that. So when this new report came out, I think many of us found it even more sobering than what we already knew was going to be a very difficult economic and fiscal climate for the next several years. In fact, the President's budget outline that had been analyzed up to this point suggested the debt was going to double in 5 years and triple in 10 years. That is still the case. If you can believe this, the publicly held debt, in 2019, is going to be $17.3 trillion under the CBO's new estimate. It is about $5.8 trillion today. It literally does, in a 5-year period, double the debt and in a 10-year period triples the debt. It takes the publicly held debt, as a percentage of gross domestic product, from where it is today--a historical average of about, if you look back, 20, 30, 40 percent, but let's say today we are looking at 40 percent, and that is a very high number relative to anything we have seen in history--it takes it up to over 80 percent by the end of that period. So you are looking at public debt and public deficits that are unparalleled and are unprecedented in American history. I think that is the whole point behind the argument we have made throughout the last several weeks in the lead-up to this budget discussion we are going to have next week: This budget spends too much, taxes too much, and borrows too much. The taxing component is something many of my colleagues have spoken to already. But if you look at, again, the overall tax increases--which many are imposed. And they talk about that it just applies to high- income taxpayers. But you are talking about small businesses, many of which file or organize as subchapter S's or LLCs. So the income they get from their small business flows to their individual income tax statement, which means when these rates go up--and they are going to go up--the effective rates, to 40 and 42 percent, when today those same businesses would be paying 33 or 35 percent, they will be significant increases in the tax burden we are imposing. That is not to mention the new climate change initiative which is also contemplated in the President's budget, which imposes an entirely new energy tax on the American people, on the American consumers, creating all kinds of new costs for energy, whether it is electricity or fuels. There have been studies that have been done, very credible studies by researchers at MIT, that have suggested it is going to cost the average family in this country over 3,000 additional dollars per year in energy costs by the year 2015. These are some pretty daunting numbers. But they come on the heels of a stimulus bill that was passed a few weeks back that was about $800 billion. When you add interest in it, it was about $1.2 trillion. That was a huge amount of money. When we try to put that in perspective relative to anytime in our Nation's history, it eclipsed anything we had seen previously. Then we had the Omnibus appropriations bill, which increased spending over the previous year by twice the rate of inflation--about 8.3 percent. Then you add the continuing resolution that was passed last year, which funded Government programs last year through March 6 of this year because that was a stopgap appropriations measure that was put in place because the appropriations bills had not been passed last year. Then we had the stimulus bill, which was, as I said, with interest, $1 trillion. Then we had the Omnibus appropriations bill, and with that a twice-the-rate-of-inflation increase. You add all those numbers together, and we have increased the size of Government this year by 49 percent--49 percent--from fiscal year 2008. I think that points to the fact, again, as to the amount of spending we are doing. It adds up because a lot of that, as I said before, is borrowed money, and it is contributing to these deficit numbers the CBO had just released. So it would be my hope--and I know others are on the floor who are going to speak to this issue a little bit more in detail. I know the Budget Committee has analyzed the new CBO report. We are awaiting the markup of the budget this week in the Senate. We suspect it is probably going to follow somewhat closely the President's outline, his proposal, although my guess is there will be some differences. But if you take the overall trajectory it creates, it creates a trajectory over the next 10 years that calls for an average deficit--this is the average over the 10-year period--of almost $1 trillion. It is $929 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That is the average. This year, it is $1.8 trillion. Next year, it is $1.4 trillion. It drops down to $670 or $650 billion, I think, for 1 year. But then it starts spiking and trending back up again, to where, over the course of the 10-year window--the budget analysis and planning that is done here is done in a 10-year window. If you look at that 10-year window, the average deficit is $929 billion a year. As I said, these are numbers that are staggering and unlike anything we have ever seen. It is hard to put into perspective what we are talking about relative to anytime in American history. The other thing I will mention with regard to the stimulus bill as well--because I think there was an assumption that all this borrowing and all this spending would somehow lead to job creation and hopefully getting the economy expanding and growing again--what the CBO found in their analysis, again, was that in the long term the impact would be negligible or negative from the spending that was created in the stimulus bill. So not only were we getting no additive benefit in terms of job creation from the stimulus spending--or in the long term, at least--we are going to see negative, they think, or at least negligible, zero, economic growth as a result of it. We are adding $1 trillion to the amount we have borrowed from future generations, and we are asking our children and grandchildren to have to pay it back, not to mention what I am sure are going to be other types of economic consequences associated with that: higher interest rates, higher inflation. There is already a lot of discussion about that as we continue to borrow more and more money, whether there will be people out there who will want to buy our debt. I believe those are all legitimate concerns and questions we need to raise in this debate, coupled with the fact that there is nothing done in this budget that would in any way significantly reduce the long-term costs associated with the entitlement programs and what is really driving, in the outyears, these deficits: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. There has been a lot of discussion in the new administration about a willingness to sit down and talk about how to reform and make these programs strong and better and more efficient for the future, but there is nothing in this budget that does that. In fact, the only serious savings we can point to in the President's budget that they try to achieve come out of defense, come out of the military, come out of our national security, which I would argue: If we do not get national security right, the rest is conversation. But they are assuming savings as a result of drawing down troops in Iraq and places such as that, which I think they are overstating what they are going to be able to achieve in savings. I would argue some of the other assumptions in the President's outline are optimistic with regard to revenues--and I think the CBO study bears that out--to the point now that even the Washington Post, yesterday, came out with an editorial that I think illustrates exactly how serious this fiscal situation is for our country, and drawing into question the fact that there is very little done in this budget that addresses those long-term fiscal problems I just mentioned in the entitlement programs. There is nothing to reduce the cost of Government in the outyears, only things that are going to pile on additional costs and add and multiply over a long period of time. The incredible amount of borrowing we are already doing is going to be multiplied many times over into the future. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial from the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE. As to the stimulus bill, in and of itself, we are told, if the spending that is included there is not terminated at the end of the 2-year period--when we assume the short-term stimulus spending would terminate--if those programs are continued, the estimate of what they would cost goes from about $1 trillion to over $3 trillion over that 10-year period. So there will be mountains and mountains and mountains of debt as far as the eye can see, complicated by an unwillingness by the new administration to take on any of the serious decisions that have to be made with regard to entitlement programs and mandatory spending in this budget, with lots of new programs created, as I said, new energy taxes under the guise of climate change, a new health care program that is estimated to cost around $600 billion but which many independent analysts are now saying is going to cost up to $1.5 trillion. These are all costs that are adding up and continuing to lead to more and more borrowing, higher and higher deficits, to the point that this year 13.1 percent of GDP is the percentage and over $1.8 trillion is the actual number of the deficit. And that goes on now for years and years, and an average of $1 trillion a year just in deficits, to where the public debt, at the end of that 10-year period, will be $17.3 trillion. That is an incredible problem for our country and for future generations. So it is high time we got it under control. It is why this budget is so wrong for America and for our future. Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the Senate will in a couple of weeks take up the fiscal year 2010 budget. It is a defining document. In many cases, the budget establishes a blueprint for the agenda, what is going to happen in the Congress. We normally get a budget proposal from the President, and the Congress takes it up and acts on it. We have gotten that blueprint from the new administration. The Congress will, as I said, in a couple of weeks take up our version of that budget, put it into legislative form, and take action on it. I think what most Republicans in the Senate are going to take issue with in this budget is the fact that it does spend too much, tax too much, and borrow too much. We believe the budget as proposed is going to be very harmful to the economy at a time when we ought to be looking at creating jobs. In fact, this budget could do the exact opposite. It could cost the economy a significant number of jobs because it is going to impose all kinds of new burdens on that economy. The first point I would like to make with respect to the issue of spending too much--as I said, it spends too much, taxes too much, borrows too much, but if we look at the amount of spending in the bill on the surface, discretionary spending would increase by $725 billion over 10 years. Mandatory spending would increase $1.2 trillion during the same period. Total spending in this year's budget for fiscal year 2010 is $3.9 trillion or 28 percent of our gross domestic product. That means we would be spending more as a percentage of our gross domestic product than at any time since World War II. That is a stunning and staggering fact when you think about it. At a time when a lot of Americans are being asked to tighten their belts in a difficult economy, this budget grows the size of Government by 9 percent for nondefense programs in fiscal year 2010, for a total of 20 percent growth in these programs since the year 2008. There has been a lot of talk about revising the history of the past 8 years. But this budget spends more than the Bush budget every single year, and that is even after adjusting for inflation. For those on the other side who have been critical of the overspending on the Republican side--and I don't deny the Republicans spent more than we should have when we were in control of this place, but this budget is staggering in terms of the amount of spending it includes--$3.9 trillion for fiscal year 2010, and, as I said, 28 percent of GDP, which would represent the highest level of share of GDP at any time in this Nation since World War II. With respect to the issue of taxes--and as I said, it spends too much which, obviously, any person who looks at this would agree with, but it also taxes too much. If you look at the taxes in the proposal, there is on the surface a whole lot of new revenue that is raised just by allowing previous tax policy to expire. We are going to see tax rates increase on people at the higher income levels. The argument by the Democrats in the Senate has always been--and by the President, for that matter--that 95 percent of the people in the country are going to get tax cuts, and these new taxes on the economy are not going to impact that many people. We are going to take issue with that because if you look at the total amount of new taxation--and when I say ``new,'' I am talking about net new taxes because that is independent of the tax relief. What they call the make work pay tax credit that is included in this bill does reduce the tax burden on some Americans by a certain amount. But the overall tax burden on the American economy is going to grow by $1.4 trillion. Again, to put things in perspective, $1.4 trillion is equivalent to the annual GDP of Spain. We are going to raise taxes by $1.4 trillion in an economy that is in the middle of a recession. Much has been made about the fact small businesses are going to be saddled with new taxes under this budget. There have been statistics thrown around. Make no mistake about it; if you are a small business with more than 20 employees and you are organized as a subchapter S corporation or an LLC and, therefore, the income you derive from that business flows through to your individual income statement, you are going to pay a higher level of taxes if you have a certain amount of income coming in. So any company that makes $200,000 or $250,000 a year adjusted gross income because it flows through to the individual tax form, that individual could be facing much higher taxes. In fact, what has been determined through the analysis that has been done is that 60 to 80 percent of small businesses in this country will see their tax burdens go up because of the taxes included in this budget--$1.4 trillion in new taxes, which, as I said, is the equivalent of the annual GDP of Spain in the middle of a recession. The other point I would make to those who say this is not going to impact average middle-income Americans is, if you look at the energy tax in this bill, I don't know how you can get around the fact that is going to hit everybody across the board. The administration has said the revenue raised on the cap and trade-- we call it the energy tax component. It is going to be a tax on utilities because the utilities are going to pass this on. It is not going to be borne by the utilities. It will be passed on to consumers. The administration has indicated $646 billion or $650 billion in revenue will come in from this new cap-and-trade proposal or this new energy tax proposal. I would argue that based upon additional analysis that has been done, it will be significantly more revenue coming in from that, which means it is going to cost the economy significantly more as well. I refer my colleagues to an MIT study that was done in 2007 where they looked at a proposal, the Boxer-Sanders proposal--S. 309, I believe it was--and made an assessment as to what that would cost the economy. Bear in mind the President, while he was a Senator, cosponsored that proposal, and his proposal for a cap-and-trade regime is modeled very much after that legislation. What MIT found when they modeled this was that it would cost the average household in this country $3,128 in the year 2015 if this sort of cap-and-trade proposal were implemented and put into law. As I said before, that assumes a much higher level of taxation, a much higher level of revenue coming in from this cap-and-trade proposal than does the President's budget. I would argue that the President's budget dramatically underestimates the impact of the cap-and-trade proposal in terms of cost to the economy and the additional taxes that will be passed on, and that this represents a much more accurate review. The Congressional Budget Office also has in their analysis concluded that by the year 2020, this could cost somewhere between $50 billion and $300 billion a year. The MIT study suggests it would cost more than $300 billion a year. I think as more and more analysis is done and more and more data is captured about this cap-and-trade proposal, we are going to find it is extremely more expensive than what has been anticipated and what has been assumed in the President's budget. The energy tax piece of this is going to be passed on to everybody. If you are a middle-income taxpayer, a lower income taxpayer, or a small business, energy costs are going to go up. The argument has also been made the make work pay tax credit would offset that. That is true up to a point, but that is up to $400 for a single filer and $800 for a couple filing jointly and phased out so that people in the middle- income categories are still going to be faced with this significant energy tax that is paraded by the new cap-and-trade policy that is assumed in the President's budget. Not only does it directly raise taxes--the $1.4 trillion that I mentioned earlier which equals the annual GDP of Spain--the tax increase is going to be passed on to a lot of small businesses in this country. But there is this cap-and-trade tax, which is the secret job killer in this budget in terms of the enormous burden and cost it will impose on our economy, on small businesses, and on working families in this country. As I said before, this budget spends too much, it taxes too much, and the other point I will make is that it borrows too much. If we look at the amount of borrowing that is entailed as a result of this budget and what it does to our national debt over time, again, the numbers are quite staggering. This budget doubles--doubles, Mr. President--the public debt in 5 years and triples it in 10 years. The amount of borrowing that we are passing on to future generations is going to double in 5 years and triple in 10. Just to put this in perspective, this creates more debt. The President's budget creates more debt than was accumulated under every President in this country from George Washington through George Bush. In other words, from the inception of our country, from our very first President, George Washington, to George Bush, his Presidency included--a lot of people have criticized the previous administration for adding to the Federal debt. In fact, during the Bush administration, it was about $2.9 trillion that was added to the Federal debt. This is going to dwarf that by multitudes. It doubles the publicly held debt in 5 years and triples it in 10 years and accumulates more debt than was accumulated from the time of George Washington through the Presidency of George Bush. That is a stunning amount of borrowing. We are getting to where even if the President's budget proposals and economic assumptions are accurate--and I would take issue with those--where the total amount of borrowing, the total amount of public debt is going to be about two- thirds of our GDP, those are numbers we have not seen at any time in this country since World War II. There are incredible amounts of spending, incredible amounts of taxation, incredible amounts of borrowing, and lots of policy changes that we think are very bad for the country and very bad for our economy at a time when we need to be putting policies in place that will create jobs, stimulate the economy, and help expand it in a way that will make this country more prosperous and stronger for the future. In the debate that will ensue in the next several weeks--and it will get underway in a couple of weeks--we are going to be making lots of arguments, as both sides will--those who are in favor of the President's budget proposal and those of us who are opposed to it-- about the substance of it. I hope when we focus on the substance of it, the American people will tune in because they ultimately are the ones who pay the costs. For the taxpayers of this country who bear the burden and responsibility of financing the many new initiatives that are paraded in this, it does create a lot of new initiatives. It does away with guaranteed student loan lending, a program that has been very successful across this country and moves everything back into direct lending of the Federal Government. It, as I said, creates an entirely new energy program, a cap-and-trade program, which is a tax. Let's call it what it is. It is going to impose an incredible cost on our economy, not to be borne by corporate America; it will be passed on to the American consumers. If the MIT study that was done a year ago is right, there will be $3,128 per household in this country to comply with the additional costs that will be imposed as a result of this new cap-and-trade proposal included in the President's budget. It assumes some $600 billion for health care reform. We have not seen specifics and details about that, but we are concerned as well about the direction in which that may be headed. There are lots of reasons to be opposed to this budget. There are lots of things we could and should be doing to get this economy growing again, but clearly, raising taxes, spending more money here in Washington, DC, borrowing more from our children and grandchildren is not the way to go about this. I wish I could say I was presenting the worst-case scenario. The numbers we are seeing here are probably optimistic. I think the President's economic assumptions with respect to inflation, unemployment, GDP growth, and all those sorts of things are overly optimistic. I think they have dramatically understated, as I said, the cost of the cap-and-trade proposal. They have understated savings that will be achieved by reductions in our military spending as a result of drawdowns in Iraq. I don't think that is going to be nearly what they assume it is going to be. I think the actual deficits and debt that are going to come as a result of this budget proposal that the President is putting in front of us is going to be way beyond anything we are even contemplating now. I have to say, what we are contemplating now is way beyond anything we have seen throughout our Nation's history. It is not fair to future generations for us to be saddling them with this enormous amount of debt. As I have pointed out before on the floor, we have had a tradition in this country of one generation sacrificing for another; one generation going without things so that future generations can have a better life. We have turned that ethic completely on its head with this budget by the amount of borrowing and spending that we are doing and in the amount of taxing. We are taking from future generations and asking them to sacrifice so we can have a better life today because we have not been willing or able to live within our means. It is high time that Congress started taking the steps necessary to get this budget under control, to not buy into the spending spree. Since we have been here--and it has been a little over 50 days in this new Congress and the new administration--the level of spending is now at $1.2 trillion--$24 billion a day or $1 billion an hour that we have spent already--and that is before we even get to this fiscal year 2010 budget, which includes historic levels of spending, historic levels of taxation, the largest tax increase in American history, and historic levels of borrowing that asks future generations to make sacrifices which are not fair to ask of them. It is our responsibility to live within our means. We can do that. We can put policies in place that will be additive in terms of creating jobs and growing our economy and making our country stronger. Going down this path is not going to do that. I hope as we debate this in the next couple of weeks that it will become clear to the American people who is standing up for the American taxpayer and what the costs are-- the actual costs--that we are asking not only them to bear but asking their children and grandchildren to bear. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if the leader would yield, I think the Senator from Oklahoma will lay down his amendments, which would take up to a half an hour, 40 minutes. Whenever he concludes, I ask that I proceed.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 12 minutes.

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Reserving the right to object, as of right now, Brown for 5? Coburn?

Mr. THUNE. For 7 minutes. We will work it out on our side.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, 87 Members of the Senate voted to uphold our first amendment rights by supporting a statutory prohibition on the so-called fairness doctrine. The amendment was offered by Senator DeMint and was accepted as part of the DC voting rights bill which is currently awaiting consideration by the House of Representatives. I am concerned that once the House considers this bill, whenever that might occur, and the Senate and House versions are conferenced together, this provision will no longer be a part of the final DC voting rights bill. I will say I am hopeful that the DeMint amendment is retained in the final version of the DC Voting Rights Act, but I am fearful it will be stripped out behind closed doors when the conference committee gets underway. So I filed an amendment to the Omnibus appropriations bill that would prohibit the FCC from using any funds to reinstate the fairness doctrine during the current fiscal year. If this amendment is accepted to the omnibus bill, then the 87 Senators who supported this prohibition last week will have assurances that the fairness doctrine will not be reinstated for the remainder of this year regardless of whether the DeMint amendment remains part of the DC Voting Rights Act. I would also like to remind my colleagues a similar provision was included as part of the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus appropriations bill, section 621, that was enacted into law last year. However, that language was not included as part of the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus appropriations bill. Now, one of the arguments that has been made against this amendment from my colleagues on the other side is, well, this issue is not that important. Nobody really cares about it. It is not going to happen. If that is the case, then why is it that the prohibition on funding to reinstate the fairness doctrine was stripped out of this bill after it had been included in the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill? The so-called fairness doctrine has a long and infamous history in our country. The FCC promulgated the fairness doctrine in 1949 to ensure the contrasting viewpoints would be presented on radio and television. In 1985, the FCC began repealing the doctrine after concluding that it actually had the opposite effect. They concluded then what we still know today, and that is the fairness doctrine resulted in broadcasters limiting coverage of controversial issues of public importance. Now, recently, many on the left have advocated reinstating the doctrine. They argue that broadcasters, including talk radio, should present both sides of any issue because they use the public airwaves. However, recent calls to reinstate the fairness doctrine failed to take into account several considerations, which I will mention in just a moment. But in the event that there would be any question about whether there are those out there who would like to see this happen--because that has been one of the arguments raised in the course of the debate, that nobody in here is very serious about really doing this--if you look at what the Speaker of the House said when she was asked: Do you personally support revival of the fairness doctrine? She said, ``Yes.'' The leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives recently said: There is a real concern about the monopoly of information and the skewering of information that the American public gets. First, as to the monopoly. Obviously if one group or a large group controls information and only allows one perspective to be presented, that is not good for democracy. That is not good for the American public. That is, of course, what the fairness doctrine is directed at. It can have great merit. Those are the two top Democrats in the House of Representatives, and those are statements made within the last year. Then perhaps even more telling is what was said by a top staffer in the House. And it says: Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans, and we have had to find a way to limit it. I would submit that really is what this is all about. We have had Members on this side, in the Senate, on the other side of the aisle, who have made similar statements. Recently, on a radio program one of my colleagues on the other side was asked: Do you think there will be a push to reinstate the fairness doctrine? ``I don't know; I certainly hope so'' was the answer. Do you support it? ``I do.'' I mean, would you want this radio station to have to change? ``I would. I would want this station and all stations to present a balanced perspective and different point of view.'' What we are talking about is a first amendment right. In reality, the fairness doctrine resulted in less, not more, broadcasting of issues that are important to the public because airing controversial issues subjected broadcasters to regulatory burdens and potentially severe liabilities. They simply made the rational choice not to air any such content at all. Now, the number of radio and TV stations and development of newer broadcast media, such as cable and satellite TV and satellite radio, have grown dramatically in the past 50 years. In 1949, there were 51 television stations and about 2,500 radio stations in the entire United States. In 1985, there were 1,200 television stations and 9,800 radio stations. Today, there are nearly 1,800 television stations and nearly 14,000 radio stations. There is simply no scarcity to justify content regulation such as the fairness doctrine. The third point I will make is this: Development of new media, social networking, and access to the Internet has changed media forever. Supporters of government-mandated balance either ignore the new multiple sources of media or they reveal their true intention, which is to regulate content on all forms of communication and ultimately stifle certain viewpoints on certain media such as talk radio. Fourth, broadcast content is driven by consumer demand. Consumers of media show whether they are being served well by broadcasters when they choose either to tune in or turn off the programming that is being offered. The fairness doctrine runs counter to individual choice and freedom to choose what we listen to or see on the air or read on the Internet. The fairness doctrine should not be reinstated, and 2 weeks ago the Senate acted in a strong bipartisan manner in opposition to the fairness doctrine. I am asking the Senate to agree to my amendment because it simply prohibits any funding from being used to reinstate the fairness doctrine just as we included as part of last year's Omnibus appropriations bill. Adoption of my amendment would ensure that our first amendment rights are protected and that consumers have the freedom to choose what they see and hear over our airwaves. This amendment ensures that the Federal Communications Commission does not use any resources to reinstate the fairness doctrine through the end of the fiscal year until a more permanent solution can be reached through a statutory prohibition. As I said, 2 weeks ago, the Senate adopted this by a vote of 87 to 11. There were 87 Senators in the Senate who agreed to language that was contained in the DeMint amendment to the DC Voting Rights Act. Similar language prohibiting the FCC from reinstating the fairness doctrine again, as I said earlier, was contained in last year's Omnibus appropriations bill. The administration of President Obama is on record opposing efforts to reinstate the fairness doctrine. It makes sense, in my judgment, that we echo all of those statements and the vote that was made by the Senate a couple of weeks ago by including a prohibition on funding for the FCC to reinstate the fairness doctrine. Again, we do not know what is going to happen in the DC Voting Rights Act, whether this provision is going to be stripped out, whether the DeMint amendment is going to be stripped out. So it is important, in my view, that we reinforce the vote by making a strong statement, at least for this fiscal year's funding, that funding in the FCC cannot and will not be used to reinstate the fairness doctrine. There is no reason for the Senate not to vote for this language. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment and putting us on record when it comes to the funding that would be used to reinstate the fairness doctrine that this appropriations bill will not do that. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, amendment No. 662 is simply a prohibition on funding being used to implement the fairness doctrine. A couple of weeks ago, the Senate had a vote, and 87 Members of the Senate voted for a statutory prohibition on reinstating the fairness doctrine. In fact, the appropriations bill last year included similar language to what I am proposing in my amendment that would prohibit the FCC from using funds, appropriating funds to implement the fairness doctrine. So it is consistent with what the appropriations bill included last year. It was not included in this year's bill. All this simply does is makes it consistent with what we did in last year's appropriations bill. Furthermore, the legislation that was actually passed by the Senate 2 weeks ago, the DC voting rights bill, my hope is the prohibition on implementing the fairness doctrine will stay in that legislation, but I have a fear that when it gets to conference with the House, it might be stripped out. This is yet another way of ensuring that funds will not be used to implement this very bad idea. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 662, and make it pending.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Vermillion, SD. The city of Vermillion will commemorate the 150th anniversary of its founding this year. Located in Clay County, Vermillion was founded in 1859 on the banks of the Vermillion River. Originally settled by French fur traders, Vermillion's name was translated from its native title Wase Wakpala, which means red stream. The city is home to the University of South Dakota, the State's oldest institution of higher education, which was founded in 1862. Since its establishment 150 years ago, the community of Vermillion has served as a strong example of South Dakota values and traditions and I am confident it will continue to prosper. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Vermillion on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, lest there be any confusion, I filed this amendment on Monday and made it pending on Tuesday, and I spoke to it then. It is simple. Last July, the Senate, in the debate on the PEPFAR bill, voice voted an amendment to that bill that created a $2 billion, 5-year authorization for an emergency fund for Indian health and safety. All my amendment does is fund it, $400 million. It wasn't funded in the bill. I paid for it by taking a one-tenth of 1 percent across-the-board reduction in the entire bill to put the $400 million into this fund, which is necessary to fund this important program for Indian health and safety. That means the increase in the bill won't be 8.3 percent, it will be 8.2 percent. Contrary to what was stated, it increases Indian health care by $23 million. It was stated that it would reduce the health care account by a little over a million dollars. Congress authorized it last summer. I hope my colleagues will vote to waive the budget.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senator concludes her remarks on the other amendment, I have a couple minutes to respond.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if I might briefly respond to the Senator from California regarding my amendment that deals with Indian health, public safety, and water development. I think it is important to remind everybody, first of all, that this bill we have in front of us and the appropriations bills that have been passed so far--three of them passed last year--nine of them are bundled into this bill--this bill was written behind closed doors. There wasn't any participation by Members, at least that I know of, on our side when it came to putting this together and offering amendments at the committee level. The only opportunity we have to offer amendments is when a bill comes to the floor of the Senate. Now, it shouldn't come as any surprise to anybody here in the Chamber or anybody who is tuning in to what is going on here that that is what we do. We offer amendments. We determine priorities. We move money around within appropriations bills. To suggest for a minute that we shouldn't be offering amendments to move money from one part of this bill to another part of the bill, the fact is that nine appropriations bills have been bundled together and we are being asked to vote on $410 billion in spending at one time, and then we are being told we can't come down here and offer amendments. That is what we do. We have 100 Senators. All of them come to this Chamber with different priorities. I came down here and said I wanted to offer an amendment that took a one- tenth of 1 percent haircut across all nine appropriations bills, evenly distributed, to take $400 million and put it into a program that Congress authorized last fall but has not funded that would address the needs of Indian health care, public safety, and water development-- critical needs on Indian reservations. I urge any of my colleagues who haven't visited a reservation to come to South Dakota and see what I am talking about. I mentioned it earlier. The average life expectancy for males on the Oglala Sioux Reservation in my home State of South Dakota is 56 years. It is 58 in Iraq, 59 in Haiti, and 60 in Ghana, all higher than right here in America. Between 2000 and 2005, Native American infants were more than twice as likely to die as non-native infants. I already mentioned the public safety statistics and the crime data that exist on our reservations because we don't have adequate law enforcement personnel, we don't have cops, we don't have prosecutors, we don't have jails, we don't have all the things that are necessary to keep our people safe on our reservations in South Dakota. Here may be a budget technicality, a point of order that can be raised against my amendment which will require that we have to have 60 votes for my amendment, but all that means is instead of getting 51, we need 60. I can't imagine that we would not have an opportunity--nine appropriations bills being bundled together, brought to the floor of the Senate, $410 billion in spending--to come down here and offer amendments that move money around. That is what Senators do. That is what we do in the Senate. I hope my colleagues will look past the point of order that is going to be raised and say: One-tenth of 1 percent in a bill that is being increased by 8.3 percent year over year; go for this important priority on Indian reservations across our country. I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment or vote to waive the point of order. I yield the floor.