[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 30 (Wednesday, March 10, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2465-S2537]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                                  2005

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under of the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 95, which the clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 95) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2005 and including the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 2006 through 2009.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, is to be recognized for up to 30 
minutes.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I have a short statement I will give, and I 
assume the Democratic leader will have a statement. Following that, I 
ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Nevada be recognized.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I want to open by congratulating the 
chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and ranking member and all 
committee members for the outstanding work they have done in bringing 
this resolution to the floor in a very timely manner. It was a little 
over a month ago that the President of the United States transmitted 
his proposed budget to the Congress, and the Budget Committee, under 
real time constraints, was able to hold hearings and debate, mark up, 
and report its own congressional budget plan and bring it to the floor 
last Thursday evening.
  My experience with budget resolutions on the Senate floor tells me 
that

[[Page S2466]]

it will become very hectic, really beginning today and tomorrow and the 
next day--over the next 3 days. There is a limited amount of time, as 
we all know. There are 27 hours remaining for debate on that resolution 
as of this morning. That time will end up passing very quickly, 
particularly when we have a recess sitting on the other end awaiting 
completion of this resolution.
  As I mentioned earlier, we will complete this budget resolution this 
week before the recess. Since we have a limited time, I want to right 
upfront pay tribute to Chairman Nickles and one other Senator this 
morning.
  Chairman Nickles, as we all know, will be leaving the Senate at the 
end of his fourth term. After 2 years as chairman of the Budget 
Committee, this will be the last Federal budget he will manage on the 
Senate floor. Last year, with his first budget resolution as chairman, 
we were able to complete a budget resolution in record time. Eighty 
amendments were offered last year and were all considered on the floor. 
That was the third highest ever considered on the budget resolution in 
history. In 1998, there were 106 amendments. Last year was the third 
highest.

  I have had the opportunity to serve on the Budget Committee in the 
past and I know it is a very difficult assignment; it is a demanding 
committee. But I believe the ranking member would agree with me, while 
the ranking member and the chairman have not always agreed on policy, 
Senator Nickles has maintained a fair and open and collegial committee 
on which to work.
  Six years before Senator Nickles was first elected to the Senate, in 
December 1974, Sam Ervin, the distinguished chairman of the Committee 
on Governmental Operations, wrote:

       I have no doubt that the Congressional Budget and 
     Impoundment Control Act of 1974 will stand as a monument to 
     the 93rd Congress and its devotion to our constitutional 
     system of Government.

  This is the 30th anniversary of the enactment of the historic 
legislation which established the Senate Budget Committee, established 
the Congressional Budget Office, and established the procedures that we 
are involved in today in considering a congressional budget resolution.
  Many did not expect that what at the time was a completely new 
process to survive. Indeed, it has survived over the last 30 years. In 
a way, over those 30 years, it certainly had its bumps and bruises. 
Just down the road from Senator Ervin's home, one Senator, and only one 
Senator in this Chamber today, has served on the Budget Committee from 
its very beginning, and that is Senator Fritz Hollings. He has been 
there from the very beginning. For 2 years, in 1979 and 1980, Senator 
Hollings--and this was when Ed Muskie left the Senate to serve as 
Secretary of State under President Carter--also served as its chairman.
  Just a little bit of budget trivia: As I was looking through the 
history, the first reconciliation bill was, indeed, crafted under 
Chairman Hollings' leadership in 1980.
  Senator Hollings was instrumental in the first major reforms to the 
Federal budget process, being one of the authors, along with Senators 
Gramm and Rudman, of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
Act of 1985, more familiarly known as Gramm-Rudman-Hollings.
  I mention Senator Hollings in part because of this long history, and 
I discussed some of it with him last night at dinner. As we all know, 
he too will be voluntarily leaving the Senate at the end of this 
Congress. So this is his last budget resolution debate on the Senate 
floor, and just like the 30 debates before, I am sure he will not 
disappoint the Senate with his contribution to this debate over the 
next 3 days.
  We have begun deliberating a blueprint for next year's Federal 
budget, and that is exactly what it is; it is truly a blueprint. For 
those who may be observing these proceedings for the first time, it may 
appear we are passing laws on spending for our national defense, 
education, or health programs, or it may appear we are enacting tax 
legislation, but we are not. Listening to the debate it may sound like 
it but that is not what we are doing.
  It is really not unlike a family sitting around the kitchen table at 
the beginning of a new year discussing and estimating how much income 
they will have over the course of the next 12 months, how that income 
will be spent and how it should be allocated to the basic needs, 
whether it is to their shelter, food, or health care, and then how much 
they should save for their children's needs. It might be for schooling 
or it might be for their own retirement.
  That is exactly what we are doing, or it is very similar to what we 
are doing, over the course of this week in this 50 hours of debate when 
we are adopting a congressional budget plan.
  Just like that family sitting around the kitchen table, we are going 
to have differences and those differences are going to be expressed. 
There will be strong opinions on how our income should be divided among 
what people project as demands that will come and demands that we have 
today. Once we come to an agreement on a budget plan, which we will in 
the next 3 days, just like that family, we will be tasked to implement 
it by passing the revenue and spending totals that are assumed in that 
blueprint.
  We will also be asked to stick to it throughout the year, and so we 
will be putting up some roadblocks and some warning signals in our 
budget plan to remind us if we get off track or if we begin to go 
astray. Indeed, that is the importance of passing this budget 
resolution.
  There are differences, just like sitting around that table in a 
family, when planning a budget. As we have heard over the last several 
days, and we will hear for the next 3 days, there will be debate and an 
amendment process. The big difference between what goes on here and 
what goes on with that family is size, the obvious one. Another 
difference is that what we plan here can have a direct impact on that 
family sitting around that kitchen table.
  Will we keep that family's taxes from increasing next January by 
planning our budget here to prevent that child tax credit, now $1,000, 
from falling to $700 per child, thus taking $300 per child away from 
that family?
  Will we plan to keep the 10-percent rate bracket from dropping next 
January from $4,300 to $12,000 as a threshold for joint filers?
  Will we plan to prevent the standard deduction for that married 
couple, and this is known as the marriage penalty tax, from dropping 
next January and thereby continuing to penalize them simply because 
they are married?
  All of these, which we are talking about in the resolution, will keep 
families from having to pay more beginning January. In fact, these 
three tax items alone could mean the difference of over $13 billion in 
additional take-home pay next year for nearly 38 million hard-working 
families. Add that up and it becomes over $100 billion in additional 
income to those families sitting around those kitchen tables over the 
next 5 years. So what we plan for in our own Federal budget can and 
will impact the budgets of millions of America's families in a very 
direct way.
  This is a challenging budget year. We are all aware it is a political 
year, with the Presidential election this November, and thus reaching 
real consensus on a budget will be difficult under the best of 
circumstances, let alone in this Presidential election year.
  The deficits we currently face are unacceptable. The budget crafted 
by the committee puts a priority on reducing them. We understand why 
the deficits are there: recession and war on terror. Through this 
budget plan we will cut those deficits in half over the next 3 years.
  At the same time, the budget blueprint that we debate from the 
committee remains committed to certain priorities. The budget blueprint 
assumes spending for our national security will increase over $20 
billion next year. That is an increase of about 5.1 percent. It assumes 
funding for domestic, or our homeland security, will increase by 15 
percent. Both of these increases are essential in our war on terrorism.
  Important domestic programs are not ignored. We all know a key to job 
growth in the future is one that gives a high priority to education, to 
retraining, to learning in schools, the basics of mathematics, writing, 
and verbal skills.
  Chairman Greenspan recently testified:

       By far the greatest contribution during the past century to 
     our average annual real GDP

[[Page S2467]]

     increase of 3\1/4\ percent has been the ideas embodied in 
     both our human and physical capital. Technological advance is 
     continually altering the shape, nature and complexity of our 
     economic processes.

  Yes, education has always been, and will continue to be, the key to 
our country's economic future, and the blueprint assumes we will 
increase funding for disadvantaged children for title I grants to local 
education agencies by over 8 percent, up over $1 billion next year, 
bringing the total Federal funding for this program to $4.6 billion. 
This program is the single largest Federal funding source for the No 
Child Left Behind legislation.
  The resolution also makes room for increased funding for special 
education, or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This 
increased funding for special education assumes to go up by $1 billion, 
and that is the fourth consecutive year of $1 billion increases, 
bringing funding for this special education program next year to over 
$11.1 billion.
  The resolution allows for a 5-percent increase in veterans medical 
care funding, up $1.4 billion, to a total of nearly $30 billion for 
these important programs next year.
  The resolution also assumes moneys for critical international 
assistance programs, a 13.5-percent increase in discretionary funding 
in this area, including last year's newly authorized Millennium 
Challenge Corporation. Full funding for the HIV/AIDS initiative of $2.8 
billion next year is assumed in the blueprint, putting us on the path 
to meet our goal of $15 billion over 5 years.
  In closing, these are a few of the priorities embodied in this 
blueprint. It does not please everyone. How could it? There is no 
guarantee that all of the assumptions in the blueprint will be 
fulfilled as we move on to the funding legislation that will implement 
this blueprint.
  The demands are great. The resources at this point in time are 
limited. Just like a family making difficult and unpopular challenging 
decisions, we, too, will not be able to provide all of the funds some 
think are needed for particular programs or needed projects. I believe 
it is a solid, strong budget plan, presented to us by the chairman and 
the committee and it is one that deserves our strong support.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last Friday we were presented with the 
latest report on the creation of new jobs in our economy. The 
administration predicted about 200,000. In February, unfortunately, we 
only created 21,000--180,000 short of what the administration 
predicted. If you don't count the increases in Government payroll, 
there was actually no job growth whatsoever in the entire year of 2003. 
Unfortunately, that could also be said of 2002, and 2001.
  The administration's economic forecasts appear to be little more than 
wishful thinking. A chart appeared in the New York Times yesterday that 
lays out very graphically how inaccurate the job predictions have been. 
In his column yesterday, Paul Krugman wrote about this unfortunate 
miscalculation in the prediction of jobs. His most graphic illustration 
of this miscalculation is entitled ``Promises, Promises.'' It is a 
chart. It is easy to understand.
  The administration predicted in 2002 the creation of 138 million 
jobs. Then in 2003 they corrected that prediction. They said it isn't 
going to be 138 million; it will be 135 million. In 2004, they said it 
isn't going to be 138 million, it isn't going to be 135 million, now 
it's going to be 132 million. Now we find out, in 2004, it wasn't 138, 
135, or 132 million; it was 130 million jobs, which means they were 8 
million jobs off the mark in predicting where the non-farm payroll 
employment rolls would be during the course of their term in office.
  From the very first days in office, the Bush economic team has failed 
to understand what it takes to create jobs. I might say, as we look at 
the job creation, this is American job creation. Unfortunately, I fear, 
while we don't have any numbers, the outsourcing job creation probably 
does exceed the prediction. I wouldn't be surprised if, under the watch 
of President Bush, we have actually seen more than 8 million jobs 
created. The problem is, most of them have been in India and China, and 
countries in south Asia. It is American jobs we are gauging here, and 
it was a prediction that it was American jobs that would be created at 
that 138 million level.
  We know how to create jobs, but for some reason this administration 
has not been willing to commit, in policy or in resources, the effort 
that must be made to ensure those jobs are created. We had the most 
recent illustration of that a couple of weeks ago. The transportation 
bill the Senate has now voted on, on an overwhelmingly bipartisan 
basis, we are now told would create 1.7 million jobs in 6 years. South 
Dakota would see over 5,000 jobs created; California, 87,000 jobs 
created; Texas, 60,000; New York, 61,000; Virginia, DC and Maryland, 
45,000 jobs. Thirty percent of our roads and bridges are in a state of 
severe disrepair and those jobs would go to dealing with the incredible 
problem we have with infrastructure deconstruction.
  I think the broad support, 76-21, in the Senate marked yet another 
statement about our appreciation of the magnitude, the importance of 
that bill; yet what the administration has done in response to our 
passage of that bill is to say they would veto it today, veto it 
because they say we cannot afford it. We just talked yesterday about 
the fact we are spending $27 billion this year to provide those who are 
making incomes of more than $1 million a tax break. We can afford to 
give millionaires a tax break of $27 billion, but we can't afford the 
commitment this country must make in infrastructure.

  Ironically, that is about the difference between where the Senate is 
and where the administration wants to go with regard to highway 
construction funds. They would rather spend it on millionaires. Many of 
us feel very strongly it is important to spend it where we can create 
jobs--not jobs in India, not jobs in China, but jobs here at home, 
trying to meet that target the administration said was so important, 
138 million. They are right. It is important. We need to create those 
jobs. But we are not going to do it with the policies that have so far 
been articulated by this administration.
  Later today, Senator Boxer will be offering an amendment that will 
create jobs beyond those we now know could be created in the highway 
bill. We are going to allow for an amendment that would discourage the 
flow of jobs overseas and give assistance to workers whose jobs have 
been actually eliminated in the Bush economy. It would offer tax 
credits to companies that create manufacturing jobs by making it more 
affordable for small businesses to offer coverage to their employees. 
It would discourage the exporting of American jobs by eliminating the 
tax advantages for companies that take their plants overseas, and by 
prohibiting the Federal Government from dealing with contractors who 
outsource the work of their Government contracts to workers overseas. 
It would also help workers who are dislocated by global economic forces 
by including service workers in the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program 
and by extending health care coverage to trade-dislocated workers.
  Most of us believe families should not have to lose their health 
coverage because of economic forces beyond their control. The amendment 
we will be offering today says, while they are still trying to get back 
on their feet, they must have the opportunity to access health care in 
some form.
  Since the administration has come to office, its economic policy has 
been to borrow money from foreign bankers, hand it over to the 
wealthiest people in the country, and hope for the best. The result is 
a $9 trillion meltdown of our fiscal position and now the loss of 3 
million jobs.
  We need a new direction. Yesterday in the Washington Post the poll 
suggested 57 percent of the American people shared that view. We have 
come to a point where we must take a different direction. Economists 
are worried if jobs are not created soon, Americans could lose 
confidence and spur an even steeper downturn in the economy.
  We know how to create jobs. Let's pass the highway bill. Let's pass 
the Boxer Democratic amendment today. Let's ensure we send the right 
message about the direction we want this country to take. We can do 
that with this budget resolution and with legislation that has come 
before the Senate. I hope, on a bipartisan basis, we can send that 
message to the American people.

[[Page S2468]]

  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada is 
recognized for up to 30 minutes under the previous order.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, this morning I rise to speak about the 
national defense function of this budget resolution. The resolution 
provides $413.9 billion in discretionary spending for our national 
defense. This amount represents a increase of almost $20 billion, 5 
percent above the 2004 level.
  As chairman of the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee of 
the Armed Services Committee, I am keenly aware that today we are a 
nation at war. Almost 200,000 U.S. military service personnel are 
currently deployed around the world in Operation Iraqi Freedom, 
Operation Enduring Freedom, and other military operations in the 
ongoing global war on terrorism.
  Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines remain deployed in Korea, 
the Balkans, at sea and elsewhere, protecting American interests and 
deterring aggression.
  There can be no disagreement on the magnificent manner which our 
Armed Forces have answered their nation's call. Their professionalism 
and performance have been brilliant, and their willingness to sacrifice 
for this country is inspiring.
  That is why I am so troubled today by the Democrats' response to 
President Bush's weekly radio address last Saturday. That response was 
delivered by Senator John Kerry, their party's presumptive Presidential 
nominee.

  We all know that each Senator has a right to state their opinion on 
defense issues. However, when a Senator, or in this case, a party's 
presumptive nominee, makes an argument built on a foundation of facts 
as distorted as Senator Kerry's was, then the argument becomes more 
than an honest disagreement.
  He quoted the Secretary of the Army as saying that U.S. forces were 
``not prepared'' for the present conflict in Iraq.
  This is the exact quote:

       The Secretary of the Army admitted that the United States 
     forces were ``not prepared'' for the present conflict.

  But yesterday at the Senate Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee 
hearing, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, General Casey, testified 
that comment ``was taken out of context.'' He stated ``we were very 
well prepared, all of the services.''
  General Moseley, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, said, ``I 
would have to tell you that . . . all airmen, whether they were Navy, 
Marine, or Air Force, were exceptionally well prepared. . . . and I 
would take issue with anyone that criticized our magnificent airmen.''
  General Huly, Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps, said, ``I 
believe we were very well prepared . . . I think that's evidenced by 
the fact that we exceeded our expectations, accomplished the mission in 
a shorter period of time, with far fewer losses than we even 
anticipated ourselves.
  Senator Kerry has woven a picture of incompetence and malfeasance by 
our military leaders and our President. Nothing could be further from 
the truth. It is amazing the different pictures painted by those who 
have been there, and those who have not.
  I personally visited Iraq last December. As a matter of fact, I was 
privileged to have been in the country the day the Third Infantry 
Division captured Saddam Hussein. I have to tell you what impressed me 
the most was watching our troops go above and beyond the call of duty; 
painting schools, rehabbing hospitals, and winning over the hearts and 
minds of the Iraqi people, even in the Tikrit region where their safety 
was most at risk.
  Watching events in Iraq unfold underscores that America is blessed 
with more than her fair share of heroes. These men and women are doing 
what needs to be done in an extremely hostile environment. And they are 
depending on this Congress to pass a budget that gives them the 
resources to complete their mission and return home safely to their 
families. This budget ensures that the military has the resources it 
needs to remain properly prepared and adequately equipped.
  In his radio address, Senator Kerry also stated that: ``I will never 
send our troops into harm's way without enough firepower and support.''
  Strong words, but words alone offer little in this context and in the 
overall context of our budget discussions. It is interesting to note 
that while Senator Kerry claims to be a devout supporter of our troops, 
he was one of only 12 Senators who voted ``no'' for an Iraqi 
supplemental that provided that very ``firepower'' and ``support'' he 
now claims is so necessary.
  The Iraqi supplemental was used to purchase the same body armor and 
``up-armored Humvees'' Senator Kerry rails about as being insufficient. 
If we had allowed Senator Kerry to make the decision, our troops would 
indeed be ill prepared.
  Votes have consequences. By voting against the Iraqi supplemental 
Senator Kerry voted to undermine the troops in the field and that is 
not only inexcusable, it is reprehensible. I hope no Senator would make 
such an egregious mistake with respect to the current budget 
resolution.
  Therefore, I am calling upon Senator Kerry to retract his comments 
about our military being unprepared and to apologize to the men and 
women of our armed forces for using their sacrifices as political 
fodder. It is important to remember that in a democracy there will 
always be honest differences of opinion over the difficult decisions 
about the best way to fund, train, and equip American forces who are 
being sent into harms' way. I appreciate the opportunity to work with 
Members on both sides of the aisle to resolve these differences.
  On February 24, Senator Levin, ranking member of the Armed Services 
Committee, sent a letter to Chairman Nickles and Senator Conrad.
  In his letter he stated that ``no one can predict with precision what 
these fiscal year 2005 costs will be'' and recommended an increase in 
``budget authority for the national defense function by $30 billion in 
fiscal year 2005.''
  I agree with my distinguished colleague from Michigan when he said 
that this is ``the responsible thing to do for our troops and for 
budget accuracy.''
  This budget takes Senator Levin's suggestions to heart and includes 
the supplemental resources necessary to provide for the 200,000 men and 
women in our military who are currently serving abroad.
  I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to ensure that we 
adequately address the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, by 
passing a budget resolution that provides the resources that will 
sustain and improve our military as they fight for security of this 
great Nation. By fully supporting this budget, we will send a clear 
message of support to our troops, worldwide, and an important message 
to the world of America's complete commitment to freedom and security.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina). The Senator 
from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes 
before Senator Murray begins her remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I don't know precisely what Senator Kerry 
was referring to in his remarks the other day. But I think we all know 
there were deficiencies in terms of resources provided to our troops 
going into Iraq and Afghanistan. We have all read the stories 
repeatedly of soldiers not having the body armor they needed. We have 
all heard of people actually raising money back home in order to get 
the body armor for our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. That should 
not be. We shouldn't have a circumstance where American soldiers don't 
have the best equipment to keep them safe when we have sent them into 
harm's way. I think we have all read the stories of our Humvees not 
being properly armored to protect soldiers against these bombs that 
have been going off.
  I remember very well going to Walter Reed Army Hospital visiting 
young men who had been badly injured in Iraq. I remember very well 
visiting with one young soldier who had been in a Humvee that had not 
been properly armored. One of the roadside bombs had gone off, and that 
young soldier was terribly injured--blind in one eye,

[[Page S2469]]

lost a leg, an arm. He was badly wounded. As he lay in that bed, 
another Senator and I visited him. As we left the room, having visited 
that patient, we commented about how it can be that we send into Iraq 
Humvees not properly armored against the kind of truck bombs and 
roadside bombs that had been used to injure and kill our troops.
  I don't know precisely what Senator Kerry was referring to in that 
speech. We all know there were serious deficiencies in terms of body 
armor for our troops and in terms of Humvees being properly armored 
against bombs.
  I think Senator Kerry was certainly not out of line in suggesting 
that more could have been done to have our troops fully protected on 
the battlefield.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank especially my colleague from 
Washington, Senator Murray, who is such a valuable member of the Senate 
Budget Committee for permitting me to speak ahead of her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Washington is recognized to offer an amendment.


                           Amendment No. 2719

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself, Mr. 
     Kennedy, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Levin, 
     Mr. Dodd, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Harkin, 
     Mr. Schumer, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Reed, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Kohl, and 
     Ms. Landrieu, proposes an amendment numbered 2719.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $516,000,000.
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $13,244,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $2,924,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $516,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $516,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $13,244,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $2,924,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $516,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $516,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $13,244,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $2,924,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $516,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, decrease the amount by $516,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $13,760,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $16,684,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $17,200,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $17,200,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $516,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $13,760,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $16,684,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $17,200,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $17,200,000,000.
       At the end of Title III, insert the following:

     SEC.  . RESERVE FUND FOR NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT EDUCATION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     shall revise the aggregates, functional totals, allocations 
     to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, 
     discretionary spending limits, and other appropriate levels 
     and limits in this resolution by up to $8,600,000,000 in 
     budget authority for fiscal year 2005, and by the amount of 
     outlays flowing therefrom in 2005 and subsequent years, for a 
     bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment, or conference 
     report that provides additional fiscal year 2005 
     discretionary appropriations, in excess of levels provided in 
     this resolution, for Department of Education programs in the 
     No Child Left Behind Act (P.L. 107-110).

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following Senators be added as cosponsors: Senators Kennedy, Lieberman, 
Mikulski, Corzine, Levin, Dodd, Stabenow, Clinton, Kerry, Harkin, 
Schumer, Pryor, Reed of Rhode Island, Kohl, Dayton, and Landrieu.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, parents, teachers, and students 
throughout Washington State and across our entire country are looking 
for our help today as they try to implement the No Child Left Behind 
Act.
  Unfortunately, the budget before the Senate by the Republicans falls 
$8.6 billion short of what our schools and our students need this year. 
It is yet another broken promise to our schools, our students, and our 
families.
  We can do better. That is why I am offering this amendment this 
morning. I have visited schools in every corner of my State and I know 
firsthand that our educators everywhere are working harder than ever to 
help their students to meet these new accountable requirements. They 
want to do a good job. They want to do what is right. I also know it is 
not fair for the Federal Government to leave our schools without the 
funding they need to meet these Federal mandates we place on them.
  Today our State and local budgets everywhere are stretched thin. Our 
local communities cannot afford to make up the difference between what 
our schools were promised and what this budget actually provides. That 
is why I am offering this amendment today to fully fund the No Child 
Left Behind Act. My amendment tells students, teachers, and parents 
that the Federal Government will be a full partner with our local 
schools as they carry out the new law we passed.
  I am not asking for some unheard of amount of funding. I am simply 
asking we provide the funding we promised our schools 2 years ago. As 
everyone knows, the No Child Left Behind Act increased accountability 
for schools so we can ensure that all of our children will receive a 
high-quality education. However, accountability is a two-way street. We 
cannot demand that schools follow all of these new mandates and look 
the other way when it is time to write a check. If we expect our 
schools to uphold their part of the bargain, then we have to do our 
part and fund these requirements.
  Let's not forget, the funding levels in the No Child Left Behind Act 
were based on a bipartisan agreement on what it would take to implement 
this new law. It is hard to believe we are here 2 years later and the 
Federal Government is still not doing its part.
  This is especially important today because States are now confronting 
the true cost of implementing this law. The only study that looked at 
the actual cost to the States of the No Child Left Behind Act was 
conducted in Ohio. That analysis estimates that the cost to Ohio of 
complying with the law will reach $1.447 billion annually by fiscal 
year 2010.
  Again, the President's budget request and this Republican budget fail 
to live up to the promises we made in this Senate just 2 years ago when 
we passed No Child Left Behind. That is why we need to pass this 
amendment today. This amendment adds $8.6 billion to function 500 to 
fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act and to improve overall funding 
for educational programs.
  I am sure we will hear those on the other side saying their budget 
increases funding for No Child Left Behind by $1.2 billion over last 
year. It does. But it is still $8.6 billion short of what our schools 
need. That shortfall is going to have real and painful effects on all 
of our students unless we fix this budget.
  Mr. President, 4.6 million low-income children in this country will 
not get the help they need under title I unless we pass this amendment. 
In my home State alone, the difference between the President's request 
and the promise of No Child Left Behind means 28,000 low-income 
students will be left behind.
  This budget will result in fewer students being served by a number of 
important programs. That is because the Republican budget freezes 
funding for programs but those freezes mean real cuts in service when 
you factor in that we have rising enrollment and costs to our schools. 
At the end of the day, the Republican budget will mean that fewer 
students will be served in impact aid, dropout prevention, school 
counseling, afterschool, teacher quality, migrant education, and rural 
education.

  Let me give one example of what those cuts mean for our students. 
This budget will leave nearly 20,000 children in Washington State alone 
and 1.4 million children nationwide without a safe, adult-supervised 
environment

[[Page S2470]]

after school. We can do better. My amendment shows how.
  My amendment will live up to the commitments we made to our students 
when the No Child Left Behind Act was passed. It fully funds programs 
such as title I, English language acquisition, afterschool, and rural 
education. If this amendment passes, more than 2 million additional 
needy children will be served by title I, as we promised, when we 
passed No Child Left Behind.
  My amendment will mean more than 38,000 children in Washington State 
and 1.4 million students nationwide will have access to safe, adult-
supervised afterschool programs.
  My amendment is also fiscally responsible because it also asks for 
$8.6 billion in deficit reduction, something many of our colleagues 
have talked about.
  Our priority should be educating our students. This amendment 
reflects that priority because both the education increase and deficit 
funding reduction are taken by closing tax loopholes. During the debate 
on my amendment, I suspect we will hear a whole list of reasons why we 
cannot give our kids the funding we promised them. I want to debunk 
some of those plans right now.
  We will hear some argue that we have already increased funding for 
education to a high enough level. I say to any one of my colleagues, go 
to your local schools in your communities and ask them if they agree 
with that. See what type of reaction you get. Let's remember, we have 
never fully funded the No Child Left Behind Act--never. How can we ask 
our schools today to comply with the law when we are not holding up our 
end of the bargain?
  Let's not forget that the only reason we have reached this level of 
funding is because many in Congress pushed and pushed last year to do 
better than the President's budget. If we had accepted the President's 
funding request, there would be at least $10.7 billion less for 
education than was appropriated by Congress and $6.6 billion less for 
No Child Left Behind.
  Another claim we will hear during this debate is that if my amendment 
is accepted, we will come back and ask for more funding next year. That 
is exactly what the law called for when we passed it. The requirements 
on our schools ratchet up throughout the lifetime of this bill, 
including requirements to increase test scores and to have an increased 
number of highly qualified teachers that we require under the law. That 
is why the funding in the bill was slated to increase annually as well 
and why we are now falling further and further behind as we fail to 
live up to that commitment. That is why we are hearing from our 
teachers in our schools today. As parts of this law become implemented, 
they have to live up to them.
  If my amendment is accepted, the request for fiscal year 2006 will 
not have to play catchup again as we have done for the past 2 fiscal 
years.

  Finally, we will hear opponents argue that States and schools do not 
really need all of this funding. I disagree. The bottom line is that 
our schools do not need more excuses from Washington, DC. They need the 
funding we promised and my amendment will provide it.
  As I conclude, I want to be very clear what is at stake. This 
amendment will determine whether we keep the funding promises we all 
made when we voted for No Child Left Behind. Those who vote against 
this amendment will have to explain to parents and teachers and 
students and families and communities they represent why they refused 
to provide the funding we promised in the No Child Left Behind Act.
  If any of my colleagues want to argue against fully funding No Child 
Left Behind, that of course is their right, but I will fight with 
everything I have to give our schools the funding we promised so this 
law can work. Our students deserve nothing less.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up with all of us who are working hard 
to make that law work for all of our students. I urge my colleagues to 
vote for the Murray amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
offering this amendment. She offered it in the committee. This is one 
of the most important amendments we will vote on during the 
consideration of the budget resolution. The Senator from Washington has 
been a strong leader on education issues.
  If we are going to have a competitive country for the future, if we 
are going to do something about this job loss that is occurring, we 
have to have the best educated, best trained workforce in the world. 
That is the message the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board has sent 
to Congress and to the United States.
  Senator Murray is saying, we ought to put our money where our mouth 
is, that we ought to keep the promise of No Child Left Behind, not just 
send all the requirements out to the States but send the money along 
with it that was promised in order to provide the resources necessary 
to make these promises a reality.
  I again thank the Senator from Washington for her leadership.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington controls the time.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington 
State. I enthusiastically rise in support of her amendment to fully 
fund No Child Left Behind.
  This is the 21st century. In our own country, we have to make sure we 
are safer, that we have a stronger, more competitive economy. The way 
we are going to be safer and stronger is if we get smarter. By 
``smarter,'' I mean develop a 21st century workforce. In order to do 
that, we need to make sure our elementary, middle, and high schools are 
the best they can be.
  This is why I support full funding of No Child Left Behind. We need 
to focus on achievement. We need to focus on accountability. But while 
we are looking to hold our public schools accountable, we need to hold 
ourselves accountable in order to bring the resources to our public 
schools.
  Requirements without resources are an unfunded Federal mandate. If we 
want to have a smarter workforce, we need to get behind our public 
schools. The Murray amendment really takes us a long way in making sure 
we have smaller class sizes, better trained teachers, and all the other 
resources that go into that.
  College is also an important part of being smarter. I am deeply 
troubled that access to college, which has been one part of the 
American dream, could now become part of the American financial 
nightmare. I will be offering an amendment later on to help families 
who want to send their children to college: a simple, straightforward 
$4,000 tuition tax credit for every year of college.
  Our middle-class families are stressed and stretched. Families in my 
own State of Maryland are worried. They are worried about jobs. They 
are worried about losing their health care, with costs ballooning. They 
are worried about holding down more than one job to make ends meet. 
They race from carpools to work and afterschool activities and back 
again. But most of all, they want to know can they count on their 
public schools, which is what Senator Murray is defending. They want to 
know will their children be able to go to college.
  I believe the United States of America should provide an opportunity 
ladder and we need to make sure one of the rungs in that ladder is 
access. That is why I believe a $4,000 tuition tax credit will go a 
long way toward giving help to those who practice self-help--the 
families who are working and saving to send their children to college, 
and young people who are working and saving to send themselves to 
college.

  Tuition is on the rise at colleges. At my own University of Maryland, 
there has been a 30-percent increase over the last 2 years. Tuition for 
Baltimore Community College rose by $300 in 1 year. The average cost of 
a 4-year public college is about $10,500. If you add the fees and 
everything, at University of Maryland it is about $14,000. Those are 
not numbers. Those are real costs to real families.
  Financial aid, though, is not keeping up with the rising costs. 
Today, Pell grants only cover 40 percent of the average costs at 4-year 
public colleges. Twenty years ago, it covered 80 percent of the costs.

[[Page S2471]]

  Our students are graduating with so much debt it is becoming their 
first mortgage. Families and students are looking for help. But I 
regret to say President Bush's budget does not offer them much hope.
  The Republican budget has all the wrong priorities. It freezes the 
Pell grants. It does not offer real tax breaks. Yet at the same time it 
gives tax breaks to those who do not need them.
  We need to do more. We need to help middle-class families have the 
best education out of our public schools to get them ready for college. 
But when they are ready to go to college, there should be the financial 
help to get them there.
  We need to double the Pell grant. We need a larger tuition tax 
credit. We also need to make sure families have access to the American 
dream.
  College education is more important than ever. Forty percent of the 
new jobs for the new century will require postsecondary education. This 
cannot happen with platitudes. It has to happen with programs. To 
compete in the global economy, we have to make sure all of our young 
people have 21st century skills. In order to compete in the new world 
order, we need to make sure all of our children have 21st century 
skills for 21st century jobs. We need to remember the benefits of 
education accrue not only to the individual but to society as well.
  I stand here with my colleagues to say, if we are going to make 
investments, we need to invest in human capital, to create a world-
class workforce. Let's have the best public schools the world has ever 
seen and make sure we continue to have access to the American dream.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Maryland.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator be willing to yield for 
a question?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Yes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. First, I see my friend and colleague from Montana wants 
to address the Senate. I would like to comment after he concludes. But 
I first of all want to thank the good Senator from Washington for 
offering this amendment.
  There is varied experience that is brought to the Senate by Members 
of this body. But we are listening to a voice who has been a teacher 
and also a school board member, and prior to entering the Senate 
probably spent more time in the area of education, particularly young 
children, certainly, than any other Member of this body.
  When she speaks about education and what happens in the classrooms 
and to the teachers, she is talking on the basis of a lifetime 
experience. She makes a compelling case. I welcome the opportunity to 
join with her.
  I want to take a moment of the Senate's time and ask whether the kind 
of situation we are facing in Massachusetts is typical of what she is 
finding in her State or if she has heard about it in other States.
  In my own State of Massachusetts, we passed effectively a ``no child 
left behind'' bill 4 years prior to the time we passed it here in the 
Senate. As a result, over a 7-year period, we find Massachusetts is No. 
1 in the country in the fourth grade and No. 1 in the eighth grade. We 
reduced the disparities with regard to race more than any other State. 
It is because of those accepted concepts which the Senator from 
Washington has talked about: smaller class size, well-trained teachers, 
supplementary services, parental involvement, evaluation of the 
children themselves, and support from the local communities.
  These are the things for which she has fought. But when you fail to 
do that--I have here before me a copy of the Boston Globe newspaper of 
February 19, which talks about what is happening in the region: ``Deep 
Cut in School Systems Taking a Toll on Educators.'' It lists school 
systems feeling the effects because of the cutbacks, because of the 
failure of us to provide for No Child Left Behind, plus what is 
happening in the State.
  Boston has lost 396 teachers. They have closed six schools. They have 
cut the budgets on individual schools and eliminated programs.
  For Braintree, they have lost 56 teachers and increased class sizes.
  Bridgewater-Raynham Regional has lost 35 teachers, increased class 
sizes, added a $175 bus fee, $200 athletic fee, and a $50 
extracurricular fee, being paid by parents.
  Fitchburg lost 47 teachers, increased class sizes, added a $180 
annual bus fee, and raised the athletic fees from $30 to $40.
  Haverhill lost 143 teachers, closed 6 schools, increased class sizes, 
eliminated full-day kindergarten, added a $250 music fee, and raised 
athletic fees from $50 to $300. As we all know, in education, if the 
child works in music for 3 to 4 years, their average goes up 50 to 75 
points in their test to go on to college.
  The list goes on.
  Lynn lost 85 teachers, closed 3 schools, eliminated full-day 
kindergarten and prekindergarten.
  Pittsfield lost 51 teachers, increased class sizes, eliminated 
afterschool programs, added a $100 student activity fee.
  Let me read this and ask whether this is something the Senator has 
seen. Here we have this extraordinary superintendent, Thomas 
Giancristiano, who has been in education for 30 years.

  Let me read from the story:

       On good nights, the superintendent fretted. On the bad 
     nights sleep vanished. Hours before dawn, thousands of 
     dollars and cents reeled in his head. Thomas Giancristiano 
     would lie in his bed in his Peabody home, eyes open and red, 
     and make deals with the school finance devil.
       How many custodians do we need, the Winthrop superintendent 
     would ask. How many secretaries? If we keep the libraries 
     closed, can we keep one more kindergarten teacher?

  That is what is happening out in the schools. Men and women who have 
worked a lifetime trying to educate our children, this is what they are 
going through.
  Going back to the article, he then saw the cutbacks that took place 
in his school district:

       It was a hard moment to watch: A confident, likeable, 
     optimist with 30 years of education experience was faced with 
     cutting 17 teaching jobs. He chose instead to cut himself.
       Giancristiano's voice was steady, his pique never showing. 
     Only his reddening eyes displayed his anger.
       ``Either you do not support me, or you do not support your 
     children,'' he read from notes.

  This is happening across the country. This is what this budget is all 
about. We have a chance to do something for these schools or we can 
provide the additional kinds of tax breaks for the wealthiest 
individuals.
  The amendment of the Senator from Washington is responsible because 
it pays for itself and also helps reduce the deficit. I commend the 
Senator. I intend to speak longer, but I am just wondering, since I 
listened to the Senator speak and since she is back home every weekend 
talking to parents and schoolteachers and superintendents, whether the 
kind of stories I mentioned very briefly are happening in her State and 
are having a similar kind of impact on the men and women who have 
devoted their lives to provide greater educational opportunity to 
children in the State of Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts 
for defining for all of us what I think we are seeing across our 
country in every school and every classroom where the morale among our 
educators who are responsible for caring for our children every day has 
declined dramatically.
  The Senator will remember not that long ago when the Senate passed a 
bill to increase class sizes in kindergarten, first, and second grades. 
As I traveled around my State at that time, teachers were so 
enthusiastic. They were excited about being given the opportunity to 
help their young students learn to write and learn to do math so they 
could be successful in life.
  That atmosphere has changed dramatically. Now you travel around to 
classrooms and they are begging and pleading for help. Every teacher 
says to me: I want to do the right thing. I want to be accountable. I 
want my students to be able to succeed. I want to make this work. But 
my class size is twice as large. I get less time with parents. I am 
paying more out of my own pocket for basic supplies. We don't have 
enough books for all of our students. And even more so, I am spending

[[Page S2472]]

every single second teaching to this test because my students don't 
have art and music and other things that help them be well-rounded 
adults.
  We can change this. We can make it better. We can do what we promised 
2 years ago and fund this and really make a difference in our 
children's lives.
  I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his question. I yield 10 
minutes to the Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my good friend from Washington.
  Mr. President, I don't know what the debate is all about. This is a 
no-brainer. It is an absolute no-brainer. All of us, when we are home 
talking to our teachers and to our communities, to school boards, know 
this is the right thing to do. It is clear. There is no contest. There 
is no debate.
  Congress passed No Child Left Behind trying to set levels of 
accountability. But then Congress did not provide the money to 
implement No Child Left Behind. It is contributing to all the cutbacks 
in our elementary and secondary schools about which we are hearing. I 
hear this constantly at home. I daresay that every Member of the 
Senate, when he or she returns home, finds the same comments.
  Again, I don't know why we are debating this amendment. It is pretty 
clear. I highly compliment the Senator from Washington. I don't know 
anybody who believes more and has spent more personal time helping to 
educate our Nation's children than the Senator from Washington, who is 
a schoolteacher. She is right. We should take our cues from what she is 
telling us.
  There is another reason to vote for this amendment. How are we paying 
for it? Closing tax loopholes. That in and of itself should be enough 
to pass the amendment. Also, we are closing tax loopholes to do 
something that is good; that is, supporting education.
  Education truly is a means of developing our greatest assets. We have 
built the strongest, the most diverse economy on the planet, basically 
through education. There is more mobility, more opportunity in America, 
and one reason is our educational system.
  We have pushed the technology horizon. We have developed a quality of 
life that is the envy of much of the world. There is no doubt that we 
can further improve our economy and our quality of life. But it is 
important to note that it is the investment in education that has 
essentially brought us to where we are, and it is an ongoing 
investment. You cannot stop investing in education. You have to keep 
going for obvious reasons.
  Fully funding No Child Left Behind is a no-brainer. It is obvious we 
should do this. Our people back home want us to do it. If you took a 
poll at home, should No Child Left Behind be paid for, the results 
would be overwhelming because people at home know what a tight spot 
elementary and secondary education is in.
  We are not giving our children our best shot. We have a moral 
responsibility to leave this place in as good a shape or better than we 
found it. That applies to the environment, education, the general 
conditions in which the America public finds itself. It is unfortunate 
in a certain sense--we are kind of lucky in another--that we have to 
accelerate our support for education. Why? Because the world is 
changing so quickly. New technologies are developing worldwide so 
quickly. We, therefore, have an obligation to accelerate our emphasis 
on education generally, and that is at all levels. It is Head Start, 
elementary and secondary, continuing, 4-year colleges, graduate 
education. It is at all levels.
  Clearly, a key part of that is No Child Left Behind. So far this 
administration is giving words to the concept. It says vote for No 
Child Left Behind, but it has not backed it up with dollars.
  A Presidential candidate years ago once asked: Where is the beef? I 
will ask the same question: Where is the beef? Where is the support? 
Where is the funding?

  We have an opportunity to assist our children by providing them with 
the necessary resources to help them meet the challenge. Under No Child 
Left Behind, Montana was promised $71 million in 2005 to comply with 
the new educational standards. What does this budget include? Half of 
that, $46 million, and that is a shortfall. Add to that all the other 
pressures schools are facing.
  Again, this is a no-brainer. I compliment the Senators from 
Washington and Massachusetts. Both of them work very hard for 
education.
  Jack Kennedy once said:

       Our progress as a Nation can be no swifter than our 
     progress in education.

  I think we all agree. Funding education is key to maintaining an 
American workforce that can compete in the world economy. Education is 
critical to keeping jobs and creating new jobs in the United States. A 
big problem we know is the offshoring of American jobs. It is very 
serious. We deserve to give it an answer.
  I don't believe the answer has been given to us thus far by this 
administration. We have heard nothing. It is laissez-faire: Let things 
happen. So what if people lose their jobs. It is good in the long term. 
That is essentially what the administration is saying.
  I believe in order to keep our country strong we have to do something 
positive. We have to take some action. We must advance policies to help 
create new jobs in the United States, undertake measures designed to 
keep good-paying jobs in the United States.
  Finally, when jobs are lost in trade, we need to retrain workers and 
help them get back in the workforce as quickly as possible. That is why 
I believe it is right that one of the priority amendments on this side 
of the aisle addresses jobs. It is why at the appropriate time I will 
offer an amendment that will set us as a country on the path to 
accomplishing those goals.
  We must begin where the jobs begin. We must adopt policies to create 
jobs in America. One of the best ways to do that is by supporting 
research. Most of the innovative research done in the United States is 
at universities and research institutes which attract students from 
across the globe. Over the last 20 years, Federal research funding in 
the physical sciences and engineering as a percentage of GDP has 
actually declined. It has declined by nearly one-third. I believe we 
should reverse that trend, increase Federal spending on basic research. 
The money we spend will come back to us many times over in the creation 
of new jobs and new industries making products yet to be invented.

  If we want to support Federal spending on research, we should support 
the National Science Foundation. The NSF funds research and education 
in science and engineering through a variety of successful programs. It 
accounts for roughly 20 percent of all Federal support to academic 
institutions for basic research, a crucial engine of innovation for our 
economy.
  NSF funds have helped discover new technologies that have led to 
multibillion-dollar industries and created countless new jobs. The list 
is astounding: fiber optics, radar, wireless communication, 
nanotechnology, plant genomics, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, 
and, yes, the Internet. All were made possible by work in the basic 
sciences and engineering funded by the NSF.
  Each year, the NSF helps fund over 200,000 students, teachers, and 
researchers. Many of these people take their NSF-supported work into 
industry, where they found company startups selling new products and 
new technologies. That means one thing: jobs. Fully funding NSF will 
lead to more jobs.
  When the President signed the National Science Foundation 
Authorization Act of 2002, the intent was to double in 5 years the 
funding devoted to the NSF. Not fully funding NSF shortchanges 
America's future.
  The amendment I am offering will fulfill the promise of the NSF Act 
and restore funding to its fully authorized levels. That means 
providing $7.4 billion in fiscal year 2005, $8.5 billion in 2006, and 
$9.8 billion in 2007. All told, that is $7.4 billion above current 
levels--certainly money well spent.
  Our future depends upon our ability to continue to innovate, and that 
depends upon the support we give to America's innovators--our 
scientists and engineers. We should fully fund the NSF.
  At the same time, we must ensure America's families can afford higher 
education, which is an important part of the solution. This is the key 
to America's continued prosperity. Education provides the skills 
necessary to unleash the creativity of our citizens.

[[Page S2473]]

  We should improve, consolidate, and expand the educational tax 
incentives that already exist and make them more effective. There are 
many ways.
  We can expand and extend the deduction for tuition expenses, expand 
the Hope and lifetime learning credits, craft targeted incentives for 
student pursuing science and engineering careers, and focus on programs 
to make it possible for nontraditional students to obtain an education. 
These are all good options.
  We need to ensure that young Americans are not discouraged from 
obtaining postsecondary education because of costs. That is the 
American dream, to get an education. We should not discourage it. 
Tuition costs have risen considerably in recent years, and our Federal 
assistance programs have not kept up.
  Increasing tax incentives can help to lessen the burden on students, 
and allow students to attend the schools that best fit their needs, 
whether 4-year colleges or 2-year colleges, which can also provide 
vocational and technical training.

  I ask for an additional 2 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Off of the Senator's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Different students will opt for different types of 
training. That is good. We need workers with different skills to fill 
all the new jobs that are constantly being created.
  One thing is sure: We need to train more engineers. Listen to this, 
Mr. President. We train only half as many engineers as does Japan. We 
train only half as many engineers as does Europe. We train only a third 
as many as does China. Think how many engineers China is going to train 
next year and the year after that and the year after that. Where will 
we be? Engineers play a critical role in the development of new jobs 
and new industries. We should encourage students to pursue training in 
this vital field.
  We need to help displaced workers to receive the retraining needed to 
succeed in a changing economy. There is one thing they can be sure of: 
Things will always change. Jobs will change. Workers should be equipped 
with the tools to change with these jobs. Education is certainly the 
key.
  The amendment I am going to offer will put a downpayment of $10 
billion into our workforce. The U.S. economy is the most flexible, 
vibrant, dynamic in the world. We have to keep it that way. We owe that 
to the ingenuity of the American people and their relentless thirst to 
create and innovate.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in a positive response to offshoring. 
It should not be negative; it should not be protectionism. It has to be 
positive. I am offering a sound, positive approach. Create jobs in 
America by fully funding the National Science Foundation and support 
education. That is one of the keys to our long-term prosperity.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, before my friend and colleague from 
Montana leaves, I want to say this amendment increases taxes by $17.2 
billion. It increases taxes next year by $13.2 billion.
  For the information of colleagues, we are assuming next year, on the 
reconciliation, which is all that is going to happen this year--or 
maybe all that will happen--that is the total child credit, it so 
happens. Some people say, well, this is assuming revenue loophole 
closings. That is not accurate. This resolution says increased taxes by 
$17.2 billion. We are assuming that the child credit is going to stay 
at $1,000 per child. So these two are in direct conflict. I want 
everybody to know this is a big spending increase in an area where we 
already have big spending increases--enormous, if you go over the last 
few years.
  In spite of that, it is a big tax increase. In fact, it is a lot 
bigger tax increase than the amendment we voted on yesterday. I want 
people to know this is a tax increase that is very large.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. NICKLES. Yes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator read the first line of the description 
of this amendment?
  Mr. NICKLES. I am reading the amendment where it says offered by 
Senator Murray and ``on line''----
  Mr. BAUCUS. Above that, further up.
  Mr. NICKLES. The purpose?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. It says, ``by closing tax loopholes.''
  Mr. BAUCUS. Does the Senator disagree that we should close tax 
loopholes?
  Mr. NICKLES. But that is not what this amendment does. That is the 
purpose. The amendment says: ``On page 3, line 10, increase the amount 
by $13.2 billion.'' That is increasing taxes, an instruction to the 
Finance Committee.
  Mr. BAUCUS. By closing tax loopholes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators all address each other through 
the Chair.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The purpose is to close tax loopholes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. I have the floor. I want to make sure my colleague knows 
how to understand what these amendments say. If you read lines 1, 2, 3, 
and 4, that increases taxes by $17.2 billion over the resolution. Our 
resolution assumes continuation of the existing tax law. So this would 
increase taxes by $17.2 billion over existing law.
  All we are assuming, frankly, in the big amount we have for next 
year, since that is the bulk of our tax increase, it happens to be for 
the child credit. So I am telling my colleagues, we talk about closing 
loopholes--and there are some out there. I know the chairman and 
ranking member are trying to do that with the leasing provision. I 
happen to support that. But you are spending it as well.
  This resolution says increase taxes. The purpose doesn't make law; 
the purpose doesn't change the resolution. You can put anything up 
there. You could have as a purpose to make everybody feel good and to 
have nice incomes in education. That can be your purpose. But when you 
are amending the budget resolution, you are saying how much money to 
spend and how much money to tax. This resolution says to raise taxes by 
$17.2 billion and raise spending by $8.6 billion.
  I might also say that it raises spending by $8.6 billion in the first 
year. One would think you would not do that for 1 year and drop it 
down. So you can assume it would be 8.6 for a multitude of years. This 
is really like a $100 billion amendment on the spending side over 10 
years, and then on the tax side, I don't know how many. If you multiply 
this out over the years, it increases taxes by 17.2 and spending by 
8.6.
  Mr. BAUCUS. If the Senator will yield, the only way to close tax 
loopholes is by raising additional revenue. That is the only way you 
can do it. There is no way to close loopholes otherwise. Does the 
Senator agree that he will work with me in closing loopholes and if not 
by raising revenue in some other way? The purpose of the amendment is 
to raise revenue by closing tax loopholes. I assume the Senator agrees 
with me that is the best way we should raise the revenue, although 
technically we have to have the numbers in here; otherwise, the 
amendment serves no purpose.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I enjoy working with my colleague from 
Montana on the Finance Committee, and I am one who is more than willing 
to close loopholes. I also tell my colleagues that my friend from 
Montana and the Senator from Iowa have used almost every loophole 
closer, multiple times.
  I am happy to close loopholes, but this amendment does not close 
loopholes. This amendment tells the Finance Committee to raise taxes by 
$17.2 billion, period. The Finance Committee can do it any way they 
want. I am just telling the Senator that is exactly what it says.
  What we have assumed is we are going to allow the child tax credit to 
go forward. Maybe that is not a correct assumption. Maybe families are 
not going to get to keep the present tax law. Maybe the child tax 
credit will be reduced from $1,000 to $700. Maybe the marriage penalty 
relief we have in the year 2004 will not happen in 2005. I am afraid, 
if this amendment is adopted, it will not happen.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NICKLES. Not just yet. My point is--and I have not even alluded 
to the

[[Page S2474]]

education issue, and I am going to hand that to Senator Gregg who knows 
far more about education than this Senator--no matter what level we had 
in this resolution, I was more than confident somebody would say that 
is not enough for education. I have looked at the total education 
function we have, and it totals $97.6 billion. That does not include 
the additional $5 billion--yes, it does. That includes the $5 billion 
Senator Gregg has put in for higher education reauthorization.
  I looked at what we spent. That is $97 billion. In 1990, we spent $39 
billion, almost three times as much. In the year 2000, we spent $49 
billion. It is right at twice as much as we spent in the year 2000. We 
have had dramatic increases in education--dramatic increases--including 
the last several years. But no matter what that amount is, people are 
going to say that is not enough and, oh, yes, we want to increase taxes 
a lot more and throw a lot more money at it. I am just not sure that is 
the correct result we should be following.
  I want everybody to know this is a tax increase. I want everybody to 
know this is a humongous increase in this program. I have not figured 
the percentage.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NICKLES. With this additional money, it is a 40.6-percent 
increase. For everybody who says we want to balance the budget, how do 
you balance the budget and simultaneously increase programs by 40 
percent? This fictitious point of let's close loopholes, if there are 
loopholes out there, I am sure the chairman and the ranking member of 
the Finance Committee want to close them because they have a lot of 
demands. I am all for closing loopholes, but that doesn't fly. The 
amendment says raise taxes by $17.2 billion.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington controls the time.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from Louisiana 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my friend 
from Washington.
  I wanted to ask the Senator from Oklahoma, before he leaves, since he 
has gone on record several times this morning as to what loopholes he 
would agree to close, would he for the record indicate or give us some 
idea what some of those loopholes would be and how much money could be 
generated by those loopholes, because there are many people in 
Oklahoma, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Washington who would be 
interested in identifying those dollars so we could apply them to 
fulfill the promise the President made to fund education. As the Budget 
chairman, I am very interested in what specific loopholes he would be 
willing to close.
  Mr. NICKLES. To answer my colleague's question, in the budget 
resolution we assume $20 billion of revenue loopholes and that, 
frankly, is to pay for the tax cuts we have in this bill.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Can I clarify? The loopholes the Senator from Oklahoma 
is supporting are going to fund additional tax cuts for those at the 
higher end of the tax cuts?
  Mr. NICKLES. The Senator is absolutely incorrect. The loopholes we 
are closing basically will pay for extending present law. What we 
assumed in this budget resolution is continuation of present law, plus 
the AMT fix.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. I have the floor. I 
want to make clear for the record, as the Senator from Oklahoma just 
clarified, he and the administration are willing to close loopholes, 
but only if the savings from those loopholes go to make permanent the 
tax cuts that drain the education budget and leave our children at 
risk. I am glad we got that cleared up.
  Let me begin the remarks I wish to make this morning.
  The Senators from Massachusetts and Washington are absolutely correct 
about the dire situation in our States and communities all across the 
Nation. They are also correct that one of the strongest aspects of the 
American dream--and I could argue the strongest aspect of the American 
dream--is the dream parents have for their children, the dream 
Americans share that no matter how tough their life has been, no matter 
how shortchanged they might have been when they started, they work hard 
because they want their children to get the kind of education that will 
help them be the human beings parents dream their children can and 
should be and to make their communities stronger.
  When this administration took office, they noted that dream. The 
President said:

       The time has come for excuse making to end. With this No 
     Child Left Behind Act, we have committed the Nation to higher 
     standards for every public school, and we have committed the 
     resources necessary to help children achieve those standards. 
     We want accountability with results, and we are willing to 
     fund it.

  That is what was said, but is not what was done. Budgets are 
difficult to put together. This document does not look very thick, but 
this document is a blueprint. This document sets a course for the 
Nation. This document, if it is not written correctly, cannot meet the 
promises I have just described.

  You know what, Mr. President, this document does not meet that 
promise. This document does not provide the money promised to every 
Governor, every superintendent, every teacher, and every parent in this 
Nation. This document is short $9 billion, and not one Senator on the 
other side is willing to close one loophole to fill that hole. They are 
only willing to close loopholes to give more tax cuts. That is the 
debate on this floor, and that is the choice the American people are 
going to make in the next election.
  With the surplus disappearing, with the war at hand, with the war on 
terrorism perhaps escalating, the question is, Do we want to make some 
adjustments in our plans to provide tax cuts or do we want to provide 
some tax cuts and fund education, invest in homeland security, and 
support our troops? That is the issue. But this administration, faced 
with the facts of declining and evaporating surpluses, faced with the 
facts of a war that is costing more than we anticipated, faced with 
those facts, chooses to ignore the facts and put out a budget that goes 
straight dead ahead 100 miles an hour into deficits and in doing so 
robs the opportunity, pulls the rug out from under every 
superintendent, every Governor, and every teacher because they are 
struggling in the schools.
  This is what the President says, but this is not what he does. This 
is what the President says:

       Once failing schools are identified, we will help them 
     improve. We'll help them help themselves. Our goal is to 
     improve public education. We want success, and when schools 
     are willing to accept the reality that the accountability 
     system points out and are willing to change, we will help 
     them.

  We are doing this in Louisiana. We have received accountability. We 
have identified our schools which are failing. We believed the 
President, but when we turned to him to ask him and this administration 
to help us hire new teachers, help us to train the teachers who need to 
be certified by a date certain the President and the administration 
forced us to do in this act, when we asked them please help us put on 
two new classrooms in these schools because we have to meet these new 
goals, they said we do not have any money, because he wants to extend 
the tax cuts permanently. He will close the loopholes, but not for 
them. Sorry, kids, we cannot close the loopholes. I have to close the 
loopholes for people who need tax cuts.
  Now I am going to talk about the increases in education. I know 
Senator Kennedy is going to speak about this and he knows these numbers 
better than I do. I will admit, and I understand and know--so don't 
anybody bother coming to the floor to tell me I do not understand--
there is increased funding in education. I am clear and so are the 
people in my State that the Federal Government has increased funding. 
That is not the point. The point is, the increases have not been what 
the administration promised and do not help us meet the new goals that 
have been mandated on every county and every parish in this Nation.
  I will also say, if the Senator from New Hampshire wants to come to 
the floor and debate this issue--and as Senator Murray knows very 
well--the increase in education in 2001, which was

[[Page S2475]]

the last budget of the previous administration, was 19 percent. That is 
how much the increase was. The next year is 2002, which was 18 percent. 
In the years of the President's budget, which is right here--this is 
the administration's budget and this is the chairman's mark. The 
chairman's mark is a little different than the President but it is 
basically the same document. These are the increases they provide: 19 
percent, 18 percent, down to 6 percent, 5 percent, and 3 percent. The 
outyears look even bleaker.
  They put No Child Left Behind basically in here, and as we can see, 
they pulled the rug out from everybody. That is what this election is 
going to be about.
  I know I only have a couple minutes remaining, but I want to say I 
know, not because I represent and am a leader from my State and I 
travel just like Senator Murray does all over her State, how angry 
people are about this. The front page of the Washington Post yesterday 
issued a poll that says 57 percent of the American people polled all 
over the country do not think the country is going in the right 
direction.
  This budget sets the direction, and 57 percent of the people know 
what is in this budget, not in every line but they are getting the 
general gist of it. They do not like it, and I do not blame them. There 
are many things it does, but one thing it does is it breaks the promise 
to their kids, and when you start fooling with people's children and 
you start upsetting the dream people have for their children and their 
education, there is going to be a repercussion from that.
  In conclusion, to use the President's own words: The time for excuse-
making has come to an end. We have committed to our schools and our 
children. We have said if we ask for accountability and results, the 
Federal Government will be there, will be a reliable partner, and this 
administration has made different choices.
  I end with a quote from another President. We have had many great 
Presidents in our history, thank goodness, and we had a great one in 
President Kennedy who said:

       I believe we possess all the resources and talents 
     necessary, but the facts of the matter are we have never made 
     the national decisions or marshaled the national resources 
     required for such leadership.

  He was speaking about the space program.

       We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent 
     timetable, or managed our resources and our time so as to 
     insure their fulfillment. . . . [L]et it be clear that I am 
     asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm 
     commitment to a new course of action--a course which will 
     last for many years and carry very heavy costs . . . if we 
     are to go only half way, or to reduce our sights in the face 
     of difficulty . . . it would be better not to go at all.

  That is what I am saying. If we have set a course by this budget, we 
owe it to our parents, to our teachers, and our children to stay the 
course, and if we are not ready to go the whole distance, we should not 
have started. That is the promise that has been broken.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have been talking with the manager of the 
bill on the Democratic side, and he suggested maybe we should enter 
into some sort of time agreement on this amendment. I see there are a 
number of people on his side who want to speak. Is there something the 
Senator recommends?
  Mr. CONRAD. I would say first to the people on our side, we are now 
getting in a real jam and we are also getting further toward vote-arama 
in a way I think is probably not something we want to do. I recommend 
we agree to an additional hour on each side, 2 hours equally divided.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I recognize that probably is a disadvantage 
for us because the other side has been going now for an hour, and 
although we are probably more succinct and more persuasive in less 
time----
  Mr. CONRAD. That is what we were counting on.
  Mr. GREGG. It is still not necessarily a fair division of the time. I 
would agree to some sort of time limit that gave us a little extra 
time. If the other side wants to go for an hour and we go for an hour 
and 15 minutes, which would be 2 hours and 15 minutes on this 
amendment, that would give them an additional hour--they have already 
done an hour--and we would get an hour and 15 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Would that be acceptable if we took an additional hour on 
our side and an additional hour and 15 minutes on their side?
  Mrs. MURRAY. It is acceptable to me.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Is there any additional time that could be available? 
This is such an important amendment. Could we take an hour and a half?
  Mr. CONRAD. We had hoped to do this in 2 hours. We have already spent 
an hour, and this would be an additional 2 hours 15 minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I understand.
  Mr. CONRAD. It would be agreeable on this side.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment be 
for an additional 2 hours and 15 minutes with an hour on the minority 
side and an hour and 15 minutes on the majority side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask that there be no second degrees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Is Senator Reed seeking time?
  Mr. REED. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will Senator Murray give time off the amendment?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Murray amendment to 
fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act. This is an important 
amendment. It will keep our commitment to educational reform in the 
United States.
  There are two keys to the success of the No Child Left Behind Act: 
effective implementation by the Department of Education and robust 
funding. Both are presently lacking.
  Without the needed resources, we will not meet the law's goals of 
closing achievement gaps and ensuring an excellent education and 
opportunity for all children.
  When the President signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law 2 
years ago, he pledged to support greater Federal investment in 
education. That pledge has not been kept by this President. He has 
proposed eliminating some of the No Child Left Behind Act programs, 
cutting others and only increasing title 1 by $1 billion. That is over 
$7 billion short of the authorized level of $20.5 billion.
  The No Child Left Behind Act was a fundamental change in the way we 
do business. Part of that change was a commitment to fund all of our 
aggressive ambitions to help every child succeed. What has been left 
are the requirements on children but insufficient resources for school 
systems throughout this country to implement them.
  It is no wonder general assemblies across this country, in Utah, in 
Virginia, Republican assemblies, are revolting against these 
provisions, not because it is not a good effort at reform. Rather it is 
because we have not provided the resources to accomplish the reforms. 
Senator Murray's amendment would provide the needed resources.
  I believe we have to go ahead and fund these programs, and we will 
not do so unless the Murray amendment is accepted. I urge support of 
the Murray amendment. This is not just about giving individual 
opportunity to every child. That is central and crucial. This is also 
about our economic future. If we do not fully fund education now in the 
elementary and secondary years, we will fall further behind in a very 
competitive world economy. This is about giving every child a chance 
and making sure our economy and our society works. I commend the 
Senator for doing that, and I yield the floor to Senator Murray.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the other side is not ready to go. I 
yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Fine, if that is the desire. Mr. President, I ask 10 
minutes on the Murray amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.

[[Page S2476]]

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I mentioned a moment or two earlier what 
is happening in my own State, in Massachusetts, in the school districts 
all across that State, a State that was attempting to enhance 
educational opportunities for the children of Massachusetts. They 
relied upon the commitment that the Federal Government made a few years 
ago, some 3 years ago, to try to complete the commitment of that State, 
in partnership with the Federal Government, in enhancing educational 
opportunities for the children in our State and in States across this 
country.
  The Murray amendment addresses the nature of the commitment that the 
administration made to not just the Members of the Senate but to the 
children and to the parents and to the school districts across the 
country; that is, we were going to have reform and the resources to 
make the reform take hold.
  What we are talking about is a budget of $2.4 trillion, and the issue 
is can we find $8.6 billion in that $2.4 trillion. Education is either 
important or it is not. If we ask families all across this country, 
people would say, I would think you would be able, in a budget of $2.4 
trillion, to find the $8 billion to make sure we are going to fund No 
Child Left Behind. It should not be that big a deal. It is a question 
of priority.
  The Senator from Washington stated what her priorities are. I agree 
with them, and I think most families in this country would say we can 
afford that, if it is going to make a difference in the quality of the 
education of the children of this country.
  Let's review very quickly the bidding, what has happened in the 
period since we passed No Child Left Behind. Since we passed the No 
Child Left Behind bill in 2002, let's be frank about where the funding 
is and where it has come from. When we passed No Child Left Behind, the 
administration asked for $1.3 billion. We raised that up to $4.8 
billion during the period of the negotiation. That legislation would 
not have passed at $1.3 billion. It would not have passed. I can tell 
you that. I know that.

  Then the next year the administration came in for less than $1 
billion and we were able to raise that up $3 billion more. That is the 
record. That is the increase right here, as a result of Democratic 
amendments to the appropriations, right there.
  Last year, in the Omnibus bill, the administration asked for a $900 
million cut and we increased it $1.9 billion.
  We will hear from the other side, look at the increases we have had 
in this area. They are the result of the amendments from this side. We 
want to continue it. If you like what we have done, vote for the Murray 
amendment.
  Look at what this amendment does right here.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Not just yet, if I have 10 minutes. I will at the end of 
my time.
  Here we are, the cost of the Bush tax cut for those making over 
$337,000 in 2005--$45 billion. It is $45 billion.
  Look at what the Murray amendment has, $8.6 billion. That is in 
addition to what was added, in terms of the Budget Committee--$8.6 
billion. This is $45 billion.
  The issue is choices. The issue is priorities. The issue is, as a 
matter of national urgency, is it more important to give $45 billion 
for those making over $337,000 in 2005, or to provide the full funding 
for the children of this country? That is the choice. That is the 
decision we are facing.
  The Murray amendment says let's get that money. We can certainly 
afford $45 billion--with that budget.
  Let's look at what happens if we do not do this, if we do not accept 
the Murray amendment. What is going to be the impact on the children of 
this country?
  I tried, in just the couple of minutes, to tell what the human impact 
was on a superintendent who has for 30 years been committed to 
improving the quality of the life of the children in his district. He 
was restless. He couldn't sleep. Finally, rather than face the 
additional cuts he was going to have to provide in this system, he 
actually resigned. That is happening in schools all across this 
country. Those are the real stories. That is what is really happening.
  If we look at it in the broad sweep of what this means, this chart 
tells it. Under the Bush budget going out the years from 2005 to 2013, 
you are going to leave 4 million children behind. Under the Murray 
amendment and the follow-on, all the children will be addressed; no 
child will be left behind.
  I was absolutely amazed, listening to the other side, saying if we go 
and approve the Murray amendment this will be a 40-percent increase. 
Imagine that, a 40-percent increase, thinking this body will never go 
for a 40-percent increase. In fact, even with that, that will only mean 
60 percent of the total funding for No Child Left Behind. We are 
requiring 100-percent performance by those children. We are expecting 
100-percent performance by the teachers. We are expecting 100-percent 
performance by those people who are providing the supplementary 
services, and we in the Congress say you do it on 60 percent of the 
money.

  It is like in this Nation, if we passed a voting rights act to apply 
to all of the country and we say it is not going to apply to 10 States. 
We will have Social Security for America but we are going to leave 10 
States out.
  We really didn't mean it when we said we were going to really address 
the needs of the 12 million children who fall into the category of 
title I. We didn't really mean it for all of them. We said it in the 
bill. We require it in the legislative proposal that in 12 years they 
have to be proficient--except you are not funding it. What sense does 
that make?
  It would have been like President Kennedy saying, you are going to go 
to the Moon, and we appropriate enough money to go up 50 miles and say 
we have had a success. You either do it or you don't. We were either 
serious at the time when we passed No Child Left Behind, like we were 
on voting rights, like we were on Social Security, like we were on 
Medicare, and like we were on going to the Moon. Or we are not. That is 
what the issue is. That is what the issue is in the Senate. Either 
children have that priority or they do not. The Democrats believe they 
do.
  We find there is more than enough money in here right now to be able 
to do it. There is more than enough money in here to be able to do it.
  I am glad to yield to my friend from New Hampshire if he still has a 
question.
  Mr. GREGG. I will try to recall it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will be around for a little while. I 
know there are others who want to speak. I will withhold the remainder 
of the time but I will be around, ready to answer any questions. I 
thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senators 
supporting the position represented by Senator Murray. But I do believe 
it is important to understand from where we come and where we are 
going, relative to educational spending in this country, and 
specifically in this Congress, and who is accountable for what. 
Because, obviously, the representation coming from the other side is 
that this President and this Republican Congress has not been as 
committed to education as we should have been.
  It is a hard case to make, honestly, in light of the history of 
educational spending.
  Let us return to the scene of the crime, as they say in the business 
of reviewing evidentiary facts. The scene of the crime is the Clinton 
administration, its spending on education, and its woeful efforts in 
the area of special education and title I. The scene of the crime is 
the Clinton administration and its failure to address the fact that for 
generations low-income children had been left behind in this Nation.
  That is what this is about. You can throw out all the numbers you 
want. But the issue is whether we as a Nation will continue to abandon 
the low-income child and leave him or her in school systems which 
simply shuttle him or her through, meaning when he got to the end of 
his or her academic career--if you can even call it that--in our school 
systems, he or she was unable to participate in the American dream 
because she couldn't read and he couldn't write relative to their 
peers.
  The President of the United States, George Bush, came into office and 
he

[[Page S2477]]

said, Let us do something about this. Let us address the issue of the 
fact that so many children in this Nation for generations have been 
shuttled through the system. He proposed the No Child Left Behind Act 
as a way to address that. The No Child Left Behind Act is not only 
about money in a tangential way. No Child Left Behind is really about 
the philosophy of whether a low-income child should enter the school 
system at a level at which they are not competitive with their peers 
and be left in that school system for the rest of their academic career 
and come out at a level that is not competitive with their peers.
  The No Child Left Behind Act is an issue of whether we are going to 
try to take the children in this country who come from a low-income 
family and give them a shot at the American dream by bringing their 
education up to a level where they at least know what they need to know 
in order to participate in our society, which is a very academically 
oriented society--a society which depends disproportionately on your 
educational ability in order to obtain success.
  The President proposed the concept which was to say to local school 
districts throughout this country, You decide, school districts, what 
children in your school know in the third grade, in the fourth grade, 
in the fifth grade, in the sixth grade, in the seventh grade, or in the 
eighth grade. You decide. We as a Federal Government are not going to 
tell you. You go out as a community, you sit down and brainstorm and 
decide what your fourth graders should know, what level of math, what 
level of composition capability, what level of English. Then once you 
decide that, you set up a process, a regimen, where you evaluate 
whether the children in your school system are meeting those 
obligations, are meeting those standards, are learning English at the 
level and writing and spelling at the level you, the local school 
district, decide is appropriate.
  One of the key things the President said was don't cover up the low-
income child by putting them in a large group with all the other 
children in the school system--what is called disaggregation. Let us 
look at these different groups, whether they come from minority 
backgrounds, whether they come from low-English backgrounds, or low-
income backgrounds. Let us find out what each group of children 
actually is learning.
  Let us not say just because fourth graders in the school system which 
has a lot of kids and who come from average income families that are 
doing well on the scores as a gross number, but that school system is 
working well when we know for a fact the low-income kids in that school 
system are still being left behind--disaggregation.
  We set up a system. The President proposed a system where we go out 
and say to the local school, You find out, you find out, parents, 
teachers, and principals, what children should learn in these 
elementary school grades and say whether the children by income groups 
or by ethnic groups are learning.
  Those two ideas were rather radical. But the radical idea was we were 
actually going to tell the parents in the school system whether their 
children are being taught, whether they are learning at a level that is 
going to bring them up to their peers. Low-income parents--most of 
whom, by the way, are single parents struggling to make ends meet--are 
finally going to know whether their children in that school system are 
learning what is necessary in order to make them competitive as defined 
by that school system and as defined by their peers. If the parent 
finds out their child is in a school system that is not teaching that 
child, then we are going to give the parents some tools to try to 
correct that problem. We are going to allow public school choice. We 
are going to allow extra help for low-income kids so they can be 
brought up to speed if they aren't up to speed with their peers. We are 
going to allow the school districts to go into schools, which 
unfortunately have systemic failures, or large percentage failures, and 
put more resources into those schools to try to correct their problems.
  This was the idea. It was revolutionary, and it has fundamentally 
improved education in this country. Everywhere you go in this country 
today, school districts are addressing the issue of whether the 
children are learning, whether the low-income kids are learning, 
whether they are being assessed, and the information is being put out 
to the public and the public is making assessments as to whether it is 
right.
  This bill has been one of the most creative and aggressive bills we 
have ever passed as a Congress, or even the States, in the area of 
trying to correct what has been a fundamental problem in which our 
public school systems, regrettably for years, were passing low-income 
kids off and not giving them a shot at the American dream. It is 
working.
  We incessantly hear from the other side about the failure of the 
bill. Why are we hearing that? Is it really because it has not been 
funded? No. It is because there is an educational establishment out 
there which does not like the fact it is being held accountable. This 
isn't about funding. This is a raw attempt by the educational 
establishment to try to undermine the No Child Left Behind Act law 
because they do not like the fact they are being held accountable. They 
do not like the fact low-income kids are finally getting a chance, are 
finally learning something, or are being told they have to learn 
something.
  That is what this debate is about. Let us not try to color it with 
money because it is not about money. Let us get into the money issue to 
prove that is not the case.
  If money were the issue, the prior administration would have poured a 
lot more money into this program than they did. They did not. If money 
were the issue, the school systems in this country would not have 
enough money to do the assessments that are the essence of this whole 
bill. They not only have enough money to do the assessments, but they 
have more than enough money to do the assessments under this bill. If 
money were the issue, the money we have already put in the pipeline 
would have been spent. There wouldn't be any available.

  What we find is there are literally billions of dollars of money in 
the pipeline which have not been spent as a result of the fact this law 
has been aggressively funded.
  Let me put it in context. The last time the President of this country 
was a Democrat and the Congress was Democratically controlled was 1995. 
You would have thought at that time, if you listened to the rhetoric 
around here, title I and the programs under title I which still existed 
at that time--the No Child Left Behind Act obviously wasn't the law--
would have been funded right up to the authorization amount. That is 
all we have heard about from the other side on this bill.
  Surprise. It wasn't. It wasn't even close to the full authorization 
amount in 1995. Not only that but the increases which flowed into the 
account under a prior administration were minuscule in key areas such 
as title I and special education.
  I heard the good Senator from Massachusetts come down here and say 
all the new money that has gone into title I, or most of it, is the 
result of the fact they offered amendments on the other side and those 
amendments made the changes in these programs and added all of this 
extra money. I appreciate the fact he at least gives credit to this 
administration for putting a larger amount of new dollars into the 
education accounts. That is nice, because it is true. There has been a 
huge infusion of new dollars into the education accounts.
  This chart shows that in real terms. I appreciate the fact the 
Senator from Massachusetts basically acknowledged it. The last year of 
the Clinton administration, it was $42.2 billion in education accounts. 
As of this year, there will be $58.7 billion in education funding, 
which shows the rather dramatic increase.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GREGG. I will yield when I finish my statement. I would be happy 
to.
  If we go to title I, we will see in the last year the Presidency and 
the Congress were controlled by the Democratic Party, there was $6.7 
billion spent on title I. When the Republicans took over the Congress, 
by the way, that started to move up. In the years since President Bush 
has come into office, that number has jumped dramatically, so we are 
now up to $13.3 billion being spent on title I.

[[Page S2478]]

  The same is true of IDEA, which is a more startling number because 
the Clinton administration never proposed increases in IDEA until the 
last year and they were the result of a Republican Congress forcing 
those increases into the Clinton administration. Again, the IDEA 
numbers went down during the first years of the Clinton administration 
and started to go back up when the Republicans took control of the 
Congress. I was very involved when we demanded $1 billion a year. This 
President has proposed more increases in the first 3 years in IDEA 
funding--$1 billion each year onto each prior year--than the Clinton 
administration proposed in their entire 8 years in office. This is an 
example of that during the Clinton administration. IDEA funding was 
increased by $1.4 billion over their 8 years. In three years in office, 
President Bush has increased that money by $3.7 billion.
  It brings me back to a side issue. I found it entertaining that 
basically if we listen to the Senator from Massachusetts, he said all 
this new funding which has flowed into the various accounts--and it has 
been dramatic, as shown by the first chart, into special education and 
title I--it was a function of amendments offered by the Democratic 
leadership and the Democratic membership of this Congress. I point out 
I am not aware the Democratic Party controlled the Congress for these 3 
years and it certainly did not control the Presidency, so I am not sure 
how they managed to do that. The fact is we could not pass the 
amendments unless the President agreed to them, signed the bills, and 
the Republican Congress agreed to them and passed it.
  What can be pointed out is when the Clinton administration and the 
Democratic Congress did control the issue of funding, had unilateral 
control of the issue over funding because they had both Houses of 
Congress and the Presidency, their accounts went down. It was not until 
a Republican Congress and a Republican Senate made it its No. 1 
priority under Senator Lott, Senator Specter, and other Members of this 
Congress that we started to see the IDEA funding go back up 
dramatically.
  This is a very substantive point because it makes the case that what 
we are hearing from the other side is truly politics, the politics of 
education, not the substance of education. The substance of education 
is whether a low-income child in America today is better off in the 
system than they were 3 years ago. There can be no question but that 
child is. Finally, after years and years and years, we are finding out 
whether that child is being educated at the same level as his peers, 
through assessment, and when we find that out and if we discover that 
child is not being educated up to his peers, we put in place systems to 
address that.

  It is also important while we are on this topic to address the nature 
of this amendment. The amendment does not actually say the funding will 
go to education. The amendment sets up a reserve fund. The only thing 
the amendment actually does is raise taxes. It raises taxes by $17 
billion and puts that money in an account. That account may or may not 
get spent. What we do know is it will raise taxes.
  What does $17 billion in new taxes account for? We heard from the 
other side it will go against those wealthy Americans who are making 
too much money and we need to tax them some more. That may 
philosophically be what they want to do, but as a practical matter that 
is not the effect this amendment would have. The proposals which are 
most at risk today in the tax laws do not impact wealthy Americans; 
they impact moderate- and middle-income Americans. It is the child tax 
credit that lapses, it is the marriage tax penalty which goes back into 
place, and it is the 10-percent bracket which gets kicked back out if 
we do not extend the tax reductions which are on the books.
  Ironically, the $17 billion of higher taxes which this amendment is 
going to force on the American people is probably going to be borne 
primarily by people who are married, because the spousal deductions and 
the marriage tax penalty, if not extended, add up to $15.7 billion, an 
ironic joining of numbers but clearly a logical place where it will 
occur. If the $17 billion tax increase occurs, it will occur as a 
result of these extenders not being put in place. Therefore, the 
spousal tax, which is $15.7 billion and which basically says if you are 
married you should not have to pay more than if you were separated, 
will end up being most likely the place I suspect this tax increase 
will occur.
  This amendment is unique in that it does not really impact the 
education accounts because it puts it into reserve. It does, however, 
raise taxes, and most likely on married people.
  While we are on the subject of how well funded No Child Left Behind 
is, we should go into some specifics. The No Child Left Behind part of 
title I--and what we have are charts that reflect how significantly we 
have increased funding under title I since President Bush came into 
office. Over the 8 years President Clinton was in office, he raised the 
dollars into title I by $2.6 billion. In the 3 years since President 
Bush has been in office, we have seen a $4.6 billion increase or almost 
twice as much, at least 70-percent higher funding levels from President 
Bush as from President Clinton.
  The argument is made that is still not enough, that we should be 
funding this to the full authorized level. I have been around this 
place for 11 years and I think I understand we do not fund at 
authorized level and everyone in this institution understands the 
authorized level is a statement, not a number. It is a goal. But it is 
not necessarily the goal that will be reached.
  What proves that beyond any serious doubt is the fact when the 
Democrats did control both the Presidency, the House and the Senate, 
they did not fund title I at full authorization. If there is 
credibility to their argument today, they would have had to have funded 
the authorization at its full level back when they controlled the 
Congress. But there is not credibility to their argument because they 
did not do that.
  In fact, when we look at the level of funding increases that occurred 
during their administration when they had the Presidency and when they 
held the Senate, it was pretty much flat funded, and it has only been 
with President Bush that the dramatic increases in these accounts 
happen.
  Do we have enough money in the pipeline to address title I and No 
Child Left Behind? That is an argument we hear a lot about. We do know 
the number has increased dramatically. States are getting a lot more 
money. In fact, a lot of states are not pulling down the full amount 
they have available to them. We know there is some good anecdotal 
information coming in right now that says No Child Left Behind is being 
adequately funded.
  I was interested to see a recent study by two public officials in 
Massachusetts, one of whom was the Massachusetts State school board 
chairman and another who was a member of the school board in 
Massachusetts. James Peyser is chairman of the Massachusetts Board of 
Education and Robert Costrell is a professor of economics at the 
University of Massachusetts at Amherst, on leave, and currently serves 
as the chief economist for the Executive Office for Administration and 
Finance.
  These two gentlemen did a study of how much money was coming in under 
No Child Left Behind and whether it was adequate. The report says they 
thought there was sufficient money in the pipeline in Massachusetts to 
effectively implement the law.
  Here are a few things they cite: The $391 million of Federal 
Department of Education money that has been set aside specifically to 
administer the additional State assessments required under No Child 
Left Behind is more than adequate.
  That was their conclusion.
  They did say:

       Although new funding may be needed in the future, the 
     authors observe that ``The needed dollar amounts are 
     relatively small and could be met easily by allocating funds 
     from lower-priority problems.''

  Another finding:

       Shortfalls in federal support of school technical 
     assistance, as required under No Child Left Behind, are small 
     at present but are likely to grow significantly as more 
     schools are found to be in need of improvement. To fill the 
     gap, the authors call for greater flexibility in federal 
     guidelines. ``Much of the gap can be filled,'' Peyser and 
     Costrell explain, ``by allowing states to allocate more of 
     their federal dollars to supporting turnaround efforts in 
     low-performing districts.''

  The estimated cost of testing required by No Child Left Behind runs 
at

[[Page S2479]]

$20 per student, a small fraction of the per-pupil cost in the United 
States. Today, the per-pupil cost in the United States is $7,392. 
Interestingly enough, if you take the $391 million that the Federal 
Department of Education has set aside--and this is not their numbers--
to do the assessment work, you find it exceeds the $20 by a rather 
dramatic number. I know in New Hampshire, for example, it exceeds it by 
a factor of almost 10. In fact, the dollars increased per pupil from 
2000 to 2004 in Federal spending, these two gentlemen discovered, was 
about $300 per pupil across the country, which certainly far outstrips 
the cost of the per-pupil testing requirement, which is the primary 
requirement in this law.
  So you have folks who are very intimately involved in this business 
in Massachusetts concluding that the funds which are flowing, which 
have represented a very significant increase in funding--as shown by 
this chart, $13.3 billion right now under this budget--more than 
exceeds what is needed to efficiently deal with the No Child Left 
Behind requirements.
  One of the reasons we hear a lot about No Child Left Behind not being 
funded I think is that most States and school districts today are under 
significant pressure. But the pressure is not coming from No Child Left 
Behind; the pressure is coming from local property tax burdens and 
State revenues.
  We have gone through a recession and those States have contracted in 
their revenues. Property taxes have gone down. As a result, school 
districts find themselves under pressure. I do not deny that. Everybody 
recognizes that. But because money is fungible, people easily identify 
the Federal dollars as being less than what are required to fund what 
traditionally would have been cost driven by and funded by local 
property taxes and State dollars.
  The No Child Left Behind function is well funded. In fact, in this 
bill we have increased it again. It is up another $1 billion 
specifically have increased special education funding in this bill by 
$1 billion. We have done that, by the way, without repealing the child 
tax credit. In fact, we plan to extend that. We have done that without 
requiring parents--people who are married--having to pay more in taxes 
by not extending the marriage tax penalty relief language. We have done 
it by retaining the 10-percent expansion so low-income people pay much 
less in the way of taxes. All of that would be at risk--all three of 
those areas--were the $17 billion of new taxes, which this amendment 
represents, to be adopted.

  I do not believe this amendment is legitimate from a standpoint of 
addressing the concerns of No Child Left Behind. I do not believe it is 
consistent with what happened in this Congress when the Democratic 
Party controlled the Presidency and the House and the Senate. It 
requires full funding of an authorization level, which was not done at 
that time.
  I do believe it would have a huge detrimental impact, potentially, 
especially on married women and men, as a result of its ironic identity 
with the cost of extending the marriage penalty, which is $15 billion, 
which is essentially the amount of taxes this bill would raise.
  I believe it is hard to defend this amendment either on a substantive 
ground that it is going to make No Child Left Behind work better or on 
a policy ground that it is consistent with historical actions in this 
Congress--funding full authorization--or on the ground that raising 
taxes makes good sense because I do not think you can support raising 
taxes, especially when it might have such a dilatory effect on married 
people or people with children. Therefore, I strongly oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I would yield to the Senator from Louisiana on her 
time.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Louisiana had a 
question. I yield to the Senator from Louisiana, but I ask that the 
time for this question be taken off the side of the Democrats.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Washington yield time to 
the Senator from Louisiana to ask a question of the Senator from New 
Hampshire?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I would be happy to ask the question, but I think the 
Senator from Washington would like to ask the question, and then I 
assist her in that.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have not yielded the floor yet.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Then, I will yield time to the Senator from Louisiana to 
ask the Senator from New Hampshire a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is that acceptable to the Senator from New 
Hampshire?
  Mr. GREGG. As long as my answer is also coming off the time of the 
Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. No, I will not agree to that.
  Mr. GREGG. Then, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire has strewn 
a number of arguments across the floor that need to be responded to. 
Every one of them has a very legitimate, responsible answer.
  I used to teach preschool, and I am reminded of the kids who came in 
and threw all their toys on the floor and then trying to figure out 
which one to pick up first to try to make it look better. Frankly, 
there are so many arguments out here that I want to respond to--and I 
know the Senator from Louisiana wants to respond to--but every one of 
these arguments can legitimately and clearly be denied.

  First, let me respond that this amendment does not raise taxes 
despite the rhetoric from the other side. This amendment closes 
loopholes, just as the Republican budget requires within itself in 
order to pay for this. That is legitimate. It is not raising taxes. It 
is closing loopholes. I think it is an argument all of us in the 
Chamber understand.
  Senator Landrieu has been listening carefully to the Senator from New 
Hampshire on his argument about funding and funding increases, and she 
is going to respond to that. I will yield her time to do that.
  But let me point out, when President Clinton came into office in 1993 
and 1994--and the Republican chart that was up only talked about 1993 
and 1994; it did not talk about the tremendous increases later--the 
President's No. 1 priority at that time was to balance the budget, 
which was extremely out of whack. President Bush, when he came into 
office--and that chart was showing us the numbers of increases at that 
time--his No. 1 priority was to cut taxes. That is the difference.
  I remind my colleagues on the other side, the reason the budgets for 
education were increased is because Democrats demanded it. I know they 
have forgotten this, but Democrats were in control in the Senate from 
about June of 2001 until January of 2003, when much of those increases 
were in place, because we came to the floor and said it needed to be 
done.
  I know my colleague, Senator Landrieu from Louisiana, is here. I 
yield to her such time as she needs to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I appreciate the 
leadership of the Senator from Washington.
  I am sorry the Senator from New Hampshire has left the floor because 
I do have about five points to make.
  The first point I want to make is, while I respect his leadership in 
education, and while I think he has absolutely put the best spin 
possible on the situation that we face, I would say, in Louisiana, that 
dog just won't hunt.
  Those numbers don't add up. His charts do not tell the true story. 
People in Louisiana and throughout this country are very anxious right 
now because what they want to hear is the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth. While I am not saying those specific numbers 
were not correct, the truth is not just about giving the specific 
numbers; it is about the whole picture.
  I will begin with the truth and the facts to put it in reference. I 
wish they would put the chart up, but they may not because they will 
not be able to defend it. But if they would put the chart back up that 
shows the years they put up there--1993, 1994 and 1995--the Senator 
said when the Democrats were in charge in 1993, 1994, and 1995, we did 
not

[[Page S2480]]

have that much of an increase in education. That is true.
  But what is also true is that the previous Republican administrations 
had left this country in such debt and in such despair and the deficits 
were so high that we could not contribute money to any program of any 
substance because the country was going broke.
  So it is true we could not spend that much money on education because 
we had to take care of the deficit, this big red line. So we had to cut 
back.
  Although Republicans say the Democrats don't know how to cut back and 
Democrats never will cut budgets, that is absolutely not true. We, 
under good and solid leadership, started trimming back. And we had to 
raise some revenues to get the country back into surpluses. When we did 
get back into surpluses, the budget numbers will reflect that there 
were increases made by the Clinton administration in education.
  I will submit this document for the Record. It is a little scratched 
up and it is not very clear. I am sorry I don't have it in big print. 
But it will be put in the Record. If anybody wants to argue about this 
page, they are more than welcome. This is the official document of the 
U.S. budget. Nobody will refute these numbers. They are all right here.
  What they say is that there were increases of 15 percent, 12 percent, 
12 percent, 6.2 percent, 12 percent, 18 percent. It is true that as we 
got surpluses, we gave more money to education. But what is also true 
is this budget, which Senator Murray is trying to amend but the 
Republicans won't allow it, is saying that this budget, then, with 
these surpluses, wants to take some of that surplus money and commit it 
to education. This budget says, no, we are going to commit to it tax 
cuts, all to tax cuts, and no money to education.
  In addition, when President Bush came into office, which was 2001, 
although we had increased funding for education as the condition of the 
country improved and we were doing as much as we could, the truth is, 
the President came into office and said: Even though we are increasing 
money to education, the past administration didn't do a good job, and 
I, as the new leader of the country, am going to put in a new law. We 
are going to step up the requirements and we are going to have 
accountability. If we do that, then I will fund those new efforts. As 
you know, he and the Republican leadership have decided they are not 
going to fund it. They are going to provide tax cuts.
  Let me talk about pressure. I know the Senator from New Hampshire, 
who was Governor and is now Senator, understands pressure. I don't know 
exactly what he was talking about. Maybe he could clear this up.

  But when I supported No Child Left Behind, 40 percent of the teachers 
in Louisiana were uncertified and their average salary was $27,000 a 
year. We are one of the lowest in the country. But when that law was 
passed, a mandate was put in that all of those teachers had to be 
certified by next year, 2005. We are in 2004. I don't know if the 
Senator from New Hampshire thinks that is not pressure, but let me tell 
you, my superintendents are feeling some heat. My legislature is 
feeling some heat. I am feeling some heat in a good way, because 40 
percent of the teachers in Louisiana aren't certified. In this budget, 
which promised to help train them, help increase their skills, help 
recruit them, the funding is not there to do it. That is what I call 
pressure.
  Let me talk about the pipeline for a minute. The pipeline issue came 
up because our Secretary of Education, supported by this 
administration, after calling all the teachers in America and one of 
the leading organizations a terrorist organization, which he has 
apologized for but a lot of people don't think the apology went far 
enough, after calling them terrorists, he appeared before the committee 
and said, from a letter:

       States are not fully utilizing the Federal education funds 
     available to them in a timely manner, allowing billions of 
     dollars to remain in the federal Treasury instead of 
     improving education for our children.

  He has put in writing, for this administration, a charge to every 
Governor, every superintendent, and every administrator across the 
country basically telling them, I don't know what you all are 
complaining about, because you have a lot of money.
  Wait until you see the reaction that is going to happen across the 
country. It starts with the superintendent of Iowa who has gone on 
record as saying:

       The implication that we have let huge sums of federal money 
     languish, that the funds are at our disposal to use at our 
     discretion, or that we have not been good stewards of the 
     public money is not only unfair, but it is patently 
     insulting.

  If this administration, the Republican leadership, wants to continue 
to insult everyone in America who is trying their best across party 
lines, across racial lines, across geographic lines to improve 
education, if they want to keep putting out insults such as this, they 
may go right ahead. But that dog doesn't hunt. The arguments won't 
stand. The facts do not justify the story that is being told.
  I am going to conclude with this. The facts are these: When the 
country was in huge deficits, which the Republicans, in large measure, 
were responsible for because of their irresponsible policies, 
everything had to be cut back. And as soon as the surpluses started to 
appear, which was a good thing and everyone worked on making that 
happen, we said: Let's set a new course for education and invest money 
but not just throw money at the problem. Because I agree money is not 
the solution, but let's have accountability and we will find results.
  We started down the path. We believed the administration. We pressed 
on, and then the rug was pulled out from under our feet. That is what 
this budget is about. That is what Senator Murray's amendment is about. 
I am proud to be a cosponsor of it and that is the truth.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the following material in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                                                             DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
                                                                                                 [Program level--in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                                         2005
                                                                   1993       1994       1995        1996        1997       1998       1999       2000       2001       2002       2003       2004    President  2001-2005($)  2001-2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Level.................................................  .........     24,709     24,712       23,036     26,645     29,903     33,521     35,606     42,231     49,936     53,114     55,662     57,339       15,108       35.8%
Budget Authority..............................................  .........     24,709     24,712       21,738     26,645     29,753     28,765     29,363     40,097     49,506     53,114     55,651     57,339       17,242       43.0%
                                                               -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Difference..................................................  .........          0          0        1,298          0        150      4,756      6,243      2,134        430          0         11          0  ............  .........
Program Levels
  Enacted (plus 2005 President)...............................  .........     24,709     24,712       23,036     26,645     29,903     33,521     35,606     42,231     49,936     53,114     55,662     57,339  ............  .........
  Change from previous year ($)...............................  .........        858          3        -1676      3,609      3,258      3,618      2,085      6,625      7,705      3,178      2,549      1,677  ............  .........
  Change from previous year (%)...............................  .........      3.60%      0.01%       -6.78%     15.67%     12.23%     12.10%      6.22%     18.61%     18.24%      6.36%      4.80%      3.01%  ............  .........
  4 year average (1997-2001)..................................  .........  .........  .........  ...........  .........  .........  .........  .........     12.20%  .........  .........  .........  .........  ............  .........
  4 year average (2001-2005)..................................  .........  .........  .........  ...........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........  .........      7.95%  ............  .........
President's Requests
Program Level.................................................  .........     26,753     26,281       26,378     25,829     29,686     32,601     34,685     40,088     44,541     50,310     53,139     57,339  ............  .........
  Request vs. previous enacted year ($).......................  .........      2,903      1,572        1,665      2,793      3,041      2,698      1,164      4,482      2,310        374         25      1,677  ............  .........
  Request vs. previous enacted year (%).......................  .........     12.17%      6.36%        6.74%     12.13%     11.41%      9.02%      3.47%     12.59%      5.47%      0.75%      0.05%      3.01%  ............  .........
  Enacted vs. Request ($).....................................  .........     -2,044     -1,569       -3,342        816        217        920        921          2      5,394      2,804      2,523          0  ............  .........
  Enacted vs. Request (%).....................................  .........     -7.64%     -5.97%      -12.67%      3.16%      0.73%      2.82%      2.66%      5.35%     12.11%       5.6%       4.7%       0.0%  ............  .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Wyoming is 
on the floor. I want to set up some

[[Page S2481]]

time allotment for our side so we can go back and forth. Under our 
time, I yield 10 minutes to the Senators from Delaware, 5 minutes to 
the Senator from New Mexico, and 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota. We will alternate time with the other side as they require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Do I understand that Senator Biden and I have 10 minutes 
to divide among ourselves?
  Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator has 10 minutes. I assume that is equally 
divided. If you need more than that, I am happy to yield it.
  Mr. CARPER. What I would like to do is have maybe 5 minutes to talk 
on your amendment, and then Senator Biden and I wish to welcome some 
special guests.
  Mrs. MURRAY. That is fine. I will yield the time on my side to allow 
them to do that.
  Mr. CARPER. I thank the Senator.
  I will say a word, if I can, in support of Senator Murray's amendment 
to fully fund No Child Left Behind.
  In 1995, the Congress passed, with the urging of many Governors, 
unfunded mandate legislation that said Congress and the Federal 
Government should not tell the States what to do and then not provide 
the money to do it. The Federal Government should not be taking money 
away from States without providing an offsetting amount of revenue for 
the money taken off the table for the States.
  If we fail to adequately fund No Child Left Behind, yet at the same 
time mandate higher performance requirements in classrooms, whether it 
is in Delaware, Washington, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or in New 
Mexico, we are putting in place an unfunded mandate. I have been 
visiting a number of schools in my State over the last couple of weeks. 
What I have asked is, what have you done with the extra money we have 
given you as a result of No Child Left Behind? I got some interesting 
answers.
  A lot of the money is being invested especially in title I increases, 
in early childhood. We are seeing some remarkable results. These 
children who are doomed to fail, instead of going on to failure, have 
age 3 and age 4 quality prekindergarten programs, and age 5 full-day 
kindergarten programs, and extra learning time that follows beyond 
that, and there are remarkable results.
  By the time these kids are in the third grade, they are doing 
basically as well as the kids coming from places where we expect 
success. We are cutting in half our revenues to special education. I 
urge my colleagues to support the amendment proposed by our colleague 
from Washington to fully fund No Child Left Behind.
  I will add a few comments to that, if I may. Every minute, the Bush 
administration spends $991,000 more than it takes in--every minute. 
During the 2 minutes I have been talking, we have spent about $2 
million more than we are taking in.
  In 2001, the first year I was here, and when George Bush was 
President, he said:

       We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget 
     deficits.

  He was wrong.
  He said:

       Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-
     term.

  He was wrong.
  In 2003, he said:

       Our current deficit is not large by historical standards 
     and is manageable.

  He was wrong.
  Now he says:

       The deficit will be cut in half over the next 5 years.

  He is wrong again.
  My friends, our budget deficit this year is going to be about a half 
trillion dollars. When you actually take away the surplus funds from 
Social Security that mask the Federal budget deficit, it is even larger 
than that. While there is a little downtrend starting this year for a 
couple years in the budget deficits, the real budget deficit, the 
operating deficit, is about $450 billion. Then it climbs steadily up. 
The boomers, my generation, will begin to retire, and we are looking at 
a budget deficit for 2014 of about $785 billion. That is three-quarters 
of a trillion dollars. Those are operating deficits, not debt.

  I wish we had a chart of the debt. We do.
  In 1962, I was a 15-year-old kid growing up in Danville, VA. It is 
hard to see the red ink down there on the chart because it wasn't very 
much. It was less than a trillion dollars; it was a couple hundred 
billion dollars. In 1982, we hit $1 trillion. In 2003, last year, we 
exploded up to about $6.8 trillion. You can see this leveling off from 
about 1998, 1999, and 2000. That is what happened in the last 
administration and in the very beginning of this administration.
  What happens now, starting in 2003, is the debt--real debt, how much 
we are borrowing as a country from the Bank of China and banks in 
Japan, and from people all over the world--goes from where it is today, 
about $7 trillion, to in 2014 some $15 trillion.
  There are going to be about 29 or so babies born in Delaware today. 
They are going to be facing something I call a birth tax. Some of my 
colleagues on the other side talk about a death tax, which is their 
term for the estate tax. I am talking about a birth tax. For every baby 
born in my State today, they will face a debt of $35,000 apiece when 
they come into the world. So do their brothers and sisters and parents 
and grandparents. By 2009, it is going to be over $35,000. That is the 
kind of welcome to the world we are giving children in my State, and 
other States as well.
  The fastest growing entitlement program in the Federal budget is not 
the Medicare plan or Social Security or Medicaid. The fastest growing 
entitlement program in our Federal budget is servicing our national 
debt, as you can see from the last chart I shared with you.
  In 2009, our Federal Government will spend some $1.5 billion per day 
in interest on our national debt. In 2009, the Federal Government will 
spend more money servicing the debt than we spend on the entire defense 
for our country.
  I will say that again. In 2009, we are going to spend, if we stay on 
this track, more money servicing the Federal Government's debt than on 
defending our Nation.
  Let's get real. I don't have the time to go through this entire 
chart, but this is instructive. The debt we are going to have this 
year--about $521 billion--is actually more than all of our nondefense 
discretionary spending. We could get rid of the EPA, the housing 
programs, the education programs, and homeland security on the 
appropriations side--everything but defense--and we would still have a 
deficit of about $55 billion or $56 billion.
  There will be a vote later this week, beyond the vote on the Murray 
amendment. I think it will be offered by Senator Feingold of Wisconsin. 
It speaks to getting real. There was a time not too long ago when we 
were real. When somebody came to the floor and said, I want to raise 
spending by some magnitude, they had to come up with an offset. If they 
wanted to raise spending, they had to cut spending someplace else or 
raise revenue by that amount. Similarly, if I or anybody else wanted to 
come here and say, let's cut taxes by some amount of money, we had to 
come up with an offset. That is common sense in my State. That is just 
common sense. We used to do business that way here.
  A couple of years ago, those pay-as-you-go rules lapsed. We need to 
reinstate them. We have the opportunity to do that this week. In an 
hour or so, we are going to vote on the Murray amendment to avoid an 
unfunded mandate and make good to those kids born in Delaware today and 
around the country so they are not saddled with a huge debt to face for 
the rest of their lives, and to give them a chance to be successful in 
school and in life.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The senior Senator from 
Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I am told we used up a lot of the time, 
necessarily. I ask unanimous consent to have an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, I didn't hear that.
  Mr. BIDEN. Earlier the distinguished Senator from Washington yielded 
to Senator Carper and me to allow us to both acknowledge support for 
her amendment and then a total of 10 minutes of morning business to 
speak to another issue.

[[Page S2482]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute remaining of that time.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my 
colleagues would permit an additional total of 10 minutes, divided 
between the junior Senator from Delaware and myself.
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Biden and Mr. Carper are printed in today's 
Record under ``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from Wyoming such time as he may 
consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
really appreciate the comments of the Senator from New Hampshire where 
he went over the No Child Left Behind legislation and what it really 
does. The No Child Left Behind legislation is to get kids to be able to 
read and do math, hopefully by the time they are in third grade but 
definitely by the time they graduate from high school, and to have some 
confidence in it. Every State has the right to set their own standards 
and they have to follow them, but the idea is to get them to do reading 
and math.
  We held some hearings in Wyoming. I had the Department of Education 
come to Wyoming and talk about some of the rules and there were 
concerns about the law and some of the ways it affected Wyoming. We are 
a very rural State. We have a large State. We have very small 
populations. We have some different classrooms than in other places and 
we needed to be sure when the rules were written they would work for 
Wyoming, which has a very tough law that was already in place before No 
Child Left Behind even came along.
  It has increasingly difficult standards that have to be met over the 
next several years, and they adopted that as their No Child Left Behind 
standards. I do not want people to have the impression No Child Left 
Behind forced the States to do all of these things. Yes, it did force 
some of the States to do some of these things, but a lot of the States 
were already doing things to make sure no child got left behind.
  I appreciate the President joining those States and encouraging in a 
very forceful way the other States to do that, too.
  Incidentally, I had people drive as far as 200 miles to come to one 
of these hearings and we are going to hold two more of them in Wyoming 
yet. But I did have one person stand up and say there is not anything 
in No Child Left Behind about improving physical education and that is 
very important. If people are not healthy, they cannot do well in 
school.
  I pointed out there also is not anything in No Child Left Behind that 
says they have to have competence in science until several years from 
now, and that is very important. We are starting with some very basic 
points. If a child cannot read and do math, they do not stand much of a 
chance. Their choices in life are very limited, and the President 
recognized that.
  He did not say: On the average, we want everybody to be able to read 
and do math. He said: I want every child in this country to be able to 
read and do math.
  That is where we are starting. Now, we have places we can go with 
that, science will be added in, and other things can be added in, but 
we are trying to do something very basic. We also get the impression 
from this discussion the Federal Government provides all of the money 
for education. That is not true and it never was true. I do not think 
it was ever intended to be true. We used to provide about 7 percent of 
the education dollars in the United States. The local people provided 
the rest of it.

  It always fascinated me that for the 7 percent in education funding 
we provided, we caused 50 percent or more of the paperwork. Yes, we 
really tie a lot of things to our money that does not have anything to 
do with local control. It has to do with jobs in Washington because if 
we have a lot of reporting that has to be done, somebody has to make 
sure those reports are filled out.
  I had a school superintendent who came out for one semester. He spent 
some time in my office, and actually I had him go down to the 
Department of Education and look at where his reports were going and 
what was done with them. He was fascinated to find out they read all of 
them. He was tremendously disappointed to find out that is all that 
happened to them, and he did not see why we were filling out reports 
that just provided people with a job to make sure the report was 
complete.
  There is a lot of room to eliminate paperwork. That would save time 
and money at the local level, which is absolutely essential.
  I also wish there was more in the bill that dealt with parental 
responsibility. When the parents are involved in a child's education, 
the child does better. Again, we focused on reading and math and what 
the schools could do because that is where the money goes.
  We held a hearing last week and one of the people present mentioned 
that in one area of the country, Washington State, there was a high 
school that forced the parents to sign up the courses for the kids. 
That is a fascinating concept. Kids in high school can go sign up for 
their own courses, and when they do they will say: This one looks easy, 
and this teacher is easy for an A, and I like doing this because it is 
a little more outdoors. But when the parents look at it, they say: I 
want my kid to excel and these are the things he or she will have to do 
or be able to do to excel in the school. It makes a whole lot of 
difference in what the kids take. The biggest difference is the parents 
have to pay attention to what they want their kids to be able to do and 
make sure the plan they are signing their kids up for will make that 
kind of progress.
  In the discussion over our priorities on the current budget, my 
colleagues continue to suggest funding for education is being ignored. 
Well, we have had some charts that show it is not being ignored; it has 
been greatly increased under the Bush administration.
  We had a fascinating display of a chart on the other side that gave 
the impression the reason the Clinton administration had declining 
amounts going into education funds was because there was a deficit and 
they were trying to overcome the deficit. I remember when I arrived 
here 8 years ago we were trying to force that balanced budget 
constitutional amendment. We failed by one vote, but it had a positive 
effect. The positive effect was both sides of the aisle understood we 
needed to do a better job on balancing the budget, and we did. That 
helped grow the economy, and the economy's growth is really what 
provided the money. We did not cut programs. We increased programs. We 
did not eliminate programs. We added new programs. The growth of the 
economy kept ahead of the spending.
  There have been a number of things that have affected the economy 
lately, but a very important part of this discussion is, we are on the 
U.S. budget. We are not appropriating. We are not doing Finance 
Committee work of figuring out what the taxes should be. We are doing a 
budget. The purpose of a budget is to set targets. Maybe that is not a 
good word to use on this floor, but I think it is a very important word 
to use. It reminds me of a cartoon that I saw of a grizzly bear that 
had this big target on his chest, and the other bears gathered around 
and said: Oh, rotten birthmark, rotten birthmark.

  Targets are important, and all the budget does is set targets up. We 
do not shoot at them. We do not decide how big the rings are going to 
be. But we set targets up.
  Now, if my colleague will listen to the debate we are having, 
sometimes we are suggesting the target be moved a little higher. 
Sometimes we suggest the target be moved a little to the left. 
Sometimes we suggest the target be moved a little to the right. Listen 
carefully and see if anybody ever suggests moving the target down. No. 
That is not good politics. It is important politics, but it is not good 
politics.
  What we are going to do is set the budget, the targets. Once those 
targets are set, the authorization committees get to work with them. 
They are the ones who actually work with the rings of the budget. They 
decide what the priorities are and how big each of those ought to be, 
and then the money gets turned over to the Appropriations Committee. 
They are the first ones

[[Page S2483]]

that get to shoot at the target. When that comes to the floor, we get 
to shoot at the target. Everything before that is setting up targets.
  A lot of the discussion we have heard this morning is based on three 
assumptions I believe are mistaken. The first assumption of my 
colleague from Washington State is that raising taxes, by repealing 
some or all of the recent tax reductions, will not have a negative 
impact on the economy. I noticed that the discussion changed a little 
bit to loopholes, and it was pointed out that in the budget there are 
some loopholes. We talked very specifically about some loopholes, how 
big those loopholes are and whether they could be achieved in the 
budget assumption. I think in order to add to that, a person would have 
to figure out what those other loopholes are. There is a limited amount 
of loopholes. There are some real ones that can be identified. They can 
have a price put on them. But if that is not done, what is being talked 
about is the common campaign tactic of saying we are going to take it 
out of waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Yes, probably in many of the Government programs there is waste, 
fraud, and abuse. If you add it up, there is a limited amount of it. 
Finding it and eliminating it is a whole other problem. The same with 
loopholes.
  So when they talk about the money here, they are talking about 
raising taxes, which would repeal all or some of the recent tax 
reductions, and it would have an impact on the economy.
  The truth is, a tax increase would hurt economic growth, which is the 
most important factor in terms of revenue. I mentioned that how we were 
actually able to come up with surpluses was growth, not reducing 
programs.
  The second assumption my colleague is making is that the Federal 
Government is somehow responsible for creating new jobs. As a former 
small business owner, I know firsthand that expanding Government is not 
the best way to create jobs. Taxing small business is not the best way 
to create jobs.
  We keep talking about these rich people out there. A lot of those 
rich people are not rich at all. They have businesses and, because they 
are single proprietorships or partnerships or subchapter S 
corporations, whatever profit shows up on the balance sheet goes to the 
bottom line on their taxes. It is considered to be money they have 
earned on which they need to pay taxes.
  But having been a small businessman, this is how that really works. 
Yes, your business shows a profit at the end of the year. Yes, it is 
honest accounting. But you don't get to take the money out. Hopefully, 
you have a growing business, and a growing business needs ever more 
amounts of revenue. That is what the big corporations do, too. Their 
profits don't get paid out every year in the way of dividends. They 
stay in the corporation to grow the corporation.
  The difference is, if you are a regular corporation you pay a small 
tax on the money that stays in there. When the dividend gets paid out, 
there are additional taxes that get paid on it. So it is not very 
appealing to the small businessman to use that form of corporation. But 
if they go with the subchapter S, or single proprietorship, there are 
some advantages to that, but the big disadvantage is they pay the tax 
in the year the balance sheet shows they earn it and they don't get to 
take that out.
  When we are talking about raising taxes on the rich people in this 
country, that is a nice phrase people like to use but most of those 
business owners I know don't consider themselves to be rich. They do 
consider themselves to have a good business and they are employing a 
lot of people.
  When we are talking about businesses, we are talking about small 
businesses, we are talking about 90 percent of the businesses in this 
country, and we are talking about the vast majority of jobs in this 
country. I can tell you for a fact when somebody works for a small 
business, they understand how tenuous their job is. They understand how 
fragile some of these small businesses are. They don't have the vast 
market to fall back on. If there is a small change in their market, it 
can mean the end of their job; the same as a change in taxes can make a 
difference in whether that person stays in business or goes to work for 
somebody else, abandoning the business and losing jobs.
  When we are talking about taxes, we have to keep that in mind. The 
Federal Government can leverage resources. We were talking about job 
training, too. They can leverage resources to help train individuals 
for available jobs, but job creation is something done best by the 
private sector in this economy and it functions best when the Federal 
Government is not taxing these small businesses beyond the point where 
they are sustainable.
  It has been interesting. When we were back in the times of the mega 
mergers, when the big companies would combine together to form an even 
bigger company, and then have what they called a downsizing, or a 
``right sizing''--that is when they would lay off 6,000 or 9,000 
people; I called it laying people off--when that happened, the small 
businesses of the country picked up those employees. So it is not the 
big businesses of this country that do the job for us; it is the small 
businesses in this country. And a change in taxes affects those small 
businesses.
  I am also confused as to why my colleagues argue for additional 
funding for programs that they argue will help generate jobs, yet they 
continue to oppose naming conferees to the Workforce Investment Act, 
which would help train individuals for jobs that are already available.
  The Workforce Investment Act passed last year. Senator Murray and I 
worked on that, along with Senator Kennedy. We got it out of committee 
unanimously. We got it through this body unanimously. Now we can't name 
a conference committee. Until a conference committee is named and we 
can work out the differences with the House, improvements to that bill 
are not available.
  Training for 900,000 people is in jeopardy. Training for people who 
could upgrade their skills to fill in the kinds of jobs that are 
available in the country versus the jobs they are trained for. It is 
900,000 jobs a year and we can't have a conference committee to get 
that done. It makes more sense to me that we would try to fill the jobs 
that are available now rather than spending more Federal dollars to try 
to create jobs.
  The third assumption my colleagues are making is that this Congress 
is not maintaining its commitment to education. I would like to point 
out to my colleagues that under this Federal budget resolution, Federal 
education funding will be at its highest level in history. It will come 
close to doubling since the year 2000--doubling. We doubled the 
National Institutes of Health's budget over a period of about 8 years, 
but this President has nearly doubled the education budget since 2000--
nearly doubled it. It amazes me.
  The opposition, of course, is upset with that because this President 
has had the audacity to take the leadership on education. Leadership in 
education used to be from the other side of the aisle. But this 
President said, We are going to do it, and he put the dollars behind it 
to do it. It amazes me that, despite these increases every year, we 
hear about how this administration and the current congressional 
leadership failed to support adequate funding for educational programs, 
particularly title I of No Child Left Behind.
  The truth is, these programs have seen enormous increases over the 
past 4 years. Even so, my colleagues assert that we are somehow 
undermining our commitment to education.

  I am reminded of the debate this body had over last year's budget 
resolution. We heard over and over from our minority colleagues that 
the Federal commitment to education was too small. Despite all of the 
discussion surrounding our failure to support education funding, the 
current Senate leadership has increased spending for title I and other 
educational programs more than any other Congress in history. Yet my 
colleagues argue that is insufficient. They argue we need to raise 
taxes to support more education spending.
  What is the impact of all this new spending on education? State and 
national studies show that funding for No Child Left Behind is 
adequate. I would like to remind my colleagues from Massachusetts that 
a study in their State suggested that more than enough funding is 
available for implementation of the law. Opponents of the budget 
resolution might suggest that other

[[Page S2484]]

States have found that funding for No Child Left Behind is insufficient 
and that more money is needed. Many of these estimates are based on 
some risky assumptions. Some of these studies are anticipating costs 
more than 10 years into the future.
  As an accountant, it strikes me that these studies are missing the 
point, because they are suggesting that current funding is inadequate 
for challenges that are not even going to appear for 5 or 10 years in 
the future, if they appear at all.
  I asked for some information about the title I grants for local 
educational agencies to see what kinds of increases we have had between 
2001 and 2005. I was fascinated to see Louisiana, which has been part 
of the discussion this morning, had a 46.9-percent increase in 
funding. Massachusetts got a 24.1 percent increase in Title I. New York 
got an increase of 65.2 percent. Rhode Island got an increase of 76 
percent. Washington State got an increase of 47.9 percent.

  The Senator from Louisiana also mentioned they didn't have enough 
money. It is kind of fascinating to me that out of the discretionary 
funds, those that weren't used reverted to the U.S. Treasury. I have 
the list by State. Louisiana surrendered 6.37 million to the United 
States Treasury. All together more than $154 million was returned to 
the Treasury. All of it isn't being used.
  I spoke to one Wyoming superintendent. He said the biggest problem 
with title I was they needed more flexibility to be able to shift that 
money to salaries because they already have all they can possibly buy 
with title I. I thought that was interesting.
  I also would like to point out to my colleagues that the ``wealthy'' 
individuals who would be paying for these increases couldn't possibly 
afford to fund all the additional spending my colleagues in the 
minority are recommending. They would have to earn much more than $1 
million a year. As my colleague from Utah has pointed out repeatedly, 
it is the small business owners who will be paying the bulk of these 
taxes.
  I don't believe you want to send the message to the people who 
managed to achieve the American dream and finally have financial 
security that the Federal Government will then turn to them and ask 
them to surrender a much larger portion of their income and call it 
their ``civic duty.'' I shouldn't have to remind my colleagues that the 
highest tax rates in this country already apply to the wealthiest 
Americans. The graduated tax scale relies largely on the wealthiest 10 
percent of Americans for most of the Federal Government's revenue 
already.
  The ``wealthiest'', as I have explained, are the people who are 
business owners who are putting most of that back into a business. My 
colleagues are suggesting these Americans don't contribute enough and 
if these Americans were truly interested in their country's well-being, 
they would agree their taxes should be even higher. I think that is 
simply ridiculous.
  I don't believe the tax increase is the only option we should 
consider. We are discussing a budget that would provide $814 billion in 
discretionary spending. My colleagues are saying that simply is not 
enough money.
  Reflecting on my experience as an accountant again, when a company is 
running deficits there are two things that can be done: They can raise 
revenue or they can cut spending. This body has shown an insatiable 
appetite for new spending, but there is a genuine lack of support for 
reductions in spending. We talk about tax loopholes, we talk about 
fraud, waste, and abuse, and we talk about tax increases, but we don't 
talk about truly cutting because we haven't got the will to do it. Even 
when we talk about increases, it is not enough.
  I mention the targets we put up for the budget, the targets the 
appropriators actually see. We talk about raising them, moving them to 
the right or moving them to the left, but never lowering them.
  In the President's budget, there was some tremendous leadership. The 
President actually suggested cutting some programs. Why did he suggest 
cutting programs? He suggested it because Congress imposes on the 
Federal Government the Government Performance and Results Act. We said 
every federal program in this country has to do a report every year. In 
that report they have to show what their application is, what their 
goals are, how they are going to accomplish it, and how that fits with 
the money they are spending. They have to tell us what the job is they 
are doing and how they are getting it done.

  It might be interesting to people who are listening, that in some of 
the agencies some of their programs failed those reviews. They aren't 
doing what they said they would do. According to the reports those 
people are writing, they are not doing their job. The President said if 
they are not doing their job, let us cut the program.
  I can tell you that on the Budget Committee we did not do that. That 
is not in the budget. We didn't cut any of those programs no matter how 
bad the Government Performance and Results Act showed them to be. That 
would have been $5.9 billion. I hear that is not enough to do anything, 
but it would be a big part of what we are trying to do in this 
amendment for education. We are not cutting those programs. We will 
have constituents and interested people who will try to prove the 
Government Performance and Results Act reports were absolutely wrong.
  We need to have some courage to cut some things, to revise some 
things, and to consolidate some things. That is what businesses would 
be doing. Businesses have to make cuts when revenues go down unless 
they can figure out a way to get those revenues to come up. They 
usually do both. They try to figure out a way to get the revenues to 
come up, but they also cut programs that don't work. They get rid of 
products that aren't selling.
  For some of those programs, the products are only selling to the 
people who are employed by the programs--not to all of them. For some 
of them, it was probably a gross error in writing their report. But if 
we ever cut some of those, I would bet there would be a lot more 
attention paid to their own reports on performance and goals. That is 
something we ought to be doing.
  Even under the current budget circumstances, my colleagues are asking 
for even more spending. At what point can we say enough is enough? How 
much Federal spending is adequate? I think I have said enough about 
raising taxes and why this body must oppose any effort to finance 
additional government spending by levying further taxes on our 
citizens.
  Discretionary education spending has increased by 64 percent since 
2000. In real dollars, there has been more than a $13 billion increase 
in discretionary program funding since 2000. Of that total, $4.5 
billion has been in title I alone. More than enough has been dedicated 
in spending to cover the mandatory expenses of the No Child Left Behind 
Act. Additional increases are both unnecessary and irresponsible given 
the current budget situation. As we speak, States are waiting on new 
increases even though they have nearly $6 billion in unobligated 
funding to them. Almost $2 billion of that total is title I funding. It 
is time we stop taxing and spending to meet needs that have not 
presented themselves yet.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Sarbanes and Senator Bingaman as cosponsors of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the 
Murray-Kennedy amendment. This would fully fund the No Child Left 
Behind Act. The question of how much money the Federal Government 
should provide to local school districts to assist in meeting the goals 
of the No Child Left Behind Act was something we discussed extensively 
when the bill was being written. Many of us urged that those figures be 
higher than they wound up being, but the authorizing legislation 
contains figures which we think the Congress should honor and should 
step up to and fund. That is exactly what this amendment would do. I 
congratulate my colleagues, Senator Murray and Senator Kennedy, for 
putting this amendment forward.

[[Page S2485]]

  As I am sure has been discussed extensively, the core idea behind the 
No Child Left Behind Act was we would require States and school 
districts to establish what would be considered performance goals for 
their students, that they would make what we call ``adequate yearly 
progress'' in achieving those goals, and that the Federal Government is 
committed to provide assistance in doing that. Unfortunately, we have 
fallen short. Unfortunately, this President has not asked for the full 
funding on that legislation in any year since it has been in effect. 
Again this year, he has not asked for that funding. This amendment 
would try to correct that problem. I believe it is a very meritorious 
amendment.
  I want to particularly spend my very few minutes here focused on one 
particular program I have spoken about many times on the Senate floor. 
It is very important in my home State of New Mexico; that is, a 
provision in the No Child Left Behind legislation the President signed 
which calls for the Federal Government to assist local school districts 
in trying to keep kids in school. It was dropout prevention efforts by 
the Federal Government to assist the local school districts in pursuing 
those. The idea was, as you are requiring more and more of students, 
teachers, and schools, there is a great temptation on the part of those 
schools and those teachers to just say, let's look the other way and 
allow some of these poorly performing students to leave school. That 
way we can get our standards up and everyone will be happy.

  Unfortunately, that has happened. It is happening in my State. It is 
happening in many States in the country. We are not doing what we 
committed to do--we, the Federal Government are not doing what we 
committed to do in that legislation to assist schools in heading this 
off. We committed in the legislation to provide $125 million per year 
to assist in dropout prevention. This year, this current year, we are 
providing $5 million--not $125 million but $5 million. Considering the 
number of school districts in this country, the number of students who 
are at risk of dropping out, this is a ridiculously low figure.
  Unfortunately, if we are not able to adopt the Murray-Kennedy 
amendment, we are going to be faced with a situation where when we come 
to the Appropriations Committee, they will say there is no money to 
fund this. It was funded at $5 million. Maybe we will continue to fund 
it at $5 million again. Essentially, the Federal Government is going to 
once again take a walk on any responsibility to assist with solving 
this problem.
  I believe firmly when we allow a student to drop out of school before 
they graduate, we are leaving that student behind. We are leaving that 
child behind. Clearly, we need to make a priority out of this. This is 
a problem that particularly affects my State. We have a very large 
Hispanic and Native American population. The graduation rates among 
those groups are slightly better than 50 percent. That means we will 
find half of the Hispanic and Native American students who started in 
the 9th grade actually going through that graduation ceremony. That is 
a terrible indictment of our education system. The least we can do is 
put in the small amount that was contemplated when we wrote the No 
Child Left Behind Act.
  This is very important to schools throughout my State, to the larger 
schools, also to the rural schools. I hope it is a correction that can 
be made. I hope very much the Murray-Kennedy amendment is adopted so 
the funds will be there to actually accomplish this objective.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Murray amendment. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment, which will 
finally provide the funding that Congress and the President promised 
when No Child Left Behind became law.
  I supported the No Child Left Behind Act because I believed it would 
provide a real chance for real reform. For the first time, the Federal 
Government would provide the resources that schools, teachers and 
principals need to help all students succeed. And in return, we 
required real accountability for results. Teachers, principals and 
school boards are working hard to live up to their end of the bargain 
as they work to meet the requirements of the new law. Now they are 
counting on us to live up to our end.
  Unfortunately, the President's fiscal year 2005 budget request--and 
the budget resolution before the Senate today--fall far short. This 
budget resolution falls $8.6 billion short of what was authorized under 
No Child Left Behind. Just when we're asking schools to do more, this 
budget resolution takes away the very funding they need to succeed.
  It might be easy to dismiss this shortfall when you talk about it in 
terms of billions of dollars. So I want to tell my colleagues here what 
this shortfall in funding has actually meant for schools in my State of 
Wisconsin. In 2003, Milwaukee Public Schools received an $8 million 
increase in Title I funds. But the new requirements for supplemental 
services and transportation for students to better performing schools 
cost over $10 million. In other words, the new mandates cost $2 million 
more than the total increase MPS received, and they had to make up the 
difference. To cover the costs, they were forced to cut their popular 
summer school program, which had served 17,000 students.
  This is just one example. Across Wisconsin, school districts are 
being forced to cut staff and increase class sizes, cut music, art and 
foreign language education, and cut textbook purchases. Some have even 
had to keep their schools colder during the winter months to cut down 
on their heating bills, or restrict how many pages students can print 
from their computers. These are certainly not the results we want.
  Problems exist at the State level, too. Our State Department of 
Public Instruction is working hard to implement the new law. But they 
believe they will need more funding to create new data systems to meet 
new data collection and reporting requirements. They will also need 
more funding for technical assistance teams to help schools and 
districts in need of improvement.
  It is time that the Senate and the President lived up to the promises 
that were made. The Murray amendment would establish a reserve fund to 
add $8.6 billion to the Budget Resolution for the purpose of fully 
funding No Child Left Behind. At the same time, this amendment lowers 
the deficit by $8.6 billion. The amendment is fully offset. I hope my 
colleagues will support this important amendment and finally provide 
the funding that our students need to succeed.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President. I want to express my strong 
support for Senator Murray's amendment to the budget resolution to 
fully fund the No Child Left Behind, NCLB, Act.
  Adequate funding is a necessity for school districts to continue to 
achieve adequate yearly progress. When Congress passed and the 
President signed NCLB, we set standards of achievement to improve 
education for all. However, I have been woefully disappointed with the 
administration's refusal to make good on the promises it made to 
provide state and local school districts with the resources they need 
to implement the NCLB reforms. The administration has underfunded NCLB 
by $26 billion since 2002.
  In my home State of South Dakota, education officials and educators 
are working very hard to meet the requirements of this law. It is 
irresponsible for the Federal Government to say that States and school 
districts must meet the requirements in this law, while we do not meet 
the promises made in this law to provide funding to do so. Under NCLB, 
South Dakota should receive $62.3 million for Title I for Fiscal Year 
2005. President Bush's budget would shortchange South Dakota by $24.6 
million. This would result in 8,029 South Dakota children being denied 
full Title I services for which they are eligible. This is unacceptable 
to me.
  As I travel South Dakota and meet with superintendents, principals, 
educators, school board members, and parents, I hear about how hard our 
schools are working to provide the best education possible to their 
students. However, this trend of continuing to underfund NCLB 
commitments will only make it more and more difficult

[[Page S2486]]

for our local school districts to meet the adequate yearly progress 
requirements of the law.
  This Congress and the administration have an obligation to uphold our 
promise that no child be left behind by the public education system. I 
encourage my colleagues to support Senator Murray's amendment, which 
would go a long way in helping our schools meet the challenges in 
NCLB.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, when this President came to office he 
called himself the education President and called for significant 
reforms. When he offered these reforms he promised to provide us with 
the resources needed to implement them. Taking him at his word, this 
body took up and enacted the No Child Left Behind Act two years ago. 
Yet here we are, only 2 years later, and No child Left Behind is being 
underfunded by $8.6 billion.
  When we passed the No Child Left Behind Act we pledged to expect 
more, and provide more, to our Nation's schools. And yet this pledge is 
not reflected in this budget. I have to ask, how do my Republican 
colleagues and the administration, expect us to raise test scores, 
provide high quality teachers and prepare students for the 21st century 
without the funds to do so? Furthermore, who is it that they expect to 
feel the burden of these cuts? I can tell you who it will be.
  First, it will be the States. States that need every dollar possible 
to do more than they have ever been asked to do before. States that are 
experiencing the worst fiscal crisis in decades. Second, it will be the 
localities. With less funds to do more, hard decisions will have to be 
made at the local level. Should local taxes be raised? Should music and 
art be cut? Should after school programs be eliminated? Should physical 
education classes be cut in the midst of a childhood obesity epidemic? 
Ultimately, the students will suffer. They will not be given the 
teachers that they need. They may not get the tutoring that they were 
promised. Music, art and foreign language may no longer be a part of 
the curriculum. After school programs could be cut.
  When we passed No Child Left Behind, we made it clear that we were 
expecting more from our schools--and rightfully so. We were expecting 
more so that American children--all American children--children in the 
suburbs, children in our inner cities, children in our rural areas--
would have real opportunities to reach their full potential.
  This past September, some Connecticut students went back to schools 
that were labeled under performing by No Child Left Behind. And yet 
this budget is not committed to helping them overcome that label. This 
bill will not give them the added funds they need to fully perform.
  If we fail to adequately fund No Child Left Behind, our States, our 
localities, our school districts, local taxpayers, and most 
importantly, our children, will suffer. Budgets are about priorities. 
What priority could be more important than ensuring the future of our 
children by providing them with a first-class, world-class education.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Madam President, I support the Murray-Kennedy amendment 
to meet the funding promises in the No Child Left Behind Act.
  When I voted for the No Child Left Behind Act I though we made a deal 
with our local school districts--we would ask more of them and we would 
provide the resources to allow them to meet those expectations. Today 
it is clear that this administration has deliberately chosen not to 
play by its own rules and has instead reneged on the promises it made 
to teachers, parents and millions of poor school children across the 
Nation.
  For a third year running, this administration has shortchanged the 
reforms included in No Child Left Behind. Instead of helping ensure 
these children are not left behind, this administration has had a clear 
record of promising false hopes and of cutting resources targeted 
towards improving educational opportunities for all children.
  This Democratic amendment ensures the President and the Republicans 
in Congress live up to their commitments to fully fund programs like 
Title I, English Language Acquisition, literacy programs, after school 
and rural education and that is why I am proud to cosponsor it.
  We all know that there is no greater path to opportunity than 
education. Unless we fully fund No Child Left Behind, millions of needy 
students will be denied the opportunity to achieve the American dream
  I have visited schools across the great state of New York and I know 
firsthand that our school districts are doing their part to help 
students learn at higher levels. Yet they continue to struggle with 
critical funding shortages to fully serve all children in need.
  The Murray-Kennedy amendment would help ensure that 4.6 million 
children get the quality education they need and deserve. For New York, 
this funding will help close the $765.7 million gap in Title I funding 
between the funding proposed in the Republican budget and the amount 
that was promised to my state when we passed No Child Left Behind. With 
these resources, New York schools could decrease class sizes for 
834,117 students, expand preschool to 105,689 eligible children and 
certify 102,740 teachers.
  The more we hold off on funding these reforms, the more it will cost 
school districts to meet the requirements to increase test scores and 
the numbers of highly-qualified teachers. That is why we are falling 
further behind every year we fail to live up to that commitment.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Murray-Kennedy 
amendment.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise as a cosponsor to express my 
support for the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from 
the State of Washington, Mrs. Murray, and my distinguished colleague 
from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, to fully fund the 
No Child Left Behind Act and to improve overall funding for education 
and training programs. I believe it is critical that my colleagues in 
the Senate adopt this amendment which represents a critical investment 
in America's future.
  A little more than 2 years ago, in this Chamber, we made a bipartisan 
commitment to leave no child behind. This landmark legislation has the 
potential to strengthen our public education system. It represents an 
ambitious Federal effort to dramatically revitalize public education by 
closing the achievement gap, making sure every classroom has a 
qualified teacher, and giving parents and students adequate choices to 
ensure that their children receive a quality education. Adequate 
funding, however, is essential in order to give our public schools the 
support and resources they need to implement the act, and to meet the 
goals embodied therein.
  The amendment before us will ensure that the budget resolution fully 
funds the No Child Left Behind Act at its authorized level. We have all 
heard complaints with this law; the predominant one being that it is 
another unfunded Federal mandate. Schools across the Nation are 
struggling to meet the requirements of the law. However, they have been 
shortchanged by this President, and they are being shortchanged again 
by the budget resolution before us--shortchanged to the tune of $8.6 
billion. How can we expect our schools to embrace the act when their 
hands are tied by lack of funding? This issue has become so pronounced 
that 18 States have considered a resolution that would grant them a 
waiver from the law. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment to 
assure our school systems will receive the funding levels they were 
promised when the law was enacted.
  This amendment will signal to our schools and school districts that 
we will meet our end of the bargain, in order to make public education 
in this country first class for every child in America. It will signal 
to our State and local education leaders that we will stand behind our 
commitment to them, and give them the support they want and need to do 
their job for our children. The $8.6 billion being allocated by this 
amendment can be used to ensure that we have highly qualified teachers 
in our classrooms, provide additional afterschool programs, send 
resources to schools identified as ``in need of improvement,'' supply 
tutoring and supplemental services, and give students specialized 
instruction in reading and mathematics. It can also be used to leverage 
additional State and local resources for public education in this 
country. Finally, I would like to point out that not only does this 
amendment pay for itself, but it also dedicates an

[[Page S2487]]

additional $8.6 billion for deficit reduction.
  I commend the Senators from Washington and Massachusetts for offering 
this amendment as an investment in our Nation's future. I am proud to 
be a cosponsor. Our schools and students need adequate resources to 
meet the high expectations that have been placed upon them. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I rise today in support of Senator 
Murray's amendment that, put simply, proposes to close unfair tax 
loopholes and use the funding closing them brings to fulfill the 
promises we made to the parents, teachers, principals, superintendents 
and, most importantly, our children. For the past hour, my colleagues 
from across the aisle have tried to put a different spin on this 
amendment, claiming that it raises taxes to cover increased spending. 
That is what they would like the American public to believe because 
then their opposition to it is easier for them to explain. But the fact 
of the matter is, the underlying budget resolution now before us 
already proposes that we close these very same tax loopholes, the only 
difference is that under this budget the revenue generated would be 
used to pay for new tax cuts for corporations and millionaires. So it 
seems what we have here is a difference in priorities. Democrats are 
against tax evasion and for investments in education and Republicans 
are against tax evasion and for tax cuts for those who do not need 
them. That is a choice I will leave to the American people come this 
November.
  Two years ago, we challenged our schools to reject mediocrity and 
failure and to embrace excellence and high standards. We laid out 
legislation that provided a blue print for reform and we promised we 
would be there every step of the way, in partnership, to bring about 
change in our public schools. I was one of the 13 Members of the U.S. 
Senate who advocated for the kind of change embodied by the No Child 
Left Behind Act long before it became a part of President Bush's 
political platform. I believe in the potential of this law, its 
founding principles, and the direction it leads our Nation. It is by no 
means a perfect law. No law, in the history of Federal involvement in 
education, has ever been perfect on the first try. But that does not 
mean we must abandon it and go back to the drawing board. What we must 
do is come together to both fund it and fix it.
  As the old saying goes, ``talk is cheap.'' Unfortunately, this 
administration does pays a great deal of lip service to principles such 
as accountability, teacher quality, innovation and school choice, but 
are not willing to do a whole lot to be sure that these principles are 
reflected in the budget. For example, this administration says the 
following when it comes to the importance of teacher quality. ``We know 
that our children's future depends on their education. And the quality 
of their education depends on our teachers. Strong schools and quality 
teachers are the President's priorities,'' Laura Bush said on the First 
Anniversary of the Passage of NCLB.
  Yet, what they do to fulfill the promise of a qualified teacher in 
every classroom is a different matter. In this year's budget, President 
Bush proposes to cut funding for Troops to Teachers and freezes funding 
for grants to States to improve teacher quality. What this means is 
that States like my own, are faced with the congressionally mandated 
challenge of closing the gap in the number of qualified teachers, and 
have had to try and meet this challenge with approximately $100 million 
less than they were promised.
  The administration maintains that their goal is to improve public 
schools. In fact, in January of 2001, President Bush made the following 
promise: ``Once failing schools are identified, we will help them 
improve. We'll help them help themselves. Our goal is to improve public 
education. We want success, and when schools are willing to accept the 
reality that the accountability system points out and are willing to 
change, we will help them.'' If this is not a promise, I am not sure 
what is. States like Louisiana believed in this promise and they 
believe in accountability. For the past 4 years they have been working 
hard to identify schools that were failing and turn them around. They 
have done such an outstanding job that they were just recognized by 
Education Week for having one of the best accountability systems in the 
country.
  Is President Bush fulfilling his promise to support and encourage 
these efforts? No. He is pulling the plug just when they need help the 
most. This year's increase in education, which has been shrinking a 
little more every year since Bush took office, is the smallest increase 
in education spending in 7 years. What's worse, is that according to 
his budget, next year, not coincidentally a year after the election, 
education funding will be cut by $1.5 billion.
  Our schools need more than lip service and empty promises, they need 
help. Now, I have asked the President and my Republican colleagues, why 
the President would not provide States with the resources he promised 
would be available to support their efforts. Here is what they tell me. 
They say, ``Senator Landrieu, the President did not make any promises 
when it comes to funding, the funding levels listed in the law are just 
goals. Congress never appropriates as much as they authorize.''
  I think it is important for the American people to be able to 
separate fact from fiction. Let me tell you what the facts are on this 
point. When a program is a high enough priority for the President, you 
can bet it will be funded. Let me give you some examples. Last year, 
Congress appropriated $1 billion for a program called the Millennium 
Challenge Account, a brand new foreign policy program proposed by the 
administration. The President demanded $1 billion and he got a full 
billion. Same was true for the tax package in 2003. Congress authorized 
the passage of a $350 billion tax cut and we spent all $350 billion. 
Medicare, the Iraq Supplemental, the Compassion Capital Fund, the list 
goes on and on.
  The Secretary of Education claims that the reason for the decreased 
financial support from the administration is because States have too 
much money and are not even spending what they already have. In the 
words of Ted Stilwill, the school chief from Iowa, ``The implication 
that [States] have let huge sums of federal money languish that the 
funds are at our disposal to use at our discretion, or that we have not 
been good stewards of the public's money is not only unfair, but 
patently insulting.'' Here are the facts: According to data from the 
U.S. Department of Education, States are actually spending their 
federal money faster than expected. As of February 20, using normal 
spending rates, States should still be waiting to spend about 7 percent 
of their Federal education money from fiscal years 2000 to 2002. As a 
matter of fact, States have spent all but 6 percent.
  What our kids need is less excuse making, fewer empty promises, and 
more leadership. In the words of President Bush himself, ``The time for 
excuse making has come to an end Accountability for results is the law 
of the land.''
  I would like to close my remarks this morning with one final 
Presidential quote. ``We possess all the resources and all the talents 
necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the 
national decisions or marshaled the national resources for such 
leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time 
schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their 
fulfillment . . . Let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the 
country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action--a course 
which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs . . . [but] 
if we were to go only halfway, or reduce our sights in the face of 
difficulty, it would be better not to go at all.''
  Many of you may be saying to yourselves sounds like something 
President George Bush said when he urged Congress to pass the No Child 
Left Behind Act, perhaps the most sweeping reform of Federal education 
policy since 1965. But you would be wrong. This was from a speech given 
by another President making a historic challenge to the Nation. This is 
an excerpt from the famous ``Man on the Moon Speech'' delivered by 
President John F. Kennedy.
  In 1961, President Kennedy presented a bold challenge to Congress and 
the Nation: to reach for the stars, to put a

[[Page S2488]]

man on the moon within the next decade. Most thought he was over 
ambitious, perhaps even crazy. It was such a large task, it could never 
be done. Put a man on the moon in less than 10 years? In June on 1969, 
8 years and 1 month after this speech, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldren 
landed on the moon and Neil Armstrong uttered the immortal phrase, 
``one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.''
  The difference is that President Kennedy was not only willing to make 
the challenge. He was willing to stand strong and provide the 
leadership and the resources necessary to meet it. In 1961, all tolled, 
the United States was spending $1.6 billion, the equivalent of $8.7 
billion today on space programs. By 1966, just 5 years later, we were 
spending $7 billion, which is close to $30 billion in today's dollars. 
But it was more than just money, he provided the leadership and the 
support. He made commitments and he stood by them. This program was 
more than his speech for the day, it was a top priority. And it worked. 
History may have been very different if it hadn't.
  In the words of the late President Kennedy, ``if we were to go only 
halfway, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, it would be 
better not to go at all.'' We made a promise to our States, more 
importantly, to our children. The Murray amendment fulfills that 
promise, it stays the course and that is why I am proud to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself such time as I might consume off the 18 
minutes remaining on this side.
  Madam President, once again I remind the Senate about some of the 
issues that face the Senate Committee on Finance which I chair and how 
certain assumptions being made by some of the amenders of the budget 
resolution might be affected by that or how their decisions might 
affect decisions we have to make.
  First of all, there is the general proposition with all budgets and 
all amendments that pretend to dictate to committees where they ought 
to get the money or what legislation they ought to pass. This is just a 
recommendation that has no force of law. It can be entirely ignored by 
any of the committees, including the Committee on Finance. So when 
there is a premise certain loopholes ought to be closed, certain tax 
rate changes ought to be made to affect upper income limit people, the 
people voting on this amendment and similar amendments ought to 
understand they are voting on numbers they are giving us, nothing else, 
because we will have to make those decisions not just on the substance 
of the dictates of the budget resolution but also on the responsibility 
to report a bipartisan bill.
  We will have yesterday, today, and much more tomorrow, a whole series 
of amendments coming from the Democrat side of the aisle, trying to 
dictate something Democrats want Congress to accomplish, but with 
almost no Republican support. The Senate Finance Committee cannot 
function under that sort of partisanship. We have to get things done in 
a bipartisan way. If people who offer amendments to the budget expect 
their amendments to be adopted, it starts with bipartisanship. I have 
not seen that in very many of the amendments we have had thus far. I 
guarantee, nothing will be done by the Senate Finance Committee in a 
strictly partisan way. That is a dead end. That is an alley with no 
opening. We have to report a bipartisan bill if we expect to get it 
through the Senate.
  The other thing I want my colleagues to understand, and why they 
should vote against this amendment, is it assumes gaining certain 
revenue from loophole closings. I can tell you of tens of billions of 
dollars we are going to get from closing loopholes, but we are doing 
that because of the responsibility of the Senate Finance Committee, 
first of all, has to have a fair Tax Code, and secondly because we have 
the obligation, if we are going to make tax changes, to have those 
offset. Without revenue neutrality we do not have bipartisanship, and 
without bipartisanship nothing is going to get through the Senate.
  A lot of very popular tax provisions Democrats or Republicans expect 
me to get passed before this year is out, like the marriage penalty, 
like the $1,000 tax credit for children, and the 10-percent bracket so 
we can help low-income people pay less tax because they need that money 
themselves to live rather than sending it to us to spend--both 
Democrats and Republicans expect me to get that passed. We are going to 
use the revenue from the loophole closings to fund those provisions. We 
cannot have that money spent on appropriated accounts. It has to be 
used to offset this social and economic policy that is involved in 
doing away with the marriage penalty--the $1,000 child credit and the 
10-percent bracket, and even in addition to that, maybe, finding some 
bipartisan solution to bringing finality to what the estate tax ought 
to be in America as opposed to what it is now or what it will be in 
2011 when we go back to just the $1 million exemption.
  Those are things we are going to do. Obviously, we ought to close 
these tax loopholes and shelters because they are unfair. Some of them 
are outright schemes for corporations to avoid taxation. However, we 
cannot use that money twice. It will be used once. It will be used by 
our economy to establish a fair tax policy.
  In addition to that, and unrelated to my position on the Senate 
Finance Committee, how I react to the debate we have had thus far on 
this amendment--particularly when I hear some Senators on the other 
side say something like this: Don't tell me we have increased education 
spending by 60 percent, because I know that.
  What that Senator wants us to hear is we have not appropriated what 
somebody thought we ought to appropriate, which we seldom do anyway. I 
am well aware of that. I am well aware of promises that were made by an 
administration on education expenditures, maybe in the first year of 
this administration, but what I have not heard from the other side of 
the aisle is, they decide how money ought to be divided, is what 
happened on September 11 and the war on terror and how that changes 
everything. How has that changed everything?
  You put your resources behind the men and women in battle. You put 
your resources behind winning a war. That has caused the President of 
the United States and the Congress, in turn, to divert some money from 
domestic expenditures to the war on terror, to the Defense Department, 
and to homeland security. That is what is different now from the time 
when people thought this administration made certain promises on a lot 
of Federal programs, not just education.
  It seems to me a responsibility we have when we overwhelmingly pass a 
resolution for war that, if we are going to put our men and women on 
the battlefield, you have to give them all the resources it takes to 
win that effort. If you do not, you should not be going to war.
  Now, those who voted against that resolution may have the privilege 
of voting against funding our men and women in the battlefield, but it 
seems to me, regardless of whether you voted for the war resolution or 
not, you have a responsibility to stand behind our men and women.
  That is what has changed between promises being made on education and 
today. There has been a diversion of money. But even considering all 
that, this administration, on the present budget and on previous 
budgets, has put education No. 1, after the war on terror--including 
Afghanistan and Iraq--and after homeland security, because education is 
the domestic program that gets the biggest increase in expenditures 
over anything else.
  With that in mind, I ask that we defeat this amendment. I ask that it 
be defeated because the revenue supposedly being used is the revenue we 
are going to use to make the Tax Code more fair to implement the social 
and economic policy we have that we call doing away with the marriage 
penalty, helping families, by keeping the $1,000 child credit, and 
helping low-income people to pay less tax and to have more money in 
their pockets so they can support their families to a greater extent.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Who yields time?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, could I have 2 minutes 
off the amendment?

[[Page S2489]]

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would be delighted to give the Senator 
from North Dakota 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of talk that the 
amendment of the Senator from Washington raises taxes. Well, it does 
not raise taxes on anybody except those who are engaged in the abuse of 
tax loopholes. Because that is what the amendment of the Senator from 
Washington provides: that tax loopholes are closed in the amount of 
$8.6 billion.
  All this talk about middle-class tax relief has nothing to do with 
this amendment--nothing. She is not talking about, in any way, 
affecting the 10-percent bracket or the childcare credit, or any of the 
other middle-class provisions--not at all.
  The Senator from Wyoming indicated this is going to increase taxes on 
people, on small businesspeople, on middle-class taxpayers. It is not. 
It is aimed at tax loopholes.
  Let's talk about the type of tax loopholes that one might consider. 
There is now, across the land, a scam going on of enormous proportion. 
New York has sold their subway system to a group of private investors, 
and then they turn around to lease it back, and the private investors 
get to depreciate the New York City subway system. New Jersey sold off 
their sewer system to private investors, which then depreciate the 
sewer system and then get away with a dramatic reduction in their 
taxes. These are scams.
  The administration, to its credit, has said we ought to close these 
loopholes. They think it will raise $33 billion. The amendment of the 
Senator from Washington is $8.6 billion to keep the promise of No Child 
Left Behind--no tax increase, an end to scams.
  It does not end there. The Joint Tax Committee did a thorough 
analysis of the Enron scandal and found a series of abuses that could 
be closed which would save billions of dollars in closing tax 
loopholes--no tax increase but stopping the scams.
  And it does not end there. We have the spectacle of certain companies 
and certain wealthy Americans renouncing their U.S. citizenship--Mr. 
President, I ask for 30 seconds more, if I could.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. CONRAD. We have the spectacle of certain wealthy individuals and 
major corporations renouncing their U.S. citizenship to avoid U.S. 
taxes. Closing down that loophole saves $3 billion.
  Now, if anybody wants to vote against closing loopholes, let them 
vote against the amendment of the Senator from Washington. She is 
closing those loopholes in order to fund our kids' education. That is 
exactly what we ought to do.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for that 
clarification.
  Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I commend my colleague, the Senator from 
Washington, for her amendment, along with Senator Kennedy, and for her 
dedicated and lifelong efforts to improve the quality of education for 
all of our Nation's children. She has been a pioneer and a champion in 
the Senate, as she has been in her career as an educator. She knows 
whereof she speaks.
  Once again, we are encountering the same old arguments from the other 
side of the aisle. Personally, I am tired of going back to 1993 or 1994 
to try to explain or excuse what it is we are doing or not doing right 
now for education in this country. I want us to do what is right for 
now, to respond to the needs that exist now. I have said it in other 
debates on education funding, and I will say it again: If President 
Bush proposed more money than President Clinton, then President Bush 
deserves that credit, in my eyes. If the 108th and the 107th Congresses 
provided more money for education than previous Congresses, and more 
than President Bush has proposed at times, then this Congress deserves 
that credit, in my eyes.
  But we are not doing this for ourselves. We are not trying to keep 
some scorecard. We are not trying to fiddle around with percentages or 
other things. We are doing this for America's children.
  The important question we ought to all be asking ourselves is, Are we 
doing enough? Are we providing the money needed to do what we all said 
should be done to leave no child behind?
  That is this President's proclamation. He set that standard for us 
and for the country. That is the law we passed. It is a great standard. 
It is an important standard, and we all seem to agree that should be 
the standard. So the question we need to ask ourselves is, Are we 
budgeting the money necessary to achieve that result?
  When the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of Staff have said they needed 
more money to win the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have provided 
that money, with bipartisan support, overwhelmingly.
  When the President and Secretary Ridge have said they needed more 
money to protect our homeland, to provide protection and safety for all 
our citizens, we have done so on a bipartisan basis. Some of us, 
including Senator Murray, has urged we do more.
  We have set the objectives in the Congress along with the 
administration. We defined the standards of military victory and 
national security, and we have provided the money necessary to succeed, 
because that is what is important, that we succeed at these most 
important goals we set for our Nation.
  Now, we have also increased the Federal deficit enormously to do so. 
We cut taxes very significantly, especially for the wealthiest people 
in this country. People whose annual income is greater than $1 million 
are receiving, this year, on average, a tax reduction of $113,000. It 
has not bothered the majority enough to make any of those adjustments.
  When I hear these concerns expressed about these onerous tax burdens 
that are imposed on the superrich, the multimillionaires and 
billionaires of America, or the large corporations that Senator Conrad 
pointed out are not paying their fair share of taxes, not paying the 
percentage of their taxes owed as our small business owners pay, then I 
must say, I think some of that is crocodile tears.
  With all deference to the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, 
whom I admire enormously and who has dealt with these matters, as 
somebody who comes from--or at least before I got mixed up in 
politics--the category of the wealthy, I would be glad to sit down with 
him and go through it to discover how easily we can find the money to 
pay for what he said he wants to do on taxes and what Senator Murray is 
proposing to do on education. It is not an either/or.
  Nobody on this side wants to jeopardize the increase in the child tax 
credit which was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. In fact, 
it was originally a recommendation from this side of the aisle, but it 
has bipartisan support. The same with eliminating the marriage penalty 
and expanding the 10-percent bracket. We are not going to do one thing 
to affect those extensions.
  This is about education. Somehow that is treated differently by the 
other side. We can't close any of the tax loopholes. We can't allow the 
millionaires or billionaires to escape one penny of taxes they owe. We 
can't increase the deficit. Once again: Gee, we can't find the money we 
need for education.
  We are also told there is extra, unused money in the Federal pipeline 
going to State and local governments for public schools. I have heard 
that in the years I have been here: Head Start has positions for kids 
that are unfilled because there isn't a need or demand. Special 
education has more money than they know what to do with. For No Child 
Left Behind, there is more than enough money being provided.
  When I tell this to educators and school board members and others in 
Minnesota who are involved with education, they think I am joking. They 
think Congress must be seriously out of touch with reality. Where is 
this pipeline, they ask, and if some States have more money than they 
need or know what to do with, would they

[[Page S2490]]

please send it on to Minnesota. I doubt my State is alone because all 
the national organizations involved in these matters have said for 
years, Head Start is being funded about half for the kids who are 
eligible.
  Again, Congress set these standards years ago. Congress defined what 
the eligibility was for these programs. We are not making these numbers 
up out of whole cloth. We are supposed to be setting the measure of 
what qualifies a child for Head Start, the kids who need it.
  Almost 30 years ago the Federal Government promised to pay for 40 
percent of the cost of special education. It is less than half of that 
today. President Bush has increased it. This Congress has increased it 
every year. Still it is less than half. So the question is not what is 
the percentage; the question is, are we keeping a promise we made 
almost 30 years ago. At least in Minnesota, when it is not being met, 
it has to be met, in most cases, with higher property taxes or cutbacks 
in the quality of education for all students.
  Title I, again, is seriously underfunded and has been for years. In 
Minnesota's case, less than half the students are eligible by the 
Federal definition of what qualifies the child in poverty, with all 
those disadvantages, for title I funding, the additional funding that 
is supposed to give that child the chance he or she deserves and 
certainly is now entitled to by law under the President's initiative--
less than half of those students in Minnesota, and we are going to lose 
money under the new formula.
  In all these major areas of Federal Government responsibility for the 
education of our children, we have been providing far less than enough, 
far less than our own laws and our own statements of intent have called 
for. I don't know whose fault it is. I don't think that is relevant. I 
know whose responsibility it is today. That is what matters. It is our 
responsibility. It is our responsibility to provide the funds necessary 
to fulfill our part of the bargain with States and local governments 
and school boards and the schools and, most importantly, with the 
children of America. If we are not willing to do that, then let's 
change the law.

  In Minnesota we have laws against consumer fraud. I would say if we 
don't address these funding shortfalls, to call this No Child Left 
Behind violates the spirit at least of that law. If we are not going to 
do more than we are doing now, let's at least have the honesty to tell 
the truth to the American people. We didn't mean it. It sounds good; 
great slogan, but, sorry, it is not enough of a priority for us.
  Tell the States: You come up with the money for these unfunded 
mandates, for the additional part of special education, which in 
Minnesota costs our schools about $250 million a year, real money. No 
pipeline I am aware of can come up with that kind of money the schools 
in Minnesota need.
  Let's tell school boards: Yes, you keep on raising local property 
taxes in order to make up for what the Federal Government has promised 
but isn't providing. Then let's have the honesty to tell the children, 
the future of America: Sorry, you are not important enough.
  I can only speak for Minnesota, but in my State schools are cutting 
classes, opportunities. They are laying off teachers. Class sizes are 
increasing; sports and extra curricular activities are being cut back. 
You have to pay a special fee just to be a student. We know here in 
Washington that money is needed and should be spent and would be spent, 
but, sorry, we are not going to provide it. We have other, more 
important priorities.
  That is what the Murray amendment is about. It is a moment of truth 
for this body, the Senate. Do we mean what we say, no child should be 
left behind? Do we mean it? Are we willing to fund that as we funded 
other important national priorities, or is it not important enough in 
the scheme of things to do what we promised to do?
  Senator Murray has given this Senate, before the eyes of the Nation, 
this moment of truth. What are our priorities? Do we keep our promises? 
Do we do what we know should be done and say must be done, and what 
every child in America deserves to have done, which is provide the 
funding necessary for quality education to leave no child behind?
  I thank the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota and 
all of our Democratic colleagues who have spoken. When the Senator from 
Minnesota was speaking, I couldn't help but think of someone he 
remembers well. During the whole debate of No Child Left Behind, 
Senator Paul Wellstone, who was on the floor during that debate saying: 
We are giving a promise I don't believe we are going to keep. Everyone 
assured him: No, no, we will put this accountability in place. We will 
fund this.
  The Senator from Minnesota speaks from his heart, as I know Senator 
Wellstone would have admired him for, in reminding all of us what is 
happening to our children and to our schools because we haven't kept 
the promise all of us said we would keep when the debate took place 
several years ago.
  How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 8 minutes, and 
the Senator from New Hampshire has 8 minutes 33 seconds.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, let me ask my colleague from New 
Hampshire if he intends to use any more time on their side. I have a 
few more minutes I would like to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 8 minutes 
33 seconds remaining.
  Mrs. MURRAY. And our side has 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven and a half minutes now.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I was inquiring how much time the Senator from New 
Hampshire intended to use, or if he wanted to go now.
  Mr. GREGG. How much time does the Senator need to close?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I would like 5 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. I have no problem having the Senator close now and we can 
go to a vote.
  I am sorry. I can't do that. I guess I will speak for about 8 minutes 
and then yield to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, it has been a good debate. It certainly has 
outlined the issues involved. I want to reemphasize some points made by 
the chairman of the Finance Committee who spoke about how the $17.2 
billion of tax increases in this amendment work. It is the only real 
part of this amendment.
  The amendment represents it is going to take this tax increase and 
use it to fund No Child Left Behind at the fully authorized level. It 
can't do that for parliamentary reasons. It is unable to make that 
clear event within the amendment.
  The only clear event within the amendment that does actually occur is 
there is a $17.2 billion increase in taxes. The point which the 
chairman of the Finance Committee made, and which I think needs to be 
reemphasized, is those dollars could easily, if they are raised in this 
manner, end up significantly impacting our ability to allow people who 
are now benefiting from no longer having to pay the marriage penalty; 
those folks could end up paying the marriage penalty because we won't 
be able to extend the relief from the marriage penalty tax.
  If taxes are raised under this bill, those dollars could easily 
absorb the money intended to be used for the purpose of addressing the 
issue of the child tax credit, which is a $1,000 tax credit. The 
extension of that might well be impacted. Those dollars, if this tax is 
put in place, could potentially impact the ability of this committee to 
finance the continuation of the expansion of the 10-percent bracket for 
low-income Americans so they have to pay less burden. Why is that? He 
made the point, and I thought rather well, that that is because he 
intends to use the alleged loopholes recited here by my colleagues, 
which loopholes should legitimately be closed.
  There is no reason people should be selling and leasing back the 
subway system of New York, and the President supports making sure that 
loophole is closed. He intends to use that revenue in order to fund the 
ability of people to get a child tax credit of $1,000, to avoid having 
to pay a penalty because they

[[Page S2491]]

get married, and to assist in expanding the 10-percent bracket.
  As he makes the point, rather legitimately, if the dollars are 
siphoned off from those loophole closures that are planned under the 
budget, put in place, and are already in place and accepted as part of 
this budget, if those dollars are siphoned off and end up flowing 
pursuant to this amendment into a reserve account, he won't have the 
dollars available to him as chairman of the committee to accomplish 
those tax relief efforts.
  We are playing with some serious fire here. Basically, the risk of 
this amendment is, No. 1, raising taxes $17.2 billion over what we need 
to do; but No. 2, it puts at risk the ability of the chairman to 
address the use of the taxes that have been put in place in this budget 
through loophole closings to jeopardize the use of those taxes for the 
purpose of addressing the marriage tax penalty, the child tax credit, 
and the 10-percent bracket. A very important point.
  Secondly, this amendment represents the goal is to fully fund No 
Child Left Behind at the authorized level. I believe we have discussed 
this at some length, but I think it is worth emphasizing again. 
Authorization numbers are guideposts. Rarely, as a Congress, have we 
met authorization numbers. The proof is in the pudding.
  The last time the Congress was controlled by the Democratic Party and 
there was a Democratic President, title I was not funded to the full 
authorization level. It was funded significantly below the authorized 
level. In fact, this President's commitment to funding education has 
dramatically outstripped the prior President's commitment or actions in 
this area. I am sure he had a commitment, but he wasn't able to find 
the dollars.
  This President has made a huge commitment in the area of funding 
education, and the dollar increase has been a billion dollars a year 
every year--a billion, billion, billion, billion--cumulative billions 
for the special education accounts, and a billion and a half to a 
billion cumulatively for title I and for No Child Left Behind.

  I see the chairman of the Finance Committee. I was trying to restate, 
probably nowhere near as well as the chairman can, the effect of this 
$17.2 billion credit on his ability to do the extenders, which are so 
important to low-income families and married people and people with 
children.
  I yield the remainder of our time to the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator from New 
Hampshire for his great leadership in dealing with education.
  I spoke about the necessity of the Finance Committee having the 
freedom to use revenue we can raise by closing these tax loopholes, and 
the necessity of getting a bipartisan bill out of committee to do it. I 
think the Senator from North Dakota spoke very well about some of the 
problems we have with corporations and schemers and scammers using the 
Tax Code to avoid taxation, by ridiculous things like leasing a subway 
for a city in the United States, where there is no risk or economic 
substance to the process. We want to close those loopholes.
  I thought I ought to bring to the attention of the Senate one of the 
bipartisan bills out of committee that was using some of those loophole 
closings. They definitely have an impact upon some major industries and 
jobs in this country where they are going to be hurt, because the World 
Trade Organization has ruled contrary to our trade agreements, the 
foreign sales corporation, and the extraterritorial income provisions 
we have had to make to make our business competitive with European 
business. Since that is ruled out, a lot of jobs in major 
corporations--Microsoft and Boeing, to name a couple--are going to be 
hurt and be uncompetitive because of that.
  We are taking some of the loophole closing money that is available to 
offset the revenue, to reduce corporate tax from 35 down to 32, so our 
businesses can be competitive. We can save jobs at Microsoft and Boeing 
which would otherwise be uncompetitive as a result of the foreign World 
Trade Organization ruling.
  I don't want the Senate Finance Committee's hands to be tied by a 
scheme that thinks this money can be used four or five times and can be 
spent on domestic programs, when we have to have this money to offset 
very important tax provisions we want to get passed. Saving jobs 
through this JOBS bill that was before the Senate last week, and will 
be up again in 2 weeks, is an ideal place to use that revenue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield a minute to the Senator from 
North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me just say the amendment of the 
Senator from Washington does nothing to raise taxes on middle-class 
taxpayers, on wealthy taxpayers, on anybody but people who are engaged 
in tax scams and tax dodges, because her proposal is to close tax 
loopholes to the tune of $17 billion.
  As we look in the budget, there is a relatively modest amount of 
money being raised to close tax loopholes. We know there are tens of 
billions of dollars, according to the administration, in potential tax 
loopholes that could be closed.
  In addition, let me say to my colleagues I met with the revenue 
commissioner 2 weeks ago, who tells me the tax gap--the difference 
between what is owed and what is being paid--was $255 billion for 2001 
alone. Let me repeat that. The tax gap--the difference between what is 
owed and what is being paid--is $255 billion for 2001 alone. There is 
plenty of money to be raised in tax loophole closings and the end of 
tax scams and the end of the tax gap to fully fund the amendment of the 
Senator from Washington and the middle-class tax relief all of us want 
to see continue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I know we are going to have a vote in a 
few minutes. I will wrap up a few things. There has been a lot of stuff 
strewn across the floor about this. We need to remember what this 
amendment is all about. It is about keeping a commitment all of us made 
when we voted to pass No Child Left Behind.
  We told our schools, essentially our children, our communities, our 
families across this Nation that we were going to put in place 
accountability; that we wanted our students to learn, we wanted them to 
achieve, and we wanted them to be able to go on and get the skills they 
needed to be out in the job market.
  The Senator from Iowa talked about Microsoft and Boeing and making 
sure we can be competitive. The best thing for Microsoft and Boeing to 
be competitive is to have an educated workforce of young people who 
have the skills they need to come in and do the kinds of jobs to be 
competitive in an international marketplace.
  When we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we said we were going to 
put those standards out there, but that was a two-pronged promise, and 
the other promise was to fully fund No Child Left Behind.
  I have been amazed, sitting on the floor all morning listening to the 
other side say: We never intended to fully fund No Child Left Behind. I 
am shocked. I thought during the debate we had an agreement that we 
would have accountability and that we would have funding. Now to come 
back 2 years later and say, We never intended to fully fund this act, 
what kind of promise is that to our children? We are going to make you 
take tests and meet standards, and every year we are going to increase 
those standards and we expect you to live up to it. But here in 
Congress we can get behind some kind of statement that we never 
intended to fully fund it? That doesn't fly in my home.
  I think it is imperative that we face the American people and tell 
them that when we in the Senate make commitments, we mean it. When we 
make a promise to fund education, to make sure our students have the 
skills they need, and they can meet those accountability requirements, 
we keep it. That is what this amendment is about. It is as simple and 
as clear as that.
  I heard those on the other side argue that this is not a real 
amendment. I

[[Page S2492]]

heard them say that it just sets up language. The language that I use 
in this amendment is the exact language that the other side has in the 
budget to set up a reserve fund for transportation, to set up a reserve 
fund for Iraq and Afghanistan funding, to set up a reserve fund for 
fire suppression. Are those not real, either? If those are not real, 
then I accept the argument that mine is not real. But if they want to 
stand out here and say we are fighting for fire suppression, that their 
budget covers Iraq and Afghanistan, that their budget covers 
transportation, then this amendment covers the No Child Left Behind 
funding.
  This amendment is real. It is exactly real. No one can hide behind 
the fact it is not real. It is real to every child in every classroom 
across this country.
  There is a revolt going on in this country. Any Senator who has been 
home and been in a school knows it. Any Senator who has talked with 
legislators at their homes--and I know there have been discussions in 
Virginia, Utah, and many other States across the country--knows they do 
not want this mandate anymore and to take off the handcuffs because we 
have not funded it.
  We have not lived up to our obligation to our children, to our 
communities, to our families, to our States, and to everyone else in 
this world who cares about education because we have not funded this 
bill.
  My amendment is basic and simple. It says we will follow up on a 
promise we made 2 years ago to fully fund No Child Left Behind. I am 
more than at ease to go home and tell my constituents that I am 
fighting to make sure their children get a good education and we follow 
up on a promise. That is the decision every Senator is going to have to 
make when they vote on this amendment. Whose side are you on, on the 
side of making sure we keep our promises, making sure our children have 
the ability to learn and we do not just tell them they have to live up 
to standards, or on the side of hiding behind smoke and mirrors?

  I intend to go home and tell my families in every community across 
the State that I am going to fight every single day I am here to make 
sure their children have quality teachers, their children have quality 
classrooms, their children have the ability to have good curriculum, 
their children are able to learn the skills they need from highly 
qualified teachers because that is what we promised them in this bill.
  This amendment is about keeping promises. I urge my colleagues to 
vote for the Murray-Kennedy amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2719. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) 
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 35 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Johnson
     Kerry
       
  The amendment (No. 2719) was rejected.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank our colleagues. We spent most of 
the morning on one amendment. I discussed this with my friend and 
colleague from North Dakota and said I know a lot of Members have 
education speeches they want to make. We were pretty generous with time 
allotments for those amendments. But I really want to tell our 
colleagues that generosity with time is coming to a close. We are going 
to start picking up the pace rather substantially. That means we are 
going to have a lot more votes. It means I am doing everything I can to 
avoid a vote-arama which Senator Byrd and I have discussed many times. 
We think it is demeaning to the Senate to have a large number of votes 
where Members are voting with almost no debate. We are making a great 
concession on our side. It is easy to debate and say now the time is up 
and have a vote-arama. I think that is demeaning to the Senate.
  I have discussed this with my colleague, Senator Conrad. We are 
willing to consider more amendments with time agreements, have a 
shorter debate time, and try to dispose of amendments so we can avoid 
the necessity of being here very late Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and/
or Saturday. We are going to complete the bill. But let us try to 
cooperate, Democrats and Republicans, proponents and opponents. We all 
have various issues on these amendments, but we are going to have to 
move quickly. That last rollcall vote was 25 or 26 minutes. The time 
limit is 15. I expect to be calling for regular order shortly after 15 
minutes. We have three or four very significant amendments that will be 
coming up. Senator Byrd, I believe, is going to offer an amendment 
dealing with striking reconciliation. I believe Senator Stevens and 
Senator Warner may be offering an amendment on defense. Excuse me. 
Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Bunning have an amendment we hope to 
be able to accept. That shouldn't take too long. Senator Byrd has an 
amendment on reconciliation. We expect an amendment dealing with 
defense. We expect an amendment dealing with pay-go. Those are three or 
four major issues. We might stack the votes. I will consult with my 
colleague from North Dakota as far as the timing of the votes.
  We have had a significant debate. It is time for us to dispose of 
these amendments so we can avoid the so-called vote-arama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I add my voice to the voice of the 
chairman. We are rushing toward another vote-arama. We have 58 
amendments noticed on this side already. Some of them are duplicative. 
On some of them, one Senator is offering many more than one amendment. 
I am asking our colleagues to please let us exercise discipline. Let us 
reduce the number of amendments. I propose to my colleague that we 
consider entering into a time agreement at least on these next few 
amendments. If we could agree, for example, on 30 minutes or 40 minutes 
equally divided on the next amendment, and then an hour equally divided 
on an amendment on reconciliation, then an hour on an amendment at the 
designation of the chairman, and then an hour equally divided on pay-
go, and stack the votes, we could then have a series of three votes at 
about 5:45 which might accommodate some. I know there are plans for 
this evening by some. At least we could get a series of important votes 
concluded.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's excellent 
suggestion. I am not ready to enter into a consent on all of those 
amendments. I think the Senator from South Carolina has indicated he 
wants 45 minutes on his amendment. I am willing to enter

[[Page S2493]]

into an agreement on Senator Byrd's amendment. I don't think I am ready 
to go yet on the Stevens-Warner amendment. I need to consult with them 
first. If we can enter into an agreement on those two amendments, I am 
happy to do that.
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to enter into an agreement of 45 minutes 
equally divided on the Graham amendment and an hour equally divided on 
the Byrd amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. I have no objection.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am not yet 
ready to enter into an agreement on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, our order would be then to consider the 
amendment offered by Senator Graham and Senator Bunning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the next order of 
business is the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina, Senator 
Graham.
  The Senator is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2731

  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I send an amendment to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Graham], for himself, 
     Mr. Daschle, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. 
     DeWine proposes an amendment numbered 2731.

  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To enhance military readiness by creating a reserve fund to 
  provide TRICARE benefits for members of the Selected Reserve of the 
 Ready Reserve, fully offset through reductions including unobligated 
   balances from Iraqi reconstruction, and a reserve fund to provide 
    Montgomery GI Bill benefits to members of the Selected Reserves)

       On page 28, after line 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 304. RESERVE FUND FOR GUARD AND RESERVE HEALTH CARE.

       If the Committee on Armed Services or the Committee on 
     Appropriations reports a bill or joint resolution, or an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted that expands access to health care for members 
     of the reserve component, the Chairman of the Committee on 
     the Budget may revise allocations of new budget authority and 
     outlays, the revenue aggregates, other appropriate 
     aggregates, and the discretionary spending limits to reflect 
     such legislation, providing that such legislation--
       (1) would not increase the deficit for fiscal year 2005 and 
     for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009, or would 
     offset such deficit increases through reduction of 
     unobligated balances from Iraqi reconstruction; and
       (2) does not exceed $5,600,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 2005 through 2009.

     SEC. 305. RESERVE FUND FOR MONTGOMERY GI BILL BENEFITS.

       If the Committee on Armed Services or the Committee on 
     Appropriations reports a bill or joint resolution, or an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted, that increases benefit levels under the 
     Montgomery GI Bill for members of the Selected Reserves, the 
     Chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise 
     allocations of new budget authority and outlays, the revenue 
     aggregates, other appropriate aggregates, and the 
     discretionary spending limits to reflect such legislation, 
     providing that such legislation--
       (1) would not increase the deficit for fiscal year 2005 and 
     for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009; and
       (2) does not exceed $1,200,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 2005 through 2009.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, with the indulgence of the Senator, might 
I repeat the request. I think we might have it worked out so we can 
enter into a time agreement on the next two amendments, if the chairman 
would be willing to repeat the request.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment by Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Bunning be limited to 
45 minutes without second-degree amendments, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment to be offered by Senator Byrd be limited to 
1 hour equally divided without second-degree amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that Senator Chambliss and Senator Allen be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2731, As Modified

  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
to add the word ``and'' on page 2 to lines 4 and 16 of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 2731), as modified, is as follows:
       On page 28, after line 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 304. RESERVE FUND FOR GUARD AND RESERVE HEALTH CARE.

       If the Committee on Armed Services or the Committee on 
     Appropriations reports a bill or joint resolution, or an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted that expands access to health care for members 
     of the reserve component, the Chairman of the Committee on 
     the Budget may revise allocations of new budget authority and 
     outlays, the revenue aggregates, other appropriate 
     aggregates, and the discretionary spending limits to reflect 
     such legislation, providing that such legislation--
       (1) would not increase the deficit for fiscal year 2005 and 
     for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009, or would 
     offset such deficit increases through reduction of 
     unobligated balances from Iraqi reconstruction; and
       (2) does not exceed $5,600,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 2005 through 2009.

     SEC. 305. RESERVE FUND FOR MONTGOMERY GI BILL BENEFITS.

       If the Committee on Armed Services or the Committee on 
     Appropriations reports a bill or joint resolution, or an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted, that increases benefit levels under the 
     Montgomery GI Bill for members of the Selected Reserves, the 
     Chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise 
     allocations of new budget authority and outlays, the revenue 
     aggregates, other appropriate aggregates, and the 
     discretionary spending limits to reflect such legislation, 
     providing that such legislation--
       (1) would not increase the deficit for fiscal year 2005 and 
     for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009; and
       (2) does not exceed $1,200,000,000 for the period of fiscal 
     years 2005 through 2009.

  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I will give a quick 
overview and yield to Senator Bunning for as much time as he needs to 
explain his portion of the amendment. Then we will go to Senator DeWine 
and Senator Daschle and myself to finish.
  I compliment Senator Nickles for helping us work this out. This is 
the amendment we have been talking about for almost a year now, setting 
aside some money in the budget to address the health care needs of the 
Guard and the Reserve.
  If you are an activated member of the Guard or Reserve, you go into 
the military health care system called TRICARE. Your family has 
eligibility for that system. When you come off active duty, you will go 
back into your private plan, if you have one. If you are uninsured, 
there will no plan available for you.
  We are trying to allow Guard and Reserve members, by paying a premium 
out of their pockets, to be full-time members of TRICARE so they will 
have continuity of health care.
  Twenty-five percent of the people who were called to active duty for 
Guard and Reserve were unable to be deployed because of health care 
problems. Providing continuity of health care year round would be a 
good measure. I know this will help retention and recruiting.
  There is another aspect of this amendment, thanks to Senator Bunning. 
What is happening with our Guard and Reserve forces is they are 
becoming overutilized. There has been a 170-percent increase in Guard 
and Reserve utilization since 9/11.
  The GI bill of rights applies to the Guard and Reserve in a limited 
fashion. Thanks to Senator Bunning's efforts, that is about to change.
  At this time, I would like to yield to Senator Bunning to explain 
what he is trying to do for the Guard and Reserve members with an 
amendment in terms of the GI bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, my amendment provides funds to increase 
educational benefits for the National Guard and Reserve members under 
the GI bill. Currently, National Guard and Reserve members are eligible 
for only $282 per month under the GI bill. That is only 27 percent of 
the amount active-duty members can get.

  In 1985, Congress set educational benefits for our Guard and Reserve 
members at 47 percent of the active-duty

[[Page S2494]]

benefit level. Since then, it has continued to slip to today's levels 
of 27 percent. My provision provides the funds needed to bring Guard 
and Reserve benefits back to that 40-percent mark.
  Today, we are using our National Guard and Reserve, as Senator Graham 
said, more than ever. They are being deployed away from their homes and 
families for longer periods of time and put in harm's way. We should 
provide them with educational benefits that reflect the contributions 
they make to our national security.
  I urge Members to support the Graham amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I thank Senator Bunning 
on behalf of all the Guard and Reserves. He has made a real difference 
in their lives. This is long overdue. I appreciate what the Senator has 
done to make this a better amendment.
  I yield 3 minutes to Senator Leahy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am glad to join my colleagues Senator 
Daschle of South Dakota and Senator Graham of South Carolina in support 
of this critical budget amendment on the readiness of our National 
Guard and Reserves. This amendment will allocate resources in the 
country's long-term budget to implement a comprehensive health 
insurance program for the 800,000 citizen-soldiers who serve in the 
National Guard and Reserves.
  Last year, the Senate recognized that 20 percent of the Nation's 
military reserve--over 150,000 citizens waiting to answer the call-to-
duty--did not possess health insurance. During a vote here on the 
Senate floor, 85 senators collectively agreed that this was unwise, and 
more importantly, unconscionable that citizen soldiers ready to fight 
for their country would arrive for service in less than perfect health 
because they were uninsured.
  As a response to this clear problem, we passed a stopgap health 
insurance program that allowed reservists to receive fully reimbursed 
health insurance through TRICARE as soon as they received their orders 
and maintain that insurance after they had been deactivated.
  The centerpiece of the program passed in Congress last year was a 
provision to allow drilling members of the Guard and Reserve to buy 
into the TRICARE program on a cost-share basis if they were between 
jobs or did not have access to health insurance through their 
employers.
  This program guarantees that every member of the Guard and Reserve is 
covered either through TRICARE or a civilian program. However, the 
final defense bill last year authorized the program only through the 
end of this calendar year. This amendment would expand funding for this 
program for the next 5 years.
  More troubling, critical portions of our original proposal, embodied 
in S. 852, the Comprehensive Guard and Reserve Health Benefits Act, 
dropped out during the final negotiations.
  Missing in the final package was eligibility for employed members of 
the Guard and Reserve to sign up for the cost-share TRICARE program. 
This took away health insurance options for our reservists and a 
necessary mechanism to make the mobilization process easier by 
eliminating the need for reservists to switch back and forth between 
health insurance plans when they are activated.
  The final compromise also shortchanged families of activated 
reservists who wanted to maintain their civilian health insurance while 
their loved ones were activated.
  That provision would have substantially reduced some of the intense 
disturbances these long separations create. We crafted this provision 
to have only marginal costs compared to the size of the benefit for 
Guard members, reservists and their families.
  This amendment will help fund the full program set forth in S. 852: 
Early health insurance, TRICARE access for all, reimbursements to 
families for keeping civilian health insurance, and maintaining full 
TRICARE after deployment. It truly is a comprehensive package. It is, I 
want to note, the exact same legislation that received an overwhelming 
85 to 10 favorable vote during our debate on the defense bill.
  The Department of Defense has slow-rolled implementation of the 
program turned into law last year. They are still not opening up the 
cost-share program to eligible service-members. Passing this amendment 
this year on the budget resolution sends a signal to DOD that they need 
to move ahead more aggressively. But, more importantly, this amendment 
assures the 130,000 men and women in the Guard and Reserve serving in 
Iraq, Afghanistan, or at home, and the entire Guard and Reserve force, 
that we are going to take significant steps to ensure that they are 
ready to meet the challenges ahead. We are not going to let our Guard 
down.
  To reiterate, this amendment will allocate resources in the long-term 
budget to implement a comprehensive health insurance program for the 
800,000 citizen soldiers who serve in the National Guard and Reserve.
  We recognized in the Senate last year that 20 percent of the Nation's 
military reserve--over 150,000 citizens waiting to answer the call to 
duty--did not possess health insurance. Think of that, over 20 percent 
of the military reserve, 150,000 people, with no health insurance. That 
is unwise and it is also unconscionable these citizen soldiers do not 
have health insurance.
  We passed a stopgap health insurance program that allowed reservists 
to receive fully reimbursed health insurance through TRICARE as soon as 
they receive their orders and maintain that insurance after they have 
been deactivated.
  Missing in the final package was eligibility for members of the Guard 
and Reserve to sign up for the cost-share TRICARE program. We have 
crafted a provision at only marginal cost compared to the size for 
members of the Guard and Reserve, and this will help fully fund the 
program set forth--early health insurance, TRICARE access for all, 
reimbursements to families for keeping civilian health insurance, and 
maintaining full TRICARE after deployment.
  We need to do this. We cannot continue to ask these men and women to 
go overseas to serve, basically full time, and have part-time benefits. 
They are full-time soldiers. They should be treated that way.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I yield 10 minutes to the chief author 
of this legislation, Senator DeWine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am proud to join this afternoon my 
colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham, in support of this very important 
amendment. I commend him for his great leadership and great work.
  I have been a longstanding supporter of both initiatives: extending 
TRICARE coverage to members of the Guard and Reserve, and also 
increasing the level of benefits provided to the Selective Reserve 
under the Montgomery GI bill. I have introduced and cosponsored several 
bills to address existing inequities with these specific benefits.
  Unfortunately, benefits for our Guard and Reserve simply have not 
kept pace with the increasing role that these individuals are expected 
to play today.
  I commend Senator Graham, Senator Daschle, and Senator Bunning for 
their great leadership and their continued commitment to these 
initiatives. I look forward to working with them through the coming 
months to make these important initiatives a permanent reality.
  This is important work. I know of nothing more important that this 
Senate will be doing in the months ahead. I look forward to making sure 
we get the job done.
  I thank my colleague for the time this afternoon to talk about 
another important amendment that I have filed, but I am not calling up 
at this time. I take a moment to talk about this amendment that is 
cosponsored by Senator Leahy and Senator Coleman, an amendment that I 
have sponsored.
  We live in a world of 6 billion people, the majority of whom live in 
developing countries. Theirs is a world where, according to UNICEF, out 
of every 100 children born, 30 will most likely suffer from 
malnutrition in their first 5 years of life; 26 will not be immunized 
against the most basic of childhood diseases; and 19 will lack access 
to clean, safe drinking water.
  This is certainly unconscionable. Yet we have seemingly come to 
expect and indeed accept this as a way of life in the developing world. 
The tragedy is

[[Page S2495]]

that all of this is avoidable. We can do something about it. We can do 
simple things, really simple things, basic things that can save 
millions of children's lives every year. The reality is we are not 
doing enough right now. Candidly, we are tolerating these deaths, and 
saving these lives simply has not been a priority. Our amendment would 
change that. And it is, indeed, a step in the right direction.
  I take a few minutes this afternoon to share some important 
statistics about child and maternal mortality. I am often hesitant to 
come to the floor and talk about statistics. When we hear statistics, 
it is all too easy to become numb, all too easy to forget the human 
realities they, in fact, represent. It is important for all to listen 
to some of these statistics today because they are so unbelievable and 
so tragic. They represent so many lives, countless lives that could, in 
fact, be saved; lives that could be saved if we would make the 
appropriate amount of resources available to people who are in such 
dire need.
  Let's look at the facts. Today, over 10 million children under the 
age of 5 die each year from preventable, avoidable, and treatable 
diseases and ailments, including such things as diarrhea, pneumonia, 
measles, and, yes, malnutrition. Over 10 million children under the age 
of 5 die from preventable and avoidable diseases. Of those 10 million 
deaths worldwide, 3.9 million occur in the first 28 days of life. These 
babies do not even have a shot at living their lives or even getting as 
old as 2, 3, 4 or 5. Yet two-thirds of these deaths could be prevented 
if available and affordable interventions had reached the children and 
mothers who needed them.
  Malnutrition contributes to 54 percent of all childhood deaths, and 
as many as 3 million children die annually as a result of vitamin A 
deficiency. An estimated 400,000 cases of childhood blindness are 
reported each year, also, because of vitamin A deficiencies.
  According to the World Health Organization estimates, at least 30 
million infants still do not have access to basic immunization 
services, and over 4.4 million children died from vaccine-preventable 
diseases in the year 2001 alone--diseases such as hepatitis, polio, and 
tetanus. Of all the vaccine-preventable diseases, measles remains the 
leading childhood killer, claiming the lives of, it is estimated, 
750,000 children--more than half of them in Africa alone. Yet vaccine-
preventable deaths could actually be cut in half by the year 2005 if 
these children were receiving proper vaccinations.

  Mr. President and my colleagues in the Senate, we can change the 
course of these developing nations. We can change this tragic human 
reality. We can start by providing additional money and support for our 
child survival and maternal health programs. The fact is, this is an 
emergency situation. There really is not any other way to describe it. 
Over 10 million children dying each year from preventable and treatable 
illnesses certainly qualifies as an emergency.
  It is the equivalent of roughly 55 fully loaded 747 airplanes 
crashing every day for a year. Think of that. If that were happening, 
if that many airplanes were going down each day in this country, or 
anywhere in the world, we know what our reaction would be. It would be 
all over the news, all over CNN. We would declare a worldwide tragedy, 
and we would do something about it.
  But these problems facing the developing world cannot be resolved 
through short-term, temporary, piecemeal assistance. If we are to make 
any real headway in improving the health of women and children in the 
long term, we need to take some bold and radical steps, and we also 
need to be committed to supporting, in the long run, maternal and child 
health programs, and not just now but next year and the year after and 
the year after that. Our funding simply cannot be administered in a 
single dose.
  If we could look into the future 10, 20, 30, 40 years from now, we 
would see what is possible with sustained investments in primary health 
care and public health systems.
  An article recently published in the journal, The Lancet, suggests 
that providing, for example, vitamin A as a preventing measure could 
avert as many as 225,000 deaths, and providing oral rehydration therapy 
could prevent as many as 1,477,000 deaths. Simple interventions and 
treatment are not expensive. Oral rehydration salt packets cost about 8 
cents apiece--8 cents.
  For 4 cents per child, two vitamin A capsules could be given every 
year to children around the world, saving over 650,000 of them from 
blindness and death. For 30 cents worth of basic antibiotics given to 
every child with pneumonia, we could prevent 577,000 deaths. I think 
you get the idea.
  Here is another example: Iodine regulates growth and the metabolism. 
A deficiency in iodine is the primary cause of preventable learning 
disabilities and brain damage. Iodine can be introduced into the diet 
by something as simple as fortified salt--iodized salt--something that 
is in all our kitchens at home. This simple measure would cost only 5 
cents per person annually.
  Furthermore, our amendment would allocate additional money to help 
avert maternal and neonatal death and improve maternal health, 
including the prevention of obstetric fistulas and other types of 
injuries and disabilities resulting from childbirth in unsafe 
circumstances.
  The fact is, all pregnant women are at risk for injuries and 
childbirth complications, which is why it is so important to have 
skilled attendants--midwives, doctors, or nurses--present at birth. Yet 
only about half of the world's women give birth with a skilled 
attendant available.

  The child survival and maternal health funding provides resources so 
that USAID can provide training and technical assistance in infection 
prevention and quality of care, as well as needed equipment and 
supplies to bring health facilities up to a level where they can 
provide safe and effective emergency pre- and postnatal care. Clearly, 
child survival interventions do, in fact, work, and they are the most 
cost-effective tools we have in the struggle for better global health.
  We can and we should invest in these programs as they increase 
developing countries' access to basic health services--services such as 
vaccinations, immunizations, micronutrient programs, and vitamin 
supplements.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask for an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Absolutely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for an additional 
minute.
  Mr. DeWINE. If we can make these investments and work toward equal 
access to health care, we can help ensure that mothers receive proper 
prenatal care, that children and families receive nutritional 
counseling and vitamin supplements, and that children receive the 
necessary immunizations and vaccinations to live healthy lives.
  But tragically, if we fail to make a sufficient and sustained 
investment in the development of public health systems that provide 
primary care, mothers will continue to die prematurely during 
childbirth, children will continue to die from preventable diseases and 
causes, and life expectancies in these developing nations will stagnate 
or perhaps even decrease. This is not acceptable.
  Mr. President, adoption of this amendment--as I said, it has been 
filed but not yet called up--will go a long way to save so many 
children's lives around the world. Therefore, I would ask my 
colleagues, when this amendment is called up, to join my colleagues in 
voting in favor of it.
  Again, I thank my colleague for his great work to help our Guard and 
Reserves in relation to what we talked about earlier today. I thank him 
for his good work in this area.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, we are all in a thanking 
mode, and I think it is appropriate that we try to do as much as we 
can, in a bipartisan fashion, when it comes to the military.
  We will have our differences and funding and our differences about 
priorities in terms of what helps the economy and what helps to control 
the deficit. But I want to acknowledge the work of Chairman Nickles' 
staff and him personally for allowing this amendment to be accepted as 
part of the budget because working together, in a bipartisan fashion, 
we are going to

[[Page S2496]]

carve out about $5.6 billion to be utilized to help alleviate the Guard 
and Reserve health care problems that currently exist. And Senator 
Bunning's measured, upgraded GI bill benefits will also be part of the 
budget. To me, that is a good priority to have made. We have promised 
to pay for this. I think that is a good statement to have made, too.
  Once the authorizing committee gets to work with Senator Warner, and 
then, hopefully, Senator Stevens, who has been a big champion of this 
cause, they will appropriate what we do on the authorizing committee, 
that it will be paid for, and that we can bring this program in under 
the $5.6 billion amount. Senator McCain and others have ideas of how 
the employer community can contribute.
  But I would like to inform those maybe listening in the Guard and 
Reserve community that your needs are well understood by this body, and 
there is a real bipartisan effort to meet those needs.
  To those in the Active Forces, I think we have tried to upgrade your 
benefit package, tried to increase your pay. You have earned every 
penny of it, and then some. We are trying to improve the quality of 
life of those people stationed overseas and their families.
  This is a team effort. Nothing about the Guard and Reserve takes away 
from the Active Forces. Forty percent of the people in Iraq, by the end 
of the year, will be Guard and Reserve members. When a guardsman or 
reservist is called to active duty, it has its own unique stress. God 
knows their is stress on our active-duty families who are serving in 
the military and have their family members in harm's way.
  More times than not, when you are called to active duty, your pay 
goes down. There are provisions in our Federal law that will allow some 
renegotiating of loans but, at the end of the day, it is a very 
stressful event financially for families.
  This one aspect, health care, is a huge problem that needs to be 
addressed. As I stated before, about one in four people called from the 
Reserve and Guard community to active duty are not able to be deployed 
immediately because of health care problems. The No. 1 disqualifying 
event is dental problems.
  When you think about it, a lot of private plans do not have a dental 
component to it. So by allowing Guard and Reserve members to be part of 
the military health care system year round, whether they are deployed 
or not, I think readiness goes up dramatically.
  When we look at writing this bill, that would be one of the selling 
points. I was in Iraq last summer with a delegation of Senators. The 
Presiding Officer was with us. It was a wonderful opportunity to 
understand how difficult service overseas can be and how stressful it 
is being in harm's way. You come away with a great sense of pride about 
all those serving our country. As the Presiding Officer will recall, we 
had nine C-130 flights in Afghanistan and Iraq. Eight of the nine crews 
were Guard crews. The last was a Reserve crew. All the 130 crews were 
from the Guard and Reserve community. That duplicates itself in many 
other areas--MPs, civil affairs. There is a heavy reliance on Guard and 
Reserves.
  I remember on one of the flights the pilot and the copilot were going 
to be first-time dads. One person worked for Southwestern Bell. 
Southwestern Bell voluntarily extended health care coverage for the 
family, even though he was called back to duty, so that person's wife 
did not have to change doctors or hospitals. The copilot was a realtor 
and he didn't have such an opportunity. So his wife had to change 
doctors and hospitals late in the pregnancy, and it was a very 
stressful event.
  One thing about providing full-time TRICARE eligibility to those who 
want to pay the premium, we are asking guardsmen and reservists to 
contribute to the cost. That is only fair, and it is a very good deal. 
They will be contributing out of their pocket, like their active-duty 
counterparts. One of the benefits is, your family doesn't have to 
bounce around from one health care provider to another, even when you 
change plans. Some people have been deployed already three times. The 
likelihood of their utilization in the future is greater, not less. 
Adopting this amendment as part of the budget allows us to take some 
money to meet those needs.
  I need to say this about Senators Daschle and Leahy and Clinton, and 
our other Democratic sponsors: We wouldn't be here without Senator 
Daschle. I don't know how to say it any clearer. We would not have made 
it this far if he had not taken on this cause and pushed as hard as he 
could push. He has been around here a lot longer than I have. It really 
did matter. He and I may vote differently for the rest of the week, but 
I have great admiration for him as a person and we will vote together 
today. At the end of the week he may have a different view about what 
the budget does for the country, but we will have agreement on this, 
that the Guard and Reserve community is one step closer to getting the 
help they deserve. I publicly acknowledge that and thank him. It has 
been a very pleasurable, enjoyable experience. We are not there yet, 
but we are closer than when we began.
  I am the only Member of the Senate who is in the Reserves. I recently 
got promoted and made a joke about that, showing how stressed out we 
are in the military if I am promoted. I am proud of my service. I have 
never been in harm's way.
  The one thing I got from that experience, having been on Active Duty 
for 6\1/2\ years, serving overseas--I was in the Guard as a support 
person in Alaska, doing legal work for families and military members 
being deployed--I know how stressful it is for families left behind and 
how stressful it is for the pilots and their crews.
  Here we are 10 years later plus, involved in another major operation 
to fight the enemies of this country who, if they had their way, little 
girls wouldn't to go school and there would be only one way to worship 
God. It would be their way. And if you differed, you would die.
  This is a huge event we are undertaking, the war on terrorism. The 
Guard and Reserve community is playing a bigger role than ever.
  The cold war dynamic with the Guard and Reserve has changed with the 
war on terrorism. They are indispensable. That will not change anytime 
soon. The stress on the forces is as great as it has ever been in my 
military career, and the benefit package has not been changed 
substantially in 30 years. Now is the time to come together, 
Republicans and Democrats, and put on the table new benefits for those 
serving their country in a very patriotic and unselfish way.
  With that, I yield to the minority leader and my colleague on this 
effort, Senator Daschle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator for his kind words. I have to say, 
this has been an equal joy for me. The Senator from South Carolina has 
been an extraordinary partner in this effort. I applaud him for the 
extraordinary efforts he has made to get us to this point and the 
leadership he has provided. As he has noted, we may disagree on other 
issues, but on this there is very strong bipartisan support. I cite his 
leadership as one of the reasons why.
  I can speak for all of those on this side of the aisle who have 
worked to try to pass this legislation. Senator Graham's efforts, his 
persistence, and the extraordinary effort he brings to ensuring we 
succeed is a big reason why we are going to be successful today.
  We have actually voted on this three times in the Senate. We have 
done so with overwhelming margins. It is not often on an amendment that 
you can generate 80-plus votes. But 87 Senators have already said this 
ought to be law. Because they have said it ought to be law, we are 
confident it will become law sooner or later.
  The legislation we are offering today very simply recognizes, first, 
that there are differences between members of the Reserves and the 
Active Duty. The Active Duty don't have to pay for their health care. 
We believe that is the way it should be. If you are on active duty and 
you are defending your country, that ought to be one of the 
prerequisites of Active-Duty service. We are suggesting that if you 
serve your country alongside that member of the Active Duty, you ought 
to have access to that health care, and maybe you ought to pay a little 
premium.

[[Page S2497]]

  Our guardsmen and reservists are determined and are accepting of that 
difference. They just want access to the care. They are willing to pay 
a premium, unlike our Active-Duty personnel who get it as part of their 
job, but they do want access. So that is the first big difference.
  Clearly, what most people don't understand is this premium is a very 
significant differentiation between Active-Duty personnel and the 
Guard.
  The second is, this will not be taken out of the Pentagon budget. 
What we are proposing with this amendment is we add $5.6 billion. We 
recognize there are some very important needs within our defense budget 
that have to be met. We don't want to see this compete with other 
needs, and that is why we are adding on. But we are also not adding to 
the deficit. There is a significant unobligated balance in the Iraq 
reconstruction fund, money that would go to Iraq normally, that is not 
going to be required in this fiscal year from which this money is 
taken.
  So first, we are not exacerbating the deficit. Secondly, we are not 
competing with any other programs in the Defense Department. And third, 
we recognize the difference between members of the Reserve and Active-
Duty personnel. So for all those reasons, we think this amendment is 
very carefully drawn.
  Obviously, there is no question about the importance of what it does. 
It extends coverage to all reservists who are willing to pay the 
premium. You pay the premium; you have access to the health insurance. 
Secondly, we provide offsetting coverage when people are called up and 
they have private coverage that they want to maintain. We are saying, 
if you are called to service by your country and you are fighting in a 
faraway land, we are going to ensure that if you have private coverage 
that you think is important and you want to keep for your family, you 
ought to have a right to do that.

  Finally, we make it permanent. We ought to take out the guessing 
game. There shouldn't be any question as to whether it is going to be 
here this year, gone the next, whether some people are going to have to 
sign up, worrying whether they can sign up in subsequent years.
  What Senator Graham suggests with our amendment is, No. 1, it ought 
to be permanent. We have seen, as the Senator from South Carolina so 
aptly noted, the biggest callup of members of the Guard and Reserves 
since World War II. Our dependence upon the Guard and Reserves 
continues to grow. Forty percent is now the number that is widely 
recognized; 40 percent of those serving in Iraq are members of the 
Guard and Reserves. So there is no question this integration of forces 
is a fact of life.
  If we are going to see this integration of forces in the future, we 
have to recognize that we are going to have to change our benefits and 
pay structure to meet the demand and to put some element of fairness 
back into the system.
  This amendment is needed for two reasons. One, it is the right thing 
to do. When you have 30 percent of those members of the Guard and 
Reserves who are called up today who have no health insurance, many of 
whom can't even get the kind of health care they need to be compliant 
physically with the demands of their job, you need this amendment.
  Secondly, when you look down the road and you talk to Governors and 
the Guard and Reserve decisionmakers, what they will tell you 
privately, and for good reason, is they are understandably concerned 
about retention, understandably concerned about meeting the needs.

  You will not find more patriotic Americans anywhere than those who 
serve through the Reserve and the Guard. Nobody is more committed. They 
give up their jobs, time with their families, and they go to faraway 
places and sacrifice salary in order to defend their country.
  All we are saying is, for all of that, we want you to stay in the 
Guard and continue to serve your country, so we are going to be a 
little more fair regarding your access to health insurance. That would 
be one less problem for them. This amendment does that permanently, and 
it deserves to be passed overwhelmingly.
  We are not going to ask for a rollcall vote because we have had three 
of them. We think the Senate is on record adequately regarding this 
legislation. We will be back. This only authorizes it in the budget. We 
are going to come back with Defense Appropriations to make sure it is 
also a part of the law as we consider the important aspects of public 
policy relating to defense in the future.
  Again, let me end where I started. Senator Graham deserves great 
credit for the effort he made to bring us to this point. I am pleased 
that, on a bipartisan basis, we can pass this with an exclamation point 
this afternoon. This deserves to be law. This year is the year to do 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator 
from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, is there 5 minutes available to speak 
for the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sponsor controls 1 additional minute. The 
minority manager of the bill controls 20 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. How much time does the Senator need?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Five minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, does Senator Graham wish to retain a 
minute of his time?
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Yes. I will try to yield part of it 
back.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana off of 
our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank those managing the bill, and I 
thank the Senator from South Carolina for bringing this amendment to 
the floor. I would like to cosponsor this amendment because it helps 
our veterans and Guard and Reserve in two very important ways. The 
Senator's portion of this helps to extend the TRICARE piece and extends 
also in this amendment the GI benefits for the Guard and Reserve.
  As I have said many times, the Guard and Reserve that is protecting 
us today, that is serving as the core in many instances of our Armed 
Forces, is not the Guard and Reserve of our fathers' or grandfathers' 
generations. They are citizen soldiers. They are professional soldiers. 
Because of policy changes we put into place, the Guard and Reserve now 
are picking up about 40 percent of the battlefield burdens, and they 
deserve a greater portion of the overall budget to support them.
  Do our active troops deserve support? Absolutely. But our Guard and 
Reserve, because they are picking up an ever-increasing responsibility 
regarding this war against terrorism, the war in Afghanistan and the 
war in Iraq, and even right here on the homefront, deserve more help 
and support.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I believe it will 
pass with great support on both sides.
  I wanted to take a minute to also talk about something I hope we can 
find a way in this debate to fix. I want to see if we can find a way to 
fix the survivor benefit plan, which was enacted in 1972. This survivor 
benefit plan was a pension benefit for military spouses, after the 
retirees passed away. We said if the retired veterans wanted to 
basically pay into a certain account, when the retiree died, their 
wives would receive 55 percent of the veterans retirement pay.
  We created this fund. However, after it was established, budget 
policies were put into place that basically cut out that benefit. So we 
now have the unbelievable and untenable situation where spouses--most 
of them women; I would say 85 to 90 percent are female--who, by the 
request of our military, move themselves and their families every 2 
years, which makes it extremely difficult for anyone to develop any 
consistency in a career outside the home, even if they were able and 
willing. Moving every 2 years doesn't give them the opportunity to 
expand their earning capacity. That was a sacrifice many spouses and 
their families made to support the men in this case--in most cases--
serving in our military and to support the country.
  Yet for all that great commitment and service and dedication, we tell 
them, thank you very much, but we are going to cut your benefits from 
55 percent of what you and your spouse put

[[Page S2498]]

in, in some instances, down to 32 percent. It is not fair.
  There are Senators on the floor--I see the chairman of the Budget 
Committee--who say we cannot afford to cut back the tax cut to provide 
for this. They say the tax cut is too important and we cannot even 
modify it or change it or postpone it or adjust it even in the 
slightest amount to pay for that.
  I disagree. I think we can find a way to adjust the tax cut to pay 
for the widows who moved every 2 years, paid their own money into the 
fund, and now they get shortchanged. When we talk about supporting our 
military families, let's remember the soldier on the battlefield, and 
let's also remember the soldiers who are at home, both the spouses and 
children who bear a tremendous burden, who do it willingly and with 
great patriotism. Let's not ask them to sacrifice when others in this 
country are not willing to make that same sacrifice.
  I will be offering this amendment later, supporting the amendment 
that is on the floor. Hopefully, we can convince some of the leadership 
to make adjustments in their tax cut plans to do some things we need to 
do for our men and women in uniform and their families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that Senators Lincoln, Dayton, Murray, Murkowski, and Mikulski be added 
as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, as Senator Daschle has 
described, this will be offset. This will be budget-friendly, and it 
will be a huge deal to military Reserve and Guard families who are 
sacrificing much for their country. It will help build a better support 
network. If you are called to active duty for the Guard and Reserve, 
there is no daycare center on base because there is no base in which to 
go. There is no counseling service because you are sometimes in a rural 
community far away from military bases.
  This continuity of health care would help dramatically. I urge its 
adoption.
  I thank Senator Nickles for making this possible. I look forward to 
writing good legislation to help the Guard and Reserve families.
  I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from South Carolina.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from South 
Carolina and the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. Bunning, as well as Senator 
Daschle and Senator Conrad. We have no objection to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2731) was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, again, I compliment our colleagues. I 
urge other colleagues, if they have ideas on amendments, to share them 
with us and maybe we can work some of them out and eliminate the need 
for rollcall votes. Rollcall votes take a lot of time and they also 
don't count on the time for the budget resolution.
  I have a unanimous consent agreement on two additional amendments. We 
have unanimous consent on an amendment by Senator Byrd, dealing with 
striking the reconciliation instruction, dealing with taxes on the 
resolution. That is limited to 1 hour. That will begin in a moment.
  Following that, I ask unanimous consent that an amendment to be 
offered by Senators Warner and Stevens pertaining to the Department of 
Defense be limited to 1 hour; an amendment by Senator Feingold dealing 
with pay-go also be limited to 1 hour, with no second-degree amendments 
in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding, listening to my 
friend from Oklahoma, the votes will be stacked; is that right?
  Mr. NICKLES. That is my intention. I think we can do all these 
amendments and probably start the votes shortly before 6. These are 
three important issues, so Members should be advised--I know Members on 
the Finance Committee wish to speak on a couple of these issues--to be 
prepared to debate, and Members should expect three rollcall votes 
shortly before 6 o'clock.
  Mr. REID. Will my friend also agree to have 1 minute on each side 
prior to each vote?
  Mr. NICKLES. I have no objection to that request. I modify my request 
so that the first vote be on Senator Byrd's amendment and then the 
following two votes, and the managers be allowed to have 1 minute each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request as modified? 
Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, now we will begin consideration of an 
amendment Senator Byrd will lay down momentarily to strike the 
reconciliation provision.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator withhold?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold his request for a 
quorum call?
  Mr. NICKLES. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Byrd is now in the Chamber. While 
he is going to his desk to present his amendment, I wish to take this 
moment to urge our colleagues to get their amendments to us so we can 
review them, so we can eliminate duplication, so we can schedule them 
efficiently.
  If Senators have an amendment they kind of like but really would not 
need to offer, please withhold. We already have 58 amendments noticed. 
That is 19 hours of voting. It is going to take discipline if we want 
to conclude the business on the budget resolution by Friday, which is 
our common goal. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
West Virginia is recognized to offer an amendment. The Senator from 
West Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 2735

     (Purpose: To provide for consideration of tax cuts outside of 
                            reconciliation)

  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I call up my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2735.
       Strike Section 201(a) of the committee-reported resolution, 
     on page 24 line 21 through page 25 line 3.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, for many years, I have been growing 
increasingly concerned about the Senate as a forum for debate. Senators 
at every turn seem bent upon undermining this institution and the 
vision of our constitutional framers embodied in this upper body of the 
Congress.
  The Senate is the only forum in our Government where the perfection 
of laws may be unhurried and where controversial decisions may be 
hammered out on the anvil of lengthy debate. It may be slow; it may be 
unwieldy; it may be frustrating to some; but it is the best means to 
achieving compromise, to ensuring an informed citizenry, to protecting 
the rights of the minority. To shut out the minority by limiting the 
right to debate is to needlessly and detrimentally infuse partisanship 
into the legislative process. That is exactly what we are seeing in 
this budget resolution.
  Included in the Budget chairman's resolution are reconciliation 
instructions to the Finance Committee to report $81 billion in tax cuts 
to extend the child credit, marriage penalty, and 10-percent bracket 
expansion that are scheduled to expire this year. If misused, there is 
no procedural mechanism in the Senate more contemptuous of debate than 
the budget reconciliation process, and it is being misused. It is a 
process that has morphed into an annual exercise where the majority 
party takes advantage of the limitations on amendment and debate 
allowed by the

[[Page S2499]]

Budget Act to shield controversial legislation from public discussion.
  This budget resolution would use reconciliation to circumvent a 
debate in the Senate about the wisdom of allowing additional tax cuts 
to deepen the deficit.
  I helped to craft the Budget Act in 1974, and I can tell Senators we 
never in that day contemplated reconciliation would be used to shield 
from debate legislation that spends the Social Security surplus and 
increases deficits. We, in that day, never one time envisioned these 
abuses of the process.
  Senators regularly express their desire for less partisanship, 
longing for the days--the days almost beyond recall--when the Senate 
accomplished its business without the political acrimony that has 
marked recent debates.
  One reason the Senate avoided such partisanship is because the 
leaders of the Senate respected the rights of the minority and allowed 
the Senate to work its will through open and vigorous debate.
  In 1981, Republican leader Howard Baker of Tennessee had the 
opportunity to use reconciliation to pass President Reagan's tax-cut 
package. Did he use it to do so? No. He chose instead to allow the tax 
cut to be brought before the Senate as a freestanding bill and fully 
debated. He said at the time, and I quote Howard Baker:

       Aside from its salutary impact on the budget, 
     reconciliation also has implications for the Senate as an 
     institution . . .
       I believe that including such extraneous provisions in a 
     reconciliation bill would be harmful to the character of the 
     Senate. It would cause such material to be considered under 
     time and germaneness provisions that impede the full exercise 
     of minority rights.

  Now, that was an extraordinary statement of extraordinary vision by 
an extraordinary Senator, Howard Baker of Tennessee. Let me read it 
again, and I quote him:

       Aside from its salutary impact on the budget, 
     reconciliation also has implications for the Senate as an 
     institution . . . I believe that including such extraneous 
     provisions in a reconciliation bill would be harmful to the 
     character of the Senate. It would cause such material to be 
     considered under time and germaneness provisions that impede 
     the full exercise of minority rights.

  That was a statement by a statesman. For almost 20 years, the Senate 
exercised restraint with regard to the reconciliation process, and 
until 1995 the reconciliation process served as a helpful mechanism for 
deficit reduction. Since then, the process has been twisted and 
contorted by those who find its limitations on debate and amendment too 
enticing to resist, using it to advance a partisan agenda.
  The country is the worse for that legislative opportunism. Would that 
Howard Baker could again speak from these desks.
  Today, the White House is projecting deficits at an alarming $521 
billion for the fiscal year 2004. To pay for its tax cuts, the Bush 
administration is spending every dime of the Social Security surplus, 
money that the President and both parties pledged to set aside to save 
our retirement and disability system. According to the White House's 
own numbers, the gross debt just passed the $7 trillion mark on its way 
to $11 trillion in 2009, and there is no credible plan from this 
administration or this Congress to do anything about it.
  In response to mounting budget deficit projections, President Ronald 
Reagan signed into law 12 bills to increase taxes, including 
legislation to repeal part of his 1981 tax cut. Similarly, in response 
to alarming deficit projections in 1990, President Bush's father made 
the courageous decision to break his no new taxes pledge.
  State legislatures and Governors have been making similar decisions 
over the past 3 years in Alaska, Alabama, Connecticut, Idaho, Nebraska, 
Nevada, and Ohio. It is what is being debated right now in Richmond, 
VA.
  Senator Warner recently and courageously declared: Politics be 
damned. Let's consider what is best for the men and women and their 
families and children.
  The debate about budget deficits is taking place all across this 
country. Ironically, the one place where debate is discouraged on this 
matter is right here in this so-called greatest deliberative body in 
the world today. The tax cut reconciliation instructions in this budget 
resolution would stifle a debate when it is most needed.
  After 3 years of tax cuts and promises of job growth, the country has 
not reaped the benefits of those promises. We can tout higher economic 
growth rates. We can tout higher productivity. But none of these 
statistics mean anything to an unemployed worker. So far there seems to 
be no robust connection between these particular tax cuts and job 
creation.
  Since January 2001, 2.2 million jobs have been lost. The 
manufacturing sector has endured 43 straight months of job loss. 
Discouraged workers are dropping out of the labor pool at a rate of 
100,000 per week. One million jobs have been lost overseas. Countless 
workers, white-collar workers and blue-collar workers, are worried that 
their own jobs may be next.

  The only thing we know for sure at this point is that tax cuts over 
the past 3 years have contributed to an explosion in debt. Just look at 
page 189 in the historical tables of the President's budget. After 
dropping to a low of $5.6 trillion in the fiscal year 2000, the gross 
Federal debt has increased to $5.8 trillion in the fiscal year 2001 to 
$6.2 trillion in the fiscal year 2002 to $6.8 trillion in the fiscal 
year 2003, and it will continue to increase to an estimated $10.6 
trillion in the fiscal year 2009. These figures are beyond all 
comprehension.
  It is not just election year rhetoric. The IMF, the GAO, and the 
Federal Reserve are all in agreement that deficits do matter, and they 
are threatening to derail the economy of the United States.
  That is not all. The deficits also are threatening our ability to 
save Social Security. I understand why some would prefer not to engage 
in a lengthy debate about the explosion in the gross debt. The American 
public already is having trouble understanding why the Congress should 
enact the $1.2 trillion in new tax cuts included in the President's 
budget before we have even figured out how we are going to pay for the 
cost of the ongoing operations in Iraq.
  The budget resolution includes $30 billion in funds for ongoing 
operations in Iraq. And that figure is only in here because of the 
thoughtfulness of the distinguished chairman, only because of his 
thoughtfulness and foresight in putting the figures in here. The 
administration downtown didn't put a penny in, not one thin dime.

  But that $30 billion is even less than what was included in the House 
budget, $20 billion less than what the administration intends to ask 
from the Congress, and only enough to finance the first 6 months of the 
5-year span in the budget resolution.
  The deficits embraced by this budget resolution will prevent the 
Congress from allocating any money to address the threat to the Social 
Security system, even though the Social Security actuaries estimate $1 
trillion will be needed to finance the transition costs under the 
options proposed by the President's Social Security Commission.
  Reconciliation protects additional tax cuts from public discussion 
about the size of the financial burden that will be passed on to our 
children and our grandchildren, and it leaves hanging questions about 
deficit and debt and balanced budgets that are clearly on the minds of 
the American people.
  We have hard choices to make that may bring to bear enormous change 
in our Nation. We should not do so silently. This is no time to sweep 
problems under the rug. At the very least, we have a duty to the future 
to discuss and debate so that the public, the people out there looking 
at us through those electronic eyes behind that Presiding Officer's 
chair will know our reasoning and hold us responsible, hold us 
accountable. We should lay down a record so that, if in the end our 
choices are right, they may have in our example a good and steady guide 
and they may then say, ``Well done, thou good and faithful servant. . . 
.'' and so on. But, also so if destiny so transpires that our choices 
were wrong, others will not repeat our mistakes.
  If we have learned nothing else from the events of the past year, we 
certainly should have learned the absolute necessity of debate in our 
democratic Republic. We should have learned the folly of failing to ask 
questions, of failing to probe and to delve, failing to do our duty as 
the elected representatives of the people of this great Republic. I

[[Page S2500]]

would think by now we should have learned the dire consequences of our 
failure to insist on debate. The Senate must not shirk its 
responsibility to engage in debate about these issues.
  With the American public, according to recent polls, in such stark 
disagreement with the current course of our Nation's economic and 
budget policies, it is time for the Senate at long last to finally 
engage in an honest debate about the fiscal course laid out by this 
administration.
  In recent weeks the chairman of the Budget Committee has expressed 
his desire to address the expiring child credit, the marriage penalty, 
and the 10-percent bracket tax cuts through the regular legislative 
process. The chairman of the Finance Committee has indicated his belief 
that including those tax cuts in the reconciliation bill would create a 
needlessly partisan debate.
  The Senate needs time to explore these views. While these 
reconciliation instructions are viewed by some as only a backup plan if 
both the House and Senate pass a budget resolution with tax 
reconciliation instructions, the decision about whether to use 
reconciliation may be taken out of our hands. The House can force us to 
take up a reconciliation bill in the Senate containing tax cuts.
  The American public deserves the opportunity to better understand how 
these tax cuts will affect our mounting budget deficits, and to probe 
whether these tax cuts should be offset. We should allow the Senate to 
have its debate, not stifle it.
  That is the issue on which we will vote. A vote to strike the 
reconciliation instructions is a vote to allow the Senate to engage in 
an informed debate. That is what I want. I want an informed debate. 
That is why I am suggesting we strike these instructions, so we may 
engage in an informed debate about how to prevent the further deepening 
of the deficit, and a further worsening of the bitter atmosphere that 
has, regrettably, engulfed this body.
  I urge Senators to vote to strike the tax cut reconciliation 
instructions.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Conrad and Baucus as 
cosponsors of my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent to reserve the remainder of my 
time. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sponsor of the amendment controls an 
additional 8 minutes. The majority bill manager controls 30 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my friend and colleague from 
West Virginia. He is my friend. He is a valued member of the Budget 
Committee. He has been on the committee for a couple of years, and I 
very much enjoyed his participation with us on the Budget Committee.
  As a matter of fact, one of my fondest moments, I will tell my friend 
from West Virginia, in my tenure as Budget chairman, occurred last 
year. We were in the process of marking up the budget. My first 
grandson was born. That happens to be day after tomorrow I celebrate 
his birth. You acknowledged it with a very nice poem, and I want to 
thank you for that.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NICKLES. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. BYRD. You know, my wife and I are the proud possessors of two 
great-grandchildren, just within the last month. The distinguished 
chairman's grandson, and Erma's and my great-grandchildren, each of 
them owes, as of this past Monday, $24,253.36 on the national debt of 
the United States. My amendment is for the purpose of keeping down this 
debt and not increasing the deficit.
  Mr. NICKLES. I appreciate my colleague's comment. I appreciate the 
earnestness with which he says it and makes his case very forcefully, 
but I am going to urge the opposite side.
  Let me say, I don't totally disagree with my friend and colleague 
from West Virginia. I regret it appears we probably need reconciliation 
at times to get things done in the Senate. My colleague from West 
Virginia opined about the great days years past when Howard Baker was 
majority leader. I remember that very well. I remember passing great 
tax bills. We actually passed a tax bill in 1981, and in 1986--by 1988 
the maximum tax bracket went from 70 percent to 28 percent. The Senator 
from West Virginia is right, it wasn't done under reconciliation.
  But I also say the climate was much better in the Senate. There was a 
lot more cooperation in the Senate. The Senate was more civil and I 
wish the Senate would return to those days. I hope we don't need 
reconciliation to pass the bills we are advocating or encouraging the 
Finance Committee to do. I think it should be able to be done without 
reconciliation, if the Senate would work the way it should work.
  The Senator from West Virginia knows, though, things have changed. 
Unfortunately things have changed a lot in the Senate. We used to not 
have filibusters on judges, never had them in the history of the 
Senate. Now we have six individuals we can't confirm because they 
happen to be nominated to an appellate court.
  We have a situation today where we can't even get bills, in some 
cases that have been approved by the entire Senate unanimously--we 
can't even get conferees appointed. Senator Enzi from Wyoming sponsored 
a bill that has strong bipartisan support. The Workforce Reinvestment 
Act passed the Senate unanimously, and we can't get conferees 
appointed.
  I am troubled by how difficult it is or how partisan it is to do a 
lot of work in the Senate.
  Last year, yes, we used reconciliation to pass a tax bill and the tax 
bill was a jobs growth bill. To help the economy we did it, and frankly 
it worked. If we hadn't used reconciliation last year, it wouldn't have 
passed. The only reason I was advocating, reluctantly, that we use the 
reconciliation process to pass it was because I thought it was the only 
way we could pass it. In days of old, you could pass legislation in the 
Senate with a majority vote, but a lot of times people think we need to 
have 60 votes to pass everything. I think that is a serious mistake. 
The tax bill we did pass last year did cut taxes on dividends.
  We used to tax corporate dividends higher than any other country in 
the world. We slashed that tax by half--in some cases more than half--
and it worked. We cut the capital gains rate from 20 percent to 15 
percent, and it worked. We set the maximum rate for individuals as the 
same rate for corporations--35 percent--and it has worked. The economy 
really did start to move. The reconciliation process and expedited 
procedure helped us to do things that, frankly, in the past we couldn't 
have done under normal procedures. The only way to make sure there is 
not a tax increase on my daughter and, frankly, on my grandson is to 
make sure we have reconciliation.
  I appreciate Senator Byrd saying the amount of debt per child born 
today is very significant. I want to reduce that. We have a budget that 
is the most significant deficit reduction package before this Senate in 
years--maybe decades, maybe ever. We take a $477 billion deficit and 
reduce it in half in a couple or three years. That is not easily done. 
I don't think we should raise taxes on American families by not having 
this reconciliation process. I am afraid that is what will happen.
  Some people say you want to give additional tax cuts. The truth is, 
we want to keep the tax cuts that are now in law. We don't want to have 
tax increases on American families. If we don't have this 
reconciliation process, that may well happen. It may be that some 
Members, for partisan reasons or whatever, would say: I just do not 
want that to happen. I know President Bush really wants it, and, 
therefore, they might work hard to see that it doesn't happen. What 
happens if that is the case? If the tax bill, which is current law, is 
not extended, there will be a tax increase on American families.
  To give you an example, a couple that has taxable income of $58,100--
that is not a particularly wealthy family; I think most of us would say 
that is a middle-income family--this year, under present law, will pay 
$6,000. If we don't keep present law, their taxes will increase to 
$7,600; that is for a family of four.
  I will outline it. With the provisions that we are assuming in 
reconciliation, the Finance Committee can reconcile anything. If we 
give them $80 billion and say, reconcile the tax reduction, we are 
assuming--presuming maybe--they would extend present law. We are

[[Page S2501]]

not trying to cut taxes further than they are in the year 2000. We are 
just trying to keep the present tax law from increasing. If we don't do 
it, they will find with the tax credit we have now that the $1,000 a 
child goes to $700. That is a $300 tax increase on that family. If they 
have two kids, that is $600. If they have four kids, that is $1,200.
  Last year we also did something that a lot of people do not 
understand but it is very significant in the Tax Code. We have the most 
significant reduction in the marriage penalty--the imposition of taxes 
on people and penalizing them because of the fact they are married. It 
is a higher income tax on couples as compared to individuals. We have 
the most significant reduction of that tax in history. We basically 
said for at least the couple they should pay the 15-percent bracket. 
Basically they should have to double the amount of income that an 
individual has on the 15-percent bracket. It should be doubled for 
couples. Individuals who have taxable income pay at the 15-percent 
bracket--taxable income up to $29,000. We say that should be $58,100 
for a couple.

  If we don't extend present law, they will have a tax increase of 
$900. They will be paying 25 percent, not on income above $58,100. They 
will be paying 25 percent above any income above $42,000. That is a 
$900 tax increase, if we don't extend present law for a married couple.
  My father-in-law and mother-in-law are both retired. Their income is 
in this category. I don't want them to have a $900 tax increase. I 
don't want my son and my son-in-law and my daughter to have a $900 
increase. I want them to be able to get a $1,000 tax credit. It costs a 
lot of money nowadays to raise children and to educate children.
  We also have an expansion of the 10-percent bracket as well. More 
people pay more who have a greater amount of income. They pay a 10-
percent tax instead of 15 percent. That tax rate used to be 15 percent 
and was reduced to 10 percent, and we expanded the amount of income 
covered under that.
  To make sure people understand, we are trying to extend present law 
to make sure that a couple with a taxable income of $58,100 will not 
have a $1,600 tax increase if they have two kids. If they have four 
kids, it would be a $2,200 tax increase. I didn't want that to happen 
to American families.
  One way of making sure it doesn't happen is to have reconciliation 
protection so we can pass a bill. If we get bogged down politically and 
Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus can't get it worked out, if there 
are endless amendments and people will say we are going to keep 
amending this thing forever, you will never get an agreement to finish 
it. It is nice to have at least in the arsenal to get things done a 
reconciliation process where it can guarantee that we don't increase 
taxes on American families. That is why this reconciliation provision 
is in there. It is not a lot of money.
  We are assuming, according to the Congressional Budget Office, almost 
$12 trillion of revenues to be generated to the Federal Government 
under present law over the next 5 years--$12 trillion. I will tell my 
colleague from West Virginia that we are only reconciling $81 billion 
out of $12 trillion.
  Again, I don't consider that new taxes. That is extending present law 
for American families--for low-income and middle-income American 
families primarily. They will be the big beneficiaries of this.
  I have the greatest respect for my colleague and friend from West 
Virginia. But I urge our colleagues to vote no on the amendment to 
strike reconciliation because this is our resource if people are 
obstructing passing bills. It seems to be more prevalent all the time 
in the Senate today. Let us maintain some protection for the American 
taxpayer by using reconciliation, if we have to. We can make sure these 
tax increases of $1,600 or $2,200 for a family of four do not happen. 
Let us not saddle American couples with a $900 tax increase. Let us 
make sure we protect taxpayers and American families. I am afraid, 
unfortunately, we need reconciliation as an option to make sure they 
aren't faced with a big tax increase.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, may I get 3 minutes?
  Mr. BYRD. I yield 3 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me say we don't need the 
reconciliation process to extend the middle-class tax cut the chairman 
has referenced. I support and I will work to get votes to extend the 
$1,000 childcare credit, to extend the marriage penalty relief, and to 
extend the 10-percent bracket. I am absolutely confident that we can 
get the votes to do that outside of reconciliation.
  What is wrong here is to use reconciliation for tax cuts. 
Reconciliation, which is a fast-track process in the Senate that limits 
our right to debate, that limits our right to amend, is used for 
something other than deficit reduction. The only reason Senators agreed 
to give up their basic rights was because we were in a crisis that 
required deficit reduction. This is adding to the deficit--not reducing 
it. The chairman said this budget before us has a record amount of 
deficit reduction. This budget before us has a record amount of debt 
increase. This budget before us will increase the debt of the United 
States by $2.86 trillion over the next 5 years.
  The former Budget Committee chairman, Senator Domenici, said this 
about reconciliation:

       Frankly, as chairman of the Budget Committee, I am aware of 
     how beneficial reconciliation can be to deficit reduction. 
     But I am also totally aware of what can happen when we choose 
     to use this kind of process to basically get around the Rules 
     of the Senate as to limiting debate. Clearly, unlimited 
     debate is the prerogative of the Senate. That is greatly 
     modified under this process. I have grown to understand that 
     this institution, while it has a lot of shortcomings, has 
     some qualities that are rather exceptional. One of those is 
     the fact that it is an extremely free institution, that we 
     are free to offer amendments, that we are free to take as 
     much time as this U.S. Senate will let us to debate and have 
     those issues thoroughly understood both here and across the 
     country.

  Finally, the simple fact is, the reconciliation instruction in this 
budget resolution doesn't assure that those tax cuts--the middle-class 
tax cuts--will be the ones that are, in fact, brought back to us by the 
Finance Committee. We all know the budget resolution does not make the 
specific decisions of how the revenue is raised by the Finance 
Committee.

  The chairman of the committee has said over and over in the Senate, 
we do not control the specifics of what the Finance Committee does. All 
this reconciliation instruction does is give $80 billion to the Finance 
Committee. They can use it for any tax-cutting purpose.
  Again, we can have an extension of the middle-class tax cuts, $1,000 
child credit, and 10-percent bracket, the marriage penalty relief 
without the blunderbuss of reconciliation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will be brief with a couple of 
comments.
  According to the Department of the Treasury, if Senator Conrad is 
correct, we give the Finance Committee an instruction and they can do 
whatever they want, but these three provisions I mention are the only 
ones that expire at the end of this year that have a lot of popular 
support because they affect millions of people.
  The Treasury Department says if these are not extended, 94 million 
taxpayers would receive an average tax increase of $538 if we do not 
extend these three. Seventy million women would see their taxes 
increase on average $662. Forty-six million married couples, including 
my son-in-law and daughter, including my father-in-law and mother-in-
law, 46 million married couples would pay on average an additional $906 
in taxes. Thirty-eight million families with children would incur an 
average tax increase of $902. Eight million single women with children 
will see their taxes increase on average by $368. Eleven million 
elderly taxpayers would pay on average an additional $383. I could go 
on.
  This is important to protect these families, these citizens, these 
women, these children from a tax increase. I am afraid that 
reconciliation is the only tool we can have to almost assure them they 
will not be straddled with a big tax increase for next year.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia controls an 
additional 5 minutes.

[[Page S2502]]

  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  The distinguished chairman has alluded to the sometimes ill will that 
exists increasingly within our own premises. That ill will is often 
engendered by the meddling of the White House. The White House should 
not meddle in the business of the Congress. Congress should pass bills 
and the President can decide whether to sign or to veto them.
  Last year, the President stepped in late in the debate on the Omnibus 
appropriations bill and forced the conferees to drop protection for 
workers to earn overtime. He forced us to change the media ownership 
rules in order to protect large corporate interests. We should not 
allow the President to force the Congress to consider legislation 
through reconciliation.
  Moreover, I say to my friend from Oklahoma, this amendment is not 
about tax cuts. It is about paying for tax cuts. This budget resolution 
assumes that our gross debt will grow to $10.6 trillion by 2009. This 
resolution does nothing to address the staggering debt. In fact, it 
assumes $144 billion of additional tax cuts with $81 billion of tax 
cuts cloaked within the protection of reconciliation. We should insist 
on a full debate on whether these tax cuts should be paid for.
  We do not need reconciliation to get things done. In 1981, we passed 
President Reagan's tax cuts without reconciliation. Reconciliation was 
designed to pass difficult legislation that would help to reduce the 
deficit. It was not designed to pass tax cuts. We are facing huge 
deficits. We should have an opportunity to actually debate whether 
additional tax cuts should be paid for.
  May I say to my chairman, I respect him greatly. I am sorry he has 
voluntarily elected to leave the Senate and not chair the committee. I 
have tremendous admiration for him. I have always enjoyed his 
friendship and my associations with him, and I shall long miss him.
  I hope, on the note on which we have been playing, Senators will 
support my amendment.
  Does my chairman wish any further time?
  Mr. CONRAD. How much time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia controls 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield that time to my chairman.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator.
  I yield 5\1/2\ minutes off the resolution and the minute and a half 
that we have in addition for a total of 7 minutes to the Senator from 
Montana, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, all Members ought to think and reflect 
upon this amendment and how important this amendment is. First of all, 
let me explain what this amendment does and what it does not do.
  What does it not do? It does not prevent any of the middle-income tax 
cuts we all want to extend. It does not do that. It does not prevent 
those tax cuts. It does not prevent Congress from enacting an extension 
of those tax cuts that we all want to extend. This amendment has no 
effect on that.
  What does it do? It says we should not use the regular Senate rules 
in deciding whether to extend and how to extend the middle-income tax 
cuts; that is, the child tax credit, the marriage penalty, and the 10-
percent bracket. It says no, create a special rule. Do not use the 
regular order, the regular standing rules of the Senate in determining 
how and in what way we extend those middle-income tax credits. This 
amendment does say do not do that. And Congress will extend those 
middle-income tax cuts. That is not the issue. We are going to do that.
  The issue is twofold. One is, should we pay for them or not? That is 
the issue. And there are lots of ways we could pay for it, lots of ways 
that are virtually painless. What are those virtually painless ways? 
Closing a lot of tax loopholes. There are countless tax loopholes that 
we can pass very quickly, shelters that are ripping off American 
taxpayers, post-Enron provisions. There are a host of them. We talk 
about SILOs, for example. We know we are about to find in the Finance 
Committee other shelters being used that are not widely known.
  That is why we are saying this is a two-for. We are saying to extend 
the middle-income tax credits, tax provisions, child tax cut, and the 
10-percent bracket, and at the same time we are going to clamp down on 
some tax loopholes. I am not being facetious or joking about this. This 
is real. There are immense loopholes we can and should close down. I 
know the Presiding Officer agrees, as most Members would agree. This is 
a two-for.
  We are saying, let's get that two-for, get both of those passed. And 
we have to pass the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia to do 
that; otherwise, we are saying change the Senate rules, extend these 
tax cuts but do not pay for them, do not enact those shelters.
  I also add, we have a moral obligation.
  We have a moral obligation, I believe, as Senators, as 
representatives of our people, to leave this place in as good a shape 
or better shape than we found it. That pertains to the environment. 
That pertains to the budgets. That pertains to all we do. We are 
entrusted with such responsibility as U.S. Senators.
  And, my Lord, it seems to me, right off the top, at the very least, 
we could cut back on the irresponsible, large deficits and debts we are 
going to be leaving our children and our grandchildren. That is a moral 
obligation you have, I have, and each Member of this body has.
  By adopting the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia, we can 
make good on that moral responsibility, that moral obligation, by 
saying, sure, we are going to extend the tax cuts, as well we should, 
but we are going to do it in a responsible way; we are not going to add 
to the budget deficit; we are not going to add to the debt. It is the 
only right thing to do. I urge my colleagues, therefore, to pay very 
close attention to the Senator's amendment and to adopt it.
  I might add, there are other issues. I do not think these have been 
thought through very much. Let me just explain.
  The budget resolution instructs the Finance Committee to decrease 
revenues by $80.6 billion. This is intended to cover the extension, as 
I mentioned, of expiring middle-class tax cuts--the 10-percent bracket, 
the marriage penalty, and the child tax credit. The instruction for 
this tax bill does not, however, include any instructions to increase 
outlays.
  Why is that important? It is very important. It is an instruction for 
tax cuts. Why am I saying we need to also increase outlays? It is not 
called for in the budget reconciliation provision. I say so because 
these specific tax cuts also require outlays. That is because there is 
a refundable part of these tax cuts. Let me explain it.
  The child tax credit provides a $1,000 per child tax credit for low- 
and middle-income families. There are some working, low-income families 
that do not have income tax liability that this credit can be used to 
offset. Even so, they are out there working every day paying a good 
chunk of their paycheck in payroll taxes. For these families whose 
income does not qualify, we provide, in the law today, as you know, a 
refundable child tax credit. They do not have the income liability to 
offset, so they get a refund from the Treasury, and this scores for 
budget purposes as an outlay.
  These reconciliation instructions tell us to extend the child tax 
credit. But we know that if we extended the child tax credit for all 
the families that currently receive it, it would take about $20 billion 
in outlays. But the reconciliation instruction fails to include this. 
It does not even mention it. In fact, by definition, therefore, we 
cannot increase outlays.
  So what does this mean? The best I can figure it, it means we should 
extend the tax cuts for all families--except for the working poor. If 
middle-income families deserve to get the $1,000 child tax credit next 
year, then why not low-income families?
  We have heard many times this week: Families should not see their 
taxes increase next year. We should extend the current tax relief. So 
why does this budget leave the working poor families behind?
  There are about 26 million families that receive the child tax 
credit. About 8 million of these families receive some refundable 
credit. That is almost one-quarter of all child tax credit recipients, 
families making between $10,500

[[Page S2503]]

and $26,000. Three-quarters of families deserve an extension of the 
full child credit but not the remaining one-quarter? This does not make 
sense. Give me a break.

  Who are the families that will be left behind? Let's think about that 
a second. A single mother of one, making $17,000 a year is left behind. 
A couple, both working full time at minimum wage is left behind. What 
other type of family is going to be left behind? Military families. 
There are a couple reasons for this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I give the Senator 2 minutes off the 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Why are military families left behind under this 
reconciliation instruction?
  First, there are many military families that have incomes between 
$10,000 and $26,000 a year. Roughly, 200,000 military personnel fall 
within this income range. They all get the refundable child tax credit. 
But under the reconciliation provisions, which the Senator from West 
Virginia wishes to delete, they would be left behind. They do not get 
any help.
  Second, there are many military personnel with higher incomes who 
receive the refundable child tax credit. But why do the higher income 
people receive the refundable child tax credit? That is because they 
have been called to serve in combat zones. Why is that relevant? Well, 
the income military personnel receive when they are in a combat zone 
does not count for income tax purposes. That means it also does not 
count for purposes of determining the child tax credit. How many are 
those? At least 40,000. So even though these families make more than 
the $26,000, they are receiving the refundable child tax credit because 
they are in a combat zone.
  So roughly a quarter of a million military families are being cut out 
by the Budget Committee's reconciliation instructions. Families that 
receive the refundable credit simply because they are serving in a 
combat zone or simply because they are serving in the military--all 
these families will be left behind.
  We all agree, extending the child tax credit is critical. So why are 
so many families being excluded?
  This reconciliation instruction will not work the way it should. It 
is not right to cut so many low-income people off and out of the child 
tax credit. That is wrong. So let's work together. Let's use the 
regular order and the Senate rules so we can fix some of these 
discrepancies that exist in the current budget resolution.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of the Senator from 
West Virginia. It is the right thing to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 15 minutes of our 
17 minutes for remarks I will have on the subject.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, first of all, I think, based upon my 
close working relationship with the Senator from Montana and our work 
on guiding the Finance Committee, from what he said, I have just one 
disagreement with his position. I think the difference between what he 
said and the position I am taking is that I, myself, as leader of the 
committee, want to do things through regular order. I think we can do 
things through regular order.
  But just in case we cannot, since this tax policy is so important to 
working men and women--not increasing their taxes next year is so 
important--I want the insurance policy a reconciliation package gives 
us, just in case there is something unpredictable out there.
  Now, I do not think I would have said that same thing in 2001, I 
would not have said that same thing in 2003, where I believed we needed 
to absolutely pass something that was going to be so controversial that 
it would not pass maybe except by reconciliation.
  In this particular case, I believe we are going to have the spirit, 
the bipartisanship to get this stuff done without going through 
reconciliation. So I think that is the only place I disagree with my 
colleague. In other words, I am speaking for the budget resolution as 
it came out of the Budget Committee.
  But what we are setting the stage for is a debate on whether the 
Finance Committee will have an opportunity to reduce taxes for families 
and children or, in this particular case where we already have these 
tax reductions in place, to keep them from automatically, without a 
vote of the Congress, going up next year.
  I want to underscore the word ``opportunity,'' because that is what 
this debate is all about today on the budget resolution, an 
opportunity--with some assurance because of reconciliation as a shotgun 
behind the door--for tax reduction.
  This vote is not about the tax reduction itself. That debate and vote 
will come later, on the product of our committee, the Finance 
Committee, when we mark up tax reduction legislation. This vote today 
is about whether we will consider the tax reduction under 
reconciliation or the possibility of using reconciliation because 
reconciliation, just plain and simple, as we sit here today, is the 
only way that we can guarantee tax relief to the American people in a 
timely fashion.
  Now, there have been some very strong statements made by some on the 
other side of the aisle about tax relief and about reconciliation. Let 
me say to those who are worried about this instruction, I, as chairman 
of the Senate Finance Committee, plan to use this as a backstop, not as 
my primary tool.
  My hope is that we deliver family tax relief through regular order. I 
will not use this instruction, should it survive this vote in 
conference, unless we have to. We have reconciled tax cuts on several 
occasions--1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, and we did it last year.
  The opposition is not based on precedent. The precedent is very 
clear. The measures we are talking about are supported on both sides of 
the aisle. I am talking about the child tax credit, the marriage 
penalty relief, and expansion of the 10-percent bracket.
  Let's be clear. If the Congress does not act, we are talking about a 
tax increase for nearly every American who pays taxes. It will also 
help out a lot of low-income families with a refundable child tax 
credit, if we can deliver this relief. That is another thing I would 
suggest to people on the other side. If they want a refundable child 
credit and we get into a hassle where it cannot be done through regular 
order, it would seem to me they would want to have a process of 
reconciliation because it guarantees finality. You never get anything 
until you get to the finality of votes.
  A bigger tax credit is a better tax credit. A tax benefit under 
refundability of $300 per child means a lot to hard-working men and 
women in my State, and every State. Keep in mind the opposition has no 
problem with raising taxes in reconciliation. Somehow that is OK. It 
has been done many times. If the 1993 Clinton tax increase were 
repealed today, it would score over $1 trillion over 10 years. Who is 
to say that a $1 trillion tax increase is appropriate in 
reconciliation, that somehow you can use the process of reconciliation 
guaranteeing finality, cutting off debate after 20 hours, OK, if you 
want to raise taxes. That would be for a $1 trillion tax increase. But 
somehow it is wrong to do it for a $90 billion tax reduction. 
Democrats, in 1993, used reconciliation--within their rights from our 
view--to further their President's program, a partisanly designed major 
tax increase. Eleven years later, we are faced with a different 
situation, though I am hopeful more than one Member on the other side 
will support the final product. Republicans, by a razor-thin edge, 
control the Congress and have a President of our party in the White 
House.
  I want to make another point that, for those of us on this side of 
the aisle, is very compelling, especially in the context of our side's 
concessions in the power-sharing agreement. We believe the Byrd 
amendment should not be necessary. Reconciliation affords us a backstop 
to ensure that tax relief stays in place. I hope the Finance Committee 
will not need reconciliation. Hopefully,

[[Page S2504]]

one way or the other, we will get this tax relief.
  A vote against the Byrd amendment is a vote for an insurance policy 
that tax relief will get to American families.
  In closing, I point out this would be a hypothetical family, but 
presently for the year 2004, this family would be paying $6,000 a year 
in taxes. If we don't do anything before this year is out, then 
automatically certain provisions are going to expire. This family, 
starting January 1, 2005, is going to be hit with a 26-percent tax 
increase. You can see it would go up $600 because the $1,000-per-child 
tax credit would expire. When the marriage penalty relief expires, that 
family is going to pay $911 more. Why? Just because they are married. 
If they weren't married, they wouldn't be stuck with this, if they were 
filing separately. Then because they are going to have expiration of 
the 10-percent bracket expansion, they will pay $100 more. That is 
$1,611 more in taxes because of inaction by this Congress.

  That is wrong. We have a chance to do something about it. We ought to 
do something about it. I think we can do something about it in a 
bipartisan way through regular order. But in case we cannot, because 
this body gets locked up too often--call it a filibuster, it is locked 
up, no finality. It takes a 60-vote supermajority to overcome it; 
sometimes you can't overcome it. Then for this family, they ought to be 
entitled to a reconciliation, shotgun, behind-the-door process so we 
can guarantee them no tax increase.
  It is one thing for us to vote a tax increase: it is another thing to 
have a tax increase because of inaction by this Congress. That could 
happen. I don't want that to happen. It doesn't have to happen this 
way. We can use regular order. But we ought to provide some assurance 
to this family that they don't get a 26-percent increase in taxes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma is advised he has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. NICKLES. I compliment my friend and colleague, the chairman of 
the Finance Committee. He and I were elected to the Senate together in 
1980. We have been friends ever since. I absolutely love a person who 
has intensity on issues. I love a person who likes to get things done. 
I love it when we actually do something that makes American families 
better.
  The tax bill we passed last year helps American families. It helps 
this family with a taxable income of $58,000. I don't know how many 
times I have heard that the tax cut is a tax cut for the wealthy and 
the rich. That is hogwash. This proves it. A married couple making 
$58,000 in taxable income, if they have two kids, saves $1,600. That is 
real. That is significant. Frankly, it happened in large part because 
of the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley. I 
compliment him for his work and his speech. He is exactly right.
  I want to help American families. That is the reason we want to 
preserve this option. I compliment Senator Grassley. I urge our 
colleagues to vote no on the Byrd amendment when we vote.
  For the information of our colleagues, I expect we will have three 
rollcall votes probably at 6 o'clock.
  I yield back the remainder of our time on this amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Might I just take 30 seconds off the resolution?
  Mr. NICKLES. I will withhold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

  Mr. CONRAD. May I say to my colleagues, I have not heard a single 
Senator who is opposed to extending the middle-class tax cuts. I have 
not heard a single Senator who is opposed. There is no need for this 
reconciliation instruction for the purposes of tax reduction. The fact 
is, this budget resolution does not assure the money will be used for 
that purpose. We all know the Senate budget resolution cannot compel 
the Finance Committee to make any specific decision. Again, I would 
just say to my colleagues, I don't know of a single Senator who is 
opposed to extending the middle-class tax cuts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish that was the case. But I would 
like to say that there has been a lot of politics. Maybe this is more a 
political year because of the election. We can't even get conferees for 
the Workforce Reinforcement Act, a bill that passed unanimously in the 
Senate. Yes, you might say everybody is in favor of it, but people 
might find a reason not to give consent to pass it or they might say: I 
will pass it, but I want to offer amendments. And maybe those 
amendments would continue to be offered, more and more amendments.
  Tax codes are interesting. The Senator from North Dakota and I both 
serve on the Finance Committee with Senator Grassley. When you get a 
tax bill on the floor, you could have an unlimited number of 
amendments. There are 100 Senators and probably every one of us has 
different ideas on the Tax Code. We might start debating ethanol 
subsidies because the Senator from New Hampshire and others believe we 
have overdone it on ethanol. Before you know it, we might not finish 
this bill.
  The chairman said he wants to make sure we can get it finished one 
way or another, to make assurances to those families who have kids, or 
those married couples, that they are going to continue to keep the same 
taxes so they don't have a tax increase.
  This is not about tax cuts. This is making sure they don't have a tax 
increase. The only way we can make sure they don't have tax increases 
is to defeat the Byrd amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time on the 
underlying amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I believe the regular order would be to 
recognize Senator Warner for his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Virginia is recognized to offer an amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield for a moment, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Momentarily, we will be considering an amendment with 
respect to the defense budget for the year. That is being worked out 
now, and Senator Warner will be here momentarily. Perhaps he is almost 
ready.
  I wish to express the opinion that I do not think it is wise to cut 
the Commander in Chief's defense request when we are at war. I don't 
think that is the right policy. I don't think it sends the right 
signal. I personally believe the increase ought to be paid for. But I 
think we ought to increase the defense request to what the Commander in 
Chief has recommended when we are at war.
  With that, I see Senator Warner, so I will stop until he has made his 
presentation, and then we will have a further opportunity to discuss 
the pending amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
North Dakota. Momentarily, he is quite correct, we will address that.
  This amendment raises the caps and we do not have an offset in it. We 
believe at this point in time the urgency of the matter dictates that 
we do just what I hope the Senate will do by virtue of adoption of this 
amendment.
  Momentarily, the Senator from Oklahoma will return to the floor and 
perhaps the Senator will ask if we may proceed.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How is the time 
being charged?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is being charged against the resolution. 
The quorum calls are being equally divided.
  Mr. CONRAD. We are not charging time against the amendment then.

[[Page S2505]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. I do not want to take action without consulting the other 
side, and the chairman is not in the Chamber at the moment. So I will 
not make a request at this point. Maybe if we can ask the floor staff 
to check if we want to be charging time to the amendment on an equal 
basis. I asked that question because we have tried to carefully 
calibrate this so we would have a voting window starting at 6 o'clock. 
Maybe if people can check, and while that is being done, I will add a 
few thoughts on this question.
  I agree with Senator Warner we ought to increase the defense 
allocation to the request of the Commander in Chief when our troops are 
engaged in combat. I think that should be done.
  I also believe we ought to pay for it. As I understand it, under 
Senator Warner's amendment, the increase will be made to increase the 
budget allocation to the request by the President--I agree with that--
but it will not be paid for. With that I do not agree. When presented 
with a choice, I will vote to increase the spending to the request by 
the Commander in Chief because I do not think it is appropriate policy 
not to fully fund the Commander in Chief's request when our troops are 
engaged in combat half a world away. Our troops right now are engaged 
in direct combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and, of course, in addition to 
that, we are engaged globally in the war on terror. That does not mean 
we should not pay for these additional expenditures. Already we see 
record budget deficits.
  We see in this budget resolution the debt of the country being 
increased by $2.86 trillion over the next 5 years. That is a stunning 
amount of money. The assertion by some that the deficit is being 
reduced really pales in consideration and in comparison to what is 
happening to the debt.
  The increases in the debt under this budget are simply staggering--
$2.86 trillion over the next 5 years. That is before the baby boomers 
retire, that is before the full cost of the President's tax cuts 
explode because they increase geometrically right beyond the budget 
window.
  I would hope we would increase what is in the budget for our national 
defense to the amount requested by the President, but we do it in a way 
that is paid for. I think that would be the right approach. 
Unfortunately, Senator Warner's amendment has half of that formula. He 
will have the increase in funding but will not have the appropriate 
offsets.
  We will have a vote later on the question of paying for this 
increase. I hope my colleagues are on notice on what this amendment 
will involve, and hopefully we will be on this amendment soon.
  I will withhold my request if the Senator from Missouri wants to take 
some time. Can we go on to the amendment then? The Senator from 
Missouri will speak with the understanding that the time will, at a 
later moment, be taken off the time of the amendment so we can try and 
stay on schedule.
  I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I thank my friend from North Dakota for 
accommodating me and allowing me to speak for a few minutes about the 
amendment we all know is going to be offered in a few minutes by our 
friend and colleague, Mr. Warner from Virginia.
  I do thank and congratulate Chairman Warner and also Chairman 
Stevens, not just for producing this amendment I think is so important, 
but also for their work over the years in sustaining America and 
keeping faith with the men and women who keep faith with us every day 
and serve us on the front lines and on the back lines and throughout 
the world to keep our country safe.
  I want to suggest to the Senate there is no more serious amendment we 
will consider in this debate on the budget than the one Senator Warner 
is about to offer.
  America is deeply engaged in the world in all respects, and it should 
be, it needs to be. It is a difficult task, but it is one we bear every 
day as a nation in a lot of different ways.
  Yet despite all our other efforts, despite our diplomatic efforts, 
despite our participation in international organizations, despite the 
coalitions we have built around the world, despite our foreign aid, 
despite our exhortations based on our philosophy, despite the power of 
our ideas, as important as all of that is, America's security and the 
security of our allies and our friends around the world depends and 
continues to depend on the reality and the perception of our military 
power.
  That is what is at stake in this amendment today. The President of 
the United States has submitted a defense budget which states a 
requirement of $421 billion for the national defense. In my judgment, 
that is quite probably too low. I have argued for 10 years, first in 
the House and now in the Senate, that we are not adequately funding our 
defense establishment.
  I simply offer very briefly as evidence of that the fact the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff recently submitted, in response to a question from 
Congressman Ike Skelton, my old and dear friend from the other body, 
about what their unfunded requirements were. In other words, what are 
their requirements they were not able to get into the President's 
budget.
  They submitted $12 billion in unfunded requirements, and that is just 
their top priorities: $6 billion for the Army; $2.5 billion, roughly, 
for the Navy; $2.5 billion for the Air Force. I think it is more than 
that, based on my years of experience. I believe we could add $15 
billion to $20 billion to the budget for procurement alone without 
overfunding America's military. I will explain in a minute why we are 
in this position.
  The Army needs to be bigger. I supported an amendment that was 
offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Reed, last year to 
increase the size of the Army. I think it needs to be another 30,000 to 
40,000 men and women. I am pleased to say the administration is moving 
in that direction now, at least on a temporary basis, but that 
requirement was not included in the President's budget. Half of 
military housing is inadequate. That was not provided for in the 
President's budget. There are other quality-of-life needs we would like 
to meet.
  Many of us here would like to resolve the issue of concurrent 
receipt, for example, so we can allow our military retirees who also 
have a military disability pension to keep both their retirement they 
earned and the disability benefits they deserve. That is not included 
in the budget. I could go on on behalf of my belief that the $421 
billion the President has asked for is probably too low.

  Now, I am sure it will be said by some in the debate on this 
amendment that the President's budget increases defense from last year 
by 7 percent and that is too great. That is above the rate of 
inflation.
  Our spending on defense as a percentage of gross domestic product is 
less than it was prior to World War II. We spent 47 percent of our 
discretionary funds on defense in 2002 compared to 60 percent in 1990, 
and we are at war. It is time for us to get as serious as the men and 
women in America's military are about winning this war.
  I went into the Congress in 1993. It was just after the outgoing 
first Bush administration had, in response to the cold war, cut the 
size of America's military establishment by about a quarter to 
establish what they called the Bush base force, which, by the way, is 
probably about what we need today, in my judgment.
  The incoming Clinton administration then cut the size of the force an 
additional 25 percent, to about a third, depending on which branch of 
the service we are talking about. I argued all throughout the 1990s 
that we were not funding even that undersized force adequately.
  All throughout those years, we were tacitly engaging in the 
assumption in this Congress that there was not any real threat to the 
United States; that with the end of the cold war in some sense history 
had ended as well.
  Well, history had not ended. It had not ended all those years. It was 
just frozen and it thawed out with a vengeance on September 11. All the 
ethnic and regional rivalries of the world--fanaticism, nationalism, 
extremism--have risen up now to threaten us and once again we 
rediscover we do, indeed, need America's military and we do, indeed, 
need to fund it.

[[Page S2506]]

  The question today is whether we are going to be serious on behalf of 
that responsibility. The force is too old. The reason it is too old is 
that all throughout the 1990s we were not buying enough new, what they 
call in the military, platforms, trucks, and planes.
  When the capital stock is not replenished, it gets old. The average 
age of an aircraft in the U.S. Air Force is 22 years; the bombers, over 
40 years; Navy and Marine aircraft, 18 years. We do not have enough 
ships in the Navy. We have 294 ships in the Navy. The Chief of Naval 
Operations, the Chief of Staff of the Navy, says we need 20 more today. 
His vision for the future is 375 ships, and we are not buying enough to 
get us there. We are not buying enough to maintain a 300-ship Navy.
  I could go on. I have done it before, at least when I served in the 
other body. Some evening I will probably have occasion to spend 45 
minutes or an hour discussing this.
  To his credit, and in the face of the threat presented by the 
terrorist war, President Bush has regularly submitted substantial 
increases in the defense budget to this Congress. To its credit, this 
Congress has supported those increases. Along with the tremendous 
dedication of America's military and the vision and leadership of those 
who are running it, it is helping. We need to stay at least on that 
course.
  It would be almost a historical abdication of our responsibilities 
were we not to provide for at least the amount of money the President 
of the United States has asked for America's military while America's 
military is fighting a war for us.
  The only argument against it is that the deficit is a problem. Well, 
yes, the deficit is a problem. We are in a war. Members who do not 
believe that should read about it. It is in the papers every day. We 
are in a war. We are also in a recession.
  I have not gone back and checked the Almanacs but I cannot imagine a 
time when the United States has been in a war and a recession and has 
not run a deficit. If my colleagues are worried about the deficit, let 
me suggest what will increase the deficit: If we lose the war, I 
guarantee that will increase the deficit. We do not have to lose it; we 
just have to suffer another significant attack on our homeland, and it 
can happen. That will increase the deficit. In fact, all we have to do 
is encourage America's enemies--and we have enemies around the world--
to believe that we will not see this through, that we will retreat. I 
guarantee that will increase the deficit a lot more than the amendment 
of the Senator from Virginia proposes to do.
  Let's not be shortsighted. I have confidence that this Senate will 
not be. I do not want to sound like a scold; I really do not. I am 
proud of what the Congress has done the last few years in supporting 
our military.
  I serve on the Armed Services Committee. I am proud to be on that 
committee. An hour ago I left a hearing, which I had the honor of 
chairing, of the Seapower Subcommittee, where Senator Kennedy is the 
ranking member. We had several hours in which we considered the 
capacity of our military to move goods around the world. One of the 
areas of jurisdiction of the subcommittee is on airlift and the 
capacity of our marine resources, civilian and military, to move goods 
around the world. I was astounded, amazed, and encouraged by how much 
we have improved the efficiency of that part of the service. We are all 
in debt to the men and women who work there and who run that, both 
civilian and military. I am pleased this Congress has sustained their 
efforts, and I know we will sustain the efforts of our men and women in 
America's military today.
  They are doing their job. The question is whether we are going to do 
ours. They are watching. Our enemies are watching to see what the 
Senate does today. I am not sure exactly the form in which the Warner 
amendment will be offered. I do know it will restore the approximately 
$7 billion that the committee reduced and cut from the President's 
submission. We need to pass that amendment. We need to do our job in 
winning this war and protecting the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. I believe, under the consent request that we had entered 
into previously, we have had debate on the reconciliation amendment by 
Senator Byrd. I believe next in order would be Senator Warner to offer 
an amendment, and then Feingold on the pay-go amendment. It is our 
intention to vote on all three of these back to back hopefully as close 
to 6 as possible. We have had a little break, and I apologize for that, 
but it would be our intention to try to have debate on both amendments 
and vote as close to 6 as possible.
  I now yield to my friend and colleague Senator Warner to manage our 
time on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is an 
hour equally divided. Am I correct on that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank both managers of the bill for 
their cooperation.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for just a moment?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. One of the things we discussed, if I can say, is there 
was a slight amount of time used here in discussion on the amendment. 
One of the things that was discussed was the possibility, perhaps, of 
charging that time to the amendment once we got on the amendment so we 
could hold to the schedule of being as close to 6 o'clock as we could 
be. Would that be agreeable?
  Mr. WARNER. No objection.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time had both sides used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri used 11 minutes, and 
the other side has not used any.
  Mr. CONRAD. We did, actually. I spoke.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be 40 
minutes on the amendment to be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2742

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] for himself and Mr. 
     Stevens, Mr. McCain, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Roberts, Ms. Collins, 
     Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Graham of South Carolina, and Mr. Talent, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2742.

  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To increase the amounts provided for national defense (050) 
     for fiscal year 2005 for new budget authority and for outlays)

       On page 4, line 4 increase the amount by $6,997,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $262,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $358,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $405,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $432,000,000.
       On page 4, line 12, increase the amount by $5,506,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $1,855,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $799,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $550,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $480,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, decrease the amount by $5,506,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, decrease the amount by $1,855,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, decrease the amount by $799,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, decrease the amount by $550,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, decrease the amount by $480,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, increase the amount by $5,506,000,000.

[[Page S2507]]

       On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $7,362,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by $8,161,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $8,711,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $9,191,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $5,506,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, increase the amount by $7,362,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, increase the amount by $8,161,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, increase the amount by $8,711,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, increase the amount by $9,191,000,000.
       On page 7, line 25, increase the amount by $6,900,000,000.
       On page 8, line 1, increase the amount by $5,409,000,000.
       On page 8, line 5, increase the amount by $1,594,000,000.
       On page 8, line 9, increase the amount by $442,000,000.
       On page 8, line 13, increase the amount by $145,000,000.
       On page 8, line 17, increase the amount by $48,000,000.
       On page 22, line 9, increase the amount by $97,000,000.
       On page 22, line 10, increase the amount by $97,000,000.
       On page 22, line 13, increase the amount by $262,000,000.
       On page 22, line 14, increase the amount by $262,000,000.
       On page 22, line 17, increase the amount by $358,000,000.
       On page 22, line 18, increase the amount by $358,000,000.
       On page 22, line 21, increase the amount by $405,000,000.
       On page 22, line 22, increase the amount by $405,000,000.
       On page 22, line 25, increase the amount by $432,000,000.
       On page 23, line 1, increase the amount by $432,000,000.
       On page 39, line 18, increase the amount by $6,900,000,000.
       On page 39, line 19, increase the amount by $5,409,000,000.
       On page 40, line 2, increase the amount by $1,594,000,000.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in this amendment, I am joined by Senator 
Stevens, Senator McCain, Senator Inhofe, Senator Roberts, Senator 
Collins, Senator Chambliss, Senator Graham, Senator Craig, and Senator 
Talent.
  The amendment is very simple. It restores funding for the Department 
of Defense to the level requested by the President for fiscal year 
2005. Specifically, this amendment will add $6.9 billion to the level 
contained in the pending budget resolution for the national defense 050 
budget function.
  As we review our budget priorities for the coming year, it is clear 
many important programs must compete for limited resources. Hard 
choices must be made. As we individually wrestle with the hard choices 
we must make, I remind my colleagues we have no more solemn 
responsibility than that imposed by the Constitution of the United 
States and that is to provide for the common defense of this great 
Nation, the United States. This is the most important function of the 
Federal Government.
  The President requested $420.7 billion for defense-related activities 
for fiscal year 2005. That request includes funding for the Department 
of Defense, the defense activities of the Department of Energy--that's 
roughly two-thirds of the total Department of Energy budget--and a 
significant amount for the intelligence community.
  Our military service chiefs--the Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of 
Staff of the Army, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Chief of Staff 
of the Air Force--all four service chiefs came before the committee and 
asked that we authorize and obtain the full amount requested by the 
President.
  As you well know, having spent a considerable portion of my career in 
the Department of Defense, each year the President goes to the 
Department for their recommendations, a budget is made up and it is 
submitted and it finally is submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget on behalf of the President and Congress.
  Recognition must be given that we are a nation at war. Those are the 
very words used by our distinguished colleague, the manager of this 
bill, moments ago. Terrorists brought this war to our shores on 
September 11, 2001. President Bush, together with a coalition of 
nations, responded forcefully and effectively. This Chamber provided a 
resolution expressing support for the President to bring the war on 
terrorism to the terrorists.
  Hundreds of thousands of our servicemen and women are now deployed 
around the world defending our Nation in Operation Enduring Freedom, 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, and other military operations in the ongoing 
war on terrorism. Hundreds of thousands more are forward deployed in 
Korea, the Balkans, at sea and elsewhere, protecting American interests 
and deterring aggression.
  I wonder if our Nation realizes that well over half of the United 
States Army today, some 320,000 men and women, proud to wear the 
uniform of the United States Army, are deployed overseas, over half of 
the total standing Army--leaving their families behind, going into 
harm's way to protect us. Others stand vigilant at our borders and at 
our ports and in our skies here at home. We have an obligation, in my 
judgment, to live up to the President's budget request, which budget 
request was carefully prepared in consultation with the Chiefs and 
other senior members of the defense force.
  What have our Armed Forces accomplished in the last few years? The 
simple answer is, everything we have asked of them and more. They have 
confronted brutal regimes in Afghanistan, and Iraq and given the people 
of those regions hope, and an opportunity to experience freedom and 
democracy. In Iraq, together with a coalition of nations, they 
liberated a repressed nation--a country larger than Germany and Italy 
combined--in roughly 3 weeks. The Armed Forces accomplished this with 
unprecedented precision, and with casualties far below estimates. This 
level of professionalism is what we have come to expect of our 
military.
  Such expectations must be tempered by the realization that the 
magnificent professionalism of our Armed Forces is a product of strong 
leadership, patriotic young men and women, supportive families, great 
American technology, and strong, consistent resources. All of these 
things require the long term support of the Congress in the form of 
funding, guidance and support.
  At a time of unprecedented demands on our military, it is critical 
that we provide our men and women in uniform--active, reserve, and 
National Guard--the funding they need to continue to successfully 
accomplish their missions. To meet the challenges we now face around 
the world, and to prepare for the future, the President has proposed a 
budget that includes $420.7 billion for national defense. It is a 
prudent request that maintains the readiness of our current force and 
makes the investments necessary to develop and field the capabilities 
that will keep our Nation safe from the uncertain threats of the 
future.
  We are blessed with a military that has responded to the demands of a 
post-September 11 world with extraordinary commitment, but even the 
best military has its limits. The pace of recent operations is putting 
increased demands on our forces around the world, increased demands on 
our Reserve and National Guard units, and increased demands on military 
families. Our military has dedicated personnel--active duty, reserve, 
guard and retirees--and families who must be fairly compensated with 
competitive pay and a good quality of life. Our military has equipment 
that has been heavily used in recent operations that must be repaired 
or replaced, and new capabilities that must be developed and procured 
to meet future threats. And finally, our military has an aging 
infrastructure that must be modernized.
  In my opinion, the President's budget request for defense has struck 
the proper balance to accomplish these goals. At this critical time in 
the war against terror, when we are asking so much of our uniformed 
personnel and their families, and when we are seeking the continued 
cooperation of our allies, what message do we want to send? We must 
send a message of continued commitment and resolve by supporting the 
level of funding for defense requested by the President. Our military 
deserves no less.
  At this time, Mr. President, I yield the floor and grant such time as 
the distinguished Senator from Alaska may desire
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in a time of war, and we are at war--we 
are at war against terrorism; that's the leading war we are still 
involved in; we

[[Page S2508]]

have activities in Haiti; we have them in Afghanistan and they are 
persisting in Iraq--it is my feeling the request of the Commander in 
Chief should be met in full, and that's what this amendment does. It 
meets in full the request of the President, submitted in his budget for 
the activities of the Department of Defense not directly connected with 
Iraq and Afghanistan. We are going to see that in a supplemental, I 
assume, sometime after the first of the year.
  But as a practical matter, this budget is a very thin budget for a 
military stretched as thin as it is right now around the world. As the 
Senator from Virginia says, more than half of our men and women in 
uniform are outside the United States at this time. It is a matter of 
just simple justice, as far as I am concerned. The Commander in Chief's 
request should be honored. I hope the Senate will support this request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support the amendment by the Senator 
from Virginia, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee. He has been a member of the committee for many years. He 
understands our defense and national security needs.
  I believe the fundamental message is we are in a war. We are in a 
war. We are in a war. The fact is this money is needed in order to 
prosecute the conflicts in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and around the world, 
as we fight the war on terrorism and attempt to thwart the possibility 
of a terrorist attack on the United States of America and our citizens.
  Clearly, we are going through a period of transition in the military, 
and one that is going to be somewhat expensive, but there is no doubt 
we have to adjust our military in order to meet the needs of an ever-
changing and, in some respects, larger threat to our security than we 
have faced in the past few years.
  Also, I have the greatest respect for our colleagues here in the 
Senate and the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee and the 
ranking member. But I did note, with some interest, that the chairman 
of the Budget Committee in the House suggested a moratorium on earmarks 
for 1 year. Why would he do that?
  Well, I show my colleagues a very interesting Congressional Research 
Service chart which shows that in 1994, there were 4,126 earmarks; in 
1996, it went down to 3,023 earmarks; and it has gone steadily up 
geometrically; and in 2004, there were 14,040 earmarks--amounting to a 
grand total of $47.9 billion--$47.9 billion.
  Rather than cut $7 billion out of defense, why don't we cut $7 
billion out of $47.9 billion of pork-barrel projects, such as the $3 
million to study the DNA of bears in Montana, the Cowgirls and Cowboys 
Hall of Fame, and the elves up in North Pole, AK, that got some more 
money this time?
  Why don't we cut $7 billion out of $47.9 billion in earmarked funds? 
That comes from the Congressional Research Service, up from $23.7 
billion in 1996. Why don't we show some courage, make some choices, and 
cut this, rather than cutting $7 billion out of defense?
  I would hope my colleagues on the Budget Committee at some point 
would seriously consider a moratorium on earmarks--just for 1 year. It 
might be a nice thing to see.
  Mr. President, I support the amendment from the Senator from Virginia 
and I hope the choices we make are not to cut into our Nation's 
security but to cut into the pork-barrel spending which has absolutely 
run amok in this body. It is a disgrace, and there is no excuse for it. 
I hope we will start attacking the wasteful and pork-barrel spending 
rather than the men and women in the military.
  I support the amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleagues, Senators 
Stevens and Warner. I intend to support this request.
  Senator Stevens, when I first brought to his attention that we needed 
to stay with the cap of 814, brought to my attention very strongly, 
repeatedly, that he wanted to have the President's full request in. 
This amendment does that.
  The reason we brought a resolution out at 814 was to make sure a 
budget point of order wouldn't lie against the entire resolution and 
frankly kill the resolution. We would have to have 60 votes. The 
amendment Senator Stevens and Senator Warner are introducing fully 
funds the President's request and frankly it increases the caps to do 
so. It takes 60 votes to pass the amendment. It increases the deficit 
by $7 billion. It means we are going to have increases in defense 
spending by $27 billion, 7.1 percent. It is a big increase, but frankly 
we have big challenges with our defense.
  I happen to agree with Senators Warner and Stevens, when we have 
troops in the field who have their lives in jeopardy day by day, being 
fired upon, we need to give them support as requested by their 
Commander in Chief.
  I hope our colleagues will support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, can the Chair advise me what the time 
situation is on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 12 minutes 50 seconds remaining on 
the Republican side, 20 minutes on the Democratic side.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, speaking for our side, I again want to 
indicate I intend to fully support the amendment of the Senator from 
Virginia, joined in by the Senator from Alaska. Is this a Stevens-
Warner amendment at this point?
  I just think we need to send a very clear message. When we are at 
war, when our troops are in jeopardy, when they are in combat zones, 
when the Commander in Chief makes a request, we need to honor that 
request.
  Look, I believe we ought to pay for this increase. I believe we ought 
to offset it with either additional revenues or spending cuts in other 
areas because the deficit is at record levels now and this just 
increases it. We are seeing dramatic increases in the debt.
  We had a right to offer second-degree amendments to this amendment to 
provide a pay-for. We basically did not exercise that right, in an 
agreement to get a number of amendments up and voted on before 7 
o'clock tonight. But it is our intention, with a later amendment, to 
offer a means of paying for this increase.
  Without that before us at the moment, the choice becomes do we 
increase the defense expenditure to meet the request of the Commander 
in Chief or do we not?
  I believe the imperative is clear. I believe we must raise the 
defense expenditure level to meet the request of the Commander in Chief 
when we have troops in combat half a world away fighting day and night 
for this country.
  It is my intention to ask our colleagues to support the Warner-
Stevens amendment. At a later time, it will then be my intention to ask 
our colleagues on both sides to find a way to pay for it and to suggest 
specific ways we might do that. I hope colleagues will keep an open 
mind on that subsequent amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the support of 
Senator Conrad on this amendment. We have worked together now on two or 
three amendments. We have agreed to some amendments. That is good 
progress.
  I also want to correct the Record. I said it was my understanding 
that this increases the defense amount by 7.1 percent. That is the OMB 
figure. The Congressional Budget Office figure is 6.8 percent. I was 
accurate by saying it would increase defense spending by $27 billion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this budget resolution is $6.9 billion 
below the President's request for defense spending for fiscal year 
2005. I am voting for the Warner amendment to restore this cut.
  I am doing so because I believe we should pay for our activities in 
Iraq

[[Page S2509]]

and Afghanistan within the budget. I do not believe we should pretend 
those costs do not exist and then have the President come back to 
Congress saying we did not give him enough money and he needs more.
  We must have truth in budgeting. The costs of our operations in Iraq 
and Afghanistan should be included in the budget; the costs should be 
paid for with regularly budgeted funds. The alternative is further 
escalating debt.
  I am extremely concerned about the runaway debt. If we do not include 
in the budget the costs of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 
President will come back with a request for emergency supplemental 
funds. Those funds do not have to be offset, thereby adding billions of 
dollars to our national debt.
  Therefore, I will vote for the Warner amendment to restore the cut in 
defense spending.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I presume the managers desire to have this 
amendment laid aside for the present time, unless there are other 
speakers.
  I yield such time as the Senator from Oklahoma desires.
  Mr. President, would you advise the Senator from Virginia the amount 
of time we have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eleven minutes forty seconds.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from South Carolina desires a 
couple of minutes following the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I think everything I 
would have said has been said by our chairman, Senator Warner.
  We have 325,000 troops scattered around 120 different countries. I 
chaired the Subcommittee on Readiness for a number of years. That was 
during the 1990s when we were making cuts in our defense across the 
board in terms of end strength, in terms of numbers of divisions and 
numbers of tactical air wings, in terms of the numbers of ships, in 
terms of modernization, and in terms of readiness. It was very 
disturbing during that time. I was outspoken at that time that we might 
be going too far.
  Recently we went through this thing of not having adequate body 
armor. Of course, the Army, in this case, responded with our help and 
we are able to say now they are taken care of adequately.
  In modernization, we are going into the future combat system. We were 
delayed in the 1990s. Now things are getting back on track. However, we 
often say we want our troops, our men and women in uniform, to have the 
very best of equipment and the best support.
  Quite frankly, we don't have as good equipment as some of our 
potential adversaries in the case of our artillery. We are still 
dealing with World War II technologies when there are five countries 
that have made a better case than we have. I don't think the American 
people want our young people going into combat with anything except the 
best. That is what this is about. We are in a rebuilding mode right 
now. We are talking about transforming all branches. We are talking 
about changing the way our troops are stationed around the world. This 
is going to be expensive. We are in the middle of a war. I strongly 
support the increases recommended by the chairman, Senator Warner.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina. Mr. President, I rise in support of the 
amendment offered by our chairman. I thank the chairman, Senator 
Warner, for doing something that is not easy. We pride ourselves on 
trying to be fiscal conservatives and taking care of the country's 
needs and the President's budget request for the military. I applaud 
our chairman, Senator Warner, for offering this amendment to make sure 
we can get the money the President thinks we need to defend the Nation.
  One thing I have learned about this whole process is I would not want 
Senator Nickles' job. It is very hard to put a budget together which 
does what we need to do for the economy and for defense of the Nation 
and other domestic priorities.
  But I know where this debate is going. It won't be long before we 
will have an amendment to counter this amendment saying, all right, we 
will agree that the military needs more money. I am glad we agree with 
that, because they do. But then they will start arguing, let us pay for 
it; let us be fiscally responsible, and let us take money from this 
group to pay for it. We are going to get into a partisan fight in the 
name of fiscal responsibility that probably doesn't have a whole lot to 
do with fiscal responsibility. I think that is sad but we know it is 
coming.
  Let me say this: The No. 1 job of being a Senator, in my opinion, is 
to make sure we can defend America. We can have all the fights about 
how you create jobs, and I would argue to my friend--I will be glad to 
speak on this proposal--if you are worried about losing jobs in 
America, then you need to be more friendly to people who are trying to 
create jobs in America. You are not a very friendly crowd to job 
creation with your proposals. But we will talk about that down the 
road. I know it is coming.
  Let me say this: It is good news for the men and women in uniform at 
this point in time because we have bipartisan support to make sure 
there is budget authority to defend America. I thank the chairman on 
their behalf. I look forward to the debate to come about this issue in 
terms of domestic politics. But I hope we don't get unnecessarily off 
script for the men and women who depend on us making sure they have the 
equipment when we ask them to fight the war. They probably don't 
appreciate a lot of the fussing and fighting.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. President, how much time remains under the control of the Senator 
from Virginia?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we will yield our time if the other side 
will yield their time and go on to the next matter.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are prepared to yield back time on this 
side. I yield all but 5 minutes of our time reserved for Senator Levin. 
We can proceed with Senator Feingold.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank our colleague, Senator Warner, 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and also Chairman Stevens of 
the Appropriations Committee for their cooperation on this amendment. I 
am sure the Commander in Chief is grateful for this amendment. I am 
sure the Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces are grateful for this 
amendment.
  For the information of our colleagues, this amendment, in addition to 
Senator Byrd's amendment and I believe Senator Feingold's amendment, 
will be voted on probably a little before 6 o'clock. Also, for the 
information of our colleagues, I know there are other amendments out 
there. Senator Conrad and I already realize we are running short on 
time and the number of days. We are going to finish this bill by 
Friday. I encourage our colleagues to either not offer amendments or at 
least work with us so we can accept or dispose of some amendments in 
one way or another. But if they have amendments, please bring those to 
our attention tonight. It is our intention to work very late tonight. I 
hate to do that because our very good friend, Chairman Stevens, is 
having a nice event that I would love to attend, but I think our 
business is to complete the budget this week.
  For the information of our colleagues, we expect three rollcall votes 
shortly before 6 o'clock. I believe the regular order of business now 
would be for Senator Feingold to offer his amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have just now tallied all the 
amendments that have been noticed. I know the chairman will be 
interested to know there are 98 amendments pending. Let me say those 
are amendments that have been noticed to us. They are not necessarily 
pending before the Senate, but Senators have given notice they intend 
to offer 98 amendments. It takes 1 hour to handle three amendments. 
That would be 33 hours of straight voting. We have to get serious. We 
cannot have a circumstance in which we spend 33 straight hours voting 
on amendments to the budget resolution. That is an unreasonable 
proposition. It is an

[[Page S2510]]

unreasonable proposition for the Members, and an unreasonable 
proposition for the administrative staff.

  I am sending the message to our colleagues, let's eliminate the 
duplication. Let's ask Senators to refrain from offering amendments 
that can be offered later to appropriations bills or to other 
legislative vehicles. We cannot have 98 amendments voted on this budget 
resolution. There is no way we would finish by Friday. We have agreed 
on a common goal of finishing the budget resolution by Friday. We have 
worked in good faith together. Please, colleagues, let's show some 
restraint.
  We will turn it over to our Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                           Amendment No. 2748

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the managers for making it 
possible for me to offer this amendment at this time. I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself, Mr. 
     Chafee, Mr. Baucus, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Carper, and Mr. Graham 
     of Florida, proposes an amendment numbered 2748.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       (Purpose: To fully reinstate the pay-as-you-go requirement)

       On page 46, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 408. PAY-AS-YOU-GO POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE.

       (a) Point of Order.--
       (1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to 
     consider any direct spending or revenue legislation that 
     would increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget 
     deficit for any one of the three applicable time periods as 
     measured in paragraphs (5) and (6).
       (2) Applicable time periods.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term ``applicable time period'' means any 1 
     of the 3 following periods:
       (A) The first year covered by the most recently adopted 
     concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (B) The period of the first 5 fiscal years covered by the 
     most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (C) The period of the 5 fiscal years following the first 5 
     fiscal years covered in the most recently adopted concurrent 
     resolution on the budget.
       (3) Direct-spending legislation.--For purposes of this 
     subsection and except as provided in paragraph (4), the term 
     ``direct-spending legislation'' means any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that 
     affects direct spending as that term is defined by, and 
     interpreted for purposes of, the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       (4) Exclusion.--For purposes of this subsection, the terms 
     ``direct-spending legislation'' and ``revenue legislation'' 
     do not include--
       (A) any concurrent resolution on the budget; or
       (B) any provision of legislation that affects the full 
     funding of, and continuation of, the deposit insurance 
     guarantee commitment in effect on the date of enactment of 
     the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.
       (5) Baseline.--Estimates prepared pursuant to this section 
     shall--
       (A) use the baseline surplus or deficit used for the most 
     recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget; and
       (B) be calculated under the requirements of subsections (b) 
     through (d) of section 257 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 for fiscal years beyond 
     those covered by that concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (6) Prior surplus.--If direct spending or revenue 
     legislation increases the on-budget deficit or causes an on-
     budget deficit when taken individually, it must also increase 
     the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget deficit when 
     taken together with all direct spending and revenue 
     legislation enacted since the beginning of the calendar year 
     not accounted for in the baseline under paragraph (5)(A), 
     except that direct spending or revenue effects resulting in 
     net deficit reduction enacted pursuant to reconciliation 
     instructions since the beginning of that same calendar year 
     shall not be available.
       (b) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (c) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of 
     the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be 
     limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or 
     joint resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative vote of 
     three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and 
     sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling 
     of the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.
       (d) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this 
     section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, and 
     revenues for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis 
     of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget of the 
     Senate.
       (e) Sunset.--This section shall expire on September 30, 
     2009.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to offer this 
amendment with Senators Chafee, Baucus, Cantwell, Carper, and Graham.
  This amendment is very straightforward. It would simply reinstate the 
pay-as-you-go rule that has been such an effective restraint on the 
fiscal appetites of Congress and the White House.
  The last 3 years have seen a dramatic deterioration in the 
Government's ability to perform one of its most fundamental jobs, and 
that is balancing the Nation's fiscal boxes. We are all familiar with 
the history. In January of 2001, the Congressional Budget Office 
actually projected in the 10 years thereafter, Government would run a 
unified budget surplus of more than $5 trillion. A little more than 3 
years later, we are now, unfortunately, staring at almost a mirror 
image of that 10-year, $5 trillion surplus. Instead of healthy 
surpluses, under any reasonable set of assumptions, we are now facing 
immense deficits.
  We must stop running deficits because they cause the Government to 
use the surpluses of the Social Security trust fund for other 
Government purposes rather than to pay down the debt and help our 
Nation prepare for the coming retirement of the baby boom generation.
  We have to stop running deficits because every dollar we add to the 
Federal debt is another dollar we are forcing our children to pay back 
in higher taxes or fewer Government benefits.
  When the Government in this generation chooses to spend on current 
consumption and to accumulate debt for our children's generation to 
pay, it does nothing less than rob our children of their own choices. 
We make our choices to spend on our wants, but we saddle them with 
debts they must pay from their tax dollars and their hard work. That is 
not right.
  This is also why I am offering this amendment to fully reinstate the 
pay-as-you-go rule. We need a strong budget process. We need to exert 
fiscal discipline. This amendment would simply return us to the rules 
by which Congress played for the decade of the 1990s. It would 
eliminate the exceptions to pay-as-you-go included in last year's 
resolution that exempt new tax cuts and new mandatory spending included 
in a budget resolution. The reason we have to get rid of these 
exceptions is these exceptions facilitate more damage to the Federal 
bottom line.
  I recognize there are some who prefer to provide some exemptions for 
certain tax and spending policies. In particular, the argument has been 
made that we ought to exempt the extension of the 10-percent bracket, 
the child care tax credit, and the marriage penalty provisions. The 
argument is that these, and possibly other policies, are so worthy that 
they should not be subjected to pay as you go.
  Let me offer what I think are two valid responses to this. First, 
while there are certainly worthy tax provisions included in the 
assumptions underlying this resolution, including those I just listed, 
as the chairman of the committee has pointed out very effectively in 
the Senate, no budget resolution can actually specify which taxes must 
be cut and which must be raised. The resolution can set forth levels of 
tax cuts, but it cannot specify which taxes are cut. It follows that 
the resolution cannot specify which tax cuts should be exempt from 
budget enforcement. It can exempt some level of tax cuts from that 
enforcement, as indeed this resolution does.

  But a budget resolution cannot specify which specific tax cuts are to 
be exempt from budget enforcement. So we have no guarantee at all that 
these popular and worthy tax cuts I just mentioned, those three, would 
end up being the ones that would benefit from this exemption that 
exempts tax cuts from the normal pay-as-you-go requirement on which we 
have to get the 60 votes to waive the rule.
  The second reason, for the specific tax cuts I mentioned earlier--the 
10-

[[Page S2511]]

percent bracket, the child tax credit, and the marriage penalty 
provision--I am absolutely sure there will be far more than 60 votes to 
waive any point of order against those provisions. I even wonder if 
anyone will propose to put us in a position where we have to waive a 
point of order. Someone will have to actually raise a point of order. 
These three sorts of tax cuts have such strong support that it is not, 
in my view, a serious or genuine objection that the pay-as-you-go rule 
will prevent them from being extended and continuing.
  Reinstating the pay-as-you-go rule makes it harder for this body to 
make the deficit worse. It does not prohibit these tax cuts. It does 
not make it impossible to have a tax cut. It just makes it a little 
harder. That is as it should be. Given our current budget position, we 
ought to make it harder to make the deficit worse. If new tax cuts or 
new mandatory spending is not to be offset, then they ought to be only 
the most worthy of policies, not just anything that can get a majority 
vote. They ought to be policies that can achieve the 60 votes needed to 
waive a point of order.
  It is very simple. That is what this amendment would do. It is the 
least we should do to ensure fiscal responsibility and sound budgeting. 
We must stop using Social Security surpluses to fund other Government 
programs. We must stop piling up debt for our children to pay off. We 
must continue the discipline of the budget process.
  This is one of those situations where after you have been here a 
while, you can actually speak from experience. I can speak from 
experience of having watched in this body. As I came in 1993, we had 
the largest deficit in American history. Were it not for these budget 
rules, if it were not for the pay-as-you-go rules, I am certain the 
parties would not have come together as we did over those years to 
achieve what almost no one thought was possible--a very solid surplus. 
Without these rules, the discipline goes away. Without these rules, we 
are back to the behavior of the 1980s, which my constituents so 
thoroughly condemn: Unlimited tax cuts on unlimited spending, the blank 
checks that were written that put this Nation in its worst deficit to 
date.
  We now have a much worse deficit. We now have the largest deficit in 
American history. It is incumbent upon this body to go back to what we 
know worked, to what we know put the parties in a healthy competition, 
to see which party could be more fiscally responsible. We desperately 
need to return to that discipline now.
  That is why I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment that will 
return the pay-as-you-go rules in full.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, look, now we are starting to talk about 
amendments that are just critically important if we are going to start 
to do something about the skyrocketing deficits and the accumulation of 
debt.
  The pay-go provisions are budget disciplines to make it harder to add 
to deficits. We have used these provisions in the past successfully to 
move from record deficits to record surpluses.
  In just a few moments, this body is going to vote on whether it is 
going to renew those disciplines or we are just going to abandon the 
ship and keep right on running up an ocean of red ink.
  This year, we are poised to run a deficit in record terms of over 
$470 billion--$100 billion more than last year. And last year's deficit 
was almost $100 billion more than the previous record.
  This is an opportunity for Senators to stand and be counted and be 
held accountable. Are we going to go back to the budget disciplines 
that have worked in the past or are we going to let them lapse? They 
lapsed in 2002, they have not been reinstituted, and the deficit has 
skyrocketed.
  What this amendment does is to put back in place the fundamental 
disciplines that say simply this: If you want new mandatory spending, 
if you want new tax cuts, you can have them, but you have to pay for 
them. It is that simple.
  Some will say, Well, this does not discipline discretionary spending, 
which is a third of Federal spending. That is true. We discipline 
discretionary spending by spending caps. We have a spending cap in 
place.
  The question before us is, Are we going to reenact the budget 
disciplines on mandatory spending, which is two-thirds of Federal 
spending? Are we going to replace the budget disciplines on the revenue 
side of the equation, which have been allowed to lapse?
  Let me just put up a statement by the chairman of the Federal Reserve 
on this question. Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, on restoring pay-
go, said:

       I would, first, Mr. Chairman, restore pay-go and 
     discretionary caps. Without a process for evaluating various 
     trade-offs, I see no way that any group such as a Congress 
     can come to a set of priorities which will be effectively 
     reflecting the will of the American people.

  Mr. President, this is the test: this vote. This is going to answer 
who stands for budget discipline, who stands for getting these deficits 
and debt under control, and who is going to sit on the sidelines and 
allow these deficits and debt to continue to skyrocket out of control.
  For those who say they are fiscally responsible, here is the test. 
Here is the test. All the talk is going to be measured in this vote. Do 
you stand for restoring the budget disciplines that have worked in the 
past or do you not? That is the question.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, does the Senator from North Dakota want 
more time off the amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for 
his amendment. He offered the same amendment in the Budget Committee. I 
have great respect for him as a friend and a colleague, but I would 
urge our colleagues to vote no on the amendment.
  We have pay-go in the existing bill. We have pay-go basically for 
anything that is not in the assumption of the budget resolution. We 
assume $144 billion on the tax side. It may sound like a lot of money, 
but over that 5-year period of time, we are talking about $12 trillion 
of revenue. The amount of money that we are saving is a very small 
percentage.
  Now, why do we try to say, Well, you should not have to pay for that? 
Because almost all of that, with the exception of a little AMT, is 
present law.
  We don't have pay-go if you have a lot of spending bills that sunset. 
When those are reauthorized, you do not say, Oh, now you have to have 
pay-go. You have to raise taxes or cut spending to reauthorize the farm 
bill, for example.
  As a matter of fact, I have found about $1 trillion worth of 
entitlements over the next several years that are sunset or due to 
sunset, but they don't have pay-go when they are extended. We have a 
lot of tax cuts that are sunset that, when they are extended, would 
have to be paid for. So it really discriminates against taxes, makes it 
much more difficult to keep tax levels where they are today.
  Some people say: Additional tax cuts. I say, no, keep taxes where 
they are today. This is a much higher hurdle if you want to keep tax 
levels where they are today. Adoption of this amendment is going to 
make it a lot harder. It is going to make it a lot harder to continue 
to have the marriage penalty relief we are now assuming in our budget. 
That is $900 for my in-laws, $900 for my kids, $900 for any couple in 
America that makes $58,000. We are assuming we are going to continue 
present law.
  People say: We want pay-go. We want it to apply to spending and to 
entitlements. But when you look at the amendment, it doesn't apply to 
appropriated accounts. It doesn't apply to increases in appropriations 
for a lot of different activities.
  Someone might say: That is handled in the caps. Only if you pass a 
budget. The idea is to pass pay-go that is going to extend for the next 
several years, I believe through 2009, regardless of whether you have a 
budget. We may or may not have a budget. A lot of people predicted last 
year we wouldn't have a budget. They predicted this year we wouldn't 
have a budget. We proved them wrong last year, and I hope and expect we 
will prove them wrong this year.

[[Page S2512]]

  Spending is not covered. Discretionary appropriations are not 
covered. What is appropriated is not covered. Next year 820-some 
billion will not be covered. You could have any kind of increase. As a 
matter of fact, it almost is an incentive for increases in 
appropriations because that doesn't have to be paid for. But anything 
else has to be paid for.
  The tax cuts that expire or that have an expiration date--and we have 
had to do that in the past for a variety of reasons--would have to be 
paid for. Spending programs don't have to be paid for.
  I didn't hear our colleague saying we needed pay-go when we were 
doing concurrent receipts for retired military personnel. That was 
about $40 billion. I didn't hear people say, when we were doing the 
Medicare expansion, we need pay-go for that. That was $395 billion, as 
scored by CBO, and that is permanent. So the Medicare bill, which is 
going to grow dramatically over the next several years, can continue 
growing almost unchecked unless a future Congress curtails it in some 
way. And no pay-go, even if it is $300 billion the first 10 and maybe 
$1 trillion the next 10 or more, no pay-go for that.
  So spending can increase rather dramatically. But if you want to 
continue having a 25-percent tax rate--and by the year 2010 it 
expires--if you don't pay for it, that rate goes to 28 percent in the 
year 2011. The difference between 28 and 25 doesn't sound like much. 
That is 3 percent. That is over 10 percent. That is about a 15-percent 
increase in an individual's tax rate. That means the marriage penalty 
relief we just gave would disappear. That is $1,000. By that time, it 
will be $1,000. Right now it is $911. We are trying to continue that.
  Some people say: You want more tax cuts. That is not more tax cuts. 
That is keeping present law. If we don't keep present law, extend 
present law, it is going to be a tax increase on families.
  What did we assume under our resolution? We assumed present law is 
extended. Above that, you have pay-go. That is what our resolution 
says.
  I urge our colleagues, think about this a little bit. Frankly, if you 
are going to have it, it really should apply to any entitlement program 
that is sunset. That is not in this amendment. What we did in our bill 
is very similar to my colleague's amendment with the exception of we 
say we should exempt those things that are covered in the budget. 
Primarily that includes extending present law on the child credit, on 
the 10-percent bracket, and on marriage penalty relief. We also 
included $23 billion for AMT relief, and we included $15 billion on the 
energy bill. That is the bulk of what we have extended or what we 
assumed. Anything above that has to be paid for, entitlementwise or 
taxwise.
  Again, I congratulate my colleague from Wisconsin, but I urge our 
colleagues, if they want to protect families and make sure the tax cuts 
happen, to vote no on the amendment.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate not only the comments of 
the Senator from Oklahoma but his leadership on the Budget Committee. I 
enjoy very much serving with him on the committee. I also appreciate 
the sort of change of tone from the opposition on this amendment. 
Everything we have heard about this amendment recently is how we need 
to have a weaker rule than the pay-go rule. Somehow we have to justify 
these exceptions that were put in the Budget Committee resolution. 
Finally the chairman is talking about what we really should be talking 
about, that we need a strong rule.
  What he has done is lay out some things our pay-go doesn't do. That 
is true. There may be some additional things we should do in this area. 
But what I am proposing, with the cosponsors, is let's at least go back 
to the rules we know worked, the rules that brought this country a 
balanced budget in the 1990s. They were proven to work. That is all 
this amendment does.
  If the Senator from Oklahoma wants to talk about additional steps, I 
am all for it. Senator Gregg and I, in the Budget Committee in the 
past, tried for 5-year caps on spending. We were defeated by a largely 
party-line vote except for Senator Gregg. That didn't work so we tried 
a 2-year cap, working with Senator Conrad. That was rejected. We tried 
1 year. That is one of the three legs of the stool, the discretionary 
spending. If the Senator wants to work with me and Senator Gregg and 
others to propose legislation to deal with that, I am ready to go. In 
fact, Senator Gregg and I proposed such a bill.
  But the chairman knows very well we can't change that on the budget 
resolution. We have to pass a statutory item in order to accomplish 
that. So I am eager to do it.
  Let's pass this pay-go amendment and let's immediately move on to 
finish the job by passing the kind of statute that will achieve what 
the Senator from Oklahoma is talking about.
  I can't allow a complete changing of the subject because the truth is 
the pay-go rules in the proposal before us are not pay-go. They are 
pay-go minus. It is sort of as though you draft up a budget and after 
you figure out what you want, then you draft up the rules by which you 
will draft up the budget. That is the game we are playing here. We 
don't go into the process saying: Look, we have played by these rules. 
They have worked. We say: What do we need; what tax cuts do we want; 
what mandatory spending do we want. And after that, everything else 
that hasn't gone through the barn door, then we make the rules apply 
after that.
  I suggest that doesn't work. I suggest it is a formula for more 
fiscal disaster. I suggest it means next year in the Budget Committee 
the same thing is going to happen. There is going to be a whole list of 
tax cuts and other things--mandatory spending--people wanted to get in 
there. And they will say: We exempt this, and now we will make the pay-
go rule apply.
  That is making a sham out of the pay-go rules. The ranking member, 
for whom I have enormous admiration on this subject, hit it right on 
the head. The people of this country are beginning to realize it has 
all happened again, that they have been taken. We had rules in place 
that the American people were thrilled to see work, leading to a 
balanced budget and a surplus. Those rules are no longer there. Those 
rules were allowed to expire at a time when this country was undergoing 
enormous anxiety. But they are catching on. They caught on in 1992, and 
they sent to Washington people who would deal with the deficit. They 
are catching on again now. The Senator is right, this vote is ``the 
vote'' about whether you are for balancing this Nation's budget or 
whether you want deficits as far as the eye can see.
  Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Delaware who has been a 
terrific advocate on this issue.
  Mr. CARPER. I thank my colleague for yielding. I thank Senator 
Feingold and others on our side and the other side of the aisle for 
their work.
  This is an important amendment. He is right. I don't know whether it 
is the most important amendment offered on this resolution, but it may 
well be. I would like to take a couple of minutes and look back a few 
years to some of the things that have been said by folks in our country 
and actually outside of our country.
  I would like for us to go back to 2001, the first year George Bush 
was President. What he said was:

       We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget 
     deficits.

  We found out he was wrong.
  A year or so later, he said:

       Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short 
     term.

  I am sorry to say he was wrong again.
  In 2003, he said:

       Our current deficit is not large by historical standards 
     and is manageable.

  That, too, is wrong.
  This year, he is saying to us:

       The deficit will be cut in half over the next 5 years.

  Unfortunately, if we look more closely at what is going to happen 
over the next 5 years and beyond, the deficit may be trimmed a little 
bit, but it is going to begin to explode when my generation of baby 
boomers starts to retire in 5 or 6 years.
  I want to share with my colleagues another quotation that occurred 
several years before these. It was not by an American but a fellow from 
Great Britain, Dennis Healy. In the late 1970s, he was Chancellor of 
the Exchequer. There was something he called the ``theory of holes.'' 
The theory of holes

[[Page S2513]]

goes something like this: When you find yourself in a hole, stop 
digging.
  We are in a hole. We are in a huge hole. The hole of debt is almost 
$7 trillion, up from about $1 trillion in 1982. It is actually pretty 
modest compared to the hole we are going to be in in 2014. This red 
line represents money that we owe somebody. Those somebodies are going 
to want to be repaid. Do some of the people lending money to Uncle Sam 
live in this country? A lot of them don't. A lot of them live around 
the world. As they see this red ink accumulate, and as they see a 
nation not only living beyond its means financially through our Federal 
deficits but a nation that buys a lot more from overseas than we 
certainly sell to other countries, my fear is that what may well happen 
is those other countries will lend us so much money, but in order to 
continue to loan us more money, they are going to want a little higher 
interest rate--maybe significantly higher--as our creditors. If we 
begin to pay higher interest, we know what kind of adverse effect that 
can have on the economy of this country.
  Look at one other chart. This is about the year 1999, 2000, when the 
budget deficits turned into surpluses. Now we are back in the soup. 
This is what the deficit looks like. In 2004, it is about $600 billion. 
The reason this looks higher than some of us are used to is because 
this is the real operating deficit, when you take away the mask that is 
provided by Social Security. Social Security is going into the surplus, 
and it makes the operating deficit look smaller because we operate 
under a unified budget. After dropping down, it picks up to about 
three-quarters of a trillion dollars. That is 1 year. It will be over a 
quarter of a trillion dollars in 2014.
  A week or so ago Alan Greenspan was before the Banking Committee. He 
was testifying. During the course of his testimony, and following his 
testimony, we had the opportunity to ask him questions. I asked him 
questions about the potential of interest rates rising and what that 
might do to the economy. He expressed that could happen and, in fact, 
it would be a chilling one for the American economy.

  We also talked about the proposal before us today that Senator 
Feingold is offering, this pay-as-you-go notion; the idea that if I 
wanted to raise spending further above the baseline of spending already 
built into our budget, I would have to come up with an offset. The idea 
is that if I wanted to lower revenues, cut taxes in some area, I would 
come up with an offset to equal out that effect.
  I asked Chairman Greenspan--there are different approaches to pay-go. 
One, I call it pay-go ``lite,'' where it would only affect the spending 
side. If I had a spending increase I wanted to make, I would have to 
come up with the offset. I said, How about the other side of a pay-as-
you-go, on the revenue side? I was trying to get him on the record to 
say that the pay-as-you-go should be applied both on the spending side 
and the revenue side.
  This is what he said: What worked in the past is what we ought to do 
now. That is what he said. What worked in the past is what you, the 
Congress, ought to do now. What worked in the past? It was a pay-as-
you-go approach that applied to both spending and revenues. Frankly, it 
worked real well in the past. It is not the only thing that worked 
well, but it was helpful. We have the opportunity to put it back into 
place. We ought to do it.
  My dad, when I was a kid growing up, would say to my sister and me 
when we would do some foolish stunt and not show any forethought: Just 
use some common sense. My guess is, if we were on the floor today and I 
asked Senator Feingold, or Senator Conrad, or the Presiding Officer, to 
go back to your childhood and think about things your parents used to 
say to you, you could all think of something they would say to you to 
try to drum into your heads. My dad would say more times than I would 
care to remember: Just use some common sense.
  When we have an annual budget deficit that is approaching $600 
billion, when we have a national debt that is now at about $7 trillion, 
I think a good test of common sense is, when any Senator wants to raise 
spending to make this situation worse, or any Senator wants to cut the 
revenue base to make this situation worse, we ought to say: How are you 
going to pay for it? If I don't have a good answer, we should not do 
what I want to do--either raising spending or cutting revenues. In my 
dad's words, that would be using common sense. We need some common 
sense. This amendment will provide that.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes remain.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. I will take 2 minutes off the 
resolution so the Senator will retain his time.
  My colleagues, this amendment matters. We have a lot of amendments 
that are important but that, frankly, are not going to do much about 
our long-term fiscal condition. This amendment could make a real 
contribution to getting these skyrocketing deficits under control. Why? 
Because it says simply this: No new spending on the mandatory side, and 
that is two-thirds of Federal spending; no new tax cuts that are not 
paid for, unless you can get a supermajority vote.
  This is one of the key budget disciplines we had through the 1990s 
that helped us save hundreds of billions of dollars on the deficit. 
This is what helped us move from record deficits to record surpluses. 
This budget discipline was allowed to lapse in 2002, despite our best 
efforts.
  Senator Feingold and I made a last-ditch attempt to save these budget 
disciplines and we got 59 votes. We needed 60. Look what has happened 
since. Deficits have taken off like a scalded cat.
  My colleagues, I think this vote is going to be evidence of whether 
somebody is serious about fiscal discipline and restoring fiscal sanity 
or whether they just want red ink as far as the eye can see. Make no 
mistake, that is where we are headed. That is where we are headed under 
the President's plan.
  The President's plan adds $3 trillion to the national debt in the 
next 5 years. The budget resolution is a little bit better; it adds 
$2.86 trillion to the national debt in the next 5 years. All of this is 
right before the baby boomers retire.
  My colleagues, you cannot leave this Chamber calling yourself a 
fiscal conservative unless you vote for this amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered 
by my good friend from Wisconsin.
  We are facing a dire financial situation. The projected deficit for 
the current fiscal year is $521 billion--that's over half of a trillion 
dollars--the largest ever. That is why the Congress and the 
administration must begin taking action this year, despite the fact 
that it is an election year, to address this crisis. Our failure to 
start making some of the tough decisions will land squarely on the 
backs of our children and grandchildren, and their financial future 
will be strapped with digging out of the holes that have been created 
by our actions and inactions.
  The Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified recently before 
the House Budget Committee about the seriousness of our rising budget 
deficit and, more specifically, the impact the deficit is going to have 
on our future economic stability. He very clearly warned about the 
consequences of a lack of fiscal discipline, and called for new steps 
to restrain spending. The Chairman firmly supports reinstatement of the 
pay-go rules as one such step.
  According to a joint statement issued by the Committee for Economic 
Development, the Concord Coalition, and the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities, ``without a change in current (fiscal) policies, the 
federal government can expect to run a cumulative deficit of $5 
trillion over the next 10 years.''
  These figures are shameful and frightening. Another astonishing part 
of this report states that, ``after the baby boom generation starts to 
retire in 2008, the combination of demographic pressures and rising 
health care costs will result in the costs of Medicare, Medicaid and 
Social Security growing faster than the economy. We project that by the 
time today's newborns reach 40 years of age, the cost of these three 
programs as a percentage of the economy will more than

[[Page S2514]]

double--from 8.5 percent of the GDP to over 17 percent.''
  The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, also has issued warnings about 
the dangers that lie ahead if we continue to spend in this manner. 
According to a recent CBO report, due to rising health care costs and 
an aging population, ``spending on entitlement programs--especially 
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security--will claim a sharply increasing 
share of the nation's economic output over the coming decades.'' The 
report went onto say that, ``unless taxation reaches levels that are 
unprecedented in the United States, current spending policies will 
probably be financially unsustainable over the next 50 years. An ever-
growing burden of federal debt held by the public would have a 
corrosive . . . effect on the economy.'' Additionally, CBO has 
projected a 10-year deficit of $4.4 trillion.
  These are alarming figures. It is critical we take action to curtail 
further deficit spending.
  In the 1990s, when we faced what we thought to be the worst fiscal 
situation possible, we passed the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, which 
instituted a number of statutory deficit control rules, including the 
pay-as-you-go, pay-go, requirements. The statutory pay-go rules were 
largely responsible for imposing true financial discipline on the 
Congress when it came to mandatory spending programs and taxes. 
Unfortunately, those rules expired in 2002.
  We have an opportunity today to show the American public that we are 
serious about digging out of the fiscal hole that faces our country by 
adopting this amendment to strengthen the Senate pay-go point of order. 
Although I wish we could reestablish the statutory pay-go rules, we 
can't do that in the budget resolution since it is not a law. We can, 
however, tighten up our own Senate rules to make it more difficult to 
pass legislation that increases the deficit.
  I would like to bring my colleagues' attention one of today's 
editorials in the Washington Post, urging reinstatement of the pay-go 
rules. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the editorial be printed 
in the Record immediately following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to clarify that I firmly support 
the three proposed tax extensions in the pending budget resolution. I 
fully expect that when tax legislation is considered by the Chamber in 
the weeks ahead, it will include extensions of the marriage penalty tax 
elimination, the $1,000 child tax credit, and expanding the 10 percent 
income tax bracket as called for in this resolution, and I will support 
such legislation. This amendment is not an amendment in opposition to 
those provisions, but rather, an amendment to promote fiscal 
responsibility and protect us from ourselves.
  I urges my colleagues to support the amendment.

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 10, 2004]

                        Rigging the Budget Rules

       When it comes to matters of taxes and spending, members of 
     Congress are like would-be dieters who can't stop raiding the 
     refrigerator. Recognizing this weakness, lawmakers have 
     resorted in the past to budget rules that act much like a 
     lock on the fridge. During the 1990s, these rules set 
     ceilings on discretionary spending and required that any tax 
     cuts or spending increases in entitlement programs be matched 
     by offsetting spending cuts or tax increases. As with the 
     dieter who knows where the key is hidden, the rules didn't 
     work perfectly--they could be avoided with a 60-vote 
     majority--but they did help curb lawmakers' natural 
     tendencies.
       The rules expired at the end of 2002, and everyone from 
     President Bush to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to 
     Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin has called for 
     their renewal. ``Perhaps the single most important act 
     Congress and the Administration could take at this point to 
     rein in the budget over the next decade would be to re-
     establish the budget rules that existed in the 1990s,'' Mr. 
     Rubin wrote in a recent paper co-authored with the Brookings 
     Institution's Peter R. Orszag and Allen Sinai of Decision 
     Economics Inc.
       But the Bush administration, and some of its allies in 
     Congress, would rig the rules to apply discipline in a 
     dangerously lopsided fashion. The administration proposes 
     strict controls on spending but no restraints at all on 
     cutting taxes, an approach influenced by the administration's 
     inflated view of the beneficial effect of tax cuts. But even 
     for those who fully subscribe to the administration's 
     position on the relative merits of taxes and spending, it's 
     clear that such a rule would simply skew budgetary choices, 
     resulting in spending programs recast in the guise of tax 
     breaks. Mr. Greenspan reiterated last month that the rule 
     ought to apply to both spending increases and tax cuts.
       Meanwhile, the budget resolution before the Senate would 
     leave in place the sham version of pay-as-you-go adopted last 
     year, in which the rule applies only to tax cuts or spending 
     increases in excess of what the budget resolution provides. 
     This year's model would permit $122 billion more in tax cuts 
     not offset by savings elsewhere. Under this meaningless form 
     of pay-as-you-go, senators promise every year to show 
     spending discipline--the next time around.
       An effort to add an evenhanded pay-as-you-go rule failed on 
     a party-line vote in the Senate Budget Committee last week. 
     The Senate should fix that omission before it approves 
     another irresponsible budget. And lawmakers should show 
     discipline by requiring themselves to pay for all their tax 
     cuts--not carving our popular middle-class breaks like the 
     child tax credit, and certainly not speeding up repeal of the 
     estate tax, for special budgetary treatment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I cannot tell you how pleased I am to 
have the support of these two Senators. They are two Senators who are 
consistently devoted to protecting the taxpayers in their State and in 
the country. I find, more than anything else, people looking for 
representatives who truly come out here and take the tough votes to 
protect the interests of the taxpayers.
  As I indicated before, they are figuring out that despite all the 
troubles of the last couple of years, we have irresponsibly driven up 
this country's deficit and debt to a point that is unprecedented in the 
history of the country.
  I am grateful to these two Senators. I remind everybody, this is a 
bipartisan amendment. We have a Republican cosponsor, and there will be 
other Republican votes for it. This is not your typical partisan 
amendment or vote on a budget resolution. This is about what used to be 
a consensus in this body. We ought to have some rules that are 
consistent that will apply to all parts of the budget so that we can 
work together on behalf of the American people to do something about 
our very serious fiscal problems.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 24 minutes. The 
Senator from Wisconsin has 3 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, to notify our colleagues, it will be my 
intention to yield some time back and to vote, unless my colleague from 
Iowa wishes to speak, at quarter to 6. We have three rollcall votes. 
The first one will be on Senator Byrd's amendment to strike the 
reconciliation provisions.
  I notify my colleagues that rollcall votes will probably begin in the 
next 10 minutes.
  I have great respect for the authors of the amendment. I support pay-
go, but I think it should be pay-go with the present law tax cuts being 
extended. If we do not, we are going to have tax increases. We ought to 
let people keep the same tax rates they have today. I do not want to 
lose the marriage penalty relief. That is what we are assuming in our 
budget. This boils down to, we have pay-go on everything except these 
child-friendly, marriage-friendly tax cuts. We want those to continue, 
maybe not under pay-go.
  Some people say let's raise somebody else's taxes to pay for them. 
That is a recipe for getting nothing done. We want to continue present 
law on the taxes. It is very interesting that present law on spending 
does not have to be paid for. We have a lot of spending programs that 
also have sunset provisions, but they do not have pay-go when they are 
reauthorized, when they are extended.
  If you extend the farm bill--I have a whole list of programs--
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, food stamps, Commodity Credit 
Corporation, veterans compensation, child care entitlements, and State 
Children's Health Insurance Program. All these, and many more, are 
temporary. They sunset. When they are extended, they are assumed to be 
extended. They do not have to be paid for. But any tax cuts--when I say 
tax cuts, marriage penalty relief, child credit taxes, the rates that 
we now have, 35 percent maximum, 10 percent--that 10 percent

[[Page S2515]]

is now going to revert to 15 percent unless we pay for it? Oh, that 
rate that is 25 percent today is going to go to 28 percent unless we 
pay for it, but we do not make the appropriators pay for incremental 
expense. They can increase appropriations by any amount. They do not 
have to pay for it.

  My point is we have basically identical pay-go under our resolution 
as this amendment provides, except we assume present law, I stated a 
while ago, with exception of AMT. AMT is basically an extension of 
present law.
  The resolution we have before us was well thought out. It says let's 
keep present law intact, basically. Let's not have tax increases on 
families. Let's not make it more difficult for people to keep present 
law. Let's not tax them more next year under some rule, the present 
law.
  I know most of my colleagues do not want to increase taxes on those 
families, so we put it in the budget. Anything above that has to be 
paid for. So we have pay-go. If somebody says it does not work, they 
did not look at the Senate last year. I happened to be chairman of the 
Budget Committee. I requested somebody to make 60-some budget points of 
order, almost all of which we prevailed on. If anybody thinks I am not 
willing to use pay-go or any other budget rule to try and constrain 
spending, I think the facts will show quite differently.
  We will enforce the budget. The question is whether we are going to 
allow people to keep the same rates they have today or assume they are 
going to have a tax increase unless we find some other tax increase to 
pay for it.
  I urge our colleagues to vote against this amendment. I reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish I could say what is in the budget 
resolution before us is pay-go, but it is not pay-go. It is pay-go 
without an absolutely critical component, and that is making it apply 
to the tax cuts. It is almost like saying I want pay-go as long as it 
does not apply to what I want, and that is not the pay-go that worked 
in the 1990s. That is not the pay-go that brought us a balanced budget.
  I have to reiterate, this does not stop the tax cuts the Senator from 
Oklahoma is talking about--child care credit, 10-percent bracket, 
marriage penalty. Not only can all of these survive under pay-go, they 
will. They just need to get 60 votes. I predict in each case, they will 
probably get 35 to 40 extra votes on top of that, if anyone even raises 
the point of order. So it is simply false to say somehow this stops the 
tax cuts from being extended.
  Let's be honest about it. The only reason this exemption is needed is 
those tax cuts were not made permanent. Had they been made permanent, 
the Senator from Oklahoma would not have to be worrying about extending 
them. Why weren't they made permanent? They weren't made permanent so 
we could have this phony idea the deficit isn't as bad as it really is 
out in the future years. It is a gimmick. It is a game to make them 
temporary so you can say it is not going to cost more in the outyears. 
Then when it comes time to face the music, what do we do? We say the 
normal rules do not apply. We do not require ourselves to pay for it, 
or we do not require the 60 votes that are normally needed.
  Without the adoption of this amendment, we have done serious damage 
to the integrity of the pay-go rules going into the future. A system of 
rules such as this depends on the integrity of the rules, that they be 
applied fairly and across the board. Allowing these exemptions, even 
well-intentioned, with regard to certain tax cuts, undermines the 
integrity of a system we all relied on to work in the 1990s.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 20 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield my colleague from Iowa such time as he desires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to oppose this amendment 
because this amendment is not about paying for tax cuts; it is about 
avoiding a tax increase. Although I understand the desire to impose 
pay-go, it should not apply to current law, and that is a very 
important distinction.
  Under current law, we have a number of tax provisions, including the 
expanded 10-percent tax bracket, the $1,000-per-child tax credit, and 
marriage penalty relief that will expire at the end of this year. If we 
do not extend these provisions, taxes will go up, and taxes will go up 
automatically.
  As I have said before in several other points I have been making on 
other amendments, it is one thing for Congress to have guts enough to 
vote a tax increase, but it is quite another to let taxes go up 
automatically without a vote of the people. I think that is wrong.
  In order to extend the existing tax law, we need to pass legislation 
yet this year if we are going to have a seamless continuation of 
present tax law into the year 2005 and beyond. That is what this 
amendment is all about. We are going to either extend current law or we 
are going to let taxes go up.
  Requiring the Senate to pay for this tax relief we already have in 
the law, that would not be in the law if we do not take some action 
this year, could lead to disastrous results. We are talking about 
disastrous results for families, such as if one is married and they get 
hit with the marriage penalty, that is a major concern to those 
families who have to pay more. If they have children and they benefit 
from the $1,000 child credit and that credit goes down, that is going 
to hit those families to a greater extent.
  All families, low income or otherwise, but particularly this 10-
percent bracket was put in the law to help low-income Americans pay 
less taxes. So it is a disastrous result on families, and we should not 
have to go to the extra extreme of maintaining existing law. If for 
some reason we could not agree on the necessary offsets that would be 
required under Senator Feingold's amendment, or if we could not get 60 
votes, then current law would expire and taxes would automatically go 
up, without even any consideration by any of us. There would be 535 
people just standing by and letting taxes go up.
  Some people may be willing to take that risk, but I do not believe 
that is the right approach. Consequently, we need to reject this 
amendment. We need to support working families of America by extending 
the tax reductions that have already been provided for under current 
law. We need that to be seamless. We do not want to take any chance 
somehow somebody is going to say next October, just before we adjourn 
for the election, well, we will worry about this next year. That is a 
bad situation to leave the families of America. They ought to know what 
tax policy is for the long haul.
  Certainty of tax policy is the best tax policy. Even if it might not 
be exactly the right tax policy, certainty of tax policy is better than 
the uncertain situation we have facing American working men and women 
today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will be shortly yielding back the 
remainder of our time. I believe our agreement was we would go to the 
Byrd amendment first. I think we agreed to have 1 minute on each side 
to recap the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. I have already asked Senator Byrd to come in. Has the 
Senator from Wisconsin concluded?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to know, do I have 30 seconds 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me point out to the Senator from Iowa, for whom I 
also have enormous regard and really enjoy working with, he indicated 
he wanted to make sure this pay-go goes through the way they have it in 
the budget resolution in order to make sure tax cuts that are current 
law continue. The fact is they are not in current law. The current law 
says they shall expire. That is the law. The law is they are going to 
expire.
  In order to continue these tax cuts, a new law must be passed. All I 
am saying is the pay-go rule should apply to that new law, to those new 
tax cuts, because otherwise we are not applying the rules that are 
applied to everything

[[Page S2516]]

else. I think it is an important distinction.
  It is not by accident these were set up to expire.
  They would have been in violation of the budget because they caused 
deficits in the outgoing years.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, my colleague from Wisconsin is correct, 
these tax changes we made last year expire at the end of this year. 
Actually, I think they have been in effect for 2 years. If we do not 
extend them, it is going to be a tax increase on American families. We 
are trying to protect American families.
  I heard my colleague from Wisconsin say we want to protect taxpayers. 
That is exactly what we are trying to do. We are basically saying over 
$13 trillion in spending and about $12 trillion in revenues. The only 
thing we are trying to protect over the next 5 years is $144 billion. 
That is basically extending present law to make sure people do not have 
a tax increase from what their tax rates are today. Above that, we have 
pay-go. That is basically what our resolution says, with the exception 
of the energy bill, and perhaps one other minor provision; AMT is an 
extension of present law.
  We do not want the families who are paying taxes today to have a big 
tax increase, if they have 4 kids, of $2,200 next year. So we said 
everything else, yes, is pay-go. We do not have pay-go for the farm 
bill. We do not have pay-go for all of these multitude of entitlement 
programs I mentioned. They all sunset. They all expire at a certain 
period of time. There are some real inequities, almost a bias, for more 
spending. We do not have pay-go for incremental increases in 
discretionary spending, but we say, oh, if you want to keep your 
present tax level, you have to pay for it.
  What some people mean by that is we want to have higher taxes on 
somebody else. The net result could be, especially in a political year, 
one where the partisan feelings are so strong you would end up with no 
tax bill, which ends up increasing taxes on American families. I do not 
want that to happen.

  If we look at the total amount of money spent, the difference is $144 
billion. We are saying we want to apply pay-go above everything else. 
When talking about $13 trillion, it is not that significant. I think it 
is important to protect the $144 billion, so we protect American 
families so they do not have a tax increase next year.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. On our side, it is my understanding Senator Levin has 5 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. NICKLES. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. I ask Senator Feingold have 1 minute of that 5 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. We could go back and forth all day. I would like to 
start the rollcall vote very quickly. If Senator Levin is in the 
Chamber, this would be the time for him to speak.
  Mr. REID. He is not going to use his time.
  Mr. NICKLES. If Senator Feingold wants an additional minute, that 
will be fine. I will take an additional minute.
  Mr. REID. I will yield back the 4 minutes when he finishes his time.
  Mr. NICKLES. I would be happy to grant Senator Feingold an additional 
minute. I will take an additional minute and then we will hear from 
Senator Byrd and we will vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to debate 
the Senator from Oklahoma. I join with him on the issue when it comes 
to the taxpayers. The lesson we learned in the 1990s is the worst thing 
that can be done to the taxpayers of this country is to run record 
deficits and destroy the fiscal integrity of this country.
  The only question is: Are we going to have across-the-board, tough 
budget rules to protect the taxpayer dollars, or are we going to have 
holes in those rules that will make sure the taxpayers get in a deeper 
hole with the deficits?
  Those tax cuts will not be denied because of these rules this year. 
The taxpayers of this country will get the 10 percent. They will get 
the continued elimination of the marriage penalty. They will get the 
child care credit. If we go with my amendment, they will get that and 
also get the fiscal discipline rules that brought them a balanced 
budget at the end of the 1990s.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, would the distinguished manager of the bill 
entertain having the second 2 votes 10-minute votes rather than 15-
minute votes?
  Mr. NICKLES. I was going to make that request.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time. What we agreed to do 
previously was to stack the three votes. Senator Byrd would be first. 
We agreed to have the proponents and opponents each have a minute 
before each vote. I ask unanimous consent that we vote on Senator 
Byrd's amendment and that the following two votes be limited to 10 
minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wanted to 
inquire if I might find a way to speak for not to exceed 2 minutes in 
opposition to the amendment that is offered by Senators Warner and 
Stevens.
  Mr. REID. I have no problem with that.
  Mr. NICKLES. I modify my request so that there be 2 minutes on each 
side prior to the vote on the amendment of Senator Warner and Senator 
Stevens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays for the Byrd amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I believe our regular order would be we 
would revert to the Byrd amendment with 1 minute debate on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Is the Senator yielding back 
his time on the Feingold amendment?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield the remainder of my time on the Feingold 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. I yield Senator Levin's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the request of the 
Senator that the yeas and nays be ordered?
  Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2735

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized 
for 1 minute.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the debate about budget deficits is taking 
place all across this country. Ironically, the one place where debate 
is discouraged on this matter is right here in the world's greatest 
deliberative body. My amendment would strike the tax reconciliation 
instructions to the Finance Committee that would shield tax cut 
legislation that worsens the deficit from a thorough debate in the 
Senate.
  To use reconciliation to increase the deficit is an abuse of the 
budget process. It doesn't matter whether it is an $81 billion tax cut, 
a $350 billion tax cut, or a $1.35 trillion tax cut, the Budget Act 
framers--and I was one of them--did not contemplate all this 
difficulty, did not contemplate reconciliation would ever be used to 
worsen the deficit. Not until 1999, after 25 years of restraint, was 
this abuse of the process first perpetrated.
  If this budget resolution passes with these reconciliation 
instructions included, the Senate will be denied the opportunity to 
forge a consensus that would allow it to extend these tax cuts and pay 
for them.
  That is the issue on which we vote today. A vote to strike the 
reconciliation instructions is a vote to allow the Senate to work its 
will and to permit the further worsening of the deficit. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment, and I thank the Chair.
  Mr. NICKLES. I alert my colleagues we are going to start 3 rollcall 
votes momentarily.

[[Page S2517]]

  The only way to make sure there is not a tax increase on American 
families is to pass reconciliation. Maybe we don't need it. I hope we 
don't need it. Maybe we will have some good bipartisan cooperation and 
we can extend present law to make sure these families don't have a tax 
increase, but this is a pretty partisan time. We can't even get 
conferees appointed to the Workforce Reinvestment Act, which would help 
people to get jobs. Some people are just playing games. I don't want to 
play games with the American family. We only reconcile $81 billion out 
of $12 trillion.

  I want families to have a tax cut. I want them to keep the same tax 
law they have today. That is a savings of $1,600 for a family of four 
that has taxable income of $58,000. The only way we can really assure 
that is going to happen, or increase the likelihood that will happen, 
will be to have reconciliation. I wish that wasn't necessary, but 
unfortunately it is. You can have a lot of people play games with the 
tax bill if it comes through and it has unlimited amendments.
  Maybe we won't need reconciliation. Chairman Grassley asked me to 
make sure we have it as an option, and I think it is important to do 
so. If we don't, you may well see the $1,000 tax credit per child go to 
$700, you may well see the marriage penalty relief disappear and 
increase taxes on couples $900. I urge our colleagues to vote no on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 36 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 2735) was rejected.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2742

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 4 minutes evenly divided prior 
to a vote on the Warner amendment.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, of the 2 minutes under my control, I would 
like to give a minute to my distinguished colleague, Senator Stevens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the amendment I have cosponsored with 
Senator Warner will restore the President's request for the Department 
of Defense. I understand the reasons why the Budget Committee did not 
bring this full number out of the committee, but we wish to restore the 
President's request in full.
  We are engaged in a global war against terrorism. We have troops in 
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Haiti. More than half of our forces are overseas 
at the present time. I do not think it is time for us to cut the 
President's request for the Department of Defense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will be happy to follow with the 
remainder of my time, if the other side wishes to address this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on this side we urge our colleagues to 
support this amendment. We think when our forces are in the field, when 
they are in combat half a world away, we ought to meet the Commander in 
Chief's request for funding.
  We will offer an amendment at a later point in the queue to fully pay 
for this amendment. We think that is an appropriate way to handle this 
matter. But for the moment, on this amendment, we think the right vote 
is to support the request of the Commander in Chief while our forces 
are in combat.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes in opposition.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have the utmost respect for the two 
authors of this amendment. They know that.
  The Defense Department is plagued with accounting problems so severe 
that the Secretary of Defense cannot account for billions of taxpayer 
dollars. The General Accounting Office estimates the very earliest the 
Defense Department could possibly pass an audit would be 2007, and that 
is optimistic. The administration does not even know how much time and 
how much money it will take to fix the accounting problems.
  It is absurd that the administration is proposing to cut vital 
domestic investments while billions and billions of dollars are lost 
every year in the Pentagon's broken accounting system. Such waste would 
not be tolerated from any other Department.
  I suggest the Pentagon would be more careful with its money if it had 
less of it to waste. The Defense Department's budget is already bloated 
at $414 billion. I cannot support this amendment to add another $6.9 
billion to the budget resolution for the Pentagon when it cannot 
explain to the American taxpayers how their hard-earned money is being 
spent.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleague in 
reply that you have brought this to the attention of the Senate year 
after year, as you should.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. We are endeavoring, through oversight and otherwise, to 
correct it. But those problems in no way are owing to the valor of the 
men and women in uniform and their families.
  Mr. BYRD. Right.
  Mr. WARNER. That is what this vote is for.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to remind our colleagues, this is 
a 10-minute rollcall vote. We will have one other vote immediately 
following that. For the information of our colleagues, it is our 
expectation to have more rollcall votes, probably to begin at around 
8:45.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2742.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the yeas and nays have already been 
ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 4, as follows:

[[Page S2518]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 37 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--4

     Byrd
     Carper
     Gregg
     Jeffords

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 2742) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2748

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, evenly 
divided, prior to a vote on the Feingold amendment.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this amendment will simply return us to 
the rules by which Congress played in the decade of the 1990s. We 
eliminate the exceptions to pay-go included in last year's resolution 
that exempt new tax cuts and new mandatory spending included in the 
budget resolution, an exception that facilitates more damage to the 
Federal bottom line.
  This amendment will not--I repeat, will not--prevent the extension of 
the expiring 10-percent bracket or the child tax credit or the marriage 
penalty. This body will vote to extend those tax cuts by a huge margin, 
and I will be part of that huge margin. But this amendment will return 
some of the budget discipline that helped us balance the budget.
  Deficits matter. Debt matters. Let's not leave our children and 
grandchildren with an even bigger tab than we have already stuck them 
with.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to vote no on this 
amendment. These are the tax cuts we are trying to protect. Everything, 
basically other than that with a minor couple other things, is pay-go. 
We have pay-go on everything that is not assumed in the budget. This 
chart shows most of it. That is tax relief for American families.
  We should protect taxpayers. We do not have pay-go for expansion of 
entitlements that sunset, but we do for tax cuts that are sunset. That 
is not fair to the taxpayers. Let us protect taxpayers.
  We have pay-go in the underlying resolution. Last year, I and others 
made 62 points of order to cut spending. We used pay-go. We will use it 
again this year. We have it in this budget resolution. I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on the Feingold amendment.
  For the information of colleagues, we expect to have about a 2-hour 
window, and we expect to have more rollcall votes probably beginning 
about 8:45 or 9 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
  Mr. BYRD. How much time was consumed on the last rollcall?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nineteen minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Nineteen minutes. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2748. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 38 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--48

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 2748) was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, 
Senator Conrad and I are trying to work out an agreement on which 
amendments will be going next. I believe we have an understanding that 
Senator Baucus will offer an amendment. At that point, Senator 
Voinovich will offer an amendment, and I think I will stop there. I 
know Senator Conrad is trying to line up one or two more.
  It is our hope that people would not want too much time on their 
amendments so we could expedite as many amendments as possible.
  Again I will repeat, we expect votes to occur probably shortly before 
9.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.


                           Amendment No. 2751

  Mr. BAUCUS. I have an amendment at the desk and I ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2751.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To strike the outlay reconciliation instruction to the 
                         Committee on Finance)

       Strike section 201(c).

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment would eliminate the 
reconciliation instruction in the budget resolution directing the 
Finance Committee to produce savings in mandatory programs within the 
committee's jurisdiction. The amendment is based on an assumption in 
the resolution that our committee would cut Medicaid by $11 billion 
over 5 years, and reduce earned-income tax credit outlays by $3 
billion.
  Let me begin by clearing up one common misconception. Some may think 
the budget calls for the Finance Committee to produce legislation that 
saves $3.4 billion over 5 years, since that is the figure in the 
reconciliation instruction. In fact, the Finance Committee would have 
to produce $21.6 billion in savings. Why? Because the budget resolution 
calls for extending the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief. 
Since a portion of the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief

[[Page S2519]]

is refundable, these count as outlays in the budget process. So 
extending the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief, as the 
President has proposed and as the budget resolution provides, and which 
I support and I think the vast majority of Members of this body 
support, it will have the effect of increasing outlays also by $18.2 
billion over 5 years.
  To produce legislation that generates net outlay reductions of $3.4 
billion, and the additional $8.2 billion cost, the Finance Committee 
would have to draft legislation to reduce spending by $21.6 billion--
again, not the $3.4 billion over 5 years, which is the figure in the 
budget resolution. It would actually have to be $21.6 billion.
  The budget resolution assumes the Finance Committee will pass 
legislation that cuts Medicaid by $11 billion and cuts the earned-
income tax credit by $3 billion and comes up with the remaining $7.6 
billion by extending customs user fees.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator withhold for one moment? I apologize.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Absolutely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. Chairman, would you like to present a unanimous 
consent request on time agreements on the next four amendments?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have three or four amendments in the 
queue. I believe they are the amendment of Senator Baucus, the 
amendment of Senator Voinovich, the amendment of Senator Nelson, and 
the amendment of Senator Corzine.
  I ask unanimous consent there be 30 minutes equally divided on each 
of those four amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. SARBANES. Reserving the right to object, can I get in that queue?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object, too.
  Mr. SARBANES. Can I get on that queue?
  Mr. NICKLES. You would have to talk to your manager.
  Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to make that the fifth amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. What amendment would that be?
  Mr. CONRAD. The firefighters amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. I am not familiar with the amendment. I would like to 
see it. I expect I would agree to it.
  Mr. CONRAD. It is the amendment offered in the committee. I would say 
what we would like to accomplish. The next round of votes has been set 
for 8:45 or 9 o'clock. We would like to get the next group of 
amendments debated so they could be voted on at that time. That is why 
we are trying to have very tight time limits on these amendments. Would 
that be agreeable to the Senator?

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, actually it is not agreeable. I would like 
an hour. I may not use it all, but I would like an hour, equally 
divided.
  Mr. CONRAD. Equally divided. I ask the chairman, could we say we have 
an hour equally divided on that amendment and 30 minutes on the other 
three, equally divided, and reach that agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I will modify the request that there be an hour equally 
divided on the Baucus amendment and the other three amendments I 
referred to be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SARBANES. I object. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Montana 
has the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, let me just recap briefly so Senators 
understand my amendment. I explained where we were before the break in 
the action.
  I am offering an amendment which would eliminate the reconciliation 
instruction to the budget resolution directing the Finance Committee to 
produce savings in mandatory programs within the Finance Committee's 
jurisdiction. The amendment, as I mentioned earlier, is based on the 
assumption in the resolution that the committee would cut Medicaid by 
$11 billion over 5 years and reduce the earned-income tax credit 
outlays by $3 billion.
  Some may think the budget calls for the Finance Committee to produce 
legislation that saves $3.4 billion over 5 years, since that is the 
figure in the reconciliation. Actually, the committee would have to 
produce savings of $21.6 billion, and that is basically because the 
resolution calls for extending the child tax credit and the marriage 
penalty relief, as the President has proposed, and as provided for in 
the budget resolution and which I support. I think the vast majority of 
the Members here support it.
  As a consequence of all that, the outlays have to be increased $18.2 
billion over 5 years, and that is, again, because the earned-income tax 
credit is refundable. So you add it all together and it actually comes 
up to $21.6 billion that has to be cut, not the figure of $3.4 billion 
contained in the budget resolution.
  I might add that I think neither the earned-income tax credit cuts 
nor the Medicaid cuts make a lot of sense. Let me start with the 
earned-income tax credit. That is a feature in the Tax Code that 
President Reagan once hailed as--and let me give his quote:

       . . . the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best 
     yet creative measure to come out of Congress.

  I think he is right. The earned-income tax credit has done a lot to 
lift people out of poverty.
  President Bush has not proposed any reductions in the earned-income 
tax credit, and with good reason. The earned-income tax credit was 
created in 1975 as a bipartisan effort to reduce the tax burden on low-
income Americans. It provides a powerful incentive for people to work. 
It has played a very large role in moving poor families from welfare to 
work. It has reduced poverty.

  Nearly 4.8 million people, including 2.6 million children, are lifted 
out of poverty each year because of the EITC. By all accounts, the 
earned-income tax credit has been successful, and it has been 
effective.
  While the earned-income tax credit has achieved its policy aims, and 
I might add with incredible success, a 1999 Treasury audit of EITC 
returns shows that noncompliance is a problem. And it is a problem. 
Noncompliance in the EITC has been a problem. I believe, however, that 
noncompliance on the earned-income tax credit is largely due to errors, 
not because of fraud. Both the complexity of the tax credit and the 
complex living situations are responsible for the high error rate.
  Let me give an example. There is an IRS publication called 
publication 596. That is the IRS instructions and forms for the earned-
income tax credit. Guess what. It is 52 pages long. Can you imagine 
somebody sitting down at his or her kitchen table trying to figure out 
the earned-income tax credit? The IRS takes more pages to explain the 
earned-income tax credit than it does to explain the complicated 
alternative minimum tax. Guess how many pages are in that. Eight. They 
are eight terrible pages, but there are only eight of them. The EITC 
booklet has 52 pages. Obviously, it is unnecessary complexity.
  Senator Grassley and I fashioned a series of reforms that were 
enacted as part of the 2001 tax cut legislation. The Treasury expects 
those changes alone will reduce earned-income tax credit overpayments 
by about $2 billion a year. So we are doing something about it. We all 
recognize more needs to be done, and we will all work together to see 
that this work gets done.
  But the remaining work is administrative; it is not legislative. As 
this administration has indicated, finding ways to identify earned-
income tax filers who were not compliant, and to save money by 
preventing losses to the Treasury, is primarily an administrative 
issue, not one that can be achieved through legislation. One can't 
simply wave a wand and pass a law mandating a lower error rate. That 
takes a lot of administrative work. The IRS and Treasury are working on 
it now. They are conducting a major pilot project to test new 
procedures which the agency hopes will reduce overpayments. I hope the 
Treasury reduces overpayments, and the IRS is also likely to conduct a 
second pilot this summer. I and other Senators want to see whether 
these procedures work, while making sure

[[Page S2520]]

they don't cause honest, eligible working families to lose earned-
income tax payments for which they qualify.
  But I believe administrative action is the proper course. Let me 
reiterate that no legislative remedies are at hand that the Joint 
Committee on Taxation has found will generate significant savings--no 
legislation. Reducing errors is primarily administrative, and the 
budget resolution's reconciliation instructions to the Finance 
Committee would unfortunately force the committee to cut the EITC 
itself. It doesn't really address the error rate.
  For hard-working, low-income families, the EITC offsets income, 
payroll, or Federal excise taxes. It would thus raise taxes for these 
working families; that is, if the EITC were cut.
  It is bad enough we continue to let the minimum wage erode. We should 
not be raising the taxes on the working poor on top of that by cutting 
the EITC. The Senate should take a firm stand against raising taxes on 
working Americans.
  The chairman's mark in the Budget Committee last week lays out two 
ways to achieve these so-called EITC savings. One way is a tax 
increase, pure and simple. The other way is administratively infeasible 
and would generate strong opposition from small business owners. The 
only way the second method could be designed so it would save money 
would be to make it, too, into a tax increase. Let me explain.
  The first of two options in the chairman's mark is to repeal the EITC 
for very poor workers, particularly workers without children. According 
to the IRS, some 3.7 million low-income workers received this credit in 
the year 2003 and secured an average tax credit of a little over $200 
each. These workers are among the poorest, lowest paid workers in the 
country. Only single workers with incomes below $11,490, and married 
couples with incomes below $12,490, would even qualify.
  This credit equals a maximum of 7.65 percent of the first $5,000 in 
wages these workers earn. As a result, this credit simply offsets some 
or all of the employee share of the payroll taxes these workers pay. 
Repeal it and the net Federal tax burden on these workers rises.
  Furthermore, if this tax credit is repealed, poor, single workers 
will begin owing Federal income tax in addition to their payroll taxes 
when their earnings only reach $7,950. That is nearly $2,000 below the 
poverty line. We can't do that. Such a change would literally tax these 
low-paid workers deeper into poverty.
  The other option the chairman's mark lists for achieving these EITC 
savings is to require workers to get their EITC payments in their 
paychecks rather than in the refund when they file their tax returns at 
the end of the year. This is unworkable.
  First, some small employers will find it very difficult to do. They 
would have to have additional complexity to do it. Second, many workers 
will not want to do this because they believe their earnings or their 
spouse's earnings may rise during the year which would make them 
eligible for a smaller EITC or no EITC at all, and if they received 
EITC payments during the part of the year their family's income was 
lower, they would have to write the IRS a check paying back the EITC 
when they file their tax returns. Not everyone in this situation is 
likely to file a separate amended tax return or have the cash to pay 
the EITC back. As a result, this could actually increase errors. It 
could increase overpayments as well as causing many families 
considerable difficulty.
  It would not save money. Suppose you instituted this system starting 
in the tax year 2005. It means next year low-income workers would 
receive both their EITC tax refund for the tax year 2004 and their EITC 
payments for tax year 2005 which would be provided in their paychecks 
throughout the year. The result would be the earned-income tax credit 
costs would nearly double in 2005. That would increase costs, not 
reduce them.
  This is not the time to cut Medicaid. Medicaid provides a crucial 
health care lifeline to more than 50 million Americans. It is a 
critical player in our health care safety net. Medicaid pays for about 
40 percent of all births in this country. It pays for almost half of 
all nursing home days. Its reach stretches throughout the health care 
system, and substantial costs will be felt in every corner of this 
Nation if this cut were to proceed.

  Even without these proposed cuts, Medicaid beneficiaries and 
providers are facing a very difficult year. Many States have not yet 
emerged from their worst financial crisis in several decades, and 
Medicaid programs have been cut in virtually every State in the past 2 
years. In fact, over the past 2 years, States have instituted Medicaid 
changes that have resulted in between 1.2 million to 1.6 million low-
income children, parents, elderly, and disabled people losing coverage 
and becoming uninsured.
  Benefits and provider payments have also been cut, resulting in 
beneficiaries' reduced access to needed services and greater cost 
shifting to individuals who are insured. The liability of our health 
care safety net is threatened. These cuts would have been significantly 
steeper had Congress not provided States with $20 billion in fiscal 
relief last year.
  Even after these Medicaid cuts and other budget cuts--and in many 
States tax increases--States still face a new round of deficits 
estimated at $40 billion in the coming year. Despite this news, the 
Federal fiscal relief is ending with the result that deeper Medicaid 
cuts are likely. The last thing we need to do now is to reduce Federal 
funding for Medicaid further and force deeper cuts in Medicaid.
  We should instead heed the bipartisan warnings of the National 
Governors Association. In a letter last week, the National Governors 
Association chair and vice chair, Governor Kempthorne of Idaho and 
Governor Warner of Virginia, had this to say:

       States are currently emerging from the most severe budget 
     crisis since World War II. And nearly every State has enacted 
     difficult cuts to its Medicaid program, including both 
     eligibility levels and provider payments. Federal funding 
     reductions would force States to implement even deeper cuts 
     by restricting eligibility, eliminating or reducing critical 
     health benefits, and cutting or freezing provider 
     reimbursement rates. As a result, the Medicaid funding cuts 
     could add millions more to the ranks of the uninsured and 
     would harm our Nation's health care safety net.

  We should listen to the Governors. They are bipartisan. This is not a 
bipartisan issue.
  Opposition to the cuts extends beyond the Governors to hundreds of 
organizations of hospitals, doctors, nurses, veterans, disability 
advocates, patients' advocates, and nursing homes.
  Some have argued the savings could come--harmlessly, they seem to 
suggest--by merely cutting ``fraud and abuse,'' particularly in State 
financing arrangements. But this is a false premise. Not one, not the 
administration and not the chairman of the Budget Committee--not one--
has proposed a policy to limit State financing arrangements they decry. 
The administration's exhortations on this matter are so vague the 
Congressional Budget Office has not scored the administration's 
proposal as producing any savings in Medicaid. No one has even claimed 
any specific proposals could raise $11 billion as essentially called 
for in this reconciliation instruction.
  To be clear, Congress has addressed the fraud we hear about.
  The Finance Committee takes very seriously its oversight of the 
programs within its jurisdiction. The committee is dedicated to 
maintaining program integrity and ensuring taxpayer dollars are used 
wisely and efficiently. I am as strongly opposed to fraud as any 
Senator. But mandatory budget cuts are a blunt instrument unsuited to 
address this difficult, complex problem, particularly in the absence of 
specific administration proposals the Congressional Budget Office 
scores as producing savings.
  Some have argued this budget reconciliation instruction doesn't 
matter. They argue if the Finance Committee does not want to make these 
cuts, then it can simply not act.
  But I ask, What if the House committees of jurisdiction do act? If 
the House passes a reconciliation bill, any single Senator could then 
use rule XIV to put that bill on the calendar, bypassing the Finance 
Committee. The Senate could then be facing a fast-track vehicle to make 
unfair spending cuts that fall in the Finance Committee's jurisdiction 
without the committee ever having participated in the effort.
  I have high confidence in the chairman of the committee, Senator 
Grassley of Iowa. He will find a good way to

[[Page S2521]]

deal with Medicaid and with Medicare. He is very fair. He works with 
all Senators. I think that is by far the preferable procedure rather 
than the fast-track procedure as I mentioned under rule XIV which 
bypasses the committee. It could well happen, if the House acts.
  Finally, I note the House budget is likely to reconcile much deeper 
cuts in these programs while acting as though all such savings can 
somehow be achieved by wishing away ``fraud, waste, and abuse.'' I am 
deeply concerned about conference deliberations on this matter.
  This reconciliation instruction is a very dangerous provision. It is 
one that could do real damage. My amendment to strike this 
reconciliation instruction enjoys widespread support from many 
Governors, many health care providers, and organizations dedicated to 
helping the Nation's children, among countless others.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment.
  I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Hawaii to also speak on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to support an amendment offered by 
my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, the ranking member of the 
Finance Committee. His amendment seeks to right wrongs perpetuated 
against low-income families in the budget resolution before us. As he 
has explained, the pending resolution seeks to make room for further 
tax cuts by instructing the Finance Committee to make ill-advised cuts 
of $21.6 billion from Medicaid and the earned-income tax credit, EITC.
  I am already concerned about the reconciliation instructions in the 
resolution that would further reduce federal revenues by $80.6 billion 
for tax cut extensions that we cannot afford. We have felt in the 
current fiscal year the negative effects of these tax cuts on important 
domestic programs starved for resources, while we continue to put 
essential support toward our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the 
global war on terror. I strongly support our men and women in the 
military who are fighting to preserve our security, and we must not 
erode further resources from them or the people they are protecting at 
home by extending tax breaks or making them permanent. Although fully 
offset relief to lower income families through measures such as the 
refundable child credit are seductive assumptions under this 
instruction, I understand that further assumptions in the resolution 
would allow an earlier repeal of the estate tax in 2009 instead of 2010 
and permanency in other areas such as the dividends and capital gains 
rate structures at a cost of $22.7 billion. Now is simply not the time 
for such measures.
  With due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
while we are seeing small promising signs in the economy, my colleagues 
seem willing to deny the ability of lower income families to help drive 
economic recovery by raising their taxes. The resolution would partly 
fund tax cut extensions and permanency on the backs of the working poor 
with attacks on Medicaid and the earned-income tax credit, EITC. These 
are simply mean-spirited actions against working families in this 
country.
  The budget resolution would increase the number of underinsured and 
uninsured in this country by cutting more than $11 billion from 
Medicaid. The impact that this would have on already strained state 
Medicaid programs and the individuals who rely on this important safety 
net would be devastating. States continue to face crisis situations 
with respect to their budgets. We all know that Medicaid makes up a 
tremendous portion of state budgets, and drastic cuts by states to 
balance their budgets have swelled the rolls of those without 
insurance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that 
state cuts over the past 2 years have shut between 1.2 million and 1.6 
million people out of the Medicaid Program.
  Additionally, the reductions in Medicaid included in the budget 
resolution will lead to further cuts in coverage and benefits for 
people in need. They will prevent individuals from being able to access 
health care, which will increase the burden on our public health 
system. The uninsured delay seeking medical treatment, which is likely 
to lead to more significant and costly problems later on than if they 
had sought earlier, preventative treatment or had access to proper 
disease management. These cuts will also further erode the ability of 
the hospitals, physicians, and other medical providers in our 
communities to meet the health care needs of the community. Our health 
care providers who already are confronted with inadequate 
reimbursements, rising costs, and an increasing demand to provide care 
for the uninsured. A tremendous $11 billion cut would far exacerbate 
this problem and perhaps hold tragic consequences for welfare 
recipients only beginning to rebuild their way to self-sufficiency.

  The resolution before us would also strike $3 billion from the EITC--
a refundable credit that helps lower income individuals and families to 
meet essential needs--food, clothing, housing, transportation, and 
education. The Census Bureau notes that the credit lifted nearly 4 
million people above the poverty line in 2001. This year, families can 
expect an average refund of $2,067, which can mean a stay of eviction, 
transportation to a decent paying job for the year, or food in 
children's bellies. The EITC can mean the equivalent of a $2 an hour 
raise in the salary for working mothers and fathers.
  I would like to present a visual image of just which families are 
reached by the EITC. As you can see in the chart behind me, courtesy of 
the Brookings Institution, higher concentrations of EITC recipients are 
in the dark orange at more than 40 percent, with the percentage 
decreasing as the colors move to yellow, then blue. We can see how 
effectively the EITC reaches families and communities in large cities 
and all across the rural South. Highest concentrations of EITC 
recipients as a percentage of total filers in a state can be found in 
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, South 
Carolina, and Texas.
  Finally, an analysis of delegations by state clearly shows that the 
EITC should remain a bipartisan issue. The 18 States that have two 
Senators from my side of the aisle have 15.2 percent of all EITC 
earners, while the 19 States with two Senators from the other side of 
the aisle have an even greater percentage of recipients at 17.2 percent 
of all EITC filers. All total, EITC assistance of almost $36 billion is 
lifting our communities representing meaningful relief for millions of 
EITC earners, whose numbers grew by 8 percent between tax years 2000 
and 2002 due to the economic downturn and longer-term unemployment 
trends.
  Mr. President, in closing, we should not be attempting to produce 
savings for ill-timed tax cuts by denying such assistance to those in 
our states who most need it. Without the Medicaid program and the EITC, 
many families will go without health services and fundamental, everyday 
priorities. The Baucus amendment seeks to ensure that the working poor 
will have access to the healthcare that they and their children need, 
and the financial assistance that will provide for their essential 
expenses.
  I have sent to my colleagues in the Senate a copy of the statement of 
the low-wage workers. I have also sent a ``Dear Colleague'' letter to 
each office on the earned-income tax credit map we have shown.
  I hope all of my colleagues will look at the EITC predicament and 
support the Baucus amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, during this debate on this amendment, we 
have heard there is going to be $11 billion cut from various programs 
under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. I have the 
budget resolution in front of me. I defy anybody to tell me where in 
this budget resolution there is an $11 billion cut.
  I want to make it clear. What has been said, thus far, is based on 
some assumptions, assumptions that, in the global view of all the 
possible assumptions that the Senate Finance Committee could draw on to 
save a little

[[Page S2522]]

bit of money, it is in the realm of possibility, but it is a very 
extreme possibility of just exactly where the Senate Finance Committee 
ends up to save $3.4 billion, not $11 billion. This comes from the fact 
the budget includes an instruction to the Finance Committee to 
reconcile $3.4 billion over 5 years.
  Now, if you were talking on ``Main Street'' in Waterloo, IA, about 
saving $3.4 billion over 5 years, out of the trillions of dollars that 
the Federal Government is going to spend over that period of 5 years, 
and you wanted to explain to somebody that you could not save a 
fraction of 1 percentage point, they would say: You better get some 
businessperson to serve in the U.S. Senate because the average 
businessperson has to deal with problems like that all the time. It is 
a small amount of money, but it is still some direction given to the 
committee.
  Now, exactly where we might do that--there has been a lot said 
tonight, that somehow people know exactly where the Senate Finance 
Committee is going to get this sort of reconciled figure. I would have 
to say, I do not know yet. I do not know yet because I have not looked 
at all the possibilities. I do not know yet for a second reason: that 
even if I had a very good idea of exactly where this ought to come 
from, a chairman of a committee, particularly of the Senate Budget 
Committee, does not run the Finance Committee. We do things in a 
bipartisan fashion in that committee. Even within the Democrats, there 
is a difference of opinion, not a unified position among Democrats and, 
for sure, among my Republican members of the committee there is not a 
unified position.
  It takes a lot of compromise to do anything in the Finance Committee. 
When you are talking about even saving a fraction of 1 percent--a very 
small fraction of 1 percent--let me tell you, there would still be a 
great deal of difference of opinion that it ought to be done. The fact 
is, there is nothing in this budget resolution that says where we have 
to save that money. That is our committee's decision.
  When you vote this week on this budget resolution or when you vote on 
this amendment, I want to make it very clear to you that there is 
nothing in this that says how this money ought to be saved. So I can 
say to any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: I do not 
want this program cut. Another one says: I do not want that program 
cut. I can say: There is nothing in this resolution that says I have to 
cut program ``ABC'' or ``DEF.'' It is what we can do in our committee.
  For sure, there has been a great deal of talk about it might come out 
of Medicaid or it might come out of the earned-income tax credit. Maybe 
it could, to some extent. But I do not know that yet. Even if I knew 
it, I could not produce 11 votes this minute, and that is the way it 
ought to be. This has to be a thoughtful process.
  All we are doing in this budget resolution is making an overview of 
the fiscal policy of the Congress for the next 12 months. That is all 
we are doing. We are doing that so all the committees of Congress are 
disciplined. Before the budget resolution, when it came to fiscal 
matters, every committee and subcommittee in Congress was a kingdom 
unto itself. And what was the fiscal policy of the Congress of the 
United States? It was the total action of all the separate committees.
  But the Budget Committee is set up so that before you spend money, 
before you make tax policy, you have a well-thought-out process of 
keeping within certain limits so that each committee is not a kingdom 
unto itself, but they are disciplined by the total view expressed in 
the Congress in a budget resolution--in the Senate and House 
separately; and then, after compromise between the two Houses, that 
policy is adopted.
  Now, the budget assumes additional savings, but the Finance Committee 
is not required to reconcile these savings. Striking the $3.4 billion 
reconciliation instruction does not remove these other nonbinding 
savings. These nonbinding assumptions would remain. This amendment does 
not change any--does not change any--of those assumptions.
  The amendment deals with $3.4 billion, but all the debate has been 
about certain assumptions, and there is nothing in the amendment that 
changes any of those assumptions. So what all the debate has been about 
is not what you are going to be voting on. You are going to be voting 
on $3.4 billion being saved. But the debate has been about, ``Oh, the 
money is going to come out of Medicaid; the money is going to come out 
of the earned-income tax credit'' because of some assumptions that were 
made. But the assumptions are not binding. The amendment before us does 
not even change the assumptions.
  As to the point that the House-passed reconciliation bill could be 
handled in the Senate under what we call the rule XIV procedure--which 
is a way of bypassing the Finance Committee--the Congressional Budget 
Act clearly states that only a bill reported by the Finance Committee 
is entitled to the reconciliation protections. So you cannot bring 
something over from the House under rule XIV and have it reconciled. 
Our committee, and only our committee, has the responsibility to deal 
with this for the Senate.
  Now, speaking to a specific program, I would address the issue that 
has come up about Medicaid. As chairman of the Senate Finance 
Committee--we have jurisdiction over the entire Medicaid Program--I am 
not bound by those budgetary assumptions. That is the third time I have 
said it. I hope it is clear. The chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee and the Budget Committee can put certain assumptions in the 
resolution, and those are legitimate assumptions to put in the report, 
although we do not vote on those assumptions. But they are assumptions 
because it is legitimate for those of us in the Congress to expect the 
Budget Committee to be responsible. If you are going to put down a 
figure, you ought to have something to back it up. It should not be 
pulled out of the clear blue sky. It ought to be based on certain 
assumptions. That is what the Budget Committee and the chairman did, 
and that is what they should be doing. Now, I am not bound by those. I 
have respect for those, though, I want to point out, as I have respect 
for the work of the Budget Committee and its chairman. But I don't have 
to share the assumptions that any Budget Committee makes on how to 
arrive at the figure. In this particular instance, I might have 
different views about Medicaid. Frankly, I do. But that is not the 
issue of debate.

  I happen to believe Medicaid is a vital safety net program for our 
most vulnerable citizens. It is for people who are low income. It is 
for pregnant women. It is for the elderly, for the disabled, and for 
others. States also spend a significant amount of their budgets on 
Medicaid. When I look at a program, how we save Medicaid money, if we 
go there--and we are going to have a responsibility to look at all this 
stuff; we might not even look at Medicaid at all, but we might--I have 
to be mindful of any effective changes we make to the Medicaid Program 
that it might have on the States, because this is a program where there 
is a partnership between the Federal Government and State governments 
and, in some States, even local governments.
  Last year, for instance, this entire Congress felt very serious about 
doing something to help States, in addition to what we would do through 
Federal grants to the States, emergency grants, because most of the 
States had very tight budget situations. We gave $20 billion relief to 
States, of which $10 billion was just for Medicaid. I say that not that 
you need to be reminded of it, but I want you to know our committee, 
even 8 months ago, took into consideration the needs of the States.
  I am going to look at how Federal tax dollars are spent, but I also 
have to know there is some impact they have on the States.
  We also have to look at the reality of every Federal program. They 
ought to be reviewed from time to time. It seems to me we can look at 
Medicaid not as some sacred cow. Not that it is not a good program, not 
that it should not be preserved. It is part of the social safety net of 
our society. It will be maintained. It is a program that is 38 years 
old. But it is only an extension of a 200-year history our society has 
had of taking care of the most vulnerable, originally, entirely by 
counties or local governments. Then the States got involved, and then, 
in the 1940s, the Federal Government got involved in several ways. Then 
that was all kind of put together in the 1960s in the Medicaid Program.
  There is no reason to think this is some sort of a flawless program 
that

[[Page S2523]]

can't be made a better program. You don't even have to assume it is 
some program that at least a fraction of 1 percent maybe can't be saved 
to some extent. No conclusions on my part, but I wouldn't be a very 
good public official, a very good trustee of the taxpayers' money if I 
thought any program couldn't be looked at to see could we save a half 
of 1 percent out of that program.
  I am not opposed to reviewing whether there are instances of fraud or 
abuse in the Medicaid Program, but I want you to know that I will 
conduct oversight activities and do it in the open. I will do it in a 
bipartisan manner. I am going to do it with extensive input from 
stakeholders.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Grassley, 
chairman of the Finance Committee, for his statement. He happens to be 
exactly right. The net essence of this reconciliation instruction is to 
tell the Finance Committee, save $3.4 billion over the next 5 years. 
The Finance Committee is an enormous committee. It has jurisdiction 
over welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, a total of about 
$4.6 trillion over the next 5 years. Surely this committee can find 
$3.4 billion of waste, of money that should not be spent.
  Senator Byrd alluded to the reconciliation process and said it is 
supposed to be used to save money, to reduce the deficit. We gave an 
instruction to the Finance Committee to do that. Can't we save at least 
$3.5 billion out of $4.6 trillion?
  I have heard people say: It is going to mean some cuts in Medicaid. 
Medicaid has a lot of fraud. I tell my colleagues and my good friend 
from North Dakota, I may want to do a hearing in the Budget Committee, 
if the Finance Committee is not willing to do it. Let's get into these 
intergovernmental transfers. Let's find out about how much some States 
are ripping off the Medicaid system. I use that term exactly as I meant 
it, ripping off the Medicaid system, ripping off the Federal 
Government, taking a program that is supposed to be 50-50 Federal-State 
and turning it into a program where the Federal Government pays 100 
percent.
  There are some proprietors who specialize in how to milk the Federal 
Government on Medicaid where the State doesn't even have a match. They 
don't have to pay anything. It is all Federal Government. They are 
doing that today in a lot of States. Maybe they will pay a little 
payment to the hospital if they will participate. There are a lot of 
schemes, scams, I think fraud, probably should be totally illegal, some 
of it may be bordering on illegality, to the tune of billions of 
dollars. The committee doesn't have to do that. We just said: Look, 
can't you find at least $3.5 billion?
  We have the appropriators tell us day after day: Wait a minute. We 
only appropriate maybe about 30-some percent of the budget. Don't make 
us take the full brunt of any savings plan. What about those 
entitlements? Year after year people say: We can't do that.
  My guess is you could find this amount of savings in a number of 
entitlements. The committee has jurisdiction over welfare. Are you 
going to tell me there is not welfare abuse; that it couldn't be 
tightened up?
  One assumption I think we need to look at is the earned-income tax 
credit. This is a $36 billion program our Federal Government is writing 
a check for every year; in some cases, a lump sum in excess of $4,000 
for a family. We find out it has abuse of 27 to 30 percent from fraud 
or incorrect payments. We can't tighten that up? I didn't say 5-percent 
fraud. I didn't say 10 percent. I said 27 to 32 percent of fraud or 
mispayment in the earned-income tax credit program. Surely we can 
tighten that up. That program over the next 5 years will be about $170 
billion or something. Surely we can find some savings in that program.
  Whether you are talking about Medicaid, Medicare--there is fraud in 
Medicare. We have had some people put in jail because of fraud in 
Medicare. Let's tighten it up. We have deficits. We can't afford to 
have fraud. We can't afford to have this kind of cheating system going 
on day in and day out. It has happened frequently.
  So should we not look at the two-thirds of the budget, two-thirds of 
the budget that many people say: That is untouchable; let's not do 
anything to Social Security. I don't want Social Security fraud. When 
you are spending the kind of money we are, there is some fraud. I think 
we should look at every dollar.
  The Finance Committee has enormous jurisdiction and is very capably 
led by Senator Grassley. He is exactly right: $3.4 billion out of a 
total of $4.6 trillion is .0007 percent. It is not one-tenth of 1 
percent. It is less than that. It is such a small figure. Yet some 
people are acting as if the sky is falling because somebody is afraid 
maybe their gravy train of abuse might not be able to continue or 
somebody is saying: Wait a minute, we have been doing that for a long 
time. I want to make sure I can continue.
  I say: What is your program? Let's eliminate some fraud. Let's 
eliminate some waste. Let's give the discretion to the Finance 
Committee to come up with some savings. Let's curtail the growth of 
entitlement programs if they are fraudulent, if they are incorrect.
  I have great confidence Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus are not 
going to report anything out of the Finance Committee that is not going 
to be fair if they are talking about trying to tighten up some of the 
abuses in the system.
  They are not limited. They are not bound. They are not directed to do 
anything except can't you save $3.5 billion over the next 5 years when 
we assume spending under the committee's jurisdiction will be $4.6 
trillion? Surely that can be done.
  Again, appropriators have said: Let's not have us bear the full 
brunt. Let's have savings elsewhere in the budget. These are very minor 
savings, very doable savings.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Baucus amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, America faces a continuing health care 
crisis, and this budget makes it even worse for those on Medicaid. For 
years, that State-funded program has provided health insurance coverage 
for the poor. Because of the fiscal pressures created by the failed 
Bush economic policies, States have already had to drop 1.5 million 
people--half of them children--from the Medicaid rolls. Instead of 
helping States provide insurance coverage, this budget actually cuts 
Medicaid further. That is the wrong policy--and this amendment will 
reverse it.
  The Bush administration is out of touch with the reality of the 
plight of working Americans across the Nation. The unemployment rate 
continues high, and no end to this crisis is in sight. In addition to 
struggling to pay their rent and buy food for their families, millions 
of Americans are also having to go without needed health care.
  Almost 44 million Americans are uninsured and this number is rising. 
Health costs are soaring at double-digit rates each year. As health 
insurance premiums continue to soar, employees and employers alike 
worry that they will not be able to keep their coverage.
  Those without health insurance pay a cruel price. A third of 
Americans without insurance say they do without recommended treatment 
because they can't afford it. A third report not filling a prescription 
because of cost. Almost half report postponing care because of cost. 
These facts have real health consequences. According to the Institute 
of Medicine, 18,000 Americans die every year, simply because they don't 
have health insurance. Thousands more suffer needlessly or acquire 
early disabilities.
  The Republican budget ignores this crisis, without any credible 
proposal to protect the uninsured or reduce the rising cost. Instead, 
the Republican budget makes the problem worse, by slashing $11 billion 
from Medicaid over the next 5 years.
  Medicaid is a lifeline for 50 million Americans who have no other 
access to health care. Medicaid provides needed prenatal care to 
pregnant women. It means that children receive early and periodic 
screening, diagnosis, and treatment. They get immunizations and other 
health services. Millions of low-income elderly seniors rely on 
Medicaid to pay the health and nursing home costs that Medicare doesn't 
cover.

[[Page S2524]]

  States are struggling to maintain their share of Medicaid in the face 
of severe budget deficits. Last year, States had a combined deficit of 
$78 billion, and another $40 billion shortfall is expected this year. 
The State Medicaid cuts last year would have been far worse without the 
$20 billion State relief passed by Congress to help meet it a year ago. 
We should continue that assistance now, not make the problem worse by 
slashing benefits to the most vulnerable Americans.
  The amendment we are proposing will eliminate the unfair 
reconciliation instruction that would force the Finance Committee to 
cut $11 billion more from Medicaid. These harsh cuts are opposed by 
more than 155 national organizations, including physicians, hospitals, 
children, the elderly, women, religious organizations, and professional 
associations. The National Governors Association opposes these cuts. 
The American Hospital Association opposes these cuts. The American 
Medical Association opposes these cuts. The American Health Care 
Association opposes these cuts. The Children's Defense Fund opposes 
these cuts. The National Organization for Women and Families opposes 
these cuts.
  The American people understand that these cuts are cruel and 
counterproductive. They are the wrong priority for America, and I urge 
the Senate to approve this amendment and preserve health care coverage 
for millions of Americans.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I rise in strong support of the amendment to save 
crucial programs like Medicaid from being slashed by this short-sighted 
budget.
  This is a time when American families are still struggling to find 
jobs, and the new jobs they are finding are often low-wage jobs that 
lack health insurance. In this setting, Medicaid remains an essential 
``safety-net'' in the provision of health and long term care services 
for millions of Americans.
  Meanwhile, even as need is greater, States' revenues are declining, 
so there are fewer and fewer resources to meet those needs. New York 
had a $6.8 billion budget gap last year, $11.5 billion in '03/'04--
that's 25 percent of the general fund. This is a pattern repeated for 
all the states. Texas had a 15 percent shortfall. Alabama faced a 
shortage amounting to 16.5 percent of the general fund. And because 
States, unlike the Federal Government, often face State constitutional 
provisions that prevent them from carrying a deficit, they are forced 
to cut benefits to make ends meet, thus slashing eligibility, starving 
hospitals and physicians, and slashing services. We see that happening 
all over the country.
  But instead of acting to prevent these cuts, and stanch the bleeding, 
this budget turns the knife further and forces $11 billion in 
unspecified cuts to Medicaid at a time when such cuts would cripple 
states' ability to serve American families in hard times.
  We have all been on record supporting the important safety net role 
that Medicaid plays when American families are hard-pressed to find 
jobs. Last year, we worked hard to recognize the existing financial 
instability threatening the Medicaid program. We provided $10 billion 
in temporary State fiscal relief directed at Medicaid. Thanks to this 
relief, States and local communities have been able to continue to 
maintain their Medicaid programs and avert drastic cuts in local 
services. But the fiscal relief is due to expire in 3 months, even as 
State budget situations remain in critical condition. And as the jobs 
situation continues to look dire, Medicaid is as critical as ever to 
ensuring the health of millions of Americans. Now is not the time to 
make additional reductions in federal Medicaid funding.
  We must reject the Medicaid reduction provisions in the budget and, 
in doing so, take a stand to protect the health and long term care 
needs of our nation's struggling families, our elderly and disabled. 
That is why I urge my colleagues to support the Baucus amendment to 
reduce the amount of cuts that would otherwise have to come from 
Medicaid.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am wondering at this point if we can 
reach an agreement on the additional time on this amendment. Senator 
Baucus tells me he only requires 5 more minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be 5 
minutes on each side remaining on the Baucus amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to address a couple of points that 
I think need to be addressed. They are a bit misleading. First, there 
is no language in the budget that specifically requires the Medicaid 
cuts. So why pass this? The fact is, with all due respect to the 
chairman of the Budget Committee, during markup the chairman said 
basically that we assumed the $11 billion in mandatory cuts was going 
to come from Medicaid. That is the chairman's assumption. He made that 
very clear. He wants it to come out of Medicaid.
  As we know around here, that is the general thrust of measures we 
pass that are in the budget resolution, and that is what is going to 
happen. As long as I have been here, and I have been here a long time, 
that is the way this place operates.
  There are clearly going to be cuts there. So the point that cuts in 
Medicaid are specifically required, that is not true. Are they 
effectively required? Clearly, yes. Also, it has been suggested there 
is a lot of fraud, waste, and abuse. That is a bit of a disingenuous 
statement. First, we never condone fraud and abuse. We don't need a 
statute to allow that. There are anti-fraud and anti-abuse laws. There 
are no specific fraud and abuse proposals. It just says cut.
  If there is no proposal, as I said earlier, Joint Tax has not scored 
anything that amounts to raising revenue. By logical conclusion, we are 
going to cut Medicaid; it is that simple. It sounds good, this fraud, 
waste, and abuse, but it is just going to be a straight cut. There is 
no specific proposal that addresses that.
  Also, we are already so-called cutting waste. There is a $2 billion 
savings, a cut in error rates, because the administration is looking at 
this more closely, which is good. There are a lot of error rates 
elsewhere in the code, not just for low-income people. It is in sole 
proprietorships and other categories of taxpayers as well. We are not 
cracking down on them; we are cracking down on poor people. That is the 
wrong thing to do.
  The main point is this is a cut in Medicaid. That is clearly what is 
intended. Second, this is not a fraud, waste, and abuse cleanup; it is 
a cut in Medicaid. Be honest. That is the effective result.
  Technically--it is a small point--some of the concern about error 
rates in Medicaid is because States controlling the Medicaid Programs 
are undertaking actions that are now being corrected by Uncle Sam. So 
it is not the fault of the low-income folks. It is not the earned-
income tax credit or the refundability portion. That is a small part of 
the problem. Rather, it just changes the administration of it between 
Uncle Sam and the States.
  This is a good amendment. We should not cut Medicaid. We should not 
cut folks who get the advantage of the marriage penalty by $21.6 
billion. That is the effect of the cut that is going to be required in 
the budget resolution.
  My amendment says, let's eliminate that requirement and deal with 
Medicaid and other programs as we normally do in the normal course of 
business.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I think Senator Grassley said it very 
well. He is chairman of the committee. He said the committee can find 
$3.4 billion out of $4.6 trillion. I think it could be in Medicaid or 
in the earned-income tax credit. I think it could be in almost any 
program, such as the welfare program. I have no doubt whatsoever there 
is plenty of abuse. The administration talked about the 
intergovernmental transfers. There is lots of abuse.
  I am going to embarrass our colleagues by getting into this in 
detail. I will show people how some States have been ripping off this 
system--probably to a much greater extent than even what has been 
bantered about. It is happening today. Many States are doing it.
  I will tell my colleagues that we found we had payment abuse in 
Medicaid in years past. You might remember the program. We had to 
tighten it up. There has been some tightening of

[[Page S2525]]

the intergovernmental transfer but not very much. A lot more could be 
done.
  The Federal Government should not be taking Medicaid dollars and 
giving it to States to pave roads. In some cases, Medicaid money is 
being used by States for a lot of things other than Medicaid. I am 
telling you, I come to this Senate with, I hope, a little bit of 
credibility. I am not making this up. Maybe a more thorough evaluation 
in the committees would expose some of this. The earned-income tax 
program, people don't want to touch it. Yet the GAO says there is an 
error rate, a fraud rate in 27 to 30 percent, or a 32-percent fraud in 
a program that spends $36 billion a year, and we cannot direct the 
committee to say, Can you not come up with some savings? I am 
embarrassed.
  If we are not going to stay let's at least do some shaving of the 
growth of some of the fraud in the entitlement programs, two-thirds of 
the Federal Government or of the budget, if we cannot shave a little 
spending in this area, shame on us.
  For the people who act as if I am a deficit hawk, I want to get the 
deficit down. The last time we had significant instruction to reduce 
the growth of some of these entitlements to take out some abuse was in 
1997. Some of my colleagues say we got the deficit down. The biggest 
spending reduction thing we did--maybe one was shutting down the 
Government in 1995 for a while, but the biggest thing was in the 1997 
bill that had reconciliation instructions, had significant savings. A 
lot of the people taking credit for the great savings we did in the 
nineties didn't vote for that.
  Anyway, to ask this committee to find $3.4 billion out of $4.6 
trillion over the next 5 years is not heavy lifting, as Senator 
Grassley alluded to. I agree with him entirely. I think the committee 
can find this much and more. I urge our colleagues to, at the 
appropriate time, vote no on the Baucus amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, my understanding of the Baucus amendment 
is that he has not taken out the savings at all. All he does is take 
out the reconciliation instruction. The savings are still there.
  Let me comment for a moment, if I can, on what Chairman Nickles is 
saying, because he is talking about something where I entirely agree 
with him.
  In Medicaid, there are States that are engaged in scams. I don't know 
how else to say it. What Chairman Nickles has said is entirely 
accurate. There are States that have figured out ways of tapping into 
the Federal Treasury and replacing what should be State funds with 
Federal funds. There is nobody who studies this who doesn't know what 
the chairman has said is true.
  There are a number of States that have almost made a science out of 
playing games with Federal programs, to tap into the Federal Treasury, 
to advantage their States to the disadvantage of Federal taxpayers and 
to the disadvantage of other States.
  But I repeat, in looking at the amendment of Senator Baucus, he has 
not taken out those savings. Those savings remain in the underlying 
resolution. It does take out the reconciliation instruction. So I have 
concluded that the Baucus amendment is worthy of support.
  What the chairman has said is something I join in, especially with 
respect to Medicaid Program abuses. I am very hopeful we will have a 
hearing on these issues once we get past the budget resolution and the 
negotiations in which the chairman will have to be involved in the 
coming days. We ought to put a bright light on some of these States 
that are engaged in a scam operation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we yield back the remainder of our time. 
I believe the Senator from Ohio has an amendment. He has requested 25 
minutes on his side. I know a couple of other colleagues have 
amendments. We told people to expect votes at 9 o'clock. I would like 
to get in three or four amendments, if possible. I call upon our 
colleague from Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, maybe we can lock in an agreement. Is 
there any way the Senator from Ohio would take 20 minutes on his side, 
and we will take 20 minutes on this side? I would even take 15 minutes 
on this side if the Senator would reduce his time to 20 minutes. That 
will give us a chance to offer another amendment or two before the 
voting starts.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I think I need 25 minutes, but it may 
be 20. I think I need 25 minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Ohio be 
recognized for his amendment not to exceed 25 minutes, and the Senator 
from North Dakota be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio.


                           Amendment No. 2705

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2705 and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Voinovich] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2705.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To balance the budget and lock away the Social Security 
surplus by establishing a supermajority point of order prohibiting the 
consideration of any bill that raids the Social Security Trust Fund by 
  exceeding a declining level of on-budget deficits on a fiscal year 
                                 basis)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . BALANCED BUDGET POINT OF ORDER.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), it 
     shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill or 
     resolution (or any amendment, motion, or conference report on 
     that bill or resolution) that would result in an on budget 
     deficit larger than--
       (1) in fiscal year 2004, $639,000,000,000;
       (2) in fiscal year 2005, $575,000,000,000;
       (3) in fiscal year 2006, $511,000,000,000;
       (4) in fiscal year 2007, $447,000,000,000;
       (5) in fiscal year 2008, $383,000,000,000;
       (6) in fiscal year 2009, $319,000,000,000;
       (7) in fiscal year 2010, $255,000,000,000;
       (8) in fiscal year 2011, $191,000,000,000;
       (9) in fiscal year 2012, $127,000,000,000;
       (10) in fiscal year 2013, $63,000,000,000; and
       (11) in fiscal year 2015, $0.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if--(1) the 
     President has declared a state of national emergency; or (2) 
     the economy is in recession, defined as 3 consecutive 
     quarters of negative growth in Gross Domestic Product.
       (c) Supermajority.--(1) Waiver.--This section may be waived 
     or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of 
     three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (2) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of 
     the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be 
     limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or 
     joint resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative vote of 
     three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and 
     sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal 
     of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under 
     this section.
       (d) Exercise of Rulemaking Powers.--Congress adopts the 
     provisions of this section--(1) as an exercise of the 
     rulemaking power of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, respectively, and as such they shall be 
     considered as part of the rules of each house, or of that 
     house to which they specifically apply, and such rules shall 
     supersede other rules only to the extent that they are 
     inconsistent therewith; and (2) with full recognition of the 
     constitutional right of either house to change those rules 
     (so far as they relate to that house) at any time, in the 
     same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any 
     other rule of that house.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, before I speak in regard to this 
amendment, I would like to comment on the discussion that was going on 
with regard to Medicaid. There is no question that as a former Governor 
I observed my colleagues around the country gaming the system, and I 
was very upset about it. I made it very clear as chairman of the 
National Governors Association that this was an understanding we had 
with the Federal Government and that we ought not to game the system.
  I will never forget while I was Governor there was a management 
company, which is no longer in business, that went out to the school 
districts and showed them how they could use the money they were 
spending for

[[Page S2526]]

health care and use it to game the Medicaid system. They would charge a 
percentage of the money they were able to bring into the school 
district. When I found out about it, I went beserk, to put it as nicely 
as I can, and that stopped. But I do think it is not a sacred cow that 
ought not be looked at. Just like a lot of mandatory spending we have, 
it should be reviewed to see if there are ways we can save some money.
  Mr. President, I support this budget resolution, and I applaud 
Senator Nickles for his diligence and fiscal responsibility. The budget 
resolution we are considering builds on the success of the resolution 
Senator Nickles crafted last year. The fiscal year 2004 budget 
resolution reestablished fiscal discipline and provided reconciliation 
instructions for a stimulus package that generated 4-percent economic 
growth in 2003.
  The fiscal year 2004 budget resolution also balanced fiscal 
discipline with a very real need to stimulate the economy. Although the 
economy started to grow after the 2001 tax reforms, the growth was very 
sluggish and did not create many jobs. Real growth in GDP was 2.9 
percent in 2001 and 2.8 percent in 2002.
  Consequently, the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution included 
reconciliation instructions for a modest, highly targeted economic 
stimulus package that Congress adopted in May of last year--a $350 
billion stimulus package. By the end of the year, economic growth 
reached 4.4 percent, and unemployment had finally fallen below 6 
percent. Most experts expect the economy to grow by more than 4 percent 
this year and for unemployment to continue to fall.
  Unfortunately, my own State of Ohio has not participated as fully in 
the recovery as some of the other States. We need to continue the 
stimulus measures to make sure Ohio's economy takes off. We have too 
many people out of work in my State. We have too many people who are 
concerned about whether or not they are going to have a job. I agree 
with the President that we should not rest until every American who 
wants a job has one.
  Congress also provided direct assistance to working families last 
year when we accelerated the phase-in of the child tax credit, 
eliminated the marriage penalty, and expanded the number of families 
paying income taxes at the lowest rate of 10 percent. I supported these 
tax reform provisions when they were enacted last year and even joined 
with Senator Snowe and Senator Lincoln to encourage the Finance 
Committee to expand refundability of the child tax credit for families 
with incomes between $10,500 and $25,000 per year.
  For many families in Ohio, these tax reform provisions meant they 
could buy presents for Christmas as well as food. For some, it meant 
they could pay the heating bill. All families benefited from these 
reforms, and I am proud we supported them.

  Fortunately, Senator Nickles has again crafted a budget resolution 
that balances fiscal discipline with the need to continue assisting 
low-income families. The Budget Committee makes hard decisions by 
assuming a freeze for most spending programs at 2004 spending levels, 
with increases for high-priority programs and reductions for low-
priority, one-time, or expired programs. Nevertheless, the committee 
recognizes fiscal reality and provides a contingency fund of up to $30 
billion for 2005 to fund ongoing military operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Also, at long last, the Budget Committee addresses runaway 
increases in mandatory spending and proposes a $4.6 billion net 
reduction in mandatory spending programs over 5 years.
  The fiscal year 2005 budget resolution also assumes Congress will act 
to close tax loopholes identified by the President and by the tax-
writing committees. The committee builds upon the budget discipline 
included in last year's budget resolution by establishing enforceable 
caps on discretionary spending for 2005 and 2006.
  The spending caps are set at levels consistent with the discretionary 
spending assumptions and are enforced with a 60-vote point of order. 
The Budget Committee continues a 60-vote point of order against 
advanced appropriations that exceed current levels.
  These budget enforcements proved very important last year. There were 
67 attempts to increase spending by waiving the Budget Act, and we 
successfully fought back 64 of them and saved this country billions of 
dollars of additional spending.
  Finally, the budget resolution assumes continued budget enforcement 
under existing mechanisms for nondefense emergency spending and pay-as-
you-go. In other words, if you want to spend the money, you find 
offsets or you find revenues that you can increase to pay for them.
  Equally important, the resolution before us today includes tax policy 
assumptions focused on preventing economically damaging tax increases 
on working families.
  The budget resolution proposes to extend the personal tax relief 
currently scheduled to expire at the end of 2004, including the $1,000-
per-child tax credit, the 10-percent income tax bracket expansion, and 
marriage penalty relief. The budget resolution assumes a revenue loss 
of $80.6 billion from 2005 to 2009 for these proposals and directs the 
Senate Finance Committee to produce a reconciliation bill to facilitate 
their enactment.
  Let's put that $80.6 billion in context. I remind my colleagues that 
in one fell swoop, we spent $87 billion to provide funding for the war 
in Afghanistan and Iraq. That just gives us a figure. That is $87 
billion in 1 year, and we are talking about $80.6 billion over a 5-year 
period.
  These provisions directly impact almost 90 million taxpayers 
nationwide, and about 4 million of them in my State. If they are not 
extended, a low-income family of four making $40,000 a year will go 
from receiving a small refund of $30 to paying the IRS an additional 
$800. Frankly, these families simply do not have the extra $800 to send 
to Washington at this time. So it is critical that we continue 
assisting them until the job market catches up with the growth in the 
economy.
  I fought very hard for the refundable child tax credit in the 2001 
tax reform, addressing the marriage penalty problem that discouraged 
many people from getting married because they paid higher taxes if they 
got married, and moving the people in the 15-percent bracket down to 10 
percent.
  When we enacted tax reforms to provide assistance to working 
families, I fully supported the sunset provisions that would allow 
those provisions to expire when they were no longer needed.
  Unfortunately, while the economic situation has improved, we are not 
out of the woods yet. In Ohio, over 96,000 initial claims for 
unemployment compensation were filed in January. That is why I voted to 
extend unemployment benefits and that is why I think this Senate should 
vote in the next several weeks to extend unemployment benefits.
  Although this number is more than 5 percent lower than last year, it 
still represents real families who have lost their principal source of 
income. Also, many families and individuals who regained employment 
over the past 6 months must still pay off loans to make up late 
payments they missed while they were unemployed.
  It is time for Congress and the Nation to acknowledge the size of the 
problem we face. The Federal Government has a serious debt of almost $7 
trillion, annual unified deficits of $477 billion, and net interest 
payments that consume 7.5 percent of the Federal budget.
  If we see interest rates start to go up in the next couple of years, 
that 7.5 percent number could go up to 13 or 14 percent because that is 
what it was in 1999 when I came to the Senate.
  Under current policy assumptions outlined in OMB's budget 
projections, the Federal debt will exceed $9.3 trillion by 2008 and net 
interest payments will claim 9.5 percent of our budget. If the private 
sector corporations ever issued similar financial projections, their 
stock value would plummet. Their credit rating would be discounted to 
below junk bond status and no bank on the planet would lend them 
additional money. During the savings and loan crisis, the Resolution 
Trust Corporation liquidated companies with healthier balance sheets 
than the Federal Government can produce today.
  Whatever we may desire, until we restore some sort of fiscal 
discipline to Federal spending we may not be able to

[[Page S2527]]

afford any new initiatives, no matter how badly they are needed.
  More importantly, we are rapidly approaching the time when much of 
the debt comes due and we must carefully consider how we will meet this 
obligation. Currently, we borrow $160 billion to $175 billion each year 
from the Social Security trust fund. As the baby boom generation 
retires, this source of borrowing will no longer be available, and 
starting in 2017 Social Security will start cashing in the bonds which 
make up its assets. If we exercise fiscal discipline now, the Federal 
Treasury will be able to redeem those bonds with little or no negative 
impact on the rest of the budget or the economy as a whole.
  However, if we dig ourselves into deeper debt, we will only be able 
to pay our Social Security obligations by raising taxes or with 
draconian cuts in other Federal programs.
  For almost two decades starting in 1980, fiscal conservatives have 
worked hard to return the Federal Government to a balanced budget. For 
a short time, after hand-to-hand combat--and I was here for that hand-
to-hand combat--we met our goal for 2 years. In 1999, for the first 
time in 30 years, we had a balanced budget, about $1 billion; in 2000, 
we had an $87 billion budget surplus. That means we did not use Social 
Security to balance our budget.
  However, our success in balancing the budget was short-lived. In the 
blink of an eye we returned to spending the Social Security surplus 
running large budget deficits. Today, instead of reducing our $7 
trillion national debt, we are expanding it. Unfortunately, as soon as 
we achieved success we reversed course in 1998 and have been increasing 
spending ever since. Do we really want to lose 20 years of hard work? 
Is it not time we went back to what we were trying to do in 1999 and 
2000?

  Since 1999, this body has increased Federal spending an average of 7 
percent per year. If we maintain this pace, Federal spending will 
double every 10 years. Instead of doubling spending, we should be 
cutting it. We have consistently skirted the truth about how much we 
increase spending and the size of the debt we are incurring.
  Advance appropriations and other accounting gimmicks have become 
commonplace in our budget process. Thank God these last two budgets 
have gotten rid of most of the gimmicks we have had, but most of the 
American public does not realize we are spending the Social Security 
surplus. So although people may be going around Washington saying next 
year's deficit will only be $477 billion, it will really be $639 
billion. According to the new CBO projections, we will spend all of the 
$162 billion of the Social Security surplus and issue new debt.
  Our budget system is broken. Its obvious failure to perform is having 
serious consequences on our economy and, by extension, future Federal 
revenues, deficits, and debt. That is why I am here to talk about our 
Social Security lockbox amendment.
  My amendment is simple. It caps the on-budget deficit at the level 
projected by CBO for fiscal year 2004, $639 billion, and reduces it by 
10 percent each year thereafter. We are going to reduce it over 10 
years so at the end of a 10-year period, we will no longer be spending 
the Social Security surplus. That means we will really have an on-
budget surplus.
  This is a very conservative proposal. It has been 5 years since we 
have had an on-budget surplus. This proposal proposes it will be 15 
years from 1999-2000 until we get back to where we were at that period 
of time.
  This proposal has a nice, natural glide. We will go from $639 billion 
in 2004 to $575 billion to $511 billion to $447 billion, to $383 
billion to $319 billion. For my colleagues' information, the numbers I 
have for the next couple of years, 2005 and 2006, are a little bit 
above the on-budget numbers the Budget Committee is projecting.
  Once we get to the fourth and fifth year, it is lower than the Budget 
Committee has projected for that 5-year budget, and then we keep going 
down to zero.
  I recognize it would be unrealistic to eliminate the ongoing budget 
deficit in a single year or even within 5 years. The attempt would 
require either draconian spending cuts or job-destroying tax increases. 
It contains waivers to recognize national emergencies or a prolonged 
recession.
  I understand the need for waivers in case of emergencies. This is 
hard to believe, but Senator Miller and I drafted a Social Security 
lockbox that gained the support of the White House. We worked with them 
for 6 months. We were going to announce it 2 days after 9/11. In other 
words, we were all set to do it, have a nice press conference, and 9/11 
happened. Of course, that changed everything.
  Nevertheless, Congress and the President can act now to prevent the 
on-budget deficit from getting any larger and initiate a 10-year 
glidepath to reduce the on-budget deficit to zero, thereby limiting 
transfers from the Social Security trust fund and at the end of the 10 
years placing the entire Social Security trust fund in the lockbox.

  We need to get this bill passed because today our national debt 
stands at $6.2 trillion and until we restore some sort of fiscal 
discipline to Congress's spending habits, this number is only going to 
keep going up.
  It is immoral--it is immoral--to bequeath trillions of dollars in 
debt to our children and grandchildren. One of the reasons I came to 
this Congress was because I was concerned about my children and my 
grandchildren; that we were going to balance the budget, that we were 
going to reduce the debt--good, solid Republican principles. We were 
there in 1999 and 2000, and then we know what happened. We have to 
return to those days.
  I know when people come into the office asking for money for 
particular projects, I always ask them the same question, and that 
question is: Is this particular priority worth putting your children 
and grandchildren further into debt? I have done that with several 
veterans organizations during the last couple of days. They want 
mandatory spending for veterans health care. I pointed out to them how 
bad off we are, that we have a war going on and we have to be concerned 
about our children and grandchildren, and if we do not do it there will 
not be anything around in 10 or 12 years for anyone.
  It is remarkable. Their attitudes change. Most of them look at me, 
talk about it, and they say, I understand.
  The problem today in America is people do not know how bad our debt 
is. They still think there is some kind of spigot we can turn on in 
Washington and take care of all the problems. It is our obligation to 
do something about that. It is our obligation to make sure people 
understand how far in debt we are and the tough decisions we are going 
to have to make.
  I applaud the chairman of the Budget Committee for giving 
instructions to the Finance Committee and saying to them, let's find 
some reductions in mandatory spending because that is where all the 
money is going. The discretionary part of the budget is minuscule 
compared to the mandatory spending.
  The amendment I offer today is a good start on the difficult path we 
must take in order to ensure our economic freedom and security for the 
future. I urge my colleagues to consider not only what we propose today 
but also to seriously consider what will happen to our Nation's economy 
tomorrow if we do nothing.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the stated purpose of the Voinovich 
amendment, to prohibit consideration of any legislation that would raid 
the Social Security trust fund, is one with which I strongly agree. It 
is a noble purpose. But I am afraid this amendment does not come close 
to achieving that purpose. Here is what this amendment does.
  We are looking at a comparison between the CBO baseline deficits, 
that would be the blue line; the dotted red line would be the Senate 
GOP budget plan, the deficits under that plan; the green line would be 
under the Voinovich plan. What one sees is the deficits are higher 
under the Voinovich plan for the next 3 years than under either the CBO 
baseline or under the Senate GOP budget resolution. He is actually 
going further into the hole on the promise that 3 years from now, he 
will have less of a deficit. He promises

[[Page S2528]]

less of a deficit out in 2008 and 2009. Unfortunately, because of the 
way it is constructed, you cannot even be sure you would have less of a 
deficit out in 2008 and 2009. What you can be certain of is the 
deficits will be higher in 2005, 2006, 2007.
  Let me show my colleagues what I am talking about. Comparing to the 
CBO baseline, the deficits of the Senator from Ohio would be $78 
billion higher in 2005; $121 billion higher in 2006; $57 billion higher 
in 2007, with the promise that in 2008, they would be $24 billion lower 
and $89 billion lower in 2009. If you add this up, this is $256 billion 
more deficit here and $113 billion less deficit there. That is more 
deficits, not less. That is more.
  I don't know what kind of a plan this is to save anything. It 
certainly doesn't save Social Security. It digs the hole deeper. I 
don't know what the intention was, but I did read what the effect is. 
Compared to the budget resolution before us, the amendment of the 
Senator from Ohio would increase the deficit by $63 billion this year, 
$66 billion in 2006, and $16 billion in 2007. That is a $145 billion 
increase in the deficit over the next 3 years, on the promise that it 
is going to reduce it compared to the chairman's mark by $180 billion 
in 2008 and 2009. But because of technically the way it is drafted, you 
have absolutely no assurance it is going to save on the deficit out in 
2008 and 2009 either. All I can say is the words are good, the 
sentiment is good, but the proposal goes in exactly the wrong 
direction. It increases the deficits, it increases the debt. It makes 
no sense to this Senator.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I think perhaps the Senator is misinterpreting the 
amendment. Fundamentally what this says is we are going to use these 
numbers to get down, in 10 years, to an on-budget surplus like we had 
in 1999 and 2000. You are right, the amount of reduction in this 
amendment allows for a higher debt, but the fact is, all this says is 
you can raise a point of order if it exceeds this amount. I am not 
suggesting we reach this amount. All I am saying is, understanding the 
way things work around this Senate as I have observed during the last 5 
years, we just go straight down and we have this opportunity to raise a 
point of order if the amount of money exceeds the numbers we have in 
our proposed amendment.
  It is a very simple way of achieving what my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle have talked about for a great period of time. The 
purpose of it is to allow us to raise a point of order. It takes 60 
votes to waive that point of order in terms of spending.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, if I could say this to the Senator, the 
problem I think he has with his amendment is he has assumed the CBO 
baseline unadjusted. I know this sounds like inside-the-beltway 
gobbledygook, but let me say this to the Senator. There was a 
supplemental appropriations bill approved last year of $86 billion. I 
think all my colleagues will remember that. The problem with the 
numbers the Senator from Ohio has chosen is he has built that 
supplemental appropriations bill--that was a one-time increase of $86 
billion--into that baseline figure. He has that $86 billion built in, 
going out all the years into the future. As a result, what you wind up 
with is much higher deficits than if you used the adjusted baseline the 
chairman of the Budget Committee has adopted.
  The chairman of the Budget Committee quite wisely and with strong 
support from the ranking member adjusted the CBO baseline by taking out 
the future years' adoption of the one-time supplemental. The effect of 
the Senator's amendment is to create higher deficits--or at least the 
potential for higher deficits--in each of the next 3 years by the 
amounts that I talked about. These are the amounts: $256 billion over 
the baseline that was adopted by the chairman. I say to the Senator, I 
think that would just be a profound mistake.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I wonder if he had a chance to see the numbers I used 
in this amendment?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I think there is no question that in the first 3 years 
the number is a little higher than what you projected, assuming this 
$86 billion hit we had last year. But the fact is, if you look at the 
numbers for 2008 and 2009, the last 2 years of the 5-year budget 
resolution, our numbers are below the numbers projected by the Budget 
Committee. In effect, in the first 3 years it may be a little higher. 
That doesn't mean we are necessarily going to spend that money. But 
when we get to the fourth and fifth year, our numbers are below the 
numbers projected in the budget.
  Mr. CONRAD. I would just say this to the Senator. I have great 
respect for the Senator from Ohio. I think he has been one of the most 
levelheaded Members here on issues of fiscal discipline. I think this 
amendment in technical detail is flawed, and you will increase or give 
the potential for substantial increases in the deficit in the first 3 
years, compared to the adjusted CBO baseline, a $256 billion increase.
  My experience around here is the promise of more deficit reduction in 
the fourth and fifth year is a distant hope, and what you presented is 
a present threat of substantially increasing the deficit. I think that 
will be just most unwise for the body. It is higher than the adjusted 
CBO baseline, higher deficits, higher deficits than in the underlying 
Senate budget resolution.
  I hope my colleagues will resist this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, if we look at the practicality, I just 
used these numbers because it was 10 percent a year. But the fact is a 
budget point of order will lie against the numbers that you are 
projecting in the budget that came out of the Budget Committee. In 
other words, if we exceed your numbers, you are saying this number I am 
proposing is going to provide we can spend up to that amount of money.
  I am saying the number coming out of the Budget Committee creates a 
point of order you can't go beyond.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me say to the Senator that I know his 
intentions are good. I really do. I have great respect for the Senator.
  The problem is, technically, with the baseline that has been adopted, 
his numbers leave just so much room for additional deficits for these 
first 3 years, and I don't think you will ever catch up to it.
  Chairman Nickles and I agreed with the Senator totally about 
adjusting the baseline so that one-time expenditures didn't get built 
into future years' expenditures. Unfortunately, the Senator from Ohio 
has taken the unadjusted Congressional Budget Office baseline that has 
the one-time expenditures and includes them going forward in each and 
every year. That adds hundreds of billions of dollars to expenditures 
over the next years of this budget. What you are left with, as I have 
described, is higher deficits for the first 3 years, with the promise 
that I am afraid will prove ephemeral, that you are going to get lower 
deficits in the fourth and fifth year. I don't think that is a trade we 
ought to make.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota has been 
here longer than I have. He is the ranking member of the Budget 
Committee. I have been interested in this budget for a long time, as he 
knows. I would like to ask him if we could achieve this in 10 years 
through a real on-budget surplus. Most people would say it would be 
miraculous. But the point I am making is you could argue about this 
number. You can make a big deal out of it in terms of we know we are 
going to do this and you are going to raise these issues. But the real 
issue is to try to get down to where we were 5 years ago. I can assure 
you, for this Congress to achieve this will be something very 
significant and cause a great deal of discipline in terms of extending 
tax reductions, and so forth.
  In effect, in order to get here we are going to have to have some 
pay-go restrictions in order to make that happen.
  All I am saying is, say what you want about these first couple of 
years, down the road the Senate could achieve what I have on this 
chart. It would be a wonderful gift to the American people because we 
could guarantee to them that

[[Page S2529]]

we are going to have a true on-budget surplus.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I don't want to prolong this debate. But I 
say to the Senator that I think the intention is good. I think the 
legal effect of what is before us does not accomplish the Senator's 
purpose. In fact, what we would wind up with is room for greater 
deficits in the first 3 years, and you would never catch up in the 
outyears.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I can't understand that because the numbers provide 
for the budget point of order. How can you say, if you have the number, 
that you have a budget point of order, that you are not going to 
achieve these numbers?
  Mr. CONRAD. Because what is critical to having a budget point of 
order that is actually effective in reducing deficits and debt in the 
future is having a baseline that really gets you the result you want. 
Unfortunately, the baseline the Senator has provided will not lead to 
the result as depicted on the graph. That is our conclusion.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would like to reiterate if we were 
able to achieve what this graph shows, it would be the greatest gift we 
could give to our children and grandchildren because it would mean that 
we have been fiscally responsible. The way we are trying to achieve it 
is to say we are not going to use the Social Security surplus. When we 
were able to get that on-budget surplus in 1999 and 2000, I remember 
how we always had to wrestle in order to not use the Social Security 
surplus. It was a way that we were able to control spending. That is 
exactly what we are trying to do with this amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment my colleague from 
Ohio. I appreciate the amendment. If his amendment had our deficit 
projection level for the first few years and then went down to zero, I 
would probably support him. I can't support an amendment that would 
have higher deficits than what we project in our budget. I have the 
greatest respect for my colleague. He is very sincere. He is a deficit 
hawk. He is very interested in getting down to zero, as I am.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. NICKLES. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I would be more than happy to take my amendment and 
put the numbers of the Senator from North Dakota in for the first 3 
years so that it will take care of the problem the Senator made 
reference to and handle it that way so it eliminates any allegations 
that somehow this amendment is going to allow for increased spending. I 
would be more than happy to do that.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, 
momentarily we will be taking up the Nelson amendment. We will have a 
very short 10 minutes on each side on that amendment, and I expect we 
would have three rollcall votes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to.
  Mr. SARBANES. The Senator mentioned three rollcall votes, and then 
stay on the floor for other amendments to be offered.
  Mr. NICKLES. I would be happy to do that temporarily for some period 
of time. I know Senator Corzine has an amendment. I think he was next 
in line to lay one down. I was expecting that would be the first 
amendment we would vote on tomorrow. But I will be happy to consider 
it. I know the Senator has an amendment that deals with homeland 
security. I think Senator Cochran will be debating that issue. I am not 
sure he wants to debate it tonight. I would like to get the rollcalls 
started pretty quickly so we can get people home by 10 o'clock, or not 
too late thereafter.
  Tomorrow, for the information of our colleagues, is going to be a 
very tough day. We will have a lot of votes tomorrow. I expect we will 
have a lot of votes on Friday. I am trying to cooperate to dispose of 
as many amendments as possible. I will be happy to work with my 
colleague from Maryland to get in his amendment.
  I have asked Senator Conrad to line up amendments on his side. I am 
trying to line up amendments on my side.
  Mr. SARBANES. What problem would it cause if we were to offer the 
amendment after the votes and maybe even discuss it for a few minutes?
  Mr. NICKLES. I might not have any objection. I would like to ask 
Senator Cochran. I just wanted Senator Cochran to be able to respond to 
my colleague from Maryland. We may be able to do that. We could 
actually set aside the Corzine amendment and discuss the amendment of 
the Senator from Maryland. I am willing to consider that.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I understand from talking to the desk 
in order to amend my amendment to reflect the numbers that were in the 
budget that came out of the Budget Committee, I need consent from my 
colleagues. I would like to move to amend and insert the numbers that 
were in the budget resolution to eliminate the problem Senator Conrad 
has brought to our attention so the numbers would reflect his numbers. 
And, I might point out the number in the third and fourth year is below 
the number the Senator from North Dakota has in his budget numbers.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would be constrained to object. I object 
because even with that change, he would still be substantially above 
the Congressional Budget Office adjusted baseline. And he is still left 
with an utterly unenforceable mechanism. I would be happy to sit down 
and talk with the Senator as to why that is the case. We would object.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the order we have agreed upon now would 
be to recognize the Senator from Florida. I ask unanimous consent there 
be 10 minutes on each side on the Senator's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida.


                           Amendment No. 2745

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I call up amendment numbered 2745.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson], for himself, Mr. 
     Corzine, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Nelson of 
     Nebraska proposes an amendment numbered 2745.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To create a reserve fund to allow for an increase in 
   Veteran's medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax 
                               loopholes)

       On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $1,620,000,000.
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $162,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $7,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $1,620,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $162,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $7,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $1,620,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $162,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $7,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, decrease the amount by $1,620,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $1,782,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $1,789,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $1,791,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $1,791,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,620,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $1,782,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $1,789,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $1,791,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $1,791,000,000.
       At the end of Title III, insert the following:

     SEC.   . RESERVE FUND FOR VETERANS' MEDICAL CARE.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     shall revise the aggregates, functional totals, allocations 
     to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate, 
     discretionary spending limits, and other appropriate levels 
     and limits in this resolution by up to $1,800,000,000 in 
     budget authority for fiscal year 2005, and by the amount of 
     outlays flowing therefrom in 2005 and subsequent years, for a 
     bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment, or conference 
     report that

[[Page S2530]]

     provides additional fiscal year 2005 discretionary 
     appropriations, in excess of levels provided in this 
     resolution, for veterans' medical programs, included in this 
     resolution for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent Senators Corzine, 
Mikulski, Schumer, and Nelson of Nebraska be added as cosponsors to my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, we have arrived at the moment 
of truth on veterans. Veterans have been all over this Capitol today 
pleading their case regarding their health care. There is not one 
Member from any one of our 50 states who has not heard from veterans 
the tales of woe, the tales of inefficiency, the tales of long waits, 
waits as much as 6 months to get an appointment with a VA doctor to get 
a prescription.
  The way I approached this amendment was to go to the deliberations of 
the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and to find and be guided by 
their bipartisan analysis of the Veterans' Administration budget, 
concluding we must add $1.8 billion in order to adequately fund the 
health care requirements of veterans.
  Listen to the words of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs when he 
testified last month to the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. 
Secretary Principi said:
  I asked for $1.2 billion more than I received.
  In other words, even the Secretary of the VA is calling for more 
money.
  The President's budget makes up the difference for these cuts in 
trying to rely on copayments from veterans on enrollment fees. To pay, 
the administration has tried to impose this tax--and it is a tax--on 
the hard-earned benefits of veterans in the past, but the Congress has 
not and is not going to allow it. We simply cannot accept a budget that 
includes access fees and higher prescription drug copayments.
  What this budget assumes is the number of VA patients requiring 
mental health care will decrease next year. If you believe that, you 
believe in the tooth fairy because the bipartisan analysis of our own 
Veterans' Affairs Committee finds no basis for this assumption and 
wholeheartedly rejects the President's $60 million cut in the funding 
for mental health care.
  To make matters worse on veterans health care, there are 60,000 
veterans nationwide who have enrolled in the VA and have waited for 6 
months or longer for an appointment. This is according to the Senate 
Veterans' Affairs Committee. Failure to provide more funds is going to 
result in longer waits and a higher risk to the quality of the care.
  Then there are a couple of other complicating factors. If anyone 
thinks because we have so many World War II veterans and because of 
their age their numbers are declining, think of all the veterans who 
were deployed in our Armed Forces serving in Operation Enduring Freedom 
and Operation Iraqi Freedom: 287,000 service members have served or are 
serving in those missions. The veterans health system has struggled, to 
make matters worse, with war-related problems from the first gulf war, 
with hundreds of thousands of American soldiers serving on the ground, 
while we cannot begin to estimate future demand on the veterans health 
system.
  Indeed, because of wonderful improvements in the way our military 
operates its health care on the battlefield, this present operation in 
Iraq has fewer deaths. But because of the nature of the war, there are 
many more injuries. At the end of November of last year, a few months 
ago, the number of soldiers medically evacuated from Iraq was almost 
11,000, both battle and nonbattle related. This means what? It means 
our veterans are surviving at higher rates, hallelujah, but they are 
going to also, more likely, depend on the VA for future medical care 
related to those injuries.

  When we look at the President's budget for the Veterans' 
Administration, it reflects only a 1.8 percent increase in medical care 
funding over last year's appropriation. Overall medical care inflation, 
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, was 4 percent. So if we 
have medical care inflation at 4 percent with the President's budget 
only rising at something under 2 percent for veterans medical care 
funding, where is that going to leave our veterans? We must recognize 
the health care costs are growing more rapidly and reflect this in the 
rapid rise in the VA budget.
  From where do I get it? I get it from tax loopholes. Since I only 
have 10 minutes, I will not give examples of tax loopholes. If anyone 
wants these examples, they have been discussed over the course of the 
last several days.
  It is simple. Take the money, $1.8 billion increase for veterans 
medical care, which is woefully, inadequately funded in the President's 
budget and you get that out of closing tax loopholes where corporations 
are taking advantage of tax provisions that, in essence, allow them to 
pay less taxes than are owed. It is a simple tradeoff. That is what I 
am proposing.
  Why don't we do something for the veterans?
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, to advise our colleagues, it now appears 
we will have a vote in a couple of minutes. The first will be a 15-
minute rollcall vote, the second will be a 10-minute rollcall vote. It 
appears we will have two rollcall votes tonight. The first will be on 
the Baucus amendment dealing with striking the reconciliation 
instruction and the second will be an amendment by Senator Nelson.
  If my memory serves me correctly, we voted on a similar amendment 
yesterday. I wonder how many times we will have to vote on various 
issues. This amendment is very similar to the one from yesterday in a 
couple of respects. One, it has billions of dollars of tax increase, 
has billions of dollars of spending, except the spending is sheltered 
into a reserve fund so some people say this gives more money to 
veterans medical care, but it does not do that. It does not increase 
money to veterans medical care. It creates a fund and maybe that money 
would go in there if the Appropriations Committee did such and such. 
But you can count on what it does do; it increases taxes.
  My colleague has very legitimate concerns--I share some of those 
concerns--about veterans health care. Let me mention a couple of facts 
on veterans. We are increasing the total amount of money going to 
veterans on mandatory and discretionary by 14.5 percent. I believe I 
said this yesterday. That is a lot, especially when you consider you 
are trying to do a budget that is almost deficit neutral.
  We did add $1.4 billion for medical care. I understand people want 
more. I know people wanted more even if we did not do anything. No 
matter what we put in, they would want more because they think they are 
scoring political points.
  I will also say we have taken total veterans function 700--mandatory 
and discretionary--from $47.5 billion in the year 2001 to $70.4 
billion. That is an enormous increase.
  I understand the demands. I understand the challenge it is. But I 
urge our colleagues to vote no on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this amendment is significantly 
different from the one defeated yesterday by a very narrow vote. That 
one was for a $2.7 billion increase, but it also had a commensurate 
like reduction in the deficit, so the total amount taken out of tax 
loopholes was $5.4 billion. This amendment has only $1.8 billion taken 
out of tax loopholes to give to veterans for their medical care.
  What easier tradeoff--we, all the time, have to make tradeoffs around 
here--what easier tradeoff is there than to do this on tax loopholes, 
for example, that allow a corporation to go out and buy a bridge, turn 
around and lease it back to a municipality, and because it technically 
owns the bridge, depreciate the value of that bridge? That is a sham 
kind of tax loophole, and that is the kind of stuff we can go after to 
fund, to stand up and support the men and women in uniform who have 
served this country.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator from 
Florida have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twelve seconds.

[[Page S2531]]

  Mr. NICKLES. Does the Senator yield his time? I am going to order 
some votes.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield back 
the remainder of my time, urging a vote for the veterans of this 
country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we are ready to begin voting. We are 
going to have two votes tonight.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                      Amendment No. 2705 Withdrawn

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
amendment No. 2705.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Ohio. He is my 
very good friend. He makes some excellent points. I compliment him. He 
is what I call a deficit hawk, and I compliment him.
  I look forward to working with him on a lot of ideas. Some of his 
ideas are in this resolution. Some of his ideas for budget reform were 
in last year's resolution. I will remind my colleague from Ohio, we 
used some of your budget points of order you suggested to me over a 
year ago, this year, throughout the year, to save a lot of spending.
  I compliment my colleague from Ohio for his work, and I look forward 
to continuing to work with him.


                           Amendment No. 2751

  Mr. President, we are now ready to vote, first on the Baucus 
amendment. I expect it will be a 15-minute rollcall vote. I do not 
expect to let it go much beyond 15 minutes. I ask unanimous consent to 
have the second rollcall vote be limited to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the Baucus amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Without objection, the question will first occur on the Baucus 
amendment.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2751.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from New 
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 39 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Byrd
     Domenici
     Johnson
     Lautenberg
  The amendment (No. 2751) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, we 
will have one more rollcall vote tonight. That will be on the Nelson 
amendment. It is a 10-minute rollcall vote.
  I warn my colleagues, we have allowed these last rollcalls to go a 
little long. Tomorrow we are going to have a lot of votes. I am going 
to yield back a lot of time tonight or tomorrow. So we are going to be 
having a lot of votes. We are doing that to try to make this a more 
orderly process because we do not want to have a vote-arama that will 
go all night long tomorrow.
  I will cooperate with my colleague, and I thank Senator Conrad for 
his cooperation. I urge my colleagues to expect a long, hard day 
tomorrow. I urge my colleagues, when we have debate, to keep the time 
limited so we can consider additional amendments and conclude this 
resolution by sometime tomorrow night or sometime Friday. But we will 
stay here until we complete this resolution.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2745

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we are now going to vote on the Nelson 
amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote no. I ask for the yeas and nays 
on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2745. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 40 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Byrd
     Domenici
     Johnson
  The amendment (No. 2745) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, that is the last vote tonight. I believe 
Senator Corzine has an amendment he is going to lay down. We will 
possibly discuss it tonight. I believe he wants to discuss it a little 
bit, I am not sure. I have to see what the amendment is. I am not sure 
what it is.
  I don't know if there are any other amendments that will be 
introduced tonight. But I want to let all our colleagues know we are 
going to be starting pretty early tomorrow, and we will have a lot of 
votes. My guesstimate is I will yield back a lot of time so we will be 
on amendments tomorrow. We handled a lot of amendments today. I haven't 
counted the number. We accepted some, we disposed of some, but

[[Page S2532]]

we are going to have a lot more amendments tomorrow night, and tomorrow 
night we are probably going to be working a lot past 10 o'clock. I 
regret that. I would love to change the way budgets are done.
  I urge our colleagues, not all these amendments have to be offered. I 
urge our colleagues if you have amendments, if you can work them out 
with Senator Conrad and myself, we are happy to try to do that. That 
might save a lot of time. Rollcalls take a lot of time. We still 
conduct rollcalls the way it was done 200-some-odd years ago. It takes 
a little while, and that is fine. But I encourage our colleagues to 
think of the major amendments we really need to vote on, that they feel 
compelled to vote on, and we will try to have those together and give 
everybody a fair crack at amending this budget resolution.
  I hope some of our colleagues, if they have had success in passing an 
amendment, maybe they would consider voting for the resolution, not 
just trying to tear the resolution down or change it and continue to 
oppose it.
  Anyway, I urge our colleagues tomorrow to expect a long day with a 
lot of votes. Maybe we can conclude tomorrow night. More than likely we 
will conclude sometime on Friday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I add my voice to the chairman's and 
indicate to our colleagues we have now been able to substantially 
reduce the list on our side. I report to the chairman a very 
substantial reduction. I think we have eliminated, now, more than 50 of 
the amendments that have been noticed. But that still leaves us with 
over 40.
  At three amendments an hour, that would be 13 hours of straight 
voting. It is not just going to be straight voting because we still 
have time on the resolution. We still have eight or nine amendments 
that are going to require more extended time during the day, before we 
get to vote-arama.
  I think, just eyeballing it, we are probably talking 4 hours before 
we get to vote-arama. Then we have at least, as I have indicated, 13 
hours of votes after that, if people do not back off and show 
restraint.
  We have the night. We have the night to think very carefully about 
what kind of quality of life we want for ourselves over the next 2 
days.
  We have had very significant debates, significant amendments. Let's 
try to close this out and do it in a way that has the dignity the 
Senate should have. Yes, we will have significant additional amendments 
and debate, but let's eliminate the duplication and try to have a 
reasonable number of amendments so we can be done by a reasonable time 
on Friday.
  I thank the chairman for working with me as we have to try to move 
this process.
  I also thank very much Senator Corzine, who is a very valuable member 
of the committee, who has been extraordinarily patient. We almost 
achieved a unanimous consent that would have allowed his amendment to 
be voted on this evening. It did not happen. I thank him personally for 
his patience and his graciousness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I compliment both the chairman and the 
ranking member for their leadership in this debate. I hope people 
understand how civil and effective the views in the debate have been 
carried forward. They will be pleased to know we have pulled the other 
three amendments I submitted.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleague.


                           Amendment No. 2777

  Mr. CORZINE. With that, Mr. President, I send an amendment to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Corzine] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2777.

  Mr. CORZINE. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To eliminate tax breaks for those with incomes greater than 
  $1 million and reserve the savings to prevent future cuts in Social 
                           Security benefits)

       On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $20,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $31,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $34,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $39,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $36,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $20,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $31,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $24,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $39,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $36,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $20,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $31,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $34,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $39,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $36,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, decrease the amount by $20,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $31,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $34,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $39,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $36,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $20,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $31,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $34,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $39,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $36,000,000,000.
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       ``Sec.   . Reserve Fund To Prevent Cuts in Social Security 
     Benefits.--If legislation is reported by the Senate Committee 
     on Finance, or an amendment thereto is offered or a 
     conference report thereon is submitted that would extend the 
     solvency of the Social Security Trust Funds and prevent 
     future cuts in Social Security benefits, the Chairman of the 
     Senate Committee on the Budget may revise the aggregates, 
     allocations, and other appropriate levels and limits in this 
     resolution by not more than $160,000,000,000 to reflect such 
     legislation.''

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, this is an amendment that is very simple 
in nature. It calls for the elimination of tax breaks for those with 
incomes greater than $1 million, that is less than two-tenths of 1 
percent of income-tax payers in the United States with incomes greater 
than $1 million, and reserves the savings for the Social Security fund. 
I emphasize that is two-tenths of American taxpayers, basically setting 
a new bracket, returning it to 39.5 percent for those who have adjusted 
gross income over $1 million.
  The amendment uses the savings to establish a reserve fund for Social 
Security which would be used only to extend the solvency of the Social 
Security trust fund and prevent future cuts in Social Security 
benefits. It is straightforward.
  Social Security represents the best of America's values. It promises 
all Americans, if you work hard, pay your taxes, play by the rules, you 
can live out your life in dignity. Social Security is not a handout. It 
is not welfare. It is an earned benefit. It honors and rewards work, a 
basic American value. The promise of Social Security, when you get 
right down to it, is a guaranteed promise of retirement security. 
Regardless of how long you live, regardless of the rate of inflation, 
regardless of the state of the economy or the state of the stock 
market, you worked all your life, you contributed to our Nation's 
productivity. Social Security promises you will have enough to have 
dignity in your senior years.
  In fact, the benefits promised by Social Security are quite modest. 
The average monthly benefit is about $900; $900 per month for a senior. 
I don't think, at least not in New Jersey--that is not exactly 
luxurious living that one would be benefiting from, from Social 
Security. But it does provide an important safety net.
  For nearly one-third of the seniors in retirement, it is at least 90 
percent of their income or more--one-third. For another one-third it is 
50 percent or more of their retirement security. And for the balance, 
it is a major support, that third third; it is a little less than 50 
percent but a significant part of their retirement security.

[[Page S2533]]

  As a result of Social Security, the poverty rate among seniors today 
is less than 10 percent. It is actually about 9 percent. Without the 
program, nearly half of all retirees would live below the poverty 
level--48 percent is what the calculations would be--which, by the way, 
is where seniors were before the institution of Social Security. It has 
provided a major support for the quality of life for America's seniors.
  We hear a lot of conversation around here about the problems facing 
Social Security. Let me first say that talk is way overblown. Even if 
Congress does nothing, the Social Security system is secure and solvent 
to 2042. After that date, a substantial portion of benefits could 
continue--about 75 percent, I guess, according to the actuaries.
  That said, we all have a responsibility to address the long-term 
solvency problem of Social Security. It is not in crisis, but it needs 
to be addressed. It is better to deal with it earlier rather than 
later. That is one of the reasons I believe my amendment makes sense. 
If we get started on that process now, we can protect seniors as time 
goes forward.
  The Social Security trust fund faces a long-term shortfall. The last 
30 years of the trust fund needs to be addressed. We ought to be 
preparing for it. That is what I am trying to talk about.
  Given the angst that so many people in the country have with regard 
to Social Security, the President proposed a very radical reform 
program which we heard about in the State of the Union. It is something 
I think we ought to start putting money aside for now to protect our 
seniors as we go forward.
  The reality is that this budget resolution does nothing to preserve 
or save Social Security. That is why I think it is so important that we 
address it. This is one of those means to do it.
  Actually, this budget resolution in many ways will make the problem 
worse. This budget resolution takes every penny out of the Social 
Security trust fund and spends it either on funding additional tax cuts 
or spending it on other programs, depending on how you look at it. But 
the fact is, over the next 10 years we are going to--if we don't 
eliminate tax cuts or some portion of it--use $2.5 trillion. That is 
the cost of the Bush tax cuts over the next 10 years. That is almost 
dollar per dollar what would be coming into the Social Security trust 
fund over the period of time ahead. That is what the excess is. Almost 
dollar for dollar, we match the funding of those tax cuts and use up 
the Social Security trust fund. I don't think that is what the American 
people had in mind. I know they don't have in mind running this country 
deeper and deeper into debt. In fact, this budget resolution continues 
what this Congress and this President have done over recent years, 
which is absolute abandonment of fiscal discipline.
  For the year 2005, the majority is proposing that the Government run 
a deficit of more than $512 billion with this resolution. That is the 
full on-budget element, and I think it is very hard to argue it is 
fiscally responsible. In fact, I consider that a pretty egregious 
figure hardly reflecting the kind of fiscal responsibility we all seem 
to hold close to our chests. Even that figure is misleading because it 
excludes known costs such as the cost of addressing the alternative 
minimum tax beyond 2005; similarly, the cost of our continued presence 
in Afghanistan and Iraq after 2005.
  By the way, I compliment the chairman and others for putting together 
a resolution that actually acknowledges there will be additional 
expenditures. But I don't think we have addressed it.
  Most importantly, we are not addressing, and there is no allowance 
for, the provisions that are embedded in Social Security reform that is 
talked about both by the President and many of those on the other side 
of the aisle.
  Everyone knows that the total cost of the transition to private 
accounts, which is so readily embraced by many, will be over $1 
trillion and that nothing is allowed in this budget for the beginning 
of that transition. I think it is even more aggravated with regard to 
where we will end up relative to what the reflected budget deficit is 
that is included. I think it will be considerably larger.

  We are fooling ourselves if we think that running such deficits comes 
without a cost. In the long run, these deficits will have a substantial 
impact on our economy and on every American family.
  In January of 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected that by 
the end of 10 years we would have $36 billion in publicly held debt. 
Instead, today we are looking at a projection of $5.5 trillion by 2008. 
It is a rather significant swing in cashflow by this country. It calls 
into question whether we are really thinking about the long-run impact 
this is going to have on our Nation. Our level of national savings will 
go down, interest costs will go up, investment will go down, and the 
end result is likely to be a reduced standard of living in the long 
term for all Americans.
  There is one thing that is absolutely certain in this context, and 
that is the certainty that every American will be carrying the debt 
burden that goes well beyond where we are today, which is about $24,000 
per person and up to about $35,000 just in 2009. I hate to see how this 
explodes over the longer period of time because we have all seen the 
charts about how deficits grow as the baby boomers retire. We have a 
real problem. It is going to undermine the quality and level of 
standard of living in America through a period of time.
  That is why I believe we need to revisit at least some of the huge 
tax breaks enacted in recent years. Over the next 75 years, the cost of 
the Bush tax cuts is about $12 trillion in present value terms. By 
contrast, the amount needed to ensure the long-term solvency of Social 
Security is less than $4 trillion. This is what the tax cuts cost for 
75 years. This is how much it costs to fix Social Security, according 
to the actuarials. In other words, those tax cuts cost more than three 
times the entire Social Security shortfall.
  What will happen if we make the tax cuts permanent, as the President 
wants? It is a real problem in our capacity to fix this problem; by the 
way, Medicare as well. It will lead inevitably to benefit cuts in 
Social Security, and more than likely will be dealt with quite deeply.
  Many of us, by the way, have thought and long suspected that the 
rising deficits of recent years have been no accident but rather part 
of a strategy designed to force deep cuts in Social Security and 
Medicare to change the basic underlying fix of the social safety net we 
have in this country.
  Recently, it became a little more clear in a lot of people's minds 
exactly what is going on here. No less a figure than the Federal 
Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, came out and publicly stated it is 
time to do two things: make permanent tax breaks which go largely to 
those doing the most well in our society, or make significant cuts--
long run cuts--in Social Security benefits. No doubt many politicians 
who believe in such an approach were hoping to defer this debate until 
after the election. But I think we need to have that debate out in the 
public and fully understood.
  I compliment Chairman Greenspan for at least raising this issue so it 
is on the table. I don't necessarily agree with the strategy of 
execution, of making permanent these tax cuts which undermine our 
ability to deal with it, but I think it is absolutely one we need to 
debate.
  We need to be saving today to make sure we can protect those benefits 
for tomorrow. We can't do it if we are going to continue to live with 
this absolute binge of tax cuts, especially for the most fortunate. Yet 
that is what this resolution proposes. That is why I feel so strongly 
we should take steps to try to address something that is so fundamental 
to the American people.
  My amendment proposes to limit those tax breaks that go to those with 
incomes greater than $1 million.
  By the way, just returning to the tax bracket at the very high end, 
.2 percent of the American taxpayers use those savings to establish a 
Social Security reserve fund. The fund would be available only for 
legislation to extend the solvency of the Social Security trust fund 
and to prevent future benefit cuts. This would not entirely save Social 
Security's long-term challenge. Roughly $4 trillion is what we have, 
but it is a heck of a downpayment. It is about $1 trillion on the 
present value basis in the direction of a big step towards trying to 
preserve and make sure we can deal with the Social Security shortfall 
over a period of time.

[[Page S2534]]

  Again, let me recap why this amendment is so important. Social 
Security is a promise we must keep. It is a promise millions of hard-
working Americans will depend on to keep them out of poverty in their 
old age. Keeping that promise in the future will require increasing our 
savings now. That is why we cannot afford to build massive deficits 
with huge new tax breaks for the most fortunate Americans among us.
  We need to be disciplined. We need to be responsible. This amendment 
says instead of going deeper and deeper into debt, let's save a portion 
for the future. Let's hold off on tax breaks for those with incomes 
greater than $1 million so we can keep our promise to Social Security 
and prevent future benefit cuts for our seniors as the years go on.
  That is the right thing to do. It is the responsible thing to do. I 
hope the majority of my colleagues will support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CORZINE. Certainly.
  Mr. NICKLES. I am trying to figure out how the amendment would work. 
You are assuming the highest income level people would have no 
reduction in their tax rates going back to 2001, so their personal 
income tax rate would be 39.6 percent?
  Mr. CORZINE. The Senator is right, except for the 2001. It is moving 
back up to the 39.6 percent rate for those over $1 million.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield further, would that include 
the rate on capital gains?
  Mr. CORZINE. It would.
  Mr. NICKLES. And the rate on dividends?
  Mr. CORZINE. It would.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I have great respect for my colleague 
from New Jersey, but this is one of the worst amendments I have seen. 
This is a tax increase of $160 billion. The Senator from New Jersey can 
assume it will only be on millionaires, but you cannot do that. 
Therefore, it is a direction to the Finance Committee to raise $160 
billion. It assumes it would be saving Social Security, but it will 
not. It will not in any way, shape, or form. He assumes it will be put 
into a trust fund to save Social Security, but it will not. It raises 
taxes $160 billion.
  I will talk about, if he was correct, how bad that would be. It would 
be kind of interesting to say everyone in the country gets a capital 
gain rate of 15 percent, but if you happen to be at an income level of 
such and such, your capital gain rate is twice as high; it is 39.6 
percent. That is very strange.
  I assume, too, if you had dividend rates now and we set them now at 
15 percent, and that helped the market a lot, and we tax dividends 
higher than any other country in the world, but we helped that in last 
year's bill by cutting dividends to 15 percent, and you say dividends 
will be taxed for everybody in the country at 15 percent except for the 
highest income people, that will be at 39.6 percent, you are getting 
into a mess as far as administering the Tax Code.
  What about this instruction to increase it $160 billion? How does 
that save Social Security? I tell my colleagues, Social Security has a 
$4.9 trillion unfunded liability. If this makes sense to do it to 
Social Security, the unfunded liability over 75 years for Medicare is 3 
or 4 times as high. The last estimate I had was $15.3 trillion for 
Medicare. We made it worse last year when we expanded the Medicare 
benefits.

  First, if we went with the amendment's assumption, you would be 
increasing the maximum rate at least to 39.6 percent. The maximum rate 
on corporations is 35 percent. So why would we tax individuals who 
happen to be proprietors, who own their own business, who happen to be 
the individuals who are creating about 80 percent of the jobs, and 
probably 80 percent of the people who pay maximum rates are 
individuals, self-employed proprietors, maybe doctors and lawyers, 
hiring a lot of people, but we will tax them higher rates than we tax 
Exxon and we tax Goldman Sachs, the corporation. They pay 35 percent, 
but we will say we will have these individuals pay an additional tax up 
to 39.6 percent, and then to say we will put it into a fund, that just 
will not work.
  What we would do, the net essence, is raise taxes $160 billion. 
Presumably we will put it into a fund, but with the deficit situation 
we have right now it will be spent. It is absurd to think it would not 
be spent. It will be spent.
  You might have an IOU in that fund, but if the Government collects 
the taxes--I made this speech yesterday; I don't want to be redundant, 
especially this late--all money will go into one pot, and if you want 
to have a little paper entry that says IOU over here and you have 
another fund that says IOU, and someone assumes it is to pay Social 
Security, that is not the way it works. It would not work that way.
  I appreciate my colleague's amendment. I hope our colleagues would 
vote no on this amendment to raise taxes by $160 billion on a lot of 
small business entrepreneurs throughout the country. I think it would 
be slamming the door on economic recovery right off the bat. I urge our 
colleagues to vote no. We will vote on this amendment tomorrow morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, would the chairman acknowledge the $160 
billion is only for 5 years? If you were to implement this policy over 
the full 75-year timeframe, the present value would be roughly $1 
trillion. My calculation is not down to the last decimal point. But the 
point being not that $160 billion will save Social Security, nor $1 
trillion, but doesn't the Senator think we ought to be making steps, 
even if it is not this approach, to begin to address these shortfalls 
as we go forward?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I don't think this economy needs a big 
tax increase. I have not figured out percentagewise what it would be if 
you applied it to upper income, but it is an increase of about 15 
percent, I guess maybe 14 percent on some of the most productive people 
we have in the country.
  That is a good way to encourage a lot of people to go overseas. That 
is a good way to encourage more business in other areas. That is a good 
reason for people to outsource more to other countries that do not have 
tax rates this high.
  I find this to be very shortsighted. This is a big tax increase. It 
would not be funneled into Social Security. If you want to do that, 
increase the payroll tax. Some people think we will save Social 
Security by increasing some people's income tax. That is not my 
opinion. Very shortsighted. We pay Social Security right now. It is 
basically an unfunded, defined benefit plan. It is a rollover type 
plan, money coming in, money going out. Right now a little more is 
going in than going out, but there is significant liability. It has 
never been a funded, vested plan. It is basically a pay-go system, paid 
for under the payroll system.

  Some think it should be changed. I happen to think maybe it should be 
changed in line with what the President suggested, where we move it 
from a defined benefit to a defined benefit plus a defined contribution 
plan; where we allow individuals to take a percentage of their payroll 
and put it in their own bank account where they own it and they control 
it and they are not dependent on Government promises to provide future 
benefits.
  That is a debate for another day. That would help save the system. I 
used to be a trustee of a private pension system. Our system, like 
millions across America, moved away from a defined benefit system to a 
defined contribution system. Federal employees have done the same 
thing. Frankly, that will continue happening and will continue 
happening. We need to let individuals have the opportunity to grow, 
own, invest, and control part of their retirement funds, including 
Social Security retirement funds.
  This, however, is not that solution. This is a solution that says 
let's not only have the payroll tax--and I might mention, the payroll 
tax is already very large. The payroll tax of Social Security is 12.4 
percent of payroll. Matching employee and employer, 6.2, 6.2, 12.4 
percent of all payroll going up to 87,000 is paid into Social Security. 
That is a lot. That is thousands and thousands of dollars.
  Incidentally, the individuals get a crummy deal because they have to 
pay

[[Page S2535]]

taxes on it before they make their contribution. So they have to use 
aftertax dollars to make their Social Security contribution.
  This is not a great deal for individuals. They can do a lot better if 
they were able to invest some of their own money in their own accounts, 
and let it grow--hopefully, grow tax free--so they would not be so 
dependent on Government.
  This solution says, let's have not only the payroll taxes and the 
demographic challenge that we have with payroll taxes--because right 
now you are going to have a lot more people drawing the benefits and 
fewer people paying as the baby boomers retire--but let's create a tax 
surcharge or an income tax just on a very small percentage and really 
sock it to them. And we will say we are putting that into a fund.
  All that fund would be used for would be to maybe reduce debt or 
maybe finance more spending. The direction in this amendment is: Well, 
let's create a fund. Basically, the Finance Committee might create a 
fund, but there are going to be more taxes raised. It would be a $160 
billion tax increase over the next 5 years.
  I do not doubt my colleague from New Jersey; it may be $1 trillion 
over the next umpteen years. I think it would be very shortsighted 
economic policy.
  Marginal rates make a difference. I used to run a manufacturing 
company. I used to have a janitor service. Marginal rates made a 
difference when I had a janitor service because I found out I was 
working just as much for the Government as I was for myself. And why 
would you build or expand?
  The Senator's amendment would move us very close to 40 percent, not 
counting State income tax, not counting city income tax, if you happen 
to live in some cities. If you add all that together, people will say: 
Why should I grow, build, or expand? If they do not expand, they are 
not creating jobs. This is a very bad amendment if you want to grow the 
economy.
  The real future of Social Security is going to be dependent on a 
growing economy. This amendment would be sending the signal we are not 
interested in growing; we would rather have you leave.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, I would like to make just a couple 
observations relative to the views of the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The last time I checked, when marginal rates were 39.6 percent for a 
whole wider range of Americans--and I do believe marginal rates and 
large increments do make a difference on the motivation to work--the 
economy grew for 8 straight years, producing 22.5 million jobs. We had 
4, 5 percent productivity, the highest growth in small business in the 
history of the country.
  It is hard for one to imagine just exactly how that marginal rate 
ended up being so dampening to economic growth given the reality of the 
economy's performance in the 1990s. And now what we are talking about 
with this suggestion applies to two-tenths of 1 percent of taxpayers.
  I would also suggest that there are many differentials already in the 
Tax Code with regard to tax payments on dividends. It is not a flat 
application of the dividend rate for all businesses. So there are many 
circumstances where you could end up having a differential of rates.
  I think the choice that we are making here is: Is it worthwhile to 
protect guaranteed benefits--again, where one-third of Americans now 
are 100 percent dependent on Social Security as their sole protection 
for their senior years and another third are 50 percent or more 
dependent? Do we want to continue to have a social safety net, a 
guaranteed benefit for Americans? I think that is a compact and a trust 
we put together.
  This is one of the ways that we can begin to address it: a $1 
trillion present-value step, if we were to implement it. So I hope my 
colleagues will take into account whether we want to maintain Social 
Security with its guaranteed benefit structure or are we going to put 
ourselves at risk, having to change that program because we do not have 
the long-term actuarial protection of the ability to fulfill the 
obligations that are accumulating by Americans who work, the 
fundamental value that we take on here.
  The folks from the State that I call home tell me that Social 
Security is vital to their long-term security. And I hear from those 
folks that they would like to see a program that is not at risk, but 
they want to maintain that guaranteed benefit.
  This is one of those steps we can take to make that happen.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I have just a couple thoughts to share 
tonight on the Senator's amendment and on Social Security in general.
  The Senator from Oklahoma mentioned what the Senator's amendment 
would actually do: raise taxes, supposedly to put into a fund to save 
Social Security.
  First of all, it directs the Finance Committee to raise taxes. You 
cannot tell the Finance Committee, in a budget resolution, what taxes 
to raise. It could easily raise taxes on the child tax credit. It could 
easily raise whatever taxes it chooses to raise. You cannot direct the 
Finance Committee on what taxes to raise. We all know that.
  Any of the amendments that have been put forward today that say, 
well, just raise the tax on millionaires, you have to be on the Finance 
Committee to be able to direct that. That may be your desire, but that 
is not the way the budget resolution works. You can just direct the 
amount of money for the Finance Committee to raise. And I think the 
Senator from New Jersey is aware of that.
  As far as putting it in a fund, this Senator has only been here for 3 
years. I was in the House of Representatives for 4 years prior to this. 
The one thing I have learned around here, first of all, is that there 
is no Social Security trust fund; it is a bunch of IOUs. It is simply 
an accounting system that we have. Taxpayers, basically in the future, 
will pay taxes to fund this accounting gimmick that we know as a trust 
fund.
  In most companies, the way they set up trust funds, they actually 
take the money and invest it. That money accumulates. There are 
actually real assets. There are not real assets, other than the word of 
the United States, in the Social Security trust fund. That is really 
all we have.
  Mr. CORZINE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Let me make a few points, and then I will be happy to 
yield.
  There is no cash. There are Treasury bills, basically financing debt 
that we have for the long term. And we get a very low rate of interest 
on those for the Social Security trust fund.
  The pension systems of companies and States have real assets in them. 
The State of Nevada has the Public Employees Retirement System. It is a 
system that a lot of States have.
  Most teachers, police officers, and the like are not in the Social 
Security system because they are in a pension system. The easiest way 
to explain that is, instead of the taxpayers of today paying for the 
retirees of today, the retirees' money that they earned while working 
got put in a system that earned money, so that when they retired they 
started getting that money back out with interest.
  For retirees of today under Social Security, theirs was put in a 
paper account. It has earned a tiny amount of interest, but the workers 
of today pay in taxes for their retirement payments. That is how it 
works. It is a complete difference.
  By the way, for the State of Nevada, since we have had our PERS 
system--I think for 25 or 30 years, whatever it has been--the average 
rate of return has been 11 percent. Social Security is about 2, 3 
percent, somewhere in there--1 percent. It is a lot lower, we know, 
than 11 percent.
  If Social Security would have been set up as a retirement system, as 
a pension system with real assets, what the Senator is trying to do--
put money into that system--may work. But it is not set up that way.
  It is set up as a pay-as-you-go system. All this money you give to 
Congress today, they will spend it. I have been around here 3 years, 
but it is obvious: If you give more money to this Government, it is 
going to spend it. It

[[Page S2536]]

is an easy way to get reelected, just giving money to people.
  So while the Senator from New Jersey wants to put it in to save 
Social Security, it is not going to do that.
  As a matter of fact, it will raise the baseline which will put more 
liability into the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, if I might ask the Senator from Nevada a 
simple definitional question, I think government bonds and treasury 
bills are assets. They may not be as high yield assets as those 
available to the investment profile that is the Nevada PERS fund, but 
then again, it is also an asset that provides presumably greater 
security and less volatility and less risk to those who would benefit 
from it down the road. Social Security, while it has pay-as-you-go 
characteristics, has never been a system that was without accumulated 
reserves or deficient reserves.
  There is a time for us to have a debate about Social Security that 
goes further than we do tonight, but my view is if we reduce the amount 
of borrowings that are taken out of the Social Security trust fund to 
fund everything else we do in government, we would be a lot safer in 
the long run, and that is what my amendment is really to accomplish.
  The reserve is going to lower actually the amount of borrowing the 
Federal Government has to do.
  I think it is up to us to express the self-discipline of not having 
unlimited tax cuts and also discipline with regard to spending. It is 
not just on the spending side that we have shown a lack of discipline 
that has allowed us to get to $5.5 trillion of publicly held debt.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. If I may respond to the Senator from New Jersey, first of 
all, we have a difference of philosophy. The ranking member on the 
Budget Committee and I had this discussion last night. There is a 
difference in philosophy. This Senator believes in cutting tax rates, 
giving entrepreneurs more of their own money. For instance, when I was 
practicing as a veterinarian, I was a sole proprietor. If I wanted to 
expand my business, I looked at my costs, and I looked at rate of 
return. Part of that was taxes. Could I justify expanding my business. 
I looked at the cost of borrowing. I looked at the cost of taxes. I 
looked at all those variables. The higher you raise the cost of taxes, 
the less expansion of business you are going to get, the fewer jobs you 
are going to create.
  While we have to have tax rates that allow what we believe in to be 
funded, there is a balance there. I believe if we raise taxes, as you 
are suggesting, especially as fragile as this economy and this economic 
recovery is, it could send us back into a double-dip recession as we 
have seen this economy do historically several times.
  I think raising taxes would actually threaten the Social Security 
trust fund because, as the Senator from Oklahoma said, the only real 
security for the Social Security trust fund as it is set up today is a 
strong economy.
  We have the baby boomers who are retiring, this huge demographic 
shift. When Social Security was first set up, there were 39 workers for 
every one retiree. The retirement age was 65. The average age when 
people died was 63. That is why a pay-as-you-go system worked for all 
those years. We had plenty of workers to pay for the retirees. We are 
down to less than four workers for every one retiree today. We are 
going to two to one. In future years, if we continue with the birth 
rates and the increase in age that people live, we will be down to one 
to one. A pay-as-you-go system does not work in that regard.

  It is an important debate to have. I realize we are not going to 
solve this on the budget resolution, but the bottom line is, a strong 
economy is the only way in a pay-as-you-go system, a growing, strong, 
healthy economy is the only way for you to be able to have enough 
revenues coming into the Federal Government to be able to pay Social 
Security retirees.
  If we want to change the system, and I believe in changing the 
system, keep it the way we have now, but for the future having similar 
private accounts, whether it is like we have a Nevada PERS or whatever 
it is, to where you have real assets that are returning a better rate 
of return that many other countries in the world are changing their 
Social Security systems into, if we have that, that is a better way for 
the long-term solvency for Social Security, in this Senator's opinion. 
But the current system would be threatened by the amendment of the 
Senator from New Jersey because we are in the situation of a fragile 
economy, and tax increases could send us into a double-dip recession.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I express my support for the budget 
resolution.
  We have seen tough economic times take jobs from the average 
American. We have seen new spending in the face of terrorism and war 
increase the deficit. Today we respond with a budget resolution that 
will set the correct tone for our country.
  We now see that the President's tax cuts we passed in 2001 and 2003 
are jumpstarting the American economy and providing us with some 
positive movement in job creation. This budget will extend the tax 
reductions that have fueled our economy and have helped the average 
American worker.
  Thanks to this budget resolution, we will reduce the deficit by $139 
billion to a total deficit of $338 billion in 2005. Our reductions 
follow the President's plan to cut the deficit as a percentage of our 
economy in half by 2006. We will hold the line with an $814 billion cap 
on discretionary spending and even decrease mandatory spending by $5.7 
billion.
  This budget is a blueprint for America tomorrow that recognizes the 
realities of today. Those realities call for strong budgets for our 
military and for the State Department. There are real threats on the 
horizon that we cannot ignore. We must have the manpower, 
infrastructure, and intelligence network to protect all Americans from 
the threat of terrorism. We cannot afford to lose sight of the 
importance of these programs.
  Of course, spending more in the budget to protect Americans means 
that some other worthy programs will have to face a little belt-
tightening. But as we review our spending levels, we have an 
opportunity to allocate some new monies and focus on new priorities.

  One such program is the Pell Grant program. Since 2001, Pell Grant 
funding has increased by 47 percent. In committee, I was able to amend 
the budget resolution to increase Pell Grants for students who are 
willing to work harder in high school. This $33 million program will 
allow students who participate in a ``State Scholars Program'' to 
receive an extra $1,000 for their college education.
  We will seek out those students who work harder and strive for better 
college preparation from their high school education and reward them 
with more money for college. Motivating our young Americans to learn 
today will create a skilled workforce tomorrow.
  Another area we have expanded is veteran's medical research. The 
Budget Committee unanimously agreed to my amendment to add $536 million 
in funding over 5 years for veteran's medical and prosthetic research. 
That is a 25 percent increase in fiscal year 2005 funding over this 
year's level.
  We owe it to the men and women of the armed forces to expand these 
programs. And breakthroughs in medical research funded by this program 
will benefit all Americans, not just those in uniform.
  But one of the most important provisions this budget addresses is the 
tax cuts we have fought so hard to enact over the last few years. We 
have to stop the average American from getting a tax increase next 
year. That is why this budget will extend several provisions that are 
set to expire at the end of this year, including the $1,000 per child 
tax credit, the 10 percent income tax bracket expansion, and marriage 
penalty relief.
  We passed these tax cuts to help the American family. And just as 
America is finally getting back on track and creating new jobs, we 
can't throw the weight of a tax increase on the shoulders of working 
Americans.
  This budget offers responsible spending, protects the tax cuts that 
have stimulated our economy, and cuts the deficit. We have taken a hard 
look at our priorities and how we can help the

[[Page S2537]]

economy. But we're getting stiff resistance from across the aisle. They 
have attacked these needed tax cut extensions and sensible spending 
policies.
  But they offer no constructive criticism or alternative solutions. 
They just throw rocks and complain about our budget proposal. When they 
ran the Budget Committee, they couldn't even get a budget that could 
pass on the floor of the Senate.
  We also hear complaints about Social Security. Where is their plan to 
grapple with the future of Social Security? Where were they when the 
Clinton budgets ``spent'' the Social Security Surplus?
  As our Budget Committee chairman said this morning, this budget will 
treat Social Security exactly the same as past budgets. The trust fund 
balances are available for future benefit payments, just as they were 
described in the fiscal year 2000 Clinton budget, which said, ``they do 
not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the 
future to fund benefits.'' We'll keep our Social Security money in 
treasury bills just as we always have and in fact, are required to do 
by law.
  I am ready to tackle the problems Social Security will face in the 
next several decades. I, unlike many who just complain about the 
problem, have spent a lot of time thinking about Social Security, 
particularly during my time as chairman of the Social Security 
subcommittee in the House. In the past, I have even drafted and 
introduced an option for improving the system. Very few can say that. 
All can complain, but few are willing to be constructive.
  I hope my colleagues can look past the partisan bias and rhetoric 
coming from some across the aisle. We drafted in the Budget Committee a 
serious proposal that addresses spending levels and our economy.
  I support this budget before us today because it recognizes the 
realities of our world, the necessity to limit spending, and the 
importance of creating jobs and keeping the average American on the 
road to economic recovery. I urge my colleagues to support the budget 
resolution before us.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the fiscal 
year 2005 Federal budget, I want to address what I believe are the 
deeply misplaced priorities of the Republican budget plan and the 
dangerous fiscal course facing the Nation.
  In 3 short years, the Nation's fiscal health has deteriorated to the 
point of turning a record budget surplus of $236 billion in 2001 to a 
gapping projected budget deficit of $477 billion. Instead of working to 
steady the country's fiscal condition, the budget plan the U.S. Senate 
is considering will contribute an additional $179 billion to the 
Federal budget deficit over the next 5 years by permanently extending 
tax cuts for the richest one percent of American taxpayers.
  There is another approach. It is an approach that strengthens the 
fiscal integrity of the government, while addressing the pressing needs 
of the 40 million Americans without health insurance, ensuring the 
solvency of the Social Security trust fund, as well safeguarding the 
homeland.
  On Thursday, March 4, on a party line vote, the Senate Budget 
Committee approved a budget that adheres too closely to the President's 
budget plan and sets the wrong priorities for securing the homeland, 
creating the conditions for job growth, and tackling the out-of-control 
Federal budget deficit. Under the budget plan the Senate is 
considering, the Federal budget deficit would actually increase $179 
billion above the Congressional Budget Office CBO baseline. To 
forestall a further run-up on the government's credit card, the Senate 
should amend the Republican budget plan by identifying a combination of 
spending reductions and increases in revenues that will achieve the 
goals of reducing deficits and strengthening the economy.
  In 2001, President Bush pushed through a sweeping tax cut on the 
rationale that the historic budget surpluses built up during the 
Clinton administration justified reductions in taxes. At that time, the 
Federal budget was at a record budget surplus of $236 billion and I, 
along with many of my colleagues in the Senate, agreed that taxes 
should be reduced. Now that the fiscal condition of the country has 
swung deep into the red, it is necessary and prudent to reevaluate 
permanently extending tax breaks for the highest income levels. Such an 
approach, in combination with focused spending discipline, could reduce 
the deficit that threatens the long-term fiscal health of our country.
  Instead of pursuing this approach, President Bush is asking Congress 
to make permanent the tax cuts that have put us in this situation. 
Since the United States is already in red ink, obviously the money for 
this new distribution will require decreases in important domestic 
spending and borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. I believe 
this is a terrible idea when other pressing budget priorities are 
shortchanged and cut.
  Our Nation's veterans are currently on year-long waiting lists to get 
access to VA health care, our rural hospitals and nursing homes are on 
the verge of closing because of inadequate Medicare/Medicaid 
reimbursement, our schools are struggling to stay open due to reduced 
budgets, and the President says we don't have the funds for South 
Dakota's water projects. Some may see the people affected by these cuts 
as ``special interests.'' I see them as South Dakotans who should not 
be short-changed to provide tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the 
wealthiest one percent of Americans.
  I remember when being a conservative meant living within one's means, 
and that is the strategy our Nation ought to return to. President 
Clinton had it right when he called for an secured a balanced Federal 
budget--that meant we were not borrowing from Social Security, we were 
not creating huge new debts for future generations to pay off, we were 
creating millions of new jobs, and we were not jeopardizing Medicare 
and Social Security. Government is about priorities, and the Bush 
administration's budget priorities are wrong in too many instances. I 
will continue to do all that I can to redirect our Nation's resources 
to an agenda that better meets America's domestic needs and our 
international moral obligations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, we have had a good debate. I appreciate 
our colleagues staying this late. We have been on this bill for a 
little over 13 hours today. I think we have made a lot of progress. We 
are going to have to make a lot more progress tomorrow.

                          ____________________