[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 31 (Thursday, March 11, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2651-S2699]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S2651]]

Senate

 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                            2005--Continued

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this important 
amendment offered by Senator Tom Daschle. The Senate Committee on 
Indian Affairs, of which I am a member, has held hearings on the 
President's fiscal year 2005 budget request for Indian programs. We 
have heard from Indian country about the inadequate funding provided 
for many programs in Indian country. We have heard that American 
Indians and Alaska Natives have a life expectancy six years less than 
that of the rest of the United States population, with rates of 
cardiovascular disease being twice as high for native peoples.
  Native people die at a rate 500 percent higher than other Americans 
from tuberculosis and 390 percent higher from diabetes. With the 
technological advancements that we have made in these areas, most of 
these illnesses could be prevented if basic health care were available. 
Unfortunately, the President's budget provides $2.1 billion for IHS 
clinical services, leaving a shortfall of over 60 percent for fiscal 
year 2005.
  The time is now and we must provide Indian country with the ability 
to ensure that native peoples are given access to essential health care 
services. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment, and 
I thank my dear friend, Senator Daschle, for offering this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this is another one of these amendments--
we have had a dozen of them now--that says we are going to pay for this 
by increasing taxes on wealthy people. I don't know how many times we 
have to vote on it. Then I look at the spending. It says we will 
increase spending by $3.4 billion from 2.1 to 5.5. That is a 164-
percent increase. It is a big tax increase. It is a humongous spending 
increase. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2774. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is absent 
attending a funeral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 52 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

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

                                NAYS--54

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Carper
     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--4

     Edwards
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Reid
  The amendment (No. 2774) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we are making progress. Senator Conrad 
and I are reducing the amendments pretty quickly. I compliment him for 
that. We are trying to accommodate Members on both sides of the aisle. 
Maybe we can get this legislation finished tonight.
  I believe the Senator from Alaska has an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                           Amendment No. 2822

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. 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 Alaska [Ms. Murkowski], for herself and 
     Mr. Campbell, proposes an amendment numbered 2822.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. 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 increase funding for the Indian Health Services)

       On page 16, line 12, increase the amount by $282,000,000.
       On page 16, line 13, increase the amount by $251,000,000.
       On page 16, line 17, increase the amount by $28,000,000.
       On page 16, line 21, increase the amount by $2,000,000.

[[Page S2652]]

       On page 23, line 5, decrease the amount by $282,000,000.
       On page 23, line 6, decrease the amount by $251,000,000.
       On page 23, line 10, decrease the amount by $28,000,000.
       On page 23, line 14, decrease the amount by $2,000,000.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this amendment also relates to the 
Indian Health Service. This amendment would increase the budget for the 
Indian Health Service by $282 million. This is intended to track the 
recommendation that the Indian Affairs Committee sent to the Budget 
Committee in its views and estimates letter.
  It provides the funding for those priorities that were set out in the 
committee's list. We are looking at increases for clinical services, a 
50-percent increase for services to urban Indians, a $90 million 
increase for contract support costs and an additional $61 million for 
health facilities construction. This amendment would make all of these 
increases possible.
  Of particular interest to me, the amendment enables an additional $10 
million increase in funding for sanitation facilities construction, 
which is incredibly important to my home State. 40 percent of the unmet 
need for sanitation, as identified by the Indian Health Service, is in 
Alaska.
  This amendment also envisions a substantial funding increase for the 
Community Health Aide Practitioner Program, which the Indian Health 
Service regards as a national model.
  The increases in this amendment are defensible. We recognize we have 
a long way to go when it comes to improving the health condition of our 
Native peoples, but I think this is a good and reasonable step in that 
direction.
  I urge Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Murray as a 
cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senator 
Murray on this side. We strongly support the amendment and hope our 
colleagues will accept it.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate has just missed an opportunity 
to fund the basic health care needs of the current Indian Health 
Service user population. We had a chance to provide a $3.44 billion 
increase for IHS clinical services. Unfortunately, we lost that chance 
because not a single Republican Senator was willing to apply toward 
Indian health a small fraction of the revenue that will be raised from 
closing tax loopholes that allow people to avoid paying their fair 
share of taxes.
  Some may view this budget resolution as an insignificant exercise. It 
is not. Unless we do something to increase the funding available to the 
Appropriations Committee--specifically the Interior Appropriations 
Subcommittee--it will be next to impossible to increase Indian health 
funding to any significant degree.
  I hope my colleagues will stop and think about the weight of the 
decisions they are making today. Because its budget is so woefully 
inadequate, the Indian Health Service is forced to use a literal ``life 
or limb'' standard to ration health care for Indian men, women, and 
children--people whose health care is supposed to be guaranteed. Indian 
people are suffering--some are literally dying--because we are failing 
to provide them the kind of care that most Americans, and every single 
one of us, take for granted.
  We have been here before. We had this same debate last year. Then, 
like today, my Republican colleagues opposed a real increase for IHS 
clinical services and instead offered a phantom increase that was one-
tenth of the amount of the increase needed to meet the basic health 
care needs of the current IHS user population.
  The only difference this year is that the ``increase'' they are 
offering is less than one-tenth of the amount of the increase needed to 
meet the basic health care needs of the current IHS user population, 
and even less than the amount they offered last year.
  Of course, any increase for the Indian Health Service is welcome. I 
will be glad if we can treat even one more Indian child the way that he 
or she deserves to be treated. But my colleagues should know that the 
Murkowski amendment does not add one penny to the Appropriations 
Committee's allocation. It does not increase the amount of money 
available to the subcommittee appropriators who must find the funding 
this amendment claims to provide. It leaves the Indian Health Service 
to compete for funds with Indian education, tribal colleges, tribal 
courts and police, reservation roads, as well as the Denali National 
Park, Mount Rushmore, and all the other important priorities that 
subcommittee funds.
  The function 920 account is not a secret pot of money from which to 
draw. This amendment--if it is not dropped in conference the way last 
year's amendment was--would force the Appropriations Committee to cut 
the domestic discretionary programs already severely shortchanged under 
this scandalous budget resolution. Remember, this budget resolution 
already cuts domestic discretionary spending by $14.6 billion compared 
to last year.
  Will the money come from our national parks? No Child Left Behind--
and we know they are being left behind? HUD? NIH? COPS? Perhaps the 
BIA's reorganization initiative? I might support that cut.
  They will not tell us which programs they would cut, because they 
know our domestic discretionary accounts can't absorb any more cuts, 
and because this amendment isn't real. It will not add a penny to the 
IHS clinical services account.
  Will the phantom money be there after the House and Senate 
Republicans return from conference? It certainly was not last year.
  That money was missing from the fiscal year 2004 Interior 
appropriations bill, too, when 45 Republican senators blocked my 
amendment to make real their professed $292 million commitment to 
Indian health.
  Yet again, my colleagues on the other side are making a specious 
argument. At the same time they're refusing to close loopholes that 
allow people who owe taxes to avoid paying their fair share, at the 
same time they are proposing new tax cuts for millionaires, they are 
saying this country cannot afford to honor its treaty obligation--and 
its clear moral obligation--to Native Americans.
  I hope the Senate will reject that argument and put us on the road to 
righting this indefensible wrong.
  Senators can vote for this amendment, but no one should be confused 
about its impact. I can assure you that Native Americans will not be. 
Still, I will support this amendment with the hope that the conferees 
will find a way to provide a real increase for the Indian Health 
Service.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to amendment No. 2822.
  The amendment (No. 2822) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Dodd is next on our side with an 
amendment. I ask Senator Dodd to proceed at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                           Amendment No. 2762

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2762.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, Mr. 
     Kerry, Mr. Corzine, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Kohl, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2762.

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

(Purpose: To create a reserve fund to allow for an increase in the 21st 
Century Community Learning Centers Program by $1 billion and lower the 
              national debt by eliminating tax loopholes)

       On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $1,301,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $541,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $60,000,000.

[[Page S2653]]

       On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $1,301,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $541,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $1,301,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $541,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, decrease the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $1,361,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $1,902,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $2,002,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $2,002,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $1,361,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $1,902,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $2,002,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $2,002,000,000.
       At the end of Title III, insert the following:

     SEC.  . RESERVE FUND FOR THE 21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING 
                   CENTERS PROGRAM.

       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 $1,000,000,000 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 the 21st Century Community Learning 
     Centers program in the Department of Education.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this amendment deals with afterschool 
programs. I know most of my colleagues are tremendously supportive of 
this program. When we passed the No Child Left Behind Act 2 years ago, 
we insisted that we fund, to the extent possible, $2 billion for 
afterschool programs.
  Over the last 2 years, we have only funded half of that program, 
serving a little more than 1 million children when the need exceeds 2 
million children. I think all of us have given talks in our States 
about the value of afterschool programs. The President himself has 
talked eloquently about it, saying afterschool programs keep kids safe, 
help working families, and improve academic achievements. He is 
absolutely right. But we are leaving more than 1 million children 
behind as a result of not fully funding at the authorized levels 
afterschool programs.
  I am asking, with this amendment, that we fund with an additional $1 
billion to reach more than 1 million kids who could really use this 
critically important program. Over the years this body has 
overwhelmingly supported afterschool initiatives. This is an 
opportunity for us to live up to the requirements that we insisted upon 
when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act 2 years ago.
  I urge my colleagues to be supportive of this effort. We pay for the 
$1 billion by reducing the tax cut for the most affluent Americans by 
$1 billion. That is a tiny fraction that can serve over 1 million 
children in afterschool programs.
  I urge adoption of the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I was hoping my colleague from 
Connecticut, my very good friend, since the hour is getting late, would 
accept a voice vote. Maybe not yet. Maybe people will start considering 
that option. Most people know how the votes might come out.
  This is a $2 billion tax increase. Again, it is only directed at the 
millionaires or the upper income bracket, but, of course, that is not 
what the Finance Committee gets. The Finance Committee gets a 
resolution that says raise revenues.
  Then I look at the function it hopes to have the money go to. It 
would increase by 100 percent. I keep hearing people say we want 
deficit reduction, but I keep seeing programs grow by 100 percent, 140 
percent.
  I urge our colleagues to vote no on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to amendment No. 2822. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is absent 
attending a funeral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 53 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

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

                                NAYS--54

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Carper
     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--4

     Edwards
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Reid
  The amendment (No. 2762) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we are making very good progress. For the 
information of our Members, I think momentarily we will be able to 
dispose of seven or eight amendments.
  I believe the Senator from Georgia wishes to discuss an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I had an amendment I intended to offer, 
but after consultation with the committee chairman, the hour is late 
and I probably would have wound up withdrawing the amendment anyway.
  What my amendment sought to do was to make a correction in an 
amendment that was presented at the full committee markup. At that 
markup, there was an amendment passed relative to the issue of payment 
limitation in the farm bill.
  Payment limitation in the farm bill doesn't mean a whole lot to 
anybody unless you are a farmer. Farmers, as long as they are treated 
equally, have no problem with the various farm programs we have under 
the farm bill. But what has happened with the payment limitation is we 
have rewritten the farm bill during the middle of the farm bill and 
that is not fair.
  What my amendment sought to do was to take one portion of the overall 
farm bill, which is the ethanol portion, and simply equalize payments 
to those growers of corn who participate in the ethanol program, add 
the payments they receive--and they don't receive them directly. We 
would have to figure out, through a complicated formula, how much they 
get, add the amount of money to their payment limitation portion so it 
would equalize. They would be equal with every other farmer across the 
country with respect to payment limitation.
  It would be a complicated situation, and I think at some point in 
time down the road, if those who insist on revision of the payment 
limitations do so prior to the expiration of the farm bill, we are 
simply going to come back with an amendment. We will come back with an 
amendment at a later time to seek

[[Page S2654]]

to do that. However, I hope all Members of the Senate who come from 
agricultural States will continue to work together for the interest of 
our farmers and make sure we carry out the terms of the current farm 
bill. When it expires in 2008, we will again look at all these issues 
and decide what is fair to the American consumer and for the American 
farmer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, No. 1, I thank my colleague from Georgia 
for his brief discussion and for not offering the amendment. I think if 
he offered the amendment we might be here a little while.
  I believe the chairman of the Agriculture Committee would like to 
make a few comments.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I want to express my opposition to the 
provision in the budget resolution that shifts $1.221 billion over the 
next 5 years from farm programs to other programs under the 
jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee.
  This provision assumes reducing statutory payment limitations for 
farm program payments to producers of wheat, feed grains, oilseeds, 
cotton and rice from $40,000 to $20,000 for direct payments and from 
$65,000 to $30,000 for counter-cyclical payments. In addition, the 
proposal would include certificate transactions and loan forfeitures 
under the marketing loan program's payment limitation.
  I oppose this provision for a number of reasons. First, the 2002 farm 
bill, enacted less than 2 years ago, has already reduced payment 
limitations compared to the 1996 farm bill by establishing a means test 
for farm program benefits in which individuals with over $2.5 million 
in adjusted gross income are ineligible for payments unless at least 75 
percent of that income comes from agriculture. Moreover, the 2002 farm 
bill's limit of $105,000 for the sum of direct and counter cyclical 
payments is 12 percent less than the 1977 farm bill's limit on 
comparable purpose deficiency payments after adjustment for inflation. 
Senators should remember that these payments do not necessarily 
represent profit to the farmer, but rather this shows that in real 
terms, we already have reduced farm program supports in two separate 
ways.
  Second, the 2002 farm bill established a Commission on the 
Application of Payment Limitations to analyze and to make 
recommendations regarding these issues in a report to the President and 
to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees. The Commission, which 
is composed of 10 individuals who possess a tremendous amount of 
experience in, and knowledge about, U.S. agriculture, released its 
report in August of last year. The Commission's first and primary 
consensus recommendation was that no substantial changes should be made 
to the 2002 farm bill's system of farm program payment limitations 
until the farm bill is reauthorized for the 2008 and later crops. The 
Commission reasoned that the multiyear nature of farm bills provides 
stability for production agriculture and that producers, their lenders, 
and other agribusiness firms make long-term investment decisions based 
on this multiyear legislation. The Senate should follow the 
Commission's recommendation and should not make changes in farm program 
payment limitations.
  Third, southern cotton and rice farms tend to be larger, and the 
costs of production are much greater, than wheat, corn, and soybean 
farms in other regions. The Grassley provision would reduce government 
payments to cotton and rice producers. Moreover, the provision would 
severely complicate crop farmers' ability to use the marketing loan 
program, particularly during periods of low market prices when 
producers need it most. The marketing loan program, as its name 
implies, helps farmers market their crops by providing them with 
benefits when market prices fall below government established loan 
rates. In such situations, program benefits offset the impact of low 
prices with a minimum of government involvement in the marketplace. 
This provision would, for the first time, require that loan program 
certificate transactions and loan forfeitures be included under the 
program's payment limitation. The provision, if implemented, would mean 
that once a producer reaches the limit, marketing loan benefits would 
be cut off regardless of the market situation.
  Fourth, the budget resolution should provide us with a broad plan for 
Federal revenues and expenditures but leave policy decisions within 
that budget framework to the authorizing committees. This proposal 
violates that principle by attempting to dictate policy to the 
Agriculture Committee without having any impact on the overall level of 
Federal expenditures. It simply shifts over $1 billion in payments from 
one group of farmers to another. That is a decision that should be made 
by the Agriculture Committee--not the Budget Committee.
  Fourteen major agriculture and commodity organizations have written 
to the Budget Committee opposing changes in the farm bill. The budget 
resolution, as adopted, would make changes in the commitments that were 
made to farmers and ranchers in the Farm Bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that two letters from farm groups and 
producers who oppose the Grassley provision be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    March 1, 2004.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     Chairman, Senate Budget Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     Ranking Member, Senate Budget Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Nickles and Ranking Member Conrad: On behalf 
     of the undersigned U.S. farm and commodity organizations, we 
     write to express concern over the agricultural provisions of 
     the budget proposal submitted by the administration for 
     fiscal year 2005.
       Under the President's plan, the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture's budget authority for discretionary programs in 
     2005 would be reduced about $1.7 billion or 8.1 percent 
     compared to the spending levels adopted for the current 
     fiscal year. When the increased spending for additional 
     homeland security responsibilities are included, the 
     effective reduction in budget authority for traditional USDA 
     programs climbs to nearly $2.1 billion or 10 percent of total 
     discretionary spending authority.
       Due in part to weather related production shortfalls in 
     many parts of the world, including the U.S., over the past 
     three years and modest improvements in both export and 
     domestic market conditions, commodity program support and 
     related payments declined by about $4.8 billion in FY 2004 
     compared to the August 2003 baseline. The five-year cost of 
     the farm bill is now projected to cost $14.6 billion less 
     than projected by the Congressional Budget Office in its 
     August 2002 estimates which were made shortly after the 2002 
     farm legislation was enacted. These savings represent 
     additional ``real'' dollar reductions in federal expenditures 
     for commodity program outlays that are not fully considered 
     in the budget process.
       When all these factors are considered, production 
     agriculture and rural communities are being asked to take a 
     disproportionate reduction in important programs, including 
     conservation, research, energy, rural development, and 
     international food assistance, that were authorized in the 
     bi-partisan farm legislation signed by the president in 2002.
       Agricultural producers and rural communities have yet to 
     recover from the effects of the agricultural recession which 
     for many began in 1997 and the severe economic losses 
     associated with ongoing weather disasters that have occurred 
     since the 2001 production year for which assistance has been 
     minimal.
       As you consider a budget for FY 2005, we urge that you 
     oppose reductions in the commitments made in the 2002 farm 
     bill. As such, we urge that you oppose the adoption of a 
     resolution that either incorporates the President's 
     agriculture spending proposals or includes reconciliation 
     instruction to the agriculture authorizing committee.
       Efforts to enhance economic opportunities for America's 
     farmers and rural communities require that the federal budget 
     be able to accommodate a meaningful economic safety net for 
     producers, expand our nation's resource conservation, 
     renewable energy and agricultural research activities while 
     addressing a broad range of rural development and global 
     hunger needs.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views.
           Sincerely,
         American Corn Growers Association,
         American Farm Bureau Federation,
         Farm Credit Council,
         National Association of Wheat Growers,
         National Cotton Council,
         National Farmers Union,
         National Grain Sorghum Producers,
         National Grange,
         National Grape Cooperative,
         R-CALF USA,

[[Page S2655]]

         Soybean Producers of America,
         U.S.A. Rice Federation,
         U.S. Rice Producers Association.
                                 ______
                                 
                                                    March 3, 2004.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     Chairman, Senate Budget Committee,
     Dirksen Senate Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Nickles: I am writing today on behalf of the 
     National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) and our 33,000 
     grower members regarding the Fiscal Year 2005 Budget 
     Resolution now under consideration by your committee. While 
     we recognize the concerns over rising federal budget 
     deficits, NCGA strongly opposes any action that reopens the 
     2002 Farm Bill, including amendments that reduce payment 
     limits within the farm safety net programs. Today's farm bill 
     is a carefully balanced measure that required give and take 
     among farm organizations and multiple stakeholders.
       NCGA believes that proposals to further restrict farm 
     support payments are extremely divisive as well as 
     inequitable for those producers who must make sound, long 
     range business and financing decisions based on the current 
     farm bill provisions. Changes that would impose even more 
     restricting payment limits will cut off support to producers 
     when they most need assistance--at times of extremely low 
     prices. The fact is today's farm bill includes more stringent 
     limitations than those of the previous farm policy. NCGA 
     continues to support those limitations on direct and 
     countercyclical payments as well as marketing loan benefits.
       While our grower members remain very supportive of 
     additional funding for new conservation initiatives, 
     nutrition programs, and rural development value-added grants, 
     it is the view of NCGA that amendments to achieve budget 
     savings for these programs at the expense of the farm safety 
     net would result in more harm than good. We can ill afford to 
     undermine a policy that is designed to restore long-term 
     fiscal discipline in agriculture spending. The Congressional 
     Budget Office's recent projection of $8 billion dollars in 
     reduced expenditures over the next ten years underscores the 
     need for Congress to maintain a steady course and keep its 
     commitment to the 2002 Farm Bill.
       Finally, NCGA urges the Committee to consider the work of 
     the Payment Limitations commission. This bipartisan committee 
     authorized by Congress thoroughly reviewed the data from 
     agriculture policy experts, opposing points of view from 
     individual producers and farm organizations and recommended 
     no substantial changes prior to the expiration of the 2002 
     Farm Bill. The Commission, in fact, suggested administrative 
     and enforcement practices that call for improvements to 
     better implement the current law.
       Again, NCGA recognizes the difficult task before you and 
     the members of the Senate Budget Committee. We appreciate 
     your leadership and careful consideration of our growers' 
     concerns as you proceed with your work on the FY 2005 Budget 
     Resolution.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Dee Vaughan,
                                                        President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank our colleagues from Mississippi and Georgia, 
because collectively they saved the Senate probably about two hours. I 
thank both of our colleagues for their cooperation. We are having very 
good cooperation. We are getting rid of a lot of amendments. I know 
there are a few that people want to have votes on, so please be patient 
and we will try to have voice votes on every other amendment we 
consider tonight.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum for a very brief 
moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I believe that the chairman of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee has an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 2823

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Senator Bingaman and I have an amendment 
that has been agreed to on both sides. I call up amendment No. 2823 and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], for himself and Mr. 
     Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 2823.

  Mr. INHOFE. 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 return to the original scoring of the energy savings 
                     performance contract program)

       On page 43, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
       (c) Energy Savings Performance Contract Program.--In 
     recognition that the energy savings performance contract 
     program recoups its costs through guaranteed savings without 
     increasing budgetary outlays, the Congressional Budget Office 
     shall score the energy savings performance contract program 
     under title VIII of the National Energy Conservation Policy 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) as zero. For the purposes of any 
     point of order under any concurrent resolution on the budget 
     and the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the cost of the 
     energy savings performance contract program under title VIII 
     of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 801 
     et seq.) shall be zero.

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this amendment addresses the Energy 
Savings Performance Contract Program. It is a program that costs no 
money. It is all paid for by the savings that are accumulated. This has 
been cleared on both sides. Everyone is for it. I can't find anyone who 
is against it. The problem arose when CBO started scoring this after 
not having scored it. By its very nature, it will not cost any money.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me congratulate my colleague, 
Senator Inhofe, for putting this amendment forward. It is a very 
meritorious amendment. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I just inquire of the sponsor, what 
is the cost of this amendment and what is the source of the funding for 
it?
  Mr. INHOFE. There is no cost to it. This is the Energy Savings 
Performance Contract Program that allows a company to go into an Air 
Force base to show them how they can, through energy savings, save $2 
or $3 million a year. Then they are compensated from the savings, and 
from that point forward it goes back to the recipient. There is no 
cost.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, my understanding is this is directed 
scorekeeping. The committees are told this doesn't cost any money, but 
it does cost money. I was willing to take this amendment when I was 
under the impression this didn't cost any money. But if we are going to 
start down the road of saying things that cost money don't cost money, 
then we have a real problem. I have a real problem with that amendment.
  Mr. INHOFE. May I respond? There is no cost to this program, because 
no public dollars are involved. It is where someone goes in and finds 
ways to save energy and, if they are successful in doing that, they 
merely pay the money back. The Government doesn't get involved at all 
in the program. So there is no cost.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it was said nobody objects. I object. I 
don't insist on a vote, but I am going to conference, and neither of 
those Members advocating it are going to conference.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, in the interest of moving things along, I 
want to register, to the extent there is directed scoring here, strong 
opposition. We cannot go down the path of saying things don't cost 
money. Maybe there is a view that it doesn't. But if the scorekeepers 
say it does, and we start telling them it doesn't, that creates a 
serious problem. I am not going to insist on a vote. I have confidence 
this will be taken care of in conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2823) was agreed to.


            Amendments Nos. 2831, 2833, 2717, 2699, and 2794

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Oklahoma if we 
might take the package of seven we reached agreement on.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I am happy to do that. I compliment our 
staffers, and I see them running to the floor.
  We have four amendments our joint staffs have worked on: One, Senator 
Conrad's amendment on tribal colleges; one by Senator Bingaman on the 
pediatric vaccine reserve fund; one by Senator Wyden on healthy 
forests; and one by Senator Kennedy on the SCHIP.
  We have reviewed those, and I believe they have been approved by both 
sides.
  I add one additional amendment by Senator Thomas and Senator Conrad, 
No. 2794, dealing with rural health.
  I ask unanimous consent that these five amendments be considered en 
bloc.

[[Page S2656]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, these five are fine. We have an agreement 
on both sides on these five.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2831

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding tribal colleges 
                           and universities)

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TRIBAL COLLEGES AND 
                   UNIVERSITIES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) American Indians from 250 federally recognized tribes 
     nationwide attend tribal colleges and universities, a 
     majority of whom are first-generation college students.
       (2) Tribal colleges and universities are located in some of 
     the most isolated and impoverished areas in the Nation, yet 
     they are the Nation's most poorly funded institutions of 
     higher education. While the Tribally Controlled College or 
     University Assistance Act, or ``Tribal College Act'' provides 
     funding based solely on Indian students, the colleges have 
     open enrollment policies providing access to postsecondary 
     education opportunities to all interested students, about 20 
     percent of whom are non-Indian. With rare exception, tribal 
     colleges and universities do not receive operating funds from 
     the States for these non-Indian State resident students. Yet, 
     if these same students attended any other public institutions 
     in their States, the State would provide basic operating 
     funds to the institution.
       (3) While Congress has been increasing annual 
     appropriations for tribal colleges in recent years, the 
     President's fiscal year 2005 budget recommends a $5,500,000 
     decrease in institutional operating funds. This represents 
     the third consecutive year that the President's budget 
     proposed decreases that Congress must restore.
       (4) Because of congressional budget restorations, the 
     tribal colleges funded through titles I and II of the 
     Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act are 
     within $19,000,000 of full funding at their authorized level.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) this resolution recognizes the funding challenges faced 
     by tribal colleges and universities and assumes that priority 
     consideration will be provided to them through funding of the 
     Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act, the 
     Equity in Educational Land Grant Status Act, title III of the 
     Higher Education Act, and the National Science Foundation 
     Tribal College Program; and
       (2) such priority consideration reflects the intent of 
     Congress to continue to work toward statutory Federal funding 
     authorization goals for tribal colleges and universities.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2833

 (Purpose: To establish a reserve fund for expansion of the pediatric 
                     vaccine distribution program)

       At the end of subtitle A of title III, add the following:

     SEC. 3__. RESERVE FUND FOR EXPANSION OF PEDIATRIC VACCINE 
                   DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM.

       If the Committee on Finance of the Senate reports a bill or 
     joint resolution, or an amendment thereto is offered or a 
     conference report thereon is submitted, that expands the 
     pediatric vaccine distribution program established under 
     section 1928 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396s) to 
     include coverage for children administered a vaccine at a 
     public health clinic or Indian clinic and repeals the price 
     cap for pre-1993 vaccines, the chairman of the Committee on 
     the Budget may revise allocations of new budget authority and 
     outlays, the revenue aggregates, and other appropriate 
     aggregates to reflect such legislation, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit for fiscal year 
     2005 and for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.


                           amendment no. 2717

  (Purpose: To increase investments in implementation of the Healthy 
Forests Restoration Act to benefit national, forests, the environment, 
                local communities, and local, economies)

  On page 11, line 9, increase the amount by $343,000,000.
       On page 11, line 10, increase the amount by $84,000,000.
       On page 11, line 14, increase the amount by $84,000,000.
       On page 11, line 18, increase the amount by $84,000,000.
       On page 11, line 22, increase the amount by $53,000,000.
       On page 12, line 1, increase the amount by $38,000,000.
       On page 23, line 5, decrease the amount by $343,000,000.
       On page 23, line 6, decrease the amount by $84,000,000.
       On page 23, line 10, decrease the amount by $84,000,000.
       On page 23, line 14, decrease the amount by $84,000,000.
       On page 23, line 18, decrease the amount by $53,000,000.
       On page 23, line 22, decrease the amount by $38,000,000.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2699

(Purpose: To prevent unspent SCHIP funds from reverting to the Treasury 
  rather than being used to provide coverage for low-income children)

       On page 26, line 4, after ``measures'' insert ``and 
     including legislation to reallocate and maintain expiring 
     SCHIP funds rather than allowing such funds to revert to the 
     Treasury''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 2794

  (Purpose: To restore discretionary funding levels for crucial rural 
 health programs, such as the rural health and outreach grant program, 
   the rural hospital flexibility grant program, the small hospital 
    improvement program, telehealth, trauma programs, and rural AED 
     programs to fiscal year 2004 levels and offset this change by 
           reductions in overall government travel expenses)

       On page 16, line 12, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 16, line 13, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 23, line 5, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 23, line 6, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.


                           amendment no. 2699

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, every child deserves a healthy start in 
life, but too many children do not receive it. Their parents work hard, 
40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, but all their hard work is not enough 
to buy the health insurance their children need.
  The consequences for the 8 million children who are uninsured are 
devastating. Three hundred thousand children suffer from asthma and 
never see a doctor because they are uninsured. Three hundred and fifty 
thousand children with recurrent earaches or severe sore throats never 
see a doctor because their families are uninsured. Uninsured children 
are more likely to miss school, have worse grades, and are less likely 
to succeed later in life.
  While the 8.5 million children who remain uninsured challenge our 
conscience as a nation and tell us how much more needs to be done, for 
millions of these low- and moderate-income children of working parents, 
the Child Health Insurance Program has been a lifeline and safety net.
  The CHIP program has been extraordinarily successful in providing 
health insurance coverage to children. Even as the number of uninsured 
adults has risen dramatically, the number of uninsured children has 
actually fallen. Almost 6 million children are now enrolled in CHIP and 
getting the care they need and the care they deserve.
  The children's program has had growing pains--it took longer than 
anticipated for the program to get off the ground and even today, more 
than 4 million children are uninsured even though they are eligible for 
either Medicaid or CHIP. Yet, the program is working well and the only 
limitation to its continued expansion is lack of funds. More than $1 
billion in unused CHIP dollars are due to revert to the Treasury this 
year at the same time that many states are running out of CHIP dollars. 
It would be tragic if these funds are lost to the children who need 
help, and it would be a sad commentary on our national priorities if we 
allow it to happen.
  Last year, we faced a similar situation and, with overwhelming 
bipartisan support, we passed legislation to keep expiring CHIP funds 
available for children. We need to take the same decisive action this 
year. This amendment gives the Congress the flexibility to meet this 
need. It would clarify that the existing, budget neutral reserve fund 
to address the needs of the uninsured could be used to prevent CHIP 
funds from reverting.
  This is a bipartisan amendment and it deserves bipartisan support. 
Sick children belong to no political party. And members on both sides 
of the aisle have an obligation to act now, as they have in the past, 
to meet their needs.


                    Amendment No. 2810, As Modified

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I also believe there is a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution by the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, dealing 
with LIHEAP. That is at no cost, and we have no objection to that sense 
of the Senate as well. I ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2810), as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

[[Page S2657]]

(Purpose: Stating the sense of the Senate regarding the Low-Income Home 
  Energy Assistance Program and the weatherization assistance program)

       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. __. FINDINGS AND SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the United States is in the grip of pervasively higher 
     home energy prices;
       (2) high natural gas, heating oil, and propane prices are, 
     in general, having an effect that is rippling through the 
     United States economy and are, in particular, impacting home 
     energy bills;
       (3) while persons in many sectors can adapt to natural gas, 
     heating oil, and propane price increases, persons in some 
     sectors simply cannot;
       (4) elderly and disabled citizens who are living on fixed 
     incomes, the working poor, and other low-income individuals 
     face hardships wrought by high home energy prices;
       (5) the energy burden for persons among the working poor 
     often exceeds 20 percent of those persons' incomes under 
     normal conditions;
       (6) under current circumstances, home energy prices are 
     unnaturally high, and these are not normal circumstances;
       (7) while critically important and encouraged, State energy 
     assistance and charitable assistance funds have been 
     overwhelmed by the crisis caused by the high home energy 
     prices;
       (8) the Federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program 
     (referred to in this section as ``LIHEAP'') and the companion 
     weatherization assistance program (referred to in this 
     section as ``WAP''), are the Federal Government's primary 
     means to assist eligible low-income individuals in the United 
     States to shoulder the burdens caused by their home cooling 
     and heating needs;
       (9) in 2003, LIHEAP reached only 15 percent of the persons 
     in the United States who were eligible for assistance under 
     the program;
       (10) since LIHEAP's inception, its inflation-adjusted 
     buying power has eroded by 58 percent; and
       (11) current Federal funding for LIHEAP is not sufficient 
     to meet the cooling and heating needs of low-income families.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this concurrent resolution assume--
       (1) an adequate increase in funding for each of fiscal 
     years 2005 and 2006 to carry out the LIHEAP program;
       (2) an adequate increase in funding for fiscal year 2005 
     and an adequate increase in funding for fiscal year 2006 to 
     carry out the WAP program;
       (3) appropriations, for these programs, of sufficient 
     additional funds to realistically address the cooling and 
     heating needs of low-income families; and
       (4) advance appropriations of the necessary funds to ensure 
     the smooth operation of the programs during times of peak 
     demand.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank our colleagues. We are making 
good progress. We have a few more to go. We might have to have a couple 
more votes. I want people to be patient and expect as much.
  My colleague from Kentucky has been waiting and he is ready to offer 
an amendment. Possibly it can be accepted.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, if I might ask that we hold off until we 
have had the ranking member of the Finance Committee look at that 
amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of all colleagues, we 
are still shopping a few more amendments. We are trying to get 
bipartisan agreement on about half a dozen amendments.
  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. 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.


                           Amendment No. 2832

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, Senator Enzi and Senator Cantwell have an 
amendment which I believe both sides have agreed to. I send the 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickes] for Mr. Enzi and Ms. 
     Cantwell, proposes an amendment numbered 2832.

  Mr. NICKLES. 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: Increase funding for the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) by 
          $250 million in FY 2005, by increasing Function 500)

       On page 15, line 16, increase the amount by $250,000,000.
       On page 15, line 17, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 15, line 21, increase the amount by $166,000,000.
       On page 15, line 25, increase the amount by $44,000,000.
       On page 16, line 4, increase the amount by $5,000,000.
       On page 23, line 5, decrease the amount by $250,000,000.
       On page 23, line 6, decrease the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 23, line 10, decrease the amount by $166,000,000.
       On page 23, line 14, decrease the amount by $44,000,000.
       On page 23, line 18, decrease the amount by $5,000,000.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Wyoming, 
Senator Enzi, and also Senator Cantwell. Again, this is going to save 
us about 45 minutes because they had different amendments and they came 
to a compromise.
  I compliment them for that and urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Can we slow down a minute.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what does the amendment do?
  Mr. CONRAD. Could we ask a sponsor to briefly describe the amendment 
for colleagues.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this bill provides $250 million for the 
Workforce Investment Act training, and it takes it out of 920.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2832) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2780

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Clinton, we have an 
amendment that establishes a reserve fund for addressing minority 
health disparities, an agreement on both sides.
  I ask for approval of our colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for Mrs. 
     Clinton, for herself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. 
     Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 2780.

  Mr. CONRAD. 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 establish a reserve fund for addressing minority health 
                              disparities)

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

     SEC.__ . RESERVE FUND FOR ADDRESSING MINORITY HEALTH 
                   DISPARITIES.

       If the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate reports a 
     bill or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto is offered 
     or a conference report thereon is submitted, that addresses 
     minority health disparities through activities including 
     those at the HHS Office of Minority Health, the Office of 
     Civil Rights, the National Center on Minority Health and 
     Health Disparities, the Minority HIV/AIDS initiative, health 
     professions training, and through the Racial and Ethnic 
     Approaches to Community Health at the Centers for Disease 
     Control and provides not to exceed $400,000,000 in new budget 
     authority for fiscal year 2005, the chairman of the Committee 
     on the Budget may revise allocations of new budget authority 
     and outlays and other appropriate aggregates to reflect such 
     legislation, provided that such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit for fiscal year 2005 and for the period 
     of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is long past time for our country to 
face up to the fact of the health care crisis for minorities. African 
Americans infants are twice as likely to die from Sudden Infant Death 
Syndrome as white babies. African Americans ages 55 to 64 are three 
times as likely to die from stroke as whites. HIV infection in African 
American women is four times the rate in white women. For almost every 
disease, African Americans are more likely to live sicker and die 
sooner.
  These troubling health statistics are not unique to African 
Americans. Latinos, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and a number of 
Asian American populations face significantly higher rates of illness, 
disability, and death from acute or chronic diseases.
  The administration says it is committed to improving minority health 
but the Republican budget doesn't reflect this commitment. Instead, as 
the health crisis continues to escalate, the budget stays the same or 
is actually reduced for some programs.

[[Page S2658]]

  This amendment is a specific step to improve minority health and 
minority health care. It creates a deficit-neutral reserve fund for 
addressing minority health disparities through federal health agencies 
and programs. By contrast, the President's budget cut funding for the 
Office of Minority Health and sets the budget of the Office for Civil 
Rights so low that the office will be virtually powerless to carry out 
its mission. Our amendment provides more funds for both offices.
  With additional funding, the CDC's REACH program, which funds 
community-based efforts to reduce disparities, will be expanded, and so 
will the Minority HIV/AIDS program. Greater support is needed for the 
National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities, and our 
amendment will provide it.
  The President's budget essentially zeroed out funds for training in 
the health professions, including programs that support diversity 
training and cultural competency programs. Yet, just a year ago, on the 
birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr, the President said, ``We should not 
be satisfied with the current number of minorities on America's college 
campuses.'' Diversity programs in medical schools and in the health 
professions deserve continued funding, and our amendment will provide 
it.
  Minority Americans will suffer unfairly from the administration's 
neglect. We can't turn a blind eye to the health needs of a quarter of 
our population. The need is too great and I urge the Senate to do the 
right thing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have reviewed the amendment and have 
no objection.
  For the information of our colleagues, that eliminates a couple of 
amendments. I thank our colleagues for cooperation and urge its 
adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2780) was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Landrieu, is next on 
this side. She is prepared to go.
  I say to Senator McConnell, the ranking member of the Finance 
Committee has looked over his amendment, and that is not something we 
could accept at this point. I don't know if he is interested in going 
forward with the amendment at this stage.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from North Dakota, I would like to 
go on and offer the amendment. I am perfectly content to have it laid 
aside and have a vote. I will ask for a vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. There should be some discussion on this amendment. It is 
a very important amendment. This is an amendment that raises a point of 
order against any revenue measure which has the effect of an increase 
in the tax rate at the top bracket. I don't think that is something----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I just ask what the Senator wants to do at 
this point. Does he want to proceed on a discussion? This is obviously 
something that cannot be accepted and would require some discussion at 
this point.
  What is the desire of the chairman?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I believe we have had lots and lots of 
votes. I hope we can avoid any more votes, but my guess is we will have 
to have some. My guess is we will have a vote on NIH--maybe not; maybe 
that can be agreed to. We may have to have a vote on this. That is 
fine. You just mentioned an additional amendment, and that was Senator 
Landrieu?
  Mr. CONRAD. Senator Landrieu has a pending amendment, Senator Durbin 
has an amendment pending, Senator Schumer has a pending amendment, 
Senator Graham of Florida, Senator Reed, Senator Levin.
  Mr. NICKLES. Don't keep pointing. It is not fair to tell our 
colleague from Kentucky he does not get a vote and we have six people 
raising their hands.
  Mr. CONRAD. Let's be clear. No one on our side is saying the Senator 
cannot get a vote. He certainly can get a vote. The point is it will 
take a vote and some discussion. There is a point of order that lies 
against his amendment. The Senator has every right to seek a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I will ask my colleague to call upon one of his 
colleagues to offer an amendment that will require a vote. In the 
meantime, we will see if we cannot negotiate an agreeable arrangement 
for the Senator from Kentucky to have a vote on his amendment and on 
the NIH.
  Mr. CONRAD. Senator Landrieu would be next on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 2775

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask to call up amendment No. 2775.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2775.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. 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 provide for eliminating the Survivor Benefit Plan--Social 
  Security offset for military widows and widowers while reducing the 
  debt, offset by the elimination of tax benefits to individuals and 
   corporations that avoid United States taxation by establishing a 
       foreign domicile and other tax loopholes and tax shelters)

       On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $876,000,000.
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $1,054,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $998,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $1,066,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $1,520,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $876,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $1,054,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $998,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $1,066,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $1,520,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $876,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $1,054,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $998,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $1,066,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $1,520,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, increase the amount by $876,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $1,930,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, increase the amount by $2,928,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $3,994,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $5,514,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $876,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, increase the amount by $1,930,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, increase the amount by $2,928,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, increase the amount by $3,994,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, increase the amount by $5,514,000,000.
       At the end of Title III, insert the following:

     SEC.   . RESERVE FUND FOR ELIMINATING SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN--
                   SOCIAL SECURITY OFFSET.

       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 provides for an increase to the minimum 
     Survivor Benefit Plan basic annuity for surviving spouses age 
     62 and older, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     shall revise the aggregates, functional totals, allocations, 
     discretionary caps, and other appropriate levels and limits 
     in this resolution by up to $2,757,000,000 in budget 
     authority and $2,757,000,000 in outlays over the total of 
     fiscal years 2005 through 2009.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. On behalf of myself, Senator Murray, Senator Mikulski, 
Senator Lincoln, Senator Daschle, Senator Reid of Nevada, Senator 
Nelson of Florida, Senator Johnson, Senator Clinton, and on behalf of 
5.5 million members of the military coalition and their families, I ask 
my colleagues to consider giving us the 51 votes necessary to pass this 
important amendment tonight. This amendment will restore the full 
pension promised and counted on by widows and widowers of our military 
personnel. This particular group of patriots is ironically the only 
group of Federal employees to see their

[[Page S2659]]

pension plan reduced by an average of 37 percent.
  If we receive 51 votes in this Chamber tonight, there will be 250,000 
widows, primarily, some widowers, who will see their pensions 
increased, and over a million potential widows and widowers will see 
their pension increased.
  For the State of Alabama, 6,000 families will be directly affected; 
the State of Georgia, 9,000 families; Maryland, 5,700; North Carolina, 
8,000; Ohio, 5,000; Pennsylvania, 7,000; South Carolina, 6,000; Texas, 
21,000; and Virginia, 13,000. If we do not pass this amendment, all of 
these families and widows will receive hundreds of dollars less per 
month than they were counting on and we promised.
  The offset would be to make sure that people who earn money in the 
United States and try to flee and go other places and claim that they 
are patriots, we would let them pay the tax so these real patriots, the 
people who moved every 2 years and put their lives on the line and then 
counted on their pension, would really get it.
  The Senator from Oklahoma will say it costs money and it will close a 
tax loophole for those who flee so they do not pay taxes to support our 
troops. This body should pay the pensions of the military widows and 
widowers. That is what my amendment will do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. We just need a little time to look at the amendment. I 
got caught off guard. We will consider your amendment. If the Senator 
does not mind, we will set it aside temporarily and try to dispose of 
it in a very short period of time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum. We need a little break to assess 
where we are.
  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. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, 
this is where we stand at this moment on this side. We are down to 
about 10 amendments that would require votes if we are not able to work 
them out.
  Let me list, on our side, the amendments and the rough order. Please 
do not hold me to this specific order, other than the first five, 
because it is really the first five that we have made commitments on: 
Senator Landrieu, the amendment she has already offered; Senator Levin, 
on homeland security; Senator Durbin, on global AIDS; Senator 
Lautenberg, on debt limit; Senator Schumer, an amendment that relates 
to the Energy bill; and then, in addition to that, Senator Dayton, on 
IDEA; Senator Graham, on Pell grants; Senator Byrd, on bioshield; 
Senator Lincoln, with respect to the childcare tax credit; and Senator 
Kennedy, on Medicare.
  Those are the remaining major amendments on this side. I think that 
gets them all. There is also an amendment that is cosponsored by a 
number of people on our side as well as people on the other side. We 
also have a Reed amendment on higher education; and Pryor on IRA, that 
was not agreed to. We also have an amendment that is in negotiation, I 
might say, from Senator Leahy, on nutrition.
  On the other side, there is an amendment from Senator Dole on 
nutrition. There are amendments on the other side that maybe the 
chairman could review.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have a couple, three on our side that 
may require votes. I think we may be able to work out a few of these 
without votes. That is my intention. It is my hope. I am relatively 
sure we are not going to agree to Senator Dayton's amendment. If he 
insists on a rollcall vote, we can vote on that. We need to have a 
rollcall vote, I believe, on NIH. We only have a couple on our side. 
And we have had very few on our side.
  I might just mention, we agreed to about four, six Democrat 
amendments, and you agreed to one or two of ours. We need a little more 
cooperation. I think we can finish tonight. That would be my intention. 
I apologize because I know for some colleagues it is getting very late, 
but I am afraid if we come back tomorrow we might have 20 votes. I do 
believe we can continue plowing ahead.
  I thought when we agreed to Senator Pryor's one amendment, that was 
it for the night. Maybe we did not have quite the understanding I 
thought we did.
  I would suggest this. Let's lay aside Senator Landrieu's amendment 
because we might be able to work that one out. I am not familiar with 
what Senator Levin's amendment is. I am familiar with Senator Dayton's 
amendment. We can dispose of that very quickly. Pell grants--we have 
already had four amendments on Pell grants, and we adopted an amendment 
on Pell grants. I do not think we need another vote on Pell grants, is 
my initial thought.
  I would suggest, let's put one or two of these in the votes, and then 
maybe we can work out the rest of these while we are voting on a couple 
of amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I recommend, in terms of the order 
on this side, if we are putting aside Landrieu, with the hopes of 
perhaps working that out, that we go to Senator Levin. He is next on 
our side.
  If the chairman would want to go to your side?
  Mr. NICKLES. Could you give me a hint what his amendment might be?
  Mr. LEVIN. Staff has a copy.
  Mr. NICKLES. Still, I do not know what it is.
  Mr. CONRAD. We have to ask for people's patience, because, please 
understand, the staff of the chairman of the committee and my staff now 
have in a queue a whole series of amendments that have been shared on 
both sides but have not necessarily been evaluated fully by staff on 
both sides.
  Senator Levin's is on homeland security.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have voted on homeland security four 
or five times.
  Mr. LEVIN. This is a Levin-Collins amendment. It halts deliveries to 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the next 50 million barrels given 
the price of gasoline and jet fuel.
  Mr. NICKLES. Let's look at it. I haven't looked at it yet. If the 
Senator wants to call up an amendment for a rollcall vote, I suggest we 
do the Dayton amendment. I remember that from last year.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is not next on our list. Next on our list after 
Levin--and perhaps that can be worked out, the Levin-Collins amendment; 
it is not additional money--is the Durbin global AIDS amendment. That 
is the next in our line.
  Mr. NICKLES. Again, we have an amendment that Senator Lugar has on 
global AIDS in foreign affairs. Maybe they can get together and we can 
eliminate a vote on both of those.
  Mr. President, 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. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, Senator Crapo and Senator Sarbanes have 
an amendment that we have agreed to. Then I believe Senator Pryor wants 
to discuss his amendment. I think we can handle both of those.
  Senator Sarbanes, do you want to start?


                           Amendment No. 2784

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this is an amendment Senator Crapo and 
Senator Jeffords and I and others have joined in cosponsoring, Senator 
Collins, Senator Harry Reid, Senators Kerry, Mikulski, and Clinton. 
This is to boost the funding for the Environmental Protection Agency 
for the clean water and safe drinking water State revolving funds. It 
would be offset by account 920.
  As I understand it, it is acceptable to the managers of the bill. We 
hope it will be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I call up the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S2660]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], for himself, Mr. 
     Sarbanes, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. Collins, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kerry, Ms. 
     Mikulski, and Mrs. Clinton, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2784.

  Mr. CRAPO. 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 increase funding for the Environmental Protection Agency 
   for the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds)

       On page 11 line 9, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
       On page 11 line 10, increase the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 11 line 14, increase the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 11 line 18, increase the amount by $900,000,000.
       On page 11 line 22, increase the amount by $900,000,000.
       On page 12 line 1, increase the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 23 line 5, decrease the amount by $3,000,000,000.
       On page 23 line 6, decrease the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 23 line 10, decrease the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 23 line 14, decrease the amount by $900,000,000.
       On page 23 line 18, decrease the amount by $900,000,000.
       On page 23 line 22, decrease the amount by $450,000,000.

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, this is an amendment that deals with one of 
the most critical environmental issues in our Nation today. That is the 
infrastructure needs of our cities and counties across the Nation. We 
have a very significant unmet need in our water infrastructure that is 
critical for the clean water and safe drinking water promises we have 
made to our people. Accordingly, this amendment will add approximately 
$3.2 billion to the clean and safe drinking water revolving loan funds, 
giving them the ability to significantly enhance the opportunities for 
our communities across this Nation to assure clean and safe water.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise before you today as a cosponsor 
of the Crapo amendment to increase the funds available for the clean 
water and the drinking water State revolving funds.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters of endorsement for the Crapo 
amendment from the League of Conservation Voters, the League of Cities, 
various environmental organizations, labor, water and wastewater 
infrastructure groups be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Association of State and Interstate Water pollution 
           Control Administrators,
                                   Washington, DC, March 10, 2004.
     Re Crapo/Sarbanes/Jeffords amendment in Support of Clean 
         Water Revolving Fund.

       Dear Senator: The nation's rivers and lakes are our most 
     precious natural resource for drinking water and 
     environmental protection. The Budget Amendment offered by 
     Senators Crapo, Sarbanes and Jeffords would provide $3.2 
     Billion in budget authority for the Clean Water State 
     Revolving Loan Fund (CWSRF). State Water Pollution Control 
     Programs are in significant need of these funds.
       The CWSRF has been an extremely effective and efficient 
     mechanism to address point and nonpoint sources of pollution. 
     Increased capitalization not only will protect the 
     environment and public health, but also create jobs and 
     provide funds for securing the nation's water infrastructure. 
     Analysis suggests that at least $3 Billion is needed annually 
     to adequately capitalize the Fund. The return on Federal 
     investment in the CWSRF is excellent--over 1.97 times or is 
     nearly double the Federal capitalization.
       The CWSRF has served the nation well, helping to achieve 
     environmental and public health goals and meet Clean Water 
     Act requirements. The Crapo/Sarbanes/Jeffords Amendment would 
     enable States to better meet the extremely large water 
     pollution control needs in local communities.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Robbi Savage,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                  Water Environment Federation

                                                    March 9, 2004.

 Support the Crapo/Sarbanes/Jeffords Amendment to Budget $5.2 Billion 
                for the Clean & Safe Drinking Water SRFs

       Dear Senator: The undersigned organizations strongly urge 
     you to support the amendment by Senators Crapo, Sarbanes and 
     Jeffords to provide $3.2 billion in budget authority for the 
     Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) and $2 billion in 
     budget authority for the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan 
     Fund. The SRFs help local communities meet water quality 
     standards, repair and replace old and decaying pipelines and 
     plants, protect public health, and ensure continued progress 
     in restoring the health and safety of America's water bodies.
       This investment is a much-needed down payment to improve 
     our nation's water and wastewater treatment plants. Your 
     support for additional funding for the SRFs would help 
     stimulate the economy, create jobs and provide funds for 
     securing our water infrastructure for generations to come. 
     Water infrastructure in the U.S. has become antiquated, with 
     many pipes as much as 50-100 years old. The funding increase 
     provided by this amendment is essential to protect our 
     nation's rivers and lakes and to assure clean water for 
     communities across the country.
       When the Clean Water Act was passed more than thirty years 
     ago the federal government made a commitment to the American 
     people to clean up the nation's waters. At that time the 
     federal government funded 75 percent of the costs of 
     maintaining a clean water infrastructure in America; today 
     the federal government funds a mere 5%. At the current rate 
     of expenditures, the gap in funding for clean water 
     infrastructure would be more than half a trillion dollars by 
     2019.
       We support this amendment because it increases water 
     funding substantially this year and takes a step toward a 
     longer-term solution for our nation's water needs.
       Maintaining clean and safe water remains one of our 
     nation's highest priorities even though funding its continued 
     improvement is one of our greatest challenges.
       $5.2 billion for the Clean & Safe Drinking Water SRFs.
       We urge you to support the amendment to the Senate Budget 
     Resolution that would provide $5.2 billion for the Clean 
     Water and Safe Drinking Water SRFs.
           Sincerely,
     Jack Hoffbuhr,
       Executive Director, American Water Works Association.
     Diane VanDe Hei,
       Executive Director, Association of Metropolitan Water 
     Agencies.
     William Bertera,
       Executive Director, Water Environment Federation.
     Steve Hall,
       Executive Director, Association of California Water 
     Agencies.
                                  ____



                                League of Conservation Voters,

                                   Washington, DC, March 10, 2004.
     Re oppose S. Con. Res. 95, the Senate Budget Committee mark; 
         support pro-environmental amendments to the Fiscal Year 
         2005 Budget Resolution.

     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is 
     the political voice of the national environmental community. 
     Each year, LCV publishes the National Environmental 
     Scorecard, which details the voting records of Members of 
     Congress on environmental legislation.
       LCV urges Congress to oppose S. Con. Res. 95, the Senate 
     Committee Mark of the Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Resolution 
     which disproportionately targets programs that protect our 
     environment and natural resources, threatening clean air, 
     clean water, national parks, wildlife, and other critical 
     priorities. We urge you to protect our environment by voting 
     for all amendments that would provide needed resources to 
     protect the environment. In particular, we urge you to 
     support:
       Lautenberg (D-NJ)--Boxer (D-CA) amendment to reinstate 
     Superfund ``polluter pays'' fees. Superfund waste sites 
     remain a serious public health threat. Taxpayers have picked 
     up an increasingly large share of the bill for cleanups since 
     the polluter pays fee expired in 1995, while overall funding 
     for the program has dropped by 35 percent. As a result, EPA 
     completed only 40 cleanups last year, half the average number 
     of cleanups during the mid to late-1990s. The Lautenberg-
     Boxer amendment would reinstate the polluter pays mechanism, 
     providing nearly $1.6 billion in annual revenue and enabling 
     more cleanups to be completed.
       Crapo (R-ID)--Sarbanes (D-MD)--Jeffords (I-VT) amendment to 
     increase clean water funding. Three decades after enactment 
     of the Clean Water Act, 40 percent of our nation's waters are 
     still too polluted for fishing and swimming. In addition, EPA 
     has estimated that over the next 20 years over $535 billion 
     in water infrastructure funding will be needed. This 
     amendment would provide a combined $5.2 billion for the Clean 
     Water State Revolving Fund and Safe Drinking Water State 
     Revolving Fund, enabling the federal government to help 
     states maintain and improve water and wastewater 
     infrastructure.
       While we appreciate the need for Congress to address our 
     nation's fiscal problems, we oppose using this need as cover 
     for starving critical environmental programs while leaving 
     larger budget problems unresolved. We urge you to oppose the 
     Budget Committee mark, and to vote for needed spending 
     increases for clean water, healthy communities, national 
     parks, wildlife preservation, and the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund.
       LCV's Political Advisory Committee will consider including 
     votes on these issues in compiling LCV's 2004 Scorecard. If 
     you need

[[Page S2661]]

     more information, please call Betsy Loyless in my office at 
     (202) 785-8683.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Deb Callahan,
     President.
                                  ____



                                    National League of Cities,

                                   Washington, DC, March 10, 2004.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the National League of Cities 
     and the 18,000 cities and towns across the nation we 
     represent, we urge you to support the amendment to the Budget 
     Resolution being proposed by Senators Crapo, Sarbanes and 
     Jeffords which would allocate 5.2 billion for the nation's 
     water infrastructure needs.
       While the State Revolving Funds (SRFs) for wastewater and 
     drinking water have provided valuable assistance to local 
     governments, many municipalities face critical needs--as 
     documented by studies and surveys from EPA, GAO, CBO and the 
     Water Infrastructure Network indicating a gap of $23 billion 
     annually to meet water infrastructure repair and replacement 
     needs--that simply cannot be addressed by raising rates or by 
     the level of funding currently available through the SRF 
     program.
       NLC recognizes the current fiscal constraints facing all 
     levels of government. To address these limitations 
     effectively will require the development of new and 
     innovative partnerships and joint ventures if we are to 
     maintain and improve the nation's water quality goals and 
     priorities. All levels of government have a vested interest 
     in clean water and safe drinking water and total financial 
     responsibility for these objectives cannot be solely the 
     responsibility of local governments. Clean and safe water 
     have economic consequences, not only in municipalities, but 
     also of statewide and national significance. Therefore 
     investments in these objectives must also be shared.
       We believe a reinvigorated federal financial partnership is 
     essential to assist local governments in maintaining and 
     enhancing this critical infrastructure and urge you to 
     support the Crapo-Sarbanes-Jeffords amendment allocating $5.2 
     billion for fiscal 2005 for the Clean Water and Drinking 
     Water State Revolving Funds.
           Very truly yours,
                                                    Charles Lyons,
     President, Selectman, Arlington, MA.
                                  ____

                                                    March 9, 2004.
     Re support Senate Budget Resolution of $5.2 billion for Clean 
         & Safe Drinking Water SRFs.

       Dear Senator: We write on behalf of our millions of members 
     who urge you to protect human health and the environment by 
     supporting the amendment sponsored by Senators Sarbanes, 
     Crapo, and Jeffords to provide $3.2 billion in budget 
     authority for the Clear Water State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) 
     and $2 billion in budget authority for the Drinking Water 
     State Revolving Loan Fund. The SRFs help local communities 
     meet water quality standards, repair and replace old and 
     decaying pipelines and treatment plants, protect public 
     health, and ensure continued progress in restoring the health 
     and safety of America's water bodies.
       This investment is a much-needed down payment to improve 
     our nation's water and wastewater treatment plants. Your 
     support for additional funding for the SRFs would help 
     stimulate the economy, create jobs and provide funds for 
     securing our water infrastructure for generations to come. As 
     the recent crisis with lead contamination from old pipes in 
     Washington, D.C. highlights, the nation faces a serious 
     drinking water problem as aging infrastructure deteriorates. 
     Water infrastructure in the U.S. has become antiquated, with 
     many pipes as much as 50-100 years old. The funding increase 
     provided by this amendment is essential to protect our 
     nation's rivers and lakes and to assure clean water for 
     communities across the country.
       When the Clean Water Act was passed more than thirty years 
     ago the Federal Government made a commitment to the American 
     people to clean up the Nation's waters. At that time the 
     Federal Government funded 75% of the costs of maintaining a 
     clean water infrastructure in America; today the federal 
     government funds a mere 5%. At the current rate of 
     expenditures, the gap in funding for clean water 
     infrastructure would be more than half a trillion dollars by 
     2019. We support this amendment because it increases water 
     funding substantially this year and takes a step toward a 
     longer-term solution for our nation's water needs.
       Maintaining clean and safe water remains one of our 
     Nation's highest priorities even though funding its continued 
     improvement is one of our greatest challenges. We again urge 
     you to support the amendment to the Senate Budget Resolution 
     that would provide $5.2 billion for the Clean Water and Safe 
     Drinking Water SRFs.

       American Rivers, Association of Metropolitan Sewerage 
     Agencies, Clean Water Action Alliance of Massachusetts, Clean 
     Water for North Carolina, Defenders of Wildlife, 
     Earthjustice, Environmental Integrity Project, Friends of the 
     Earth, Informed Choices, Legal Environmental Assistance 
     Foundation, Michigan Clean Water Action, Mono Lake Committee, 
     Natural Resources Defense Council, National Audubon Society, 
     National Consumer Law Center on behalf of our low-income 
     clients, National Environmental Trust, NJ Coalition Against 
     Toxics, Ohio River Foundation, Pennsylvania Clean Water 
     Action, Physician for Social Responsibility, Portland Cement 
     Association, Public Citizen, Rural Community Assistance 
     Program, Sierra Club, The Ocean Conservancy, The Wilderness 
     Society, Underground Contractors Association of Illinois, 
     Western Coalition of Arid States.
                                  ____

                                                  National Heavy &


                                             Highway Alliance,

                                   Washington, DC, March 11, 2004.
       Dear Senators: On behalf of the skilled construction 
     workers whom we represent, I write to urge you to support the 
     amendment by Senators Sarbanes, Crapo and Jeffords which will 
     provide an additional $5.2 billion in budget authority for 
     the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water state revolving loan 
     funds during the 2005 fiscal year.
       In addition to the various positive environmental impacts 
     which these funds will have on America's water supply, tens 
     of thousands of new construction jobs will be created by 
     adoption of this amendment. We need not remind you of the 
     pervasive anxiety shared by many Americans concerning our 
     economy and the so-called ``jobless recovery'' which persists 
     throughout the country. Congress needs to invest and grow the 
     economy through these types of water infrastructure 
     investments.
       Please support the Sarbanes, Crapo and Jeffords amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                               Raymond J. Poupore,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. In the clean water arena, the budget before us today 
fails to recognize the staggering water resource needs of this Nation.
  A recent poll by Frank Luntz, a well-known Republican pollster, 
documents the widespread support among Americans for Federal 
investments in clean water protections.
  The poll showed that 91 percent of Americans are concerned that our 
waterways will not be clean for our children and grandchildren.
  It showed that 91 percent of Americans agree that if we are willing 
to invest billions of dollars annually in highways and airways, we 
should be willing to make the necessary investments in our Nation's 
waterways.
  It showed that 90 percent of Americans believe that a Federal 
investment to guarantee clean water is a critical component of our 
Nation's environmental well-being.
  The Water Infrastructure Network in 2000 estimated $380 billion 
dollars are needed for clean water and drinking water over 20 years.
  The EPA in 2002 estimated $270 billion are needed for clean water and 
$265 billion are needed for drinking water.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimated a range of $132 and $388 
billion are needed for clean water and $70 and $362 billion are needed 
for drinking water.
  In light of these statistics, the administration responded with a 37-
percent cut in the fiscal year 2005 budget.
  This is truly astonishing.
  In the last 5 years, an extremely broad consensus has emerged that 
more money is needed for water infrastructure.
  Time after time Americans express their outrage at the weakening of 
clean and safe water protections and express their willingness to pay 
to maintain water quality standards.
  However, time after time, these strong statements fall on deaf ears 
in this administration.
  The administration seems to recognize the need for water 
infrastructure in Iraq, but fails to recognize it here at home.
  The administration seeks close to $3.5 billion for water and sewer 
services repair in Iraq, at the same time that it seeks a $500 million 
cut, close to a 40 percent reduction for clean water infrastructure 
spending, at home.
  The administration seeks $775 million for water resources 
improvements in Iraq, and a 5 percent cut for the Army Corps of 
Engineers at home.
  It is the Army Corps of Engineers that is executing many of the 
public works improvements in Iraq using expertise built at home.
  The administration's cut was accompanied by a lengthy discussion of 
how that cut was actually an increase due to outyear assumptions about 
spending.
  My only reaction to these types of statements is that Americans can't 
get cleaner water with outyear assumptions.
  The District of Columbia can't get lead-free pipes today with budget 
gimmicks and future promises.
  The residents of Washington and our entire Nation need clean and safe 
water now.

[[Page S2662]]

  Some say that the reductions proposed by the administration are only 
part of the budget game--that the administration really hopes that 
Congress will reinstate previous funding levels.
  Perhaps this would be believable if these were isolated instances 
where this administration completely failed to support clean and safe 
water programs.
  But this is not an isolated instance.
  This reduction was proposed against the backdrop of systematic 
actions to weaken, rollback, and fail to enforce clean and safe water 
protections.
  The fiscal year 2005 budget is not the proposal of an administration 
that has made clean water a priority.
  It is the proposal of an administration that from day one until the 
present has systematically turned its back on the 90 percent of 
Americans who are concerned about water quality.
  I can only hope that those Americans are paying attention to today's 
debate.
  In 2004, I joined my colleagues, Senators Crapo and Sarbanes in 
offering an amendment to the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution that is 
similar to the amendment we offer today.
  It was accepted without controversy by the full Senate, but later 
dropped in conference with the House.
  It is time that we all start listening to the Americans who tell us 
over and over again that clean water is important to them. It is time 
to send a strong statement to the House of Representatives and the 
President that we will not stand by while water quality needs are 
shortchanged.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Crapo amendment.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, 
Senators Crapo and Jeffords in, once again, offering this amendment to 
boost Federal funding for the clean water and safe drinking water state 
revolving funds, SRF, from the level recommended in the budget 
resolution, $2.191 billion to $5.2 billion--$3.2 billion for the clean 
water SRF and $2 billion for the safe drinking water SRF. The amendment 
is similar to the amendment which we offered to the fiscal year 2004 
budget resolution and which was agreed to by voice vote, but 
regrettably not approved by the House-Senate conference committee.
  I spoke last year about the compelling need for increasing Federal 
support for our Nation's water infrastructure, and I just want to 
underscore some of the key arguments today.
  The President's fiscal year 2005 budget and this resolution once 
again severely shortchange, in my judgment, the funds needed by State 
and local governments to upgrade their aging wastewater and drinking 
water infrastructure. The President's budget provides only $1.7 billion 
for both State revolving funds, split equally. This budget resolution 
recommends $2.191 billion for both funds--which represents the fiscal 
year 2004 enacted level of funding, but that is still far short of what 
is needed.
  Despite important progress over the last three decades, EPA reports 
that more than 40 percent of our Nation's lakes, rivers, and streams 
are still too impaired for fishing or swimming. Discharges from aging 
and failing sewerage systems, urban storm water and other sources, 
continue to pose serious threats to our Nation's waters, endangering 
not only public health, but fishing and recreation industries. 
Population growth and development are placing additional stress on the 
Nation's water infrastructure and its ability to sustain hard-won water 
quality gains.
  Across the Nation, our wastewater and drinking water systems are 
aging. In some cases, systems currently in use were built more than a 
century ago and have outlived their useful life. For many communities, 
current treatment is not sufficient to meet water quality goals.
  In April 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network, WIN, a broad 
coalition of local elected officials, drinking water and wastewater 
service providers, State environmental and health administrators, 
engineers and environmentalists released a report, ``Clean & Safe Water 
for the 21st Century.'' The report documented a $23 billion a year 
shortfall in funding needed to meet national environmental and public 
health priorities in the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act 
and to replace aging and failing infrastructure.
  In May 2002, the Congressional Budget Office released a report that 
estimated the spending gap for clean water needs between $132 billion 
and $388 billion over 20 years and the spending gap for drinking water 
needs at between $70 billion and $362 billion over 20 years.
  In September 2002, the EPA released a ``Clean Water and Drinking 
Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis'' which found that there will be a 
$535 billion gap between current spending and projected needs for water 
and wastewater infrastructure over the next 20 years if additional 
investments are not made. This figure does not even account for 
investments necessary to meet water quality goals in nutrient impaired 
waters, such as the Chesapeake Bay.
  The need for additional investment in wastewater and drinking water 
infrastructure is clearly documented. But, States, localities and 
private sources can't meet the funding gap alone. States are currently 
facing the worst fiscal crisis in 50 years and cannot afford to make 
new investments in clean water and drinking water infrastructure. Water 
pollution is an interstate problem that demands a Federal response. 
Water from six States flows into the Chesapeake Bay. Even if Maryland 
had the resources to complete construction of all needed wastewater 
infrastructure, the Chesapeake Bay cleanup efforts will only be 
successful if similar investments are made in the five other States in 
the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Without Federal assistance, however, it 
is unlikely that the upstream States will make a substantial investment 
in the water quality of the Bay. The Congress understood the interstate 
dynamic of pollution in 1972 when a bipartisan majority passed the 
Clean Water Act and began funding waste treatment infrastructure. In 
1979 and 1980, the Congress provided $5 billion in clean water 
construction grants alone to assist municipalities with wastewater 
infrastructure needs. Over the years, budgetary pressures and other 
factors have reduced that funding level, and in fiscal year 2004, we 
provided only $1.34 billion in clean water State revolving loan funds.
  It is vital that the Federal Government maintain a strong partnership 
with States and local governments in averting the massive projected 
funding gap and share in the burden of maintaining and improving the 
Nation's water infrastructure. Municipalities need significant 
resources to comply with Federal clean water and drinking water 
standards. In the 107th Congress, House and Senate committees approved 
bills to authorize $20 billion over 5 years for the clean water act 
SRF, underscoring the recognition that something must be done to 
address this funding gap. An increase in funding for the clean water 
SRF to $3.2 billion and for the drinking water SRF to $2 billion in 
fiscal year 2004 is the first step necessary to meet the Federal 
Government's longstanding commitment in this regard.
  This is an investment in the health of Americans and in a clean 
environment that will pay substantial dividends. Wastewater treatment 
plants not only prevent billions of tons of pollutants each year from 
reaching our rivers, lakes, streams, and coasts, they also help prevent 
water-borne diseases and make waters safe for swimming and fishing.
  According to the Water Infrastructure Network:

       Clean water supports a $50 billion a year water-based 
     recreation industry, at least $300 billion a year in coastal 
     tourism, a $45 billion annual commercial fishing and shell 
     fishing industry, and hundreds of billions of dollars a year 
     in basic manufacturing that relies on clean water. Clean 
     rivers, lakes, and coastlines attract investment in local 
     communities and increase land values on or near the water, 
     which in turn, create jobs, add incremental tax base, and 
     increase income and property tax revenue to local, state, and 
     the federal government. Some 54,000 community drinking water 
     systems provide drinking water to more than 250 million 
     Americans. By keeping water supplies free of contaminants 
     that cause disease, these systems reduce sickness and related 
     health care costs and absenteeism in the workforce.

  They also create jobs--indeed tens of thousands of jobs--and provide 
stimulus to the economy. Each $1 billion in sewer and water 
improvements creates an estimated 40,000 jobs. With more than $5 
billion in water infrastructure projects ready for construction, these

[[Page S2663]]

jobs would be created immediately with Federal assistance. According to 
OMB, every Federal dollar invested in water infrastructure generates up 
to $4 for project loans, so the potential for job creation from this 
amendment is tremendous.
  As I stated earlier, the case for this amendment is compelling. 
Today, maintaining clear, safe water remains one of our greatest 
national and global challenges. This budget resolution should not, and 
need not, come at the expense of human health or a clean environment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help address the 
massive funding gap that looms on the horizon. Failure to act now risks 
undermining 30 years of progress in cleaning up our Nation's waters.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, several analyses of the water 
infrastructure funding gap have been released. The analyses show gaps 
ranging from $3 billion a year to $23 billion a year. Regardless of 
which number one chooses, the evidence is mounting that we as a nation 
are not investing enough in the infrastructure that provides Americans 
with clean and safe water.
  Much of that gap is due to the rising cost municipalities must incur 
to meet ever-growing Federal regulations. Regulations that are kicking 
in at a time when many treatment plants are exceeding their expected 
life time.
  Clearly, if the Federal Government is going to continue imposing 
insurmountable costs on our towns, it must be willing to put forth a 
fair share of the money. As the Chairman of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, I am working with two of the sponsors of this 
amendment, Senator Jeffords and Crapo, to craft a water infrastructure 
bill.
  One thing that we have had in common throughout these negotiations is 
a belief that more money is needed. I was very pleased to see that the 
budget committee restored the funding cut to the clear water SRF.
  However, cutting or even level funding the program is not the answer. 
We simply must find a way to provide more resources to these programs, 
fulfill our obligations and then allow the States to run their programs 
without further Federal contributions, as Congress always intended.
  While I very much support my colleagues' efforts to get more money 
for these programs, I have not yet settled on what I believe is the 
appropriate level. I am supporting this amendment in concept and urge 
my colleagues to also vote yes. As chairman of the EPW Committee, I 
assure my colleagues that we are on the verge of a true crisis.
  I support the Crapo-Jeffords amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2784.
  The amendment (No. 2784) was agreed to.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, 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. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am speaking now to the chairman of the 
committee. May I ask him a question, please, or his counterpart?
  You were going through a list of amendments. We all try to be 
prepared so we can be helpful to you. I heard an amendment by the 
Senator from New York. I asked the Senator from New York, who is on the 
floor, if she had one. She didn't. It had something to do with the 
energy bill. Are you aware of what that is? Could we ask the other side 
what the amendment of the distinguished Senator from New York regarding 
the energy bill is. Who knows? You don't know either.
  Mr. CONRAD. We don't have the amendment in our hands. We are seeking 
to get it. We will share it with the Senator as soon as we have it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. CONRAD. Senator Pryor would like to discuss his amendment. I 
yield him 2 minutes off the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I have an amendment today that deals with 
IRA accounts. I would like to set up a situation where people who have 
exhausted their unemployment benefits--they are entitled to no more 
unemployment benefits--could access up to $15,000 in their own IRA 
account--it is their own money--in order to meet whatever short-term 
needs they have. We have already done this in other context. We have 
done this when it comes to first-time homeowners. We have done this 
sending your children to college. But now the Senate needs to give 
strong consideration to expanding this for people who have exhausted 
their unemployment benefits. Right now you have a fairly hefty penalty, 
and there are tax consequences for doing that. I would like to suspend 
those.
  But today, because the hour is late and because we are working with 
everybody here, I want to just announce to my colleagues that I will be 
working on this and be looking for the very next available legislative 
vehicle to get this done.
  Hopefully at some point in the next few weeks I will offer this 
amendment. I will ask for a rollcall. I will not do it tonight. But I 
want to ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to consider it. I 
think it is something that has value and something that we can do to 
possibly help thousands, maybe tens of thousands or more Americans get 
through this very difficult time.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask that we recognize Senator Graham to 
discuss his amendment on Pell grants. I give him 2 minutes off of the 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, Senator Clinton and I have been 
concerned about the status of the nontraditional college student, the 
adult who comes back to college at 35 or 40 to get some additional 
skills or, particularly, in these changing economic times, to get a new 
skill that has economic value.
  Most of our student financial aid programs are thinking about the 18-
year-old student coming directly from high school. As an example, Pell 
grants do not apply to summer school. Many adults wishing to get 
through their training as rapidly as possible go year round. There are 
also some costs that are not recognized in the Pell grant, such as 
child care. Very few 18-year-olds have a need for child care; lots of 
35-year-olds do.
  One of the key parts of the amendment we were going to offer was to 
increase the amount of the basic Pell grant to $4,500, which is what 
Senator Coleman has done with his amendment. So Senator Clinton and I 
are not going to offer our amendment, since that part has already been 
accomplished. That represented the overwhelming amount of the cost of 
this program.
  Recognize that when we get to the Higher Education Reauthorization 
Act, or some other appropriate legislation, we will be offering 
amendments to deal with these aspects of Pell grants that do not 
respond to the realities of the nontraditional student.
  We look forward to coming back on this field of battle at the 
earliest opportunity. We will not offer the amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for 
setting a remarkably good example at 5 minutes after 10 o'clock. If 
there are any other Senators who want to withdraw their pending 
amendments, or not offer an amendment at this time, they would be 
greeted with open arms and have a very positive effect on their 
legislative proposals when we return after the break.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield, I think we should elevate 
them to higher office. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from 
Florida and thank him for his cooperation.
  Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. I thank the Senator.


          Amendments Nos. 2837, 2838, 2839, and 2733, En Bloc

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have at least four more amendments

[[Page S2664]]

that we have agreed to. We are working to see if we cannot agree to a 
couple of others in the queue.
  First, we have an amendment by Senators Lincoln, Baucus, Snowe, and 
Breaux. I believe it has been cleared.
  Another is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment by Senators Grassley, 
Lugar, and others, dealing with agriculture research.
  Another is an amendment by Senator Snowe and others dealing with SBA. 
Our staff said it is agreed to.
  Another amendment is by Senators Sessions, Cornyn, Graham, and 
Nelson, and Shelby, dealing with NASA funding. We ask that these 
amendments be agreed to en bloc.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, 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. Mr. President, the four amendments that were sent to the 
desk referenced by the chairman have no objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendments Nos. 2837, 2838, 2839, 
and 2733.
  The amendments were agreed to, en bloc, as follows:


                           amendment no. 2837

 (Purpose: To prevent tax increases for families who receive the child 
                              tax credit)

       On page 25, line 3, after ``2009'', insert ``, and to 
     increase outlays by not more than $2,000,000,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.''


                           amendment no. 2838

   (Purpose: Expressing a sense of the Senate for support of funding 
          restoration for agriculture research and extension)

       At the end of title V. add the following:

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF THE SENATE SUPPORTING FUNDING RESTORATION 
                   FOR AGRICULTURE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) funding for 33 programs administered by the Cooperative 
     State Research, Education, and Extension Service of the 
     Department of Agriculture were each reduced by 10 percent in 
     the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
     Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004 
     (118 Stat. 9);
       (2) those cuts are already hurting a wide range of proven 
     programs that help people, communities, and businesses;
       (3) the cuts have put at risk important advances made in 
     all 50 States and United States territories, including--
       (A) combating obesity through programs such as the Expanded 
     Food and Nutrition Education Program;
       (B) expanding environmentally-minded pest management 
     programs;
       (C) ensuring food safety; and
       (D) educating farmers and ranchers about new sustainable 
     agricultural practices;
       (4) the National Research Initiative is the flagship 
     competitive grants program funded through the Cooperative 
     State Research, Education, and Extension Service;
       (5) because of limited funding the Service is able to fund 
     only a small fraction of the meritorious research proposals 
     that the Service receives under the National Research 
     Initiative program; and
       (6) base funding at the Service that supports the research 
     infrastructure has fallen steadily over the past decade.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that levels in this concurrent resolution assume that in 
     making appropriations and revenue decisions, the Senate 
     supports--
       (1) the restoration of the 33 accounts of the Cooperative 
     State Research, Education, and Extension Service;
       (2) the fiscal year 2005 funding of the National Research 
     Initiative; and
       (3) the fiscal year 2005 funding of competitive research 
     programs of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
     Extension Service in an amount that is adequate to--
       (A) fight obesity and stave off chronic diseases;
       (B) combat insects and animal and plant diseases;
       (C) establish new crops, improved live-stock, and economic 
     opportunities for producers; and
       (D) keep pathogens and other dangers out of the air, water, 
     soil, plants, and animals.


                           amendment no. 2839

    (Purpose: To increase funding for the SBA 7(a) loan guarantee, 
 Microloan and other small business programs and to offset the cost of 
      that spending through across-the-board cuts in function 920)

       On page 13, line 2, increase the amount by $121,000,000.
       On page 13, line 3, increase the amount by $68,000,000.
       On page 13, line 7, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 13, line 11, increase the amount by $7,000,000.
       On page 23, line 5, decrease the amount by $121,000,000.
       On page 23, line 6, decrease the amount by $68,000,000.
       On page 23, line 10, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 23, line 14, decrease the amount by $7,000,000.


                           amendment no. 2733

 (Purpose: To provide full funding for NASA's FY2005 space exploration 
                              initiatives)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       On page 21, line 13, decrease the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 21, line 14, decrease the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 9, line 17, increase the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 9, line 18, increase the amount by $600,000,000.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, moving right along. I believe the Senator 
from Michigan and the Senator from Maine have an amendment. 
Unfortunately, I feel compelled not to agree to that amendment. Maybe 
we can dispose of it very quickly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I inquire of the Senator how long it 
will take to describe this amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. We would like perhaps 3 or 4 minutes on our side.
  Mr. CONRAD. I give 3 minutes off the resolution to the Senator from 
Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I will divide that time with the Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 2817

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself, Senator Collins, Senator Clinton, and Senator Stabenow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself, and Ms. 
     Collins, proposes an amendment numbered 2817.

  Mr. LEVIN. 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 lower crude oil prices resulting from the cancellation of 
planned future deliveries of oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and 
using the funding made available to provide $1.7 billion in funding for 
homeland security grants for first responders, firefighter assistance, 
               and port security, and to reduce the debt)

       On page 4, line 4, decrease the amount by $1,700,000,000.
       On page 4, line 12, decrease the amount by $1,700,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $1,700,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, decrease the amount by $1,700,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $1,700,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $1,700,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $1,700,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $1,700,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,700,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $1,700,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $1,700,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $1,700,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $1,700,000,000.
       On page 10, line 13, decrease the amount by $1,700,000,000.
       On page 10, line 14, decrease the amount by $1,700,000,000.

     SEC.   . RESERVE FUND FOR HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM, 
                   ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTER GRANTS, AND PORT 
                   SECURITY GRANTS.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     shall revise the aggregate, 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 $1,545,000,000 in budget authority 
     for fiscal year 2005, and by the amount of outlays flowing 
     therefrom in 2005 and subsequent years, for a bill, 
     amendment, motion, or conference report that provides 
     additional fiscal year 2005 discretionary appropriations, in 
     excess of the levels provided in this resolution, for the 
     programs at the Department of Homeland Security.

     SEC.   . STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM.

       It is the sense of the Senate that, of the funds for the 
     Department of Homeland Security, $800,000,000 shall be 
     allocated for the State Homeland Security Grant program; 
     $250,000,000 for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant 
     program; and $275,000,000 for Port Security Grants. It is 
     further the sense of the

[[Page S2665]]

     Senate that the State Homeland Security Grant Program shall 
     be increased by $220,000,000 in order to provide for a more 
     equitable formula for distributing funds.

     SEC.   . STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the increased funding 
     for the Homeland Security Department programs shall come from 
     the cancellation of planned future deliveries of oil to the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have skyrocketing gas prices and oil 
prices in most parts of the country. The major reason for this is 
private sector inventories are low. The major reason private sector 
inventories are low is we, at the same time, have seen a decline in 
those inventories of 50 million barrels in the last 2 years.
  We have deposited in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve approximately 85 
million barrels. Even the staff of the Department of Energy a year ago 
said the following:

       Commercial petroleum inventories are low. Retail product 
     prices are high, and economic growth is slow. The Government 
     should avoid acquiring oil for the Strategic Petroleum 
     Reserve under these circumstances.

  We would halt the deposit of oil in the Reserve, and we would use the 
money, approximately $1.7 billion, to restore a number of accounts in 
the Homeland Security Department; namely, we would restore about 80 
percent of the money cut from the Homeland Security grant program; $250 
million we would restore to firefighter grants to bring them up to last 
year. We would add money for port security, $150 million for deficit 
reduction, and about $220 million for an equity account.
  This is a twofer. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator 
from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it makes no sense at all for the Federal 
Government to put further pressure on the oil supplies through large 
purchases for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at this time when oil 
prices are at record high levels.
  Through proper management of the Reserve, we can ease the economic 
impact drastically rising gasoline prices are having on the American 
family.
  There are three different studies which demonstrate suspending 
deliveries of oil to the SPR at this time would decrease gas prices by 
anywhere from 10 cents to 25 cents per gallon.
  I want my colleagues to know the Reserve is currently 92 percent 
full. So halting these deliveries will have no impact at all on our 
national security, but will be of great benefit to American consumers.
  In addition, our legislation would transfer the savings to restore 
cutbacks in homeland security. We would increase the basic Homeland 
Security grant program our States and communities rely upon so it would 
be equal to the level of last year.
  We would include a restoration of funding for the FIRE Act, again to 
last year's level. And finally, we would invest in port security which 
experts tell us is one of our greatest vulnerabilities. The remainder 
of the funding would be used for deficit reduction.
  This amendment makes good common sense. It will help relieve the 
pressure on gasoline prices, while at the same time allowing us to 
devote more resources to strengthening our homeland security and 
reducing our deficit.
  I yield back to Senator Levin any remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I regret I cannot accept this amendment. 
I will follow the will of the Senate. This is basically saying let's 
take out $1.7 billion from SPR and spread it around in homeland 
security. We are fully funding the President's request for homeland 
security which is 15 percent over last year, 10 percent if you take out 
bioshield.
  We already have several amendments on homeland security. I urge our 
colleagues not to support the amendment.
  I call upon the chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Domenici, 
to conclude.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will only use 1 minute. First, I have 
the greatest respect for the distinguished Senator from Maine, but let 
me say to everyone here, you all remember, SPR is to put oil in the 
ground in case we have an emergency. We use it in an emergency.
  The Energy Information Administration's last forecast predicts by the 
year 2025--and SPR is future thinking; it is not today; it is thinking 
in the future--they say by the year 2025, we will be 70 percent 
dependent on imported oil.
  The point of it is, we can never have too much oil in SPR. The idea 
was a good idea. It is even a better idea today. To say we ought to 
stop filling it so we can start filling gaps in a budget, especially 
saying we take care of all the inland security problems by not taking 
care of SPR, seems to me to be the wrong thing to do.
  I could find a lot of things to do in Government. If we could just 
sell all the oil in SPR, we could take care of every program in this 
Government. My colleagues could all go home. We would have about $150 
billion. We could just spread it everywhere. That is much the same as 
saying: Quit buying it and what you were going to buy, spend on other 
things.
  I hope we do not adopt the amendment. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, oil and gasoline prices are at or near 
record-high levels. Oil and gasoline supplies are at or near record-low 
levels. If there are any disruptions in oil or gasoline supplies or 
production, there will be an insufficient amount of oil and gasoline to 
meet demand, and prices will skyrocket even further.
  Yet, incredibly, in the face of this crisis, the administration is 
decreasing rather than increasing the supply of oil. Day after day, 
month after month, regardless of how high the cost for acquiring this 
oil, the administration is taking millions of barrels of oil off the 
market and depositing them into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. By 
taking this badly needed oil off the market and placing it in the SPR, 
at extremely high prices, the administration is increasing the price of 
oil and gasoline.
  The Levin-Collins amendment will increase Federal revenues by 
approximately $1.7 billion by, in effect, directing DOE to delay the 
filling of the SPR. The amendment will lower oil and gasoline prices by 
increasing oil and gasoline supplies in the commercial inventories. It 
will improve our overall energy security by moving us away from the 
brink of a crisis in supply. Moreover, it is both sound fiscal and 
resource management policy to put oil on the open market when prices 
are high, and place them into reserves later when prices are low.
  As nearly every American knows, gasoline prices are at record-high 
levels. The average price of a gallon of gasoline, nationwide, as well 
as in my home State of Michigan, is $1.74 per gallon. In some states it 
is even higher. In California, for example, the average price for a 
gallon of gasoline is $2.18 per gallon.
  Crude oil prices also are at near-record prices. Spot prices are over 
$37 per barrel. Futures prices for oil for the next several months are 
at or near $37 per barrel as well.
  A major reason oil prices are so high is that the amount of crude oil 
in private sector inventories in the United States is at record low 
levels. Crude oil inventories are now lower than at any time in the 28 
years that the Department of Energy has been tracking them. Oil prices 
are directly related to the amount of crude oil in inventories, since 
overall supply levels depend on both amounts produced and amounts in 
inventory. This is why prices are so high.
  One of the reasons that supplies of oil are so low is that since late 
2001 the Department of Energy (DOE) has been steadily taking millions 
of barrels of oil off the market and placing them into the U.S. 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). In late 2001, the Reserve held about 
560 million barrels of oil. Today it holds nearly 650 million barrels. 
DOE anticipates that at the current fill rate it will reach its goal of 
filling the SPR to its current physical capacity of 700 million barrels 
in the middle of 2005.
  Clearly, now is not the time to be taking more oil off the market 
when the price of oil is so high. We need more oil and gasoline in 
refineries.
  The Levin-Collins amendment is simple. It would, in effect, result in 
the deferral of the deposit of the 53 million barrels of oil that DOE 
currently plans to ship to the SPR over the next year. Assuming an 
average price of $33 per barrel--which is based on the current

[[Page S2666]]

futures prices for oil for the next 14 months, as well as the trend in 
spot prices over the past year--this would yield over $1.7 billion in 
Federal revenues. This will help lower oil and gasoline prices for 
consumers and businesses as well. This amendment is a win-win for 
consumers, taxpayers, and the Government.
  The Levin-Collins amendment would apply these funds to strengthen our 
homeland security. We cannot expect our first responders to be well-
trained, properly equipped and fully staffed to protect us, if we cut 
their funding sources. Our amendment restores $800 million to the State 
Homeland Security Grant program, which will bring the total funding for 
that program up to $1.5 billion; adds $250 million to the Assistance to 
Firefighters Grant program; and $275,000,000 for Port Security Grants. 
The amendment will also provide $155 million for deficit reduction.
  Finally, the amendment provides an additional $220 million to the 
State Homeland Security Grant Program in order to provide for a more 
equitable formula for distributing funds under that program.
  Mr. NICKLES. Can we voice vote the amendment?
  Mr. LEVIN. That depends on how loud the voices are.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2817. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is absent 
attending a funeral.
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 54 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Burns
     Byrd
     Carper
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Talent
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kennedy
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Edwards
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Reid
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 2817) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. 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, just for the information of our 
colleagues, we are making good progress. I believe we have the 
amendment of Senator Durbin that will be modified by Senator Lugar and 
that will be accepted. I believe we have the amendment of Senator Byrd 
which will be agreed to momentarily. I am not positive. I need to run 
that by Senator Gregg. I think we are going to be able to work out the 
amendment of Senator Lincoln. We do expect a couple of amendments on 
our side. I believe Senator McConnell has an amendment and I hope he 
would be recognized next.


                           Amendment No. 2840

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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 Kentucky [Mr. McCONNELL] proposes an amendment 
numbered 2840.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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 prohibit future income tax hikes on upper incomes that 
fail to exempt small businesses that file individual income tax returns 
    as partnerships, sole proprietors, or subchapter S corporations)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . PROTECTION OF SMALL BUSINESSES FROM TAX HIKES ON 
                   ``THE RICH'' POINT OF ORDER.

       (a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to 
     consider any bill, amendment, resolution or conference 
     reports that would--
       (1) raise federal income taxes on upper incomes households, 
     and
       (2) fail to exempt small businesses that bear most of the 
     burden of the top marginal tax rates.
       (b) Waiver.--This subsection 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 provisions of this subsection shall 
     be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by the appellant and the manager of the bill, 
     joint resolution or 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) Definition.--For purposes of this section, a small 
     business shall be any individual or enterprise that files 
     federal individual income tax returns as a partnership, sole 
     proprietor or subchapter S corporation.
       (e) Determination of Impact on Small Businesses.--For 
     purposes of this section, the impact of any income tax 
     legislation on small businesses shall be determined on the 
     basis of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget of the 
     Senate.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, talking about taxes, it is essential to 
remember small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Small 
business entrepreneurs create more than two out of every three new jobs 
and generate roughly half of our Nation's gross domestic product. Yet 
they are saddled with the heaviest tax burden.
  Small businesses predominantly pay their income taxes using 
individual income tax returns, which means they frequently pay the 
highest marginal tax rate. While they file less than 1 percent of all 
tax returns, small businesses account for more than 31 percent of all 
tax payments. Make no mistake, these are not highly paid executives or 
people living off their investments; these are ordinary people trying 
to make a living as they pursue the American dream.
  Who pays the tax on the rich? Seventy-nine percent of the top rate 
literally falls on small business. To ignore this small business tax 
factor is to risk breaking the backbone of our economy. This point of 
order which this amendment would establish would protect small 
businesses from tax hikes on the rich.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? The 
Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky for 
raising this issue. I have been very concerned about our small 
businesses and how they fare as well. That was one of the reasons I 
requested information from the IRS on this very issue concerning how 
our small businesses are affected.
  Addressing this argument about small business and cutting the top 
rates: According to the IRS statistics we received back from the IRS, 
only 3.8 percent of small business and farm returns have income over 
$200,000. So you have to earn $319,100 before you even make it to the 
top tax bracket. All of your income up until that amount is taxed at 
the lower rate.
  If you look at the statistics that the IRS brings to us, 62 percent 
of small businesses and farm returns in this country have incomes of 
$50,000 or less.

[[Page S2667]]

They do not fall into this top category of income that is being 
discussed.
  I appreciate the Senator bringing this up so we can really talk about 
who falls into this category.
  I ask my colleagues to recognize we are talking about taxable income, 
which is after expenses. This is take-home pay, take-home pay for these 
companies. This is the money that is not being invested in new plants 
or new equipment, this is not money that is going to employment, 
increasing jobs which we know our small businesses are capable of if 
they have the resources to invest there. This is taxable income after 
expenses, so it is taxable income that has really gone to the bank 
already. I think it is very important for us to recognize what we are 
talking about.
  It also might be of interest to my colleagues tonight to know that 
after I had a very similar discussion about these statistics with the 
Secretary of the Treasury, he called me the other day and told me he 
had reviewed my charts and found them accurate.
  He said they were hard to read but they were accurate. They are a 
little bit small. But I think it is so important for us to recognize. 
The reason it hit home for me is because Arkansas finds itself actually 
in a little bit higher circumstance than that. Well over 62 percent of 
our small businesses in Arkansas are our largest employers. Roughly 
upwards of 70 percent find themselves in that 50 percent or less 
category. Again, this is after expenses. This is what they are taking 
home.
  I know my colleague in his amendment talks about individual income 
tax returns as a partnership, or a sole proprietor, or subject chapter 
S corporation.
  But I encourage my colleagues to understand that these are 
flowthrough entities. If you are talking about these individuals and 
these groups, they are very small as a percentage of what we are 
talking about in small businesses.
  These are individuals who might file schedule C or schedule S.
  I think it is so important for us to look at the numbers. I agree 
wholeheartedly with my colleagues that small businesses are the engine 
of this economy. They are the ones that provide the most jobs. Most of 
the jobs in Arkansas are provided by our small businesses.
  It is important we accurately look at the resources we are trying to 
put back into the hands of small businesses so they can reinvest and 
grow the jobs we know we need to continue to build on this economy. I 
hope we will take a look at the numbers which have been provided. We 
talk some about upward mobility. I know that has been discussed as well 
by many of our colleagues about the opportunity that Americans want to 
have, the potential they want in order to reach those upper brackets.
  But, quite frankly, if you look at the upward mobility in my State, 
in 1991 the per capita personal income was about $15,175. Today, it is 
$22,750. That is an increase of about 33 percent over the decade. But 
Arkansans, on average, are still earning less than $23,000 a year. Less 
than 10 percent of our Arkansans earn over $200,000 a year. I just try 
to make this point.
  I hope my colleagues will look at incomes in their own States. When 
you find in other States such as ours that 50 percent of the people 
have an adjusted gross income of less than $25,000 and over 80 percent 
roughly have an adjusted gross income of less than $50,000 a year, we 
have to look at putting money into the pockets of people who are going 
to grow this economy. We have to keep a balance.
  I hope my colleagues will look at what is happening. If you talk 
about upward mobility, it will take a 1,400-percent increase in income 
to reach those upper margins that are being talked about from where 
most of our small business and other income earners in our State are. I 
hope my colleagues will take a second look at what he is trying to 
propose.
  I hope my other colleagues realize, if what we want to do is make 
sure we are growing the economy and protecting small businesses, we 
need to look at the statistics the IRS has given us about where those 
small businesses are and where those resources lie.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is not a small business amendment. It 
is purportedly a small business amendment. It is not. Why? As the able 
Senator from Arkansas stated, only 2 percent--only 2 percent--of small 
businesses are in the upper bracket. The remaining are not. They are 
not small businesses.
  More importantly, this is an amendment that makes it much more 
difficult to raise taxes on the wealthiest top bracket than it is in 
the effort to raise taxes on the middle-income taxpayers. It provides 
for a point of order on any revenue measure that would have the effect 
of raising taxes on the top bracket. It only applies to the top 
bracket. It wouldn't apply to any other bracket. We don't want that.
  I can't for the life of me understand why the Senator from Kentucky 
is on the floor even daring to offer that amendment. At the appropriate 
time, I am going to suggest that the amendment is not germane because 
it is not germane. I can only do so when all time is yielded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I will be very brief and then I will be 
prepared to relinquish whatever time I have.
  According to the Office of Tax Analysis of the U.S. Treasury, last 
year, January 7, 2003, I repeat, small business owners, entrepreneurs, 
and farmers account for more than two-thirds of the top bracket income 
tax returns and receive 79 percent of the top bracket tax relief. That 
is what this amendment is all about. I hope the Senate will approve it.
  I have no further observations to make, if the Senator would like to 
make his motion.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the pending amendment is not germane, and 
therefore I raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 
305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order, and 
I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is absent 
attending a funeral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham of South Carolina). Are there any 
other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 55 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     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
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Edwards
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Reid
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 
45. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the

[[Page S2668]]

affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.


               Amendments Nos. 2841 through 2843, en bloc

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we are making good progress. I think we 
have three additional amendments that have been cleared on both sides: 
an amendment by Senator Hagel; an amendment by Senator Santorum; and an 
amendment by Senators Hatch and Biden and Kohl. I send all three to the 
desk and ask for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, those three amendments have been cleared 
on this side, and there is no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are 
considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.
  The amendments were agreed to, en bloc, as follows:


                           amendment no. 2841

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on the need for a United 
     States animal identification program as an effective disease 
  surveillance, monitoring, and control tool serving the needs of the 
          United States livestock industry and public health)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING A NATIONAL ANIMAL 
                   IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) animal identification is important for operational 
     management, herd health, and increased trade opportunities;
       (2) animal identification is a critical component of the 
     animal health infrastructure of the United States;
       (3) it is vital to the well-being of all people in the 
     United States to protect animal agriculture in the United 
     States by safeguarding animal health;
       (4) the ability to collect information in a timely manner 
     is critical to an effective response to an imminent threat to 
     animal health or food safety.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this concurrent resolution assume that in 
     making appropriations and revenue decisions, the Senate 
     supports--
       (1) the development and implementation of a national animal 
     identification program recognizing the need for resources to 
     carry out the implementation of the plan;
       (2) the provision by the Secretary of Agriculture of a 
     time-line for the development and implementation of the 
     program as soon as practicable after the date of approval of 
     this concurrent resolution;
       (3) the provision by the Secretary of Agriculture to ensure 
     the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, State animal 
     health agencies, and agricultural producers are provided 
     funds necessary to implement a national animal identification 
     program; and
       (4) the establishment of a program that is not overly 
     burdensome to agricultural producers and ensures the privacy 
     of information of agricultural producers.


                           amendment no. 2842

(Purpose: To reaffirm the United States ratio for contributions to The 
         Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria)

       On page 54, after line 22, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE 
                   GLOBAL FUND TO FIGHT AIDS, TUBERCULOSIS, AND 
                   MALARIA.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the United States--
       (A) helped establish The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 
     Tuberculosis, and Malaria (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Fund'');
       (B) provided its first donation; and
       (C) provides leadership to the Fund under Fund Board 
     Chairman Tommy Thompson, Secretary of the Department of 
     Health and Human Services;
       (2) as a complement to the President's historic 15-country 
     AIDS initiative, the Fund provides resources to fight AIDS, 
     tuberculosis, malaria, and related diseases around the world;
       (3) section 202 of the United States Leadership Against 
     HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2004 (22 U.S.C. 
     7622) authorizes contributions to the Fund to the extent that 
     United States contributions do not exceed 33 percent of all 
     contributions to the Fund, allowing the United States to 
     contribute $1 for every $2 contributed by other sources.
       (4) during fiscal years 2001 through 2003, the United 
     States provided $623,000,000 of the total contributions of 
     $1,900,000,000 to the Fund, which represents approximately 
     \1/3\ of total contributions to the Fund;
       (5) Congress has appropriated $547,000,000 to the Fund for 
     fiscal year 2004, which has been matched by confirmed pledges 
     of $994,000,000, and is slightly more than \1/3\ of total 
     pledges, with additional pledges expected;
       (6) over the life of the Fund, Congress has appropriated 
     sufficient amounts to match contributions from other sources 
     to The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria 
     on a 1-to-2 basis; and
       (7) transparency and accountability are critical to fund 
     grant-making and the U.S. should work with foreign 
     governments and international organizations to support the 
     Fund's efforts to use its contributions most effectively.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that this concurrent resolution and subsequent appropriations 
     acts should provide sufficient funds to continue matching 
     contributions from other sources to The Global Fund to Fight 
     AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria on a 1-to-2 basis.


                           amendment no. 2843

 (Purpose: To restore law enforcement assistance, and juvenile justice 
 assistance, especially Title V, and JAB6 to the Department of Justice)

       On page 20, line 17, increase the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 20, line 18, increase the amount by $132,000,000.
       On page 20, line 22, increase the amount by $180,000,000.
       On page 21, line 1, increase the amount by $120,000,000.
       On page 21, line 5, increase the amount by $90,000,000.
       On page 21, line 9, increase the amount by $78,000,000.
       On page 21, line 13, decrease the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 21, line 14, decrease the amount by $132,000,000.
       On page 21, line 18, decrease the amount by $180,000,000.
       On page 21, line 22, decrease the amount by $120,000,000.
       On page 22, line 1, decrease the amount by $90,000,000.
       On page 22, line 5, decrease the amount by $78,000,000.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 2844

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I also believe that an amendment by 
Senator Dole and Senator Leahy has been agreed to, and I send it to the 
desk as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], for Mrs. Dole, for 
     herself and Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 2844.

  Mr. NICKLES. 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 18, line 4, increase the amount by $156,000,000.
       On page 18, line 5, increase the amount by $135,000,000.
       On page 18, line 8, increase the amount by $162,000,000.
       On page 18, line 9, increase the amount by $160,000,000.
       On page 18, line 12, increase the amount by $169,000,000.
       On page 18, line 13, increase the amount by $170,000,000.
       On page 18, line 16, increase the amount by $175,000,000.
       On page 18, line 17, increase the amount by $175,000,000.
       On page 18, line 20, increase the amount by $180,000,000.
       On page 18, line 21, increase the amount by $180,000,000.
       On page 23, line 5, decrease the amount by $156,000,000.
       On page 23, line 6, decrease the amount by $135,000,000.
       On page 23, line 9, decrease the amount by $162,000,000.
       On page 23, line 10, decrease the amount by $160,000,000.
       On page 23, line 13, decrease the amount by $169,000,000.
       On page 23, line 14, decrease the amount by $170,000,000.
       On page 23, line 17, decrease the amount by $175,000,000.
       On page 23, line 18, decrease the amount by $175,000,000.
       On page 23, line 21, decrease the amount by $180,000,000.
       On page 23, line 22, decrease the amount by $180,000,000.
       At the appropriate place insert:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING CHILD NUTRITION 
                   FUNDING.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) Federal child nutrition programs have long played a 
     critical role in providing children in the United States with 
     quality nutrition from birth through secondary school;
       (2) recognizing the value of these benefits to children in 
     the United States, Congress has an enduring tradition of 
     bipartisan support for these programs;
       (3) children in the United States are increasingly at 
     nutritional risk due to poor dietary habits, lack of access 
     to nutritious foods, and obesity and diet-related diseases 
     associated with poor dietary intake;
       (4) many children in the United States who would benefit 
     from Federal child nutrition programs do not receive benefits 
     due to financial or administrative barriers; and
       (5) Federal child nutrition programs are expected to be 
     reauthorized in the 108th Congress.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this concurrent resolution assume that in 
     making appropriations and revenue decisions, the Senate 
     supports the retention in the conference

[[Page S2669]]

     report for this concurrent resolution of the additional funds 
     provided in this concurrent resolution for the 
     reauthorization of Federal child nutrition programs.
  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, last year I gave my maiden speech on the 
issue of hunger. I believe now, just as I did then, that we must make a 
concerted effort to eradicate this problem. It is the silent enemy that 
lurks in too many American homes. I am not one to duck tough issues. 
And this is a problem that I know we can conquer with both sides of the 
aisle working together. There are a number of areas where one could 
focus in this effort, and the amendment I send to the desk represents a 
good first step toward strengthening the National School Lunch program 
which is very popular and effective.
  Under the current program, children from families with incomes at or 
below 130 percent of poverty are eligible for free meals. Children from 
families with incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of poverty 
are eligible for reduced price meals--charging no more than 40 cents 
per meal. This may seem like a nominal amount, but that is not what I 
am hearing in North Carolina and from folks around the country. To 
quote the resolution from the North Carolina Department of Education, 
``many families in the reduced price income category are finding it 
difficult to pay the reduced fee and, for some families, the fee is an 
insurmountable barrier to participation.
  Sharlyn Logan, the Child Nutrition Supervisor for Cumberland County 
Schools in North Carolina says--. . . ``In many of our schools, we 
daily see children with no money. Many times we allow the child to eat 
and the Child Nutrition program takes a loss. When the problem 
persists, we will provide a peanut butter sandwich and milk at no cost 
to the child to insure they receive some nutritional sustenance. This 
may be the only meal they receive.''
  Recently, I spoke at the American School Food Service Association's 
annual banquet, where I was inspired by more than 1000 enthusiastic 
people who have devoted their careers to making sure children get the 
nutrition they need. You probably saw them on the Hill wearing their 
buttons that said ``ERP''--eliminate reduced price. They are on the 
front lines on this issue, and they have tremendous passion. It was an 
evening that I will never forget.
  They will be the first to tell you that these income eligibility 
guidelines are inconsistent with other federal assistance programs. For 
example, families whose incomes are at or below 185 percent of poverty 
are eligible for free benefits through the WIC program--the Special 
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children. It just 
makes sense to harmonize these income eligibility guidelines allowing 
us to clarify this bureaucratic situation. Doing so would enable us to 
immediately certify children from WIC families for the National School 
Lunch and Breakfast programs.
  More than 500 State and local school boards have passed resolutions 
urging the Congress to eliminate the reduced price category, thereby 
expanding free lunches and breakfasts to all of those children whose 
family incomes are at or below 185 percent of poverty. In addition, 
the Association of School Business Officials, the National Association 
of Elementary School Principals, and the American Public Health 
Association have endorsed this idea.

  This is the right thing to do. For this reason, I was pleased to 
introduce S. 1549, to eliminate the reduced price meal program in 
graduated steps over a 5 year period. Since introduction of this 
legislation, colleagues on both sides of the aisle have joined me, and 
two bills have been introduced in the House of Representatives.
  The amendment that I have at the desk does not provide funding for 
the total elimination of reduced price meals over a five year period as 
laid out in S. 1549. Rather, it would enable the Senate Agriculture 
Committee to permanently increase the eligibility guideline for free 
school meals from 130 percent of poverty to 140 percent of poverty--the 
first step of the graduated approach outlined in S. 1549--when the 
Committee reauthorizes the Child Nutrition programs. Of course, we will 
still have a long way to go to eliminate the reduced price category, 
but progress is better than status quo, any day.
  Hunger and malnourishment among children--that's a battle that can be 
won. This is not a partisan issue, and enactment of this amendment will 
mark the first step in our crusade to strengthen the National School 
Lunch program and begin to address a serious problem for many families 
in need across this country--and especially those who have been laid 
off and are out of work. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, the American School Food Service Association, Child 
Nutrition Forum, the Association of School Business Officials, the 
National Association of Elementary School Principals, the American 
Public Health Association, and organizations in 44 States have passed 
resolutions endorsing elimination of reduced price meals.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Budget Committee 
reported out a budget resolution that provided $232 million for the 
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry to enable the 
extension of several expiring provisions of child nutrition law. This 
was the amount that Agriculture Committee Chairman Cochran and I noted 
in our letter to the Budget Committee would, at a minimum, be necessary 
to ensure that children who qualify for benefits under current law 
would not lose them.
  However, more is clearly needed. Given the nutritional risks to 
American children today and the numerous unmet needs that exist in 
Federal child nutrition programs, I commend Senators Dole and Leahy for 
their bipartisan effort to provide additional funding for federal child 
nutrition programs. If these additional funds remain in the conference 
report, they will help the Senate Agriculture Committee to take 
important steps in pending child nutrition legislation. The need for 
additional funds is significant, including, for instance, the expansion 
the Summer Food Service Program and the fruit and vegetable pilot 
projects, lowering area eligibility for the Child and Adult Care Food 
Program, helping children who still face financial barriers to 
participate in the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, and 
improving the entire nutritional environment in American schools.
  If additional funds are provided in the conference report, it is, 
however, critical to understand that, by relying on function 920 to 
offset this amendment, a number of critical issues remain. The use of 
function 920 fails to specify the source of the new funds, meaning that 
they could accrue either by increasing the national debt or as a result 
of unspecified program cuts. Of course, the question of the actual cuts 
that may be specified is an important one. I am particularly concerned 
that any cuts that fall within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee 
on Agriculture could pit one set of interests against another in a way 
that could reopen the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act passed 
just 2 years ago. Neither the members of the committee nor the 
interested stakeholders in the agriculture and nutrition communities 
would be well served by such an unfortunate situation. I, and I believe 
my colleagues on the committee, would be very hesitant to pit the needs 
of rural America against the similarly important needs of needy 
children and working families.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment our colleague, Senator Dole 
from North Carolina and Senator Leahy for cooperating. They saved us a 
lot of time by putting their amendments together.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2844) was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Specter, has 
probably been more patient than anyone for the last 3 days. He has been 
requesting an opportunity to offer an amendment, so I yield to the 
Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                    Amendment No. 2741, As Modified

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2741 and send a 
modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for himself 
     and Ms. Collins, proposes an amendment numbered 2741, as 
     modified.


[[Page S2670]]


  Mr. SPECTER. 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: Increase discretionary health funding by $2,000,000,000)

       On page 16, line 12, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 16, line 13, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 23, line 5, decrease the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 23, line 6, decrease the amount by $1,300,000,000.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, 
this is an amendment which seeks to add $1.3 billion to funding for the 
National Institutes of Health, with an offset against function 920, 
amounting to one-sixth of 1 percent on administrative costs.
  I express my concern about offering an amendment at 11:04 p.m. for a 
rollcall vote, but as stated by the chairman of the Budget Committee, I 
have been patient waiting for 3\1/2\ days to offer this amendment. And 
I do so because of the importance of funding for the National 
Institutes of Health, which has made such enormous progress against 
many deadly maladies.
  Last year, we had a spirited debate, at about this same hour, on an 
amendment I offered for a $1.5 billion increase, which required 60 
votes, and failed with 52 votes in the affirmative--8 votes short of 
the 60 necessary at that time.
  The National Institutes of Health have made phenomenal progress 
against the most deadly diseases: autism, stroke, obesity, Alzheimer's, 
Parkinson's, spinal muscular atrophy, scleroderma, ALS, muscular 
dystrophy, diabetes, osteoporosis--a variety of cancers: breast, 
cervical, and ovarian; lymphoma, multiple myeloma, prostate, 
pancreatic, colon, head and neck, brain, and lung--pediatric renal 
disorders, multiple sclerosis, deafness and other communication 
disorders, glaucoma, macular degeneration, sickle cell anemia, heart 
disease, spinal cord injury, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, arthritis, 
schizophrenia and other mental disorders, polycystic kidney disease, 
hepatitis, Cooley's Anemia, primary immune deficiency disorders, 
stroke, and obesity.
  But I would supplement this list for the Record, Mr. President. When 
those disorders and diseases are articulated, they cover some 128 
million Americans. This increase in funding is necessary if the NIH is 
to proceed with very important research.
  For example, the NIH cannot initiate the necessary clinical trials to 
test four new drugs for the treatment of Parkinson's disease. The 
experts have testified we are within 5 years of a cure on Parkinson's.
  Without this kind of funding, there is no clinical trial for a 
promising new drug treatment for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and the 
NIH must postpone the production and clinical testing of four potential 
pandemic influenza vaccines for a year or more. And we know the 
tremendous impact on the influenza problem.
  Without this funding, the NIH cannot launch a clinical trials network 
to test new therapies for age-related macular degeneration, nor can NIH 
launch an initiative to identify and test approaches to reducing 
cardiovascular disease that are specific to American Indian and Alaska 
Native populations.
  Without this funding, NIH cannot use its clinical trial networks to 
launch trials on the consequences of the use of more than one 
psychiatric medication by the severely mentally ill.
  I have a long additional list. I see the impatience of the chairman 
of the Budget Committee, and I share his impatience. I understand the 
hour, so I ask unanimous consent that the full next of the test trials 
which cannot be undertaken by the NIH be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 10 Examples of NIH Research That Can Not Be Funded Under This Budget 
                               Resolution

       (1) The NIH cannot initiate the large clinical trials 
     necessary to test 4 new drugs for the treatment of 
     Parkinson's disease.
       (2) The NIH cannot conduct a clinical trial of a promising 
     new drug for the treatment of ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease).
       (3) The NIH must postpone the production and clinical 
     testing of 4 potential pandemic influenza vaccines by one 
     year or more.
       (4) The NIH cannot launch a clinical trials network to test 
     new therapies for age-related macular degeneration, which is 
     the leading cause of vision loss among Americans over 65.
       (5) The NIH cannot launch an initiative to identify and 
     test approaches to reducing cardiovascular disease that are 
     specific to American Indian and Alaska Native populations.
       (6) The NIH cannot use its clinical trial networks to 
     launch trials on the consequences of the use of more than one 
     psychiatric medication by the severely mentally ill.
       (7) The NIH cannot support research to rapidly develop 
     computer-assisted, image-guided microsurgery, which could 
     replace traditional surgery.
       (8) The NIH cannot test milk thistle, a promising dietary 
     supplement, for the treatment of liver diseases.
       (9) The NIH cannot launch chemical counterterrorism 
     research to combat nerve agents.
       (10) The NIH cannot proceed with a project to identify at 
     birth hundreds of single gene defects associated with mental 
     retardation, and other fatal or disabling conditions.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in conclusion--the two most popular words 
of any speech--in a budget of $2.4 trillion, funding of $30 billion is 
not too much on this major problem.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from 
Pennsylvania. He is persistent, to say the least, on this subject.
  The night is late. I see my colleague, the Senator from New Mexico, 
wishes to speak. I will yield my colleague 1 minute--2 minutes?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Well, I say to the Senator, while he has been waiting 
however long he has been----
  Mr. NICKLES. Would the Senator like 2 minutes?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Maybe 3. I probably won't use it.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield my colleague from New Mexico 3 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Fellow Senators, I normally get up to argue a case when 
I think I can win. And sometimes--not too often--I get up to argue a 
case on the floor of the Senate because I think the case deserves my 
argument, even if I do not think I am going to win. And who in the 
world would think any Senator could deny this money to the National 
Institutes of Health? You surely would have to be a bigger Senator than 
from New Mexico to argue this kind of case and win.
  I want to tell you something: You have heard about people in the 
Federal Government who want more and more and more for their agencies. 
We have nicknames for them. You have some; I have some. I hate to say 
it. The NIH is one of the best agencies in the world, but they have 
turned into pigs, pigs. They can't keep their ``oinks'' closed. They 
send a Senator down here to argue as if they are broke.
  Will you listen to what has happened to NIH in 5 years and you tell 
me that they should get this much money? And while you are doing that, 
ask about the rest of the sciences. Is America going to survive on NIH 
alone? When will we run out of physicists? When will we run out of 
scientists? Do you know what? We already are. We are importing them 
from all over the world.
  You go ask NIH what they need most and they will say: We need 
scientists to come and join us.
  And what do we do? I will tell you. The lead agency for America, 
supposedly, that invests in nonmedical, non-NIH research, is the NSF. 
Do you want to know how much they get? The NSF gets $3.6 billion a year 
for basic research. How does that strike you? Well, maybe that wouldn't 
strike you at all unless you knew how much NIH got. NIH, this year, 
with the increase they are going to get, will be $28.7 billion without 
this amendment. NIH has spent $145 billion over the last 7 years. And 
guess what that is. That is a 109-percent increase in a period of 7 
years. Do you have it?
  They wrote these little brochures, and they ought to be embarrassed. 
They came to my office and I told them: You are lucky you have old Bob 
Michel along with you because, as far as you doctors are concerned, I 
would kick you out of here so fast you

[[Page S2671]]

couldn't find the door. But I will let Bob stay here for a minute and 
argue. They got these kind of reports saying: Well, we are so sorry the 
President has let us down this year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for an additional minute.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield the Senator 1 minute.
  Mr. DOMENICI. He has only given us inflation. After all these years, 
he only gave us inflation this year. And they almost sound as if he is 
against them, the President who has funded them more than any President 
in history. Then we come down to the floor underfunding the National 
Science Foundation, underfunding research that is going to take place 
at NASA, underfunding science at DOE. It is never enough. Come to the 
floor with another amendment saying: This isn't enough. Our ``oink'' 
somehow is not full, and come down here and say: We can't do this; we 
can't do that.
  Of course, when you are a big science institute, you can invent 
something every day that you ought to do. I tell you, a 109-percent 
increase in 7 years is enough. If I had a little time, they wouldn't 
get it because I tell you, I would substitute for these other 
impoverished programs and make you choose. I would make you say you 
don't want to put any money in NSF. You want to put some more in this 
one. But I can't do that on this bill. I will get it done one of these 
days. We are going to have a choice of keeping on funding this place or 
funding some other science in America before we have none left.
  I am sorry I took your time.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, 1 minute in reply?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining? I 
don't have the additional time to yield, I tell my colleague?
  Mr. SPECTER. Thirty seconds in reply?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sponsor of the amendment has time as well 
as the manager.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield my colleague from Pennsylvania 30 seconds.
  Mr. SPECTER. The NIH did not send this Senator anywhere. My views 
arrive from my own research. When I hear the Senator from New Mexico 
disagreeing with the research, I think about how many times he has come 
to me and I have helped him on funding for mental health. That is a 
very vital part of what NIH is doing, a matter of great importance to 
the Senator from New Mexico, just as so many of these maladies are 
important to every Senator in this Chamber.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, 
he is the sponsor of the amendment. He has an hour's time on his 
amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am sorry if I inferred that somebody 
sent you here. I don't mean that. I can only tell you what they told 
me. They told me yesterday that you would be here because they asked 
you. That is all I have to say.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back on the amendment, 
the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2741, as modified.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is absent 
attending a funeral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 72, nays 24, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 56 Leg.]

                                YEAS--72

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham (FL)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--24

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Sessions
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Edwards
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Reid
  The amendment (No. 2741) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we are making progress. I hope our 
colleagues will continue to be patient. I know the hour is late. Again, 
I thank my colleague from North Dakota. He has been very helpful.
  We have had some success with Senator Lugar and Senator Durbin. They 
have been able to combine their amendments. I thank both for their 
cooperation.


                           Amendment No. 2845

  Mr. NICKLES. I send the Lugar-Durbin 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 Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], for himself, Mrs. 
     Feinstein, Mr. Durbin, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Hagel, Mrs. Murray, 
     Mr. Chafee, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
     Smith, Mr. Santorum, Mr. McCain, Mr. Biden, Mr. Sununu, and 
     Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment numbered 2845.

  Mr. NICKLES. 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:
       On page 8, line 21, increase the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 8, line 22, increase the amount by $153,000,000.
       On page 8, line 25, increase the amount by $97,000,000.
       On page 9, line 1, increase the amount by $621,000,000.
       On page 9, line 4, increase the amount by $98,000,000.
       On page 9, line 5, increase the amount by $359,000,000.
       On page 9, line 8, increase the amount by $98,000,000.
       On page 9, line 9, increase the amount by $237,000,000.
       On page 9, line 12, increase the amount by $98,000,000.
       On page 9, line 13, increase the amount by $154,000,000.
       On page 23, line 5, decrease the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 23, line 6, decrease the amount by $153,000,000.
       On page 23, line 9, decrease the amount by $97,000,000.
       On page 23, line 10, decrease the amount by $621,000,000.
       On page 23, line 13, decrease the amount by $98,000,000.
       On page 23, line 14, decrease the amount by $359,000,000.
       On page 23, line 27, decrease the amount by $98,000,000.
       On page 23, line 18, decrease the amount by $237,000,000.
       On page 23, line 21, decrease the amount by $98,000,000.
       On page 23, line 22, decrease the amount by $154,000,000.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
the amendment offered by Senator Lugar and myself to restore the 
International Affairs function 150 account to the President's requested 
funding level and add additional resources to the fight against global 
HIV/AIDS.
  Now is not the time to take a step backwards in our commitment to 
ensuring that the international affairs budget remains a vital tool of 
American foreign policy in the fight against terror and global poverty.
  Our amendment adds $1.4 billion in funding for the international 
affairs budget to exceed the President's request of $31.5 billion for 
fiscal year 2005

[[Page S2672]]

by $300 million. Last year, the Senate accepted a Lugar-Feinstein 
amendment that restored $1.15 billion to the fiscal year 2004 
international budget.
  As I stated last year, I strongly believe the United States should 
devote additional resources to the international affairs budget above 
this amendment. Nevertheless, in this difficult fiscal environment, I 
fully understand that this amendment is the best opportunity to 
maintain the momentum of increasing the international affairs budget 
and demonstrating the importance of our foreign aid programs.
  I also understand that the offset used in this amendment--the 
function 920 account--is not ideal, but the Lugar/Feinstein amendment 
is the best vehicle we have at this time to restore the President's 
request, provide additional assistance to the fight against global HIV/
AIDS and help the United States sustain a leadership role in bringing 
hope to the developing world and fighting global terror.
  The statistics about our international affairs budget are well known 
to some of my colleagues but they are worth repeating to underscore the 
importance of acting now to provide additional funds. The United States 
spends approximately one percent of our budget on foreign aid, barely 
one-tenth of one percent of GDP.
  According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development, the United States in recent years ranks next to last among 
21 industrialized donor countries in per capita foreign assistance.
  We can do better and I am pleased that over the past few years the 
administration, Congress, and the American people have come together to 
push for greater commitments to our international affairs budget.
  In the simplest terms, foreign aid programs provide assistance to 
those in need. They help countries combat diseases such as HIV/AIDS, 
build schools to fight illiteracy, train doctors to provide care for 
mothers and their newborn children, and help indigenous peoples prevent 
environmental degradation.

  In addition, foreign aid programs protect our embassies and foreign 
service personnel, built export markets for our goods and services, and 
spread America's message of freedom and democracy around the world.
  In the post September 11 world, however, the international affairs 
budget has taken on an increased significance. It has become 
increasingly clear that we cannot rely on our military might alone to 
protect our citizens and advance the U.S. foreign policy agenda. As 
Richard Sokolsky and Joseph McMillan of the National Defense University 
have written:

       The events of September 11th have a direct impact on 
     American national security . . . A robust and focused foreign 
     assistance program is one of the weapons we must have to 
     prevail.

  Our troops have performed magnificently in overthrowing Saddam 
Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan while combating al-Qaeda 
around the globe. Nevertheless, the costs in terms of lives and 
resources have been substantial and we can expect additional costs for 
many years to come.
  Increasing the foreign aid budget allows us to attack the conditions 
that foster terror and autocratic governments--poverty, illness, 
disease, illiteracy--at a far lower cost and with less bloodshed than 
military interventions in the future. We should not wait until a nation 
hits rock bottom to build schools, open hospitals, and provide food to 
those in the developing world who so desperately need it.
  As Secretary of State Colin Powell has stated:

       We have to make sure that, as we fight terrorism using 
     military means and legal means and law enforcement and 
     intelligence means and going after the financial 
     infrastructure of terrorist organizations, we also have to 
     put hope back in the hearts of people.

  By acting sooner rather than later, we not only have a better 
opportunity to promote stability, economic prosperity, and vibrant 
democratic institutions, but we also protect our own national interests 
and the lives of all Americans.
  Sometimes our values and intentions are misconstrued and 
misrepresented around the world. I am increasingly concerned about the 
negative perceptions of the United States and Americans that abound in 
the Middle East and other parts of the developing world.
  We are a generous people and foreign aid represents the best of our 
values and demonstrates our commitment to seeing other peoples rise 
from the ashes of poverty. When we succeed in this endeavor, we change 
hearts and minds and protect our own. I urge my colleagues to support 
this bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the 
2005 budget resolution. The Budget Committee has presented the Senate 
with a product of intense labor. Its members are determined to produce 
a budget resolution in a timely manner, and I have confidence that we 
will get this job done. I applaud the chairman of the committee, 
Senator Nickles, for his leadership and the way he has moved this 
process forward.
  My amendment would increase funding for the foreign affairs account 
by $1.1 billion, an amount that would bring the budget resolution up to 
President Bush's request for this purpose. In cooperation with Senator 
Durbin and others, my amendment has been modified to reflect an 
additional $300 million to address the global AIDS epidemic. The 
amendment would be offset by Section 920 Allowances.
  Much of our discussion in this budget will focus on taxes, health 
care, education, and Social Security. These issues will be fought out 
in the context of highly partisan perspectives. But even as we maneuver 
for advantage in these areas, we must recognize that international 
threats, particularly the threat of catastrophic terrorism, puts all 
these domestic objectives at risk. The threat of catastrophic terrorism 
now exists as an overarching negative condition on investor confidence, 
insurance cost and availability, trade flows, energy supplies, budget 
flexibility, the amount of national assets devoted to increasing 
productivity, and many other factors that are crucial to our economy.
  Our future economic prospects rest squarely on our Government's 
ability to defeat terrorism and to secure weapons and materials of mass 
destruction to a degree that encourages investment, improves public 
confidence, and protects the economy against severe economic shocks. If 
the United States fails to organize and stabilize the world, our 
economy will never reach its potential.
  The bottom line is this: for the foreseeable future, the United 
States and its allies will face an existential threat from the 
intersection of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. This is the 
domestic issue of our time, because virtually any large-scale idea to 
improve life in America will be circumscribed by the economic 
limitations imposed by this threat.
  In the 30 months since the September 11 attacks, the United States 
has refined its military capabilities, created a Department of Homeland 
Security, improved airport and seaport security, and scrutinized the 
efficiency of our intelligence services. We have carried the fight 
against terrorism to Afghanistan and Iraq.
  But to win the war against terrorism, the United States must assign 
U.S. economic and diplomatic capabilities the same strategic priority 
that we assign to military capabilities.
  Today we are experiencing a confluence of foreign policy crises that 
is unparalleled in the post-Cold War era. Our Nation has experienced 
the September 11 tragedy; we have gone to war in Afghanistan and Iraq; 
we have been confronted by a nuclear crisis in North Korea; and we have 
undertaken a worldwide diplomatic offensive to secure allies in the 
broader war on terror. We have experienced strains in the Atlantic 
Alliance, even as we have expanded it. We are still searching for a 
peace settlement in the Middle East. We are trying to respond to the 
AIDS pandemic in Africa and elsewhere. In our own hemisphere, we have 
experienced a crisis in Haiti that requires immediate attention. We are 
assisting a war against drugs and terrorism in Colombia, and we have a 
challenge to democracy in Venezuela. Mexico, Brazil and other nations 
are becoming increasingly important to our economy.
  The ability of our military has not been in doubt. What has been in 
doubt are factors related to our diplomatic strength and our standing 
in the world. Can we get the cooperation of the U.N. Security Council? 
Can we secure the

[[Page S2673]]

necessary basing and overflight rights? Can we limit anti-American 
reactions to war in the Arab world? Can we secure allied participation 
in the work of reconstructing Iraq? Can we prevent poverty and disease 
from destabilizing countries throughout the developing world? The 
answers of these questions have depended largely on the diplomatic work 
done by the State Department. The answers will depend in the future on 
the work funded by the very budget that we discuss today.
  Under President Bush and Secretary of State Powell, foreign affairs 
spending has received important increases since September 11, 2001. But 
we dug a very deep hole for ourselves during the mid- and late-1990s, 
when complacency about the role of our diplomats led foreign affairs 
spending to be greatly devalued. This year, the Budget Committee 
listened to our arguments sympathetically and provided what it believed 
it could, given difficult budgetary constraints. But I believe 
restoring full funding of the President's 150 Account request is the 
appropriate step at this point in the process.
  Last week the Foreign Relations Committee passed our State Department 
and Foreign Assistance Authorization bills by a unanimous vote. These 
bills were constructed through bipartisan work, and they reflect 
priorities valued by many of our Members. We stayed within the limits 
of the President's budget request. We believe that the President's full 
budget request for the 150 Account is necessary to fund critical 
priorities, including embassy security, non-proliferation efforts, 
child survival and health, and programs that fight the spread of AIDS.
  I concluded by saying that Americans demand that U.S. military 
capabilities be unrivaled in the world. Should not our diplomatic 
strength meet the same test? Relative to our international needs and 
the risks that we are facing, this amendment is modest. If a greater 
commitment of resources can prevent the bombing of one of our 
embassies, or the proliferation of a nuclear weapons, or the spiral 
into chaos of a vulnerable nation wracked by disease and hunger, the 
investment will have yielded dividends far beyond its cost.
  I thank the co-sponsors of this amendment: Senators Feinstein, 
Durbin, DeWine, Hagel, Murray, Jeffords, Chafee, Cantwell, Smith, 
Lautenberg, Santorum, McCain, Biden, Sununu, and Levin. Senator 
Feinstein, the lead co-sponsor of my amendment, has been a champion of 
the 150 Account and has worked closely with me during the budget 
process, both last year and this year. I also want to specifically 
thank Senator DeWine, who had two amendments to increase the 150 
Account that were focused on Haiti and child survival and health 
programs. He has co-sponsored this amendment as a way to make 
additional funds available for these purposes. These are extremely 
important priorities, and both have been a big part of our discussions 
in the Foreign Relations Committee.
  I thank the Budget Committee and Chairman Nickles for their help and 
counsel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lugar and Senator Durbin 
for working together to clear this amendment so we could get this 
accomplished without a rollcall vote. We appreciate that very much.
  I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lugar, as well as Senator 
Nickles and Senator Conrad. What we achieved with the Lugar-Durbin 
amendment is this: We will increase the funding to fight global AIDS by 
almost $500 million. We are still short of what we need to meet our 
promised goals when the President made a historic commitment for the 
United States to deal with this war on AIDS. But we are moving closer.
  The bipartisan cooperation this evening with Senator Lugar has 
allowed us to move closer to that moment, and it is equally good news 
for Members gathered here. It eliminates a need for me calling up my 
amendment and a vote.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as 
cosponsors of Senator Lugar's amendment. These were sponsors of my 
amendment. Senators Bingaman, Lautenberg, Schumer, Stabenow, Clinton, 
Feinstein, Kerry, Kohl, Levin, and Murray.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is all time yielded back? If so, the question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 2845.
  The amendment (No. 2845) was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank all of our colleagues for their 
cooperation on eliminating two amendments.
  Mr. President, I call upon the Senator from Alaska who has an 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                           Amendment No. 2846

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

       The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski], for herself, Mr. 
     Specter, Mr. Bond, Mr. Ensign, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. 
     Campbell, Mr. Graham, Mr. Allen, Mr. Stevens, and Ms. 
     Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 2846.

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. 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 increase Veterans Medical Care by $1,200,000,000)

       On page 19, line 21, increase the amount by $1,200,000,000.
       On page 19, line 22, increase the amount by $1,080,000,000.
       On page 20, line 1, increase the amount by $108,000,000.
       On page 20, line 5, increase the amount by $5,000,000.
       On page 20, line 9, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 23, line 5, decrease the amount by $1,200,000,000.
       On page 23, line 6, decrease the amount by $1,080,000,000.
       On page 23, line 10, decrease the amount by $108,000,000.
       On page 23, line 14, decrease the amount by $5,000,000.
       On page 23, line 18, decrease the amount by $1,000,000.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senators Specter, 
Bond, Stevens, DeWine, Cornyn, Campbell, Graham, Allen, Ensign, and 
Mikulski, I propose the following.
  Many of us have had the opportunity this week to be visited by 
veterans from our respective States, folks who are in town for their 
annual convention and meetings. I am pleased to offer an amendment that 
will boost the spending for our veterans health care. This would be an 
increase in veterans health care by $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2005.
  This is a relatively straightforward amendment. The funds will come 
from function 920 and offset the spending increase. The budget, as it 
currently stands, provides $70.4 billion for fiscal year 2005 veterans 
programs. So this would be an increase of $9 billion or 15 percent from 
the current fiscal year.
  We need to look at what our veterans have given to this Nation and 
think about what we should do as we help them. When we look at this 
amendment, we help eliminate the wait list for veterans in need of 
medical care, hopefully shorten the time it will take to process a 
veteran's disability claim and to process our veterans' benefits in a 
timely manner.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank Senator Murkowski and also 
Senator Mikulski for their leadership in putting this amendment 
together. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we need to be clear with our colleagues, 
there is no new money. This is rearranging debt. To the extent that 
means it is not terribly real, that is the reality. I thank my 
colleagues.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to comment briefly at this 
time to express my support and cosponsorship, as Chairman of the Senate 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, of the amendment that has been offered 
by the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski, pertaining to veterans' 
medical care funding.

[[Page S2674]]

  Senator Murkowski's amendment would increase funding for most 
critical discretionary account of the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
VA, VA medical care account, by $1.2 billion. According to materials 
distributed by the Budget Committee, the resolution reported out by the 
Budget Committee had already proposed to increase such funding by $1.4 
billion. Thus, approval of the Murkowski amendment will up VA medical 
care spending, relative to the Congressional Budget Office-computed 
baseline, by $2.6 billion. This number compares quite favorably to the 
medical care appropriations ``plus up'' of $2.1 billion that the 
Ranking Member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Bob Graham, 
and I indicated was necessary in the ``views and estimates letter'' 
that we provided to the Budget Committee on March 4, 2004. It also 
compares quite favorably to the two record-breaking increases of $2.4 
billion and $2.9 billion that have been provided by Congress in the 
past 2 fiscal years for the VA medical care account. Clearly, this 
Congress--and this President--are fulfilling the commitment that we, as 
a nation, owe to those who have served.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. It is good for 
veterans, and it is good for the Nation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 2846.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2846) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                 Amendments Nos. 2847 And 2848, En Bloc

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I have two amendments that have been 
agreed upon by both sides of the aisle. One is an amendment by Senator 
Grassley, and an amendment by Senator Byrd and Senator Cochran. I ask 
for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant journal clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] proposes amendments 
     numbered 2847 and 2848, en bloc.

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


                           amendment no. 2847

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding compensation for 
    exposure to toxic substances at Department of Energy facilities)

       On page 54, after line 22, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING COMPENSATION FOR 
                   EXPOSURE TO TOXIC SUBSTANCES AT THE DEPARTMENT 
                   OF ENERGY.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 
     Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7384 et seq.) (referred to in 
     this section as the ``EEOICPA'') is intended to ensure the 
     timely payment of uniform and adequate compensation to 
     covered employees suffering from occupational illnesses 
     incurred during their work for the Department of Energy.
       (2) The Department of Labor is responsible for implementing 
     the provisions under subtitle B of the EEOICPA, relating to 
     claims for radiation related cancers, beryllium disease, and 
     silicosis. The Department of Labor has, within its area of 
     responsibility, processed over 95 percent of the 52,000 
     claims it has received, and is processing these claims in an 
     average of 73 days.
       (3) As of the date of enactment of this resolution, the 
     Department of Health and Human Services has not promulgated 
     the regulations required under section 3626 of the EEOICPA 
     for allowing claimants to petition to be members of the 
     Special Exposure Cohort. Special Exposure Cohorts provide a 
     presumption in favor of the claimant for radiation related 
     cancers if--
       (A) it is not feasible to estimate radiation dose with 
     sufficient accuracy; and
       (B) there is a reasonable likelihood that the health of the 
     class of workers may have been endangered.
       (4) The Department of Energy, which is responsible for 
     implementing subtitle D of the EEOICPA, relating to 
     occupational illness caused by exposure to toxic substances 
     at Department of Energy facilities, finalized its regulations 
     on August 14, 2002. The Department of Energy has processed 1 
     percent of the 22,000 claims received through the Department 
     of Energy physicians panels since its regulations were made 
     final.
       (5) The Department of Energy has no willing payor for up to 
     50 percent of the claims that its physicians panels determine 
     to be related to exposure to a toxic substance at the 
     Department of Energy. As a consequence, many claimants with a 
     positive determination from the physicians panel will be 
     denied benefits. Many States, including Alaska, Colorado, 
     Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, New Mexico, Idaho, and 
     Nevada, may not have a willing payor.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) claims for occupational illness, which are determined 
     to be caused by exposure to toxic substances at Department of 
     Energy facilities under subtitle D of the EEOICPA, should be 
     promptly, equitably, and efficiently compensated;
       (2) administrative and technical changes should be made to 
     the EEOICPA to--
       (A) improve claims processing and review by physicians 
     panels to ensure cost-effective and efficient consideration 
     and determination of workers' claims;
       (B) provide for membership in additional special exposure 
     cohorts; and
       (C) address eligibility issues at facilities with residual 
     radiation; and
       (3) the President and Congress should work together at the 
     earliest opportunity to develop a plan that effectively 
     resolves the issue of a lack of a willing payor for many 
     claims that are determined under subtitle D of the EEOICPA to 
     be related to exposure to a toxic substance at Department of 
     Energy facilities.


                           amendment no. 2848

        (Purpose: To correct the scoring for Project Bioshield)

       On page 43, strike lines 11 through 20, and insert the 
     following:
       (b) Funding for Bioshield.--The chairman of the Committee 
     on Budget of the Senate shall revise the aggregates, 
     functional totals, and allocations to the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate, discretionary spending limits, 
     and other appropriate levels and limits in this resolution by 
     $2,528,000,000 in budget authority for fiscal year 2005, and 
     by the amount of outlays flowing therefrom in fiscal year 
     2005 and subsequent years for Project Bioshield, for a bill, 
     joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that makes 
     appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this budget resolution contains a back-door 
cut that could result in an 8 percent cut in the budget for the 
Department of Homeland Security. In addition, the resolution contains a 
provision that will undermine the Pell Grant higher education program. 
This amendment, which is cosponsored by the chairmen and ranking 
members of the Homeland Security and Labor/HHS/Education Subcommittees, 
addresses these issues.
  Project Bioshield is a new program, first requested by the President 
in February of 2003, that will expand the Federal Government's 
preparedness for a bioterrorist attack by making it easier to purchase 
the most effective pharmaceuticals and vaccines.
  The fiscal year 2004 budget resolution, the discretionary limit for 
fiscal year 2005 was set at $814 billion. Above and beyond the $814 
billion limit, the resolution assumed $5.6 billion for Project 
Bioshield as mandatory spending for legislation considered in the 
Senate. In the House, the budget resolution assumed that funding for 
bioshield would be discretionary.
  To help resolve the difference between the House and the Senate, the 
President submitted a formal budget request on September 12, 2003 for 
$5.6 billion of advanced appropriations as discretionary spending in 
the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations Act. Congress 
approved the request and the President signed the first Homeland 
Security Appropriations Act into law.
  Six months later, Chairman Nickles has decided to disregard that 
agreement. His budget resolution now assumes that the $2.5 billion of 
Project Bioshield funding that is available for the next 4 years will 
all count against the $814 billion limit for fiscal year 2005, forcing 
the Appropriations Committee to absorb the cost.
  What this means is less funding for first responder grants, less 
funding of the Coast Guard, less funding for border security, less 
money for FEMA to respond to disasters and less money to implement our 
immigration laws. This is unacceptable. My amendment will restore the 
Project Bioshield scoring treatment that was requested by the President 
and approved by the Senate last September and strike the language in 
the resolution concerning Pell Grants.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment would strike section 404 
from the budget resolution, and provide for the release of the reserve 
funds originally intended for Bioshield in addition to appropriations 
provided for

[[Page S2675]]

the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2005.
  The fiscal year 2004 budget resolution established a $5.593 billion 
``reserve'' for Project Bioshield, outside the fiscal years 2004 and 
2005 discretionary caps.
  This fiscal year 2005 budget resolution, as reported, assumes that 
the $2.5 billion advance appropriations for Project Bioshield will now 
be scored against the fiscal year 2005 cap.
  At the same time, it imposes in section 404(b) a new procedural 
barrier to prohibit the Senate Appropriations Committee from getting 
credit for reducing Bioshield funds to live within the cap.
  The effect is that the Senate Appropriations Committee, unlike the 
House, will have to find an additional $2.5 billion in spending 
reductions. This will likely have an adverse impact on ongoing 
programs, including essential homeland security activities.
  Advance appropriations were provided to ensure that a stable source 
of funding would be available for this initiative.
  No new scorekeeping precedent needs to be established to protect this 
program.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, one of these is an amendment Senator Byrd 
alluded to yesterday. Of these amendments was one Senator Byrd had 
mentioned that Senator Conrad had on his list. It is an amendment that 
is very complicated, and I will work with Senator Byrd and also Senator 
Cochran who raised it, and Senator Judd Gregg, all who are involved in 
bioshield and how it was scored. We will try to score it correctly, and 
we will work with our colleagues in a manner to do that. We are happy 
to accept that amendment. The second amendment is an amendment by 
Senator Grassley.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is a very complex scoring issue. It 
may take some work after it leaves the Chamber tonight to get this 
right. We very much appreciate the fact that all the parties have 
worked together to avoid a rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is yielded back. Without objection, the 
amendments are agreed to, en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 2847 and 2848) were agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I want to thank our colleagues. We are making progress. 
I especially want to thank Senator Ensign who just withdrew his 
amendment on firewall. I am sure that will save us a substantial amount 
of time.
  On our side I believe we have amendments still pending. It would be 
the Kyl amendment and, I am hopeful, final passage.
  If Senator Conrad would look at this, I believe we have both agreed 
to clear an amendment of Senator Specter and Senator Harkin.
  For the information of our colleagues, we are down to maybe two 
amendments on our side.
  I see Senator Lautenberg is standing up.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am.
  Mr. NICKLES. Does Senator Conrad want to go with Senator Lautenberg's 
amendment?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be useful to do that. This 
has a bit of a complexity.
  Mr. NICKLES. This is late at night, and I urge our colleagues to 
confine their statements to 1 minute each. As a matter of fact, I ask 
unanimous consent that statements made on behalf of and in opposition 
to any remaining amendments be limited to 1 minute each.
  Mr. DURBIN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I call upon our colleague and friend from 
New Jersey to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                           Amendment No. 2797

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

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2797.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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:
       On page 25, strike lines 4 through 8.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment is designed to make 
clear to the American people what it is we do here tonight. It is far 
from certain all the Members of the Senate are totally familiar with 
everything that is enmeshed in the arcane language and complicated 
processes in this budget resolution.
  Our amendment says as we see deficits hemorrhaging and the debt limit 
stretched to $7.4 trillion, we want to be certain it is known this 
budget bill carries hidden in its mystical language an increase of $664 
billion with instruction to the Senate and the House to go up to a 
total of $8 trillion on the debt limit; therefore, virtually 
automatically permitting more borrowing to take place without review 
and direct approval.
  Can my colleagues imagine how the American people will feel if 
tonight we add $2,400 worth of debt to each and every one of them and 
give them in exchange an average of $200 in tax relief? Imagine, $2,400 
worth of debt and $200 worth of cash. It makes Shylock look like an 
amateur.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so we can defer any 
attempt to increase our debt limit unless it is clear to all what we 
are going to do by taking our debt limit through the roof. I hope we 
can get support for this so we can have an intelligent debate 
specifically on the debt limit at a later time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I hope we do not need reconciliation to pass a debt 
limit. I do know it is important to pass a debt limit. This is a 
political season. Maybe people want to play games with it and offer 
unlimited amendments. I do not know that we would do that. We did not 
do that last year. We actually passed the debt limit in 1 day, I 
believe. I hope we can do it in 1 day and I hope we can do it outside 
of reconciliation. We should be able to do it. This gives us at least 
some additional protection to make sure the full faith and credit of 
the United States is adhered to, that we pay our bills on time.
  I urge our colleagues to vote no on the pending amendment, and I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2797.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is absent 
attending a funeral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 57 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

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

                                NAYS--54

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     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
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts

[[Page S2676]]


     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Edwards
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Reid
  The amendment (No. 2797) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, we 
are getting closer.
  Mr. BOND. I hope not further away.
  Mr. NICKLES. A couple of more days and we can finish this.
  Mr. BOND. Right.


             Amendments Nos. 2850, 2697, and 2715, En Bloc

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have three amendments that Senator 
Conrad and I have agreed to. I send them to the desk and ask for their 
immediate consideration: An amendment by Senator Brownback and two 
amendments, one by Senator DeWine and Senator Leahy and one by Senator 
Nelson of Florida and Senator Coleman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant journal clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] proposes amendments 
     Nos. 2850, 2697, and 2715, en bloc.

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


                           amendment no. 2850

  (Purpose: To increase budget authority and outlays in Function 450 
   (Community and Regional Development) and Function 500 (Education, 
Training, Employment, and Social Security) to establish a New Homestead 
  Venture Capital Fund to make equity and near equity investments in 
 start-up and expanding businesses located in high out-migration rural 
counties and to repay up to 50 percent of college loans (up to $10,000) 
for recent graduates who live and work in such counties for five years, 
 respectively; and to express the sense of the Senate that any revenue 
measure passed by Congress in the future should include tax incentives 
 designed to address the devastating problem of chronic out-migration 
   from rural communities in America's Heartland and that those tax 
                   incentives should be fully offset)

       On page 14, line 19, increase the amount by $260,000,000.
       On page 14, line 20, increase the amount by $18,000,000.
       On page 14, line 23, increase the amount by $260,000,000.
       On page 14, line 24, increase the amount by $226,000,000.
       On page 15, line 2, increase the amount by $260,000,000.
       On page 15, line 3, increase the amount by $260,000,000.
       On page 15, line 6, increase the amount by $260,000,000.
       On page 15, line 7, increase the amount by $260,000,000.
       On page 15, line 10, increase the amount by $260,000,000.
       On page 15, line 11, increase the amount by $260,000,000.
       On page 15, line 16, increase the amount by $660,000,000.
       On page 15, line 17, increase the amount by $561,000,000.
       On page 15, line 20, increase the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 15, line 21, increase the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 15, line 24, increase the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 15, line 25, increase the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 16, line 3, increase the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 16, line 4, increase the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 16, line 7, increase the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 16, line 8, increase the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 23, line 5, decrease the amount by $920,000,000.
       On page 23, line 6, decrease the amount by $579,000,000.
       On page 23, line 9, decrease the amount by $320,000,000.
       On page 23, line 10, decrease the amount by $376,000,000.
       On page 23, line 13, decrease the amount by $320,000,000.
       On page 23, line 14, decrease the amount by $320,000,000.
       On page 23, line 17, decrease the amount by $320,000,000.
       On page 23, line 18, decrease the amount by $320,000,000.
       On page 23, line 21, decrease the amount by $320,000,000.
       On page 23, line 22, decrease the amount by $320,000,000.
       On page 54, after line 22, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TAX INCENTIVES FOR 
                   CERTAIN RURAL COMMUNITIES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that if tax relief measures 
     are passed in accordance with the assumptions in this 
     resolution in this session of Congress, such legislation 
     should include--
       (1) tax and other financial incentives, similar to those 
     included in the New Homestead Act (S. 602), to help rural 
     communities fight the economic decimation caused by chronic 
     out-migration by giving such communities the tools they need 
     to attract individuals to live and work, or to start and grow 
     a business, in such rural areas, and
       (2) revenue provisions which fully offset the cost of such 
     tax and other financial incentives.


                           amendment no. 2697

  (Purpose: To increase the new budget authority in the International 
   Affairs function by $330,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 to provide 
  adequate funding for the Child Survival and Health Program, with a 
                 corresponding offset in function 920)

       On page 8, line 21, strike ``$30,140,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$30,470,000,000''.
       On page 23, line 5, strike ``-$100,000,000'' and insert 
     ``-$430,000,000''.


                             amendment 2715

  (Purpose: To increase funding to facilitate reconstruction in Haiti)

       On page 8, line 21, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 8, line 22, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 8, line 25, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 9, line 1, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 9, line 4, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 9, line 5, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 9, line 8, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 9, line 9, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 9, line 12, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 9, line 13, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 23, line 5, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 23, line 6, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 23, line 9, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 23, line 10, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 23, line 13, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 23, line 14, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 23, line 17, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 23, line 18, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 23, line 21, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 23, line 22, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment I 
have sponsored, along with Senator Nelson of Florida and Senator 
Coleman of Minnesota, to increase the amount of funding that we can 
provide to the people of Haiti. It is a commonsense amendment, as it 
recognizes the reality of the situation in Haiti right now. It 
recognizes that we have a lot of work ahead of us in Haiti and that it 
is going to require considerable resources and a long-term commitment. 
And, it mirrors the suggested $150 million budget benchmark which was 
included in S. 2144, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which was 
passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week.
  As many of my colleagues know, over the last 9 years since I have 
been in the Senate, I have traveled to Haiti 13 or 14 different times. 
And, if I have learned anything in the course of those trips, it is 
this: There is no other nation in our hemisphere like Haiti.
  Haiti is different. Haiti is unique. No other nation in our 
hemisphere is as impoverished. Today, at least 80 percent of all 
Haitians live in dire poverty, with at least 75 to 85 percent 
underemployed or unemployed. Per capita annual income is less than 
$400.
  No other nation in our hemisphere has a higher rate of HIV/AIDS. 
Today, AIDS is the number one cause of all adult deaths in Haiti, 
killing at least 30,000 Haitians annually and orphaning 200,000 
children.
  No other nation in our hemisphere has a higher infant mortality rate 
or a lower life expectancy rate.
  And no other nation in our hemisphere is as environmentally strapped. 
Haiti is an ecological disaster, with a 98-percent deforestation rate 
and extreme topsoil erosion.
  Despite its radical differences, Haiti remains in our backyard. It is 
intrinsically linked to the United States--by history, geography, 
humanitarian concerns, the illicit drug trade, and the ever-present 
possibility of waves of incoming refugees. Haiti's problems are

[[Page S2677]]

our problems, and we are not going to be able to do anything about any 
of these problems unless Haiti, the United States, and the 
international community are willing to take several bold, radical 
steps.
  First, the international community must help Haiti restore a 
democratically elected government--one free of corruption and the 
influence and involvement of violent, human rights abusing thugs and 
killers.
  Second, we must free Haiti of its $1.17 billion in foreign debt.
  Third, we must increase trade and create jobs. Along with Congressman 
Clay Shaw, I have written a trade bill--the ``Haiti Economic Recovery 
Opportunity Act,'' S. 489. If enacted, this legislation will help 
restore some of those jobs and create new ones.
  Fourth, we must help Haiti develop a self-sufficient system of 
agriculture.
  Fifth, we must help Haiti restore the rule of law. The international 
community needs to resume programs for mentoring magistrate and judges, 
and the new Haitian Government needs to create a functioning 
disciplinary body to oversee the entire judiciary.
  Sixth, we must help Haiti establish an independent, professional 
national police force--one capable of quelling the violence of the 
armed thugs who threaten the streets of Haiti with abandon.
  And finally, the international community should immediately restore 
the direct aid to the government that was suspended under Aristide, so 
Haiti can rebuild much-needed institutions and infrastructure for the 
delivery of food, humanitarian aid, and health care.
  In 1994, prior to Mr. Aristide's reinstatement of power--during a 
time of military dictatorship, under Lieutenant General Cedras--our 
assistance to Haiti was far greater than it is today. Back in 1994, we 
provided $69.5 million. In fact, our assistance to Haiti reached an all 
time high in 1995, when it spiked to $235.2 million. The following 
year, it drastically fell by over half to $104.9 million. Four years 
later, it fell even more--down to $58.2 million. And today, we are 
looking at a $54 million budget. It simply isn't enough. That is why 
our amendment is so important.
  Ultimately, the United States can't ``fix'' Haiti, nor can the 
international community. But we can improve the situation, and we can 
help Haiti begin to help itself. But, it is going to take a serious, 
sustained commitment. Things won't change overnight, and we must remain 
committed to Haiti for as long as it takes for reforms to take root and 
for a democratic system of government to emerge. The first step in this 
process is providing a realistic level of funding for these efforts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 2850, 2697, and 2715) were agreed to en bloc.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, our colleague from Minnesota has been 
very patient, and I appreciate that. I wish to recognize our colleague 
from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 2786

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, this amendment has three parts. First, it 
increases the Federal funding for special education to the 40-percent 
share that was promised for the last 27 years. This year the Federal 
funding for special education is less than half of what was promised 27 
years ago. In my State of Minnesota, this broken promise for special 
education means cuts in Federal programs that occur across all schools 
for all students, and it also means higher property taxes for the 
citizens of my State.
  I can't believe the other States in this Nation don't encounter the 
same problems when the Federal Government doesn't fund one of its two 
most important commitments to education at even half the level it has 
promised for over a quarter of a century.
  The second amendment would reduce the Federal deficit by $1 million a 
year for each of the next 5 years. To pay for this, I would increase 
the top tax rate from 35 percent to 38.5 percent. The average income of 
Americans in that top tax bracket is over $1.1 million. Of course, they 
don't pay that top rate. Their income from dividends and from capital 
gains is now taxed at 15 percent. With the lower rates and other 
loopholes, most of America's multimillionaires and billionaires pay 
lower tax rates than most middle-class working Americans.
  The question is, Whose needs are more important america's 
schoolchildren who have the greatest needs or America's superrich who 
have the greatest connections?
  The answer is we have seen at least a dozen times tonight that the 
superrich are the best connected people in America. All of these 
phantom family farmers and struggling small business owners of 
companies the size of Lockheed whose incomes exceed over $1.1 million a 
year, none of whom are located in Minnesota, but they are out there 
somewhere.
  I call up my amendment and will agree once it has been read to accept 
the decision on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant journal clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Dayton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2786.

  Mr. DAYTON. 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 provide full mandatory funding for the Individuals with 
 Disabilities Educational Act (IDEA)  part B grants over five years by 
           reducing tax breaks for the wealthiest taxpayers)

       On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $11,485,000,000.
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $11,136,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $11,864,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $12,629,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $13,415,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $11,485,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $11,136,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $11,864,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $12,629,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $13,415,000,000.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $10,485,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $10,136,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $10,864,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $11,629,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $12,415,000,000.
       On page 4, line 12, increase the amount by $210,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $7,123,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $10,052,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $10,653,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $11,385,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, decrease the amount by $11,275,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, decrease the amount by $4,013,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, decrease the amount by $1,812,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, decrease the amount by $1,976,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, decrease the amount by $2,030,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, decrease the amount by $11,275,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $15,288,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $17,100,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $19,076,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $21,106,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $11,275,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $15,288,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $17,100,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $19,076,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $21,106,000,000.
       On page 15, line 16, increase the amount by 
     $10,485,000,000.
       On page 15, line 17, increase the amount by $210,000,000.
       On page 15, line 20, increase the amount by 
     $10,136,000,000.
       On page 15, line 21, increase the amount by $7,123,000,000.
       On page 15, line 24, increase the amount by 
     $10,864,000,000.
       On page 15, line 25, increase the amount by 
     $10,052,000,000.
       On page 16, line 3, increase the amount by $11,629,000,000.
       On page 16, line 4, increase the amount by $10,653,000,000.
       On page 16, line 7, increase the amount by $12,415,000,000.
       On page 16, line 8, increase the amount by $11,385,000,000.

[[Page S2678]]

       At the end of Section 303, insert the following:

     SEC. 304. RESERVE FUND FOR THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES 
                   EDUCATION ACT.

       The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     shall, in consultation with the Members of the Committee on 
     the Budget and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
     appropriate committee, increase the allocations pursuant to 
     section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the 
     Senate by up to $10,485,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $210,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2005, and 
     $55,529,000,000 in new budget authority and $39,423,000,000 
     in outlays for the total of fiscal years 2005 through 2009, 
     for a bill, amendment, or conference report that would 
     provide increased funding for part B grants, other than 
     section 619, under the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (IDEA), with the goal that funding for these 
     grants, when taken together with amounts provided by the 
     Committee on Appropriations, provides 40 percent of the 
     national average per pupil expenditure for children with 
     disabilities.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we voted on this amendment last year. I 
thought our colleague was going to withdraw it. The amendment will 
increase spending by $55.5 billion and increase taxes by $60.5 billion. 
I urge our colleagues to vote no on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2786) was rejected.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, let me compliment my colleague. I 
think we should handle the rest of our votes by a voice vote. I thank 
our friend from Minnesota.


                           Amendment No. 2790

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

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed], for himself, Mr. 
     Kennedy, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
     Bingaman, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Corzine, 
     Mr. Pryor, Mr. Levin, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Biden, Mr. Nelson 
     of Nebraska, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Lautenberg, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2790.

  Mr. REED. 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 create a reserve fund to increase funding for college and 
   student financial aid programs, including the Pell Grant program, 
campus-based assistance, Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership, 
TRIO, GEAR UP, and graduate level programs, and lower the national debt 
                       by closing tax loopholes)

       On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $1,332,000,000.
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $4,560,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $220,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $52,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $1,332,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $4,560,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $220,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $52,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $1,332,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $4,560,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $220,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $52,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, decrease the amount by $1,332,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $5,892,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $6,112,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $6,164,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $6,164,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,332,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $5,892,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $6,112,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $6,164,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $6,164,000,000.
       At the end of Title III, insert the following:

     SEC.   . RESERVE FUND FOR COLLEGE AND STUDENT FINANCIAL AID 
                   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 $3,082,000,000 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 college and student financial aid 
     programs in the Department of Education, including the Pell 
     Grant program, campus-based assistance, Leveraging 
     Educational Assistance Partnership, TRIO, GEAR UP, and 
     graduate level programs.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I offer this amendment together with 
Senators Kennedy, Clinton, Murray, Mikulski, Bingaman, Dodd, Schumer, 
Lincoln, Corzine, Pryor, Levin, Rockefeller, Biden and Nelson of 
Nebraska. And I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Kohl, Lautenberg, 
and Akaka as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, this amendment would create a $3.1 billion 
reserve fund to boost student financial aid programs, programs such as 
the LEAP program, leveraging opportunities, a partnership with the 
Federal Government to provide resources for young people of modest 
means to go on to college, the work-study program, the TRIO program, 
the GEAR UP program, and the graduate assistance program.
  Every time we talk about our economy and talk about our future, we 
inherently come back to education and higher education as a key. This 
budget does not fund these programs sufficiently.
  This proposal has been embraced and supported by the Student Aid 
Alliance, a coalition of more than 60 organizations representing 
students, colleges, and universities.
  At a time when costs of colleges are going out of sight, when 
literally hundreds of thousands of young people are not able to go to 
school or must defer their chances to go to school, we have to do more. 
I hope we can support the amendment.
  At this point, let me say I will be prepared to accept a voice vote 
at the conclusion of the debate. I urge support for this amendment.
  I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator Sarbanes as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, did the Senator withdraw his amendment?
  Mr. REED. I will accept a voice vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank our colleague for his willingness 
to have a voice vote. I urge our colleagues to vote no on his 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2790) was rejected.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island 
for his cooperation. This is moving things along. We are making great 
progress.
  The Senator from Arizona has been waiting somewhat impatiently to 
call up his amendment. I hope he will be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 2849

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2849.

 (Purpose: To create a reserve fund to permit an increase in veterans' 
   medical care that is fully offset with an assessment on excessive 
             lawyer fees paid under the tobacco settlement)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . RESERVE FUND FOR VETERANS' MEDICAL CARE.

       If the Committee on Finance or the Committee on Veterans' 
     Affairs of the Senate reports a bill or joint resolution, or 
     an amendment thereto is offered or a conference report 
     thereon is submitted, that (1) provides an increase in 
     veterans' medical program funding and (2) is fully offset by 
     an assessment on lawyer fees paid under the tobacco 
     settlement, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of 
     the Senate may revise the allocations of new budget 
     authority, outlays, the revenue aggregates and other 
     appropriate aggregates by not more than $1.7 billion for the 
     period fiscal year 2005 to 2009 to

[[Page S2679]]

     reflect such legislation, provided that such legislation 
     would not increase the deficit for fiscal year 2005 and for 
     the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the full reading of the 
amendment, but it probably is not clear from its reading, so let me 
explain what the amendment would do.
  This amendment restores at least $1.7 billion to the Federal Treasury 
to be used for veterans health care, paid for by blocking tobacco 
lawyers from extracting obscenely excessive and unethical attorney fees 
from the multistate tobacco settlement. The amendment caps future fee 
payments from this agreement at $20,000 an hour. In an 8-hour day that 
is more money than, of course, our salary.
  The amendment does not apply to any fees from any cases that have 
already been judicially reviewed and approved by the court and would 
only apply prospectively, to fees paid in the future, out of the 
tobacco settlement taxes that have not yet been collected. The trial 
lawyers still will receive billions of dollars under this amendment. So 
far, they have received in the billions of dollars. At $20,000 an hour, 
I suggest this amendment would impose perhaps a one yacht per lawyer 
per day rule.
  It is actually a serious proposition. The people who are being ripped 
off here are, of course, the people who are supposed to benefit from 
the tobacco settlement. But the fees in some of the cases amount to 
more than $100,000 an hour and ultimately involve little or no original 
legal work.
  Do not take my word for it. These fees are indefensible and 
outrageous. Even some in the trial bar are in agreement. Here is what 
noted plaintiffs' lawyers, including tobacco lawyers, have had to say 
about the tobacco fee award. Michael Ciresi, a pioneer in the tobacco 
litigation who represented the State of Minnesota in its lawsuit, and 
who is no doubt familiar with these lawsuits, said the Texas, Florida, 
and Mississippi lawyers' fees awards ``are far in excess of these 
lawyers' contribution to any of the state results.''
  Washington, DC lawyer tobacco industry opponent John Coale has 
denounced the fee awards as ``beyond human comprehension,'' stating 
that ``the work does not justify them.''
  Even the Association of American Trial Lawyers, the Nation's premier 
representative of the plaintiffs' bar, has condemned attorneys' fees 
requested in these State tobacco settlements. Here is what the 
President of ATLA noted:

       Common sense suggests that a one billion dollar fee is 
     excessive and unreasonable and certainly should invite the 
     scrutiny [of the courts.] ATLA generally refrains from 
     expressing an institutional opinion regarding a particular 
     fee in a particular case, but we have a strong negative 
     reaction to reports that at least one attorney on behalf of 
     the plaintiffs in the Florida case is seeking a fee in excess 
     of one billion dollars.

  Finally, to get the academic side of it, quoting from Professor 
Lester Brickman, professor of law at Cardozo Law School and a noted 
authority on legal ethics and attorneys' fees:

       Under the rules of legal ethics, promulgated partly as a 
     justification for the legal profession's self-governance, 
     fees cannot be `clearly excessive.' Indeed, that standard has 
     been superseded in most states by an even more rigorous 
     standard: Fees have to be `reasonable.' Are these fees, which 
     in many cases amount to effective hourly rates of return of 
     tens of thousands--and even hundreds of thousands--dollars an 
     hour, reasonable? I think to ask the question is to answer 
     it.

  The choice before the Senate is we can either allow the tobacco 
settlement to continue to be diverted to pay $100,000 an hour fees to 
billionaire lawyers or we can put the excess of those fees to a proper 
use, serving a national need, such as veterans health benefits, while 
still allowing the tobacco lawyers to earn up to $20,000 an hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona is on to an 
interesting concept and I will offer a second-degree amendment to 
expand a good idea. The amendment which I will offer will suggest we 
can also offset the expenses of veterans health care by profits paid to 
and penalties paid by sole-source contractors doing business in Iraq.
  I took a look at some of the companies doing business in Iraq. It 
turns out they are making not only outrageous profits, but they are 
under investigation by our Government. Sole-source contractors, such as 
Halliburton and Bechtel--and as you look at some of the figures, I 
would concede some of the figures relative to fees are stunning but, 
frankly, Halliburton puts them to shame. Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & 
Root subsidiary is under mounting scrutiny since last fall over 
suspicions that a fuel contract the company signed in May overcharged 
United States taxpayers by $61 million, up to the end of September and 
$20 million a month since then.
  This is rather lengthy. I will try to get it together quickly because 
there are so many things Halliburton has been involved in. Let me go 
through the chronology of Halliburton and how we believe they 
substantially overcharged the taxpayers. Incidentally, this is not a 
partisan observation. The Pentagon has turned Halliburton in to the 
SEC. Let me go through the chronology.
  December 11, 2003, a Pentagon audit finds substantial overcharging in 
$1.2 billion of Halliburton fuel sales in Iraq;
  January 14, 2004, Pentagon audit asks Defense inspector general to 
launch a formal investigation;
  January 22, Halliburton discloses two workers took large kickbacks as 
part of a $6.3 million overcharging scheme involving a Kuwaiti-based 
company;
  February 1, investigators find Halliburton overcharged more than 16 
million for meals at a United States base in Kuwait;
  February 3, total overbill for meals rises to $36 million.
  This keeps growing. February 16, the company agrees to withhold 
billing on additional $140 million in food services. Now the numbers 
are really adding up quickly.
  March 10, Defense inspector general asks Justice Department to begin 
the investigation of Halliburton. Halliburton has multiple contracts 
valued at up to $188 billion to support the Army and repair oil fields 
in Iraq. And the profits, I might add for my colleagues, they are 
generating obviously allow them to run some very fine television 
advertising.
  I hope my colleagues have all had a chance to see the patriotism of 
Halliburton and its advertising, but we cannot seem to find the 
patriotism when it comes to their doing business with the Government. 
They are overcharging taxpayers, we are being penalized, they are under 
investigation, and the Senator from Arizona has come up with a 
wonderful idea. We should tap into the excess profits and penalties of 
sole-source contractors in Iraq to help veterans health care.
  I am sorry we turned down the amendment of the Senator from South 
Dakota: $2.7 billion for veterans health care the other night was 
defeated. Of course, I understand why the other side defeated it. We 
wanted to cut the tax break for the wealthiest Americans from $140,000 
a year to $112,000 a year. That was an outrageous idea rejected by the 
Senate. We said the veterans have to wait for another day.

  The day has arrived. We are going after the tobacco settlement. We 
are going to add Halliburton and Bechtel into this. Frankly, we are 
going to find excess profits and penalties that can make a difference.
  The Members of the Senate may recall not too long ago the Senator 
from Vermont offered a very valuable amendment during the Omnibus 
Appropriations bill on profiteering by contractors in Iraq. If I am not 
mistaken, I believe it passed by a vote of 97-0 in the Senate.
  If it is appropriate, I ask the Senator from Vermont, I don't believe 
that amendment survived the conference committee on the Omnibus 
Appropriations bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. If I could respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am not yielding the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator only yields for a question.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from Vermont would like to ask a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time in opposition is controlled by the 
minority bill manager. The Senator can yield for a question.
  Mr. LEAHY. May I ask the Senator from Illinois a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask the Senator from Illinois if he was aware of the 
fact the

[[Page S2680]]

committee in conference, even though there was bipartisan support for 
the war profiteering amendment that was based word for word on what we 
used after World War II, after the Korean war, I was told the 
leadership in the House said they were under orders from the White 
House to remove the war profiteering.
  Did the Senator from Illinois know the White House came in and said 
what was generally called the Halliburton amendment had to be taken out 
of the committee of conference?
  Mr. DURBIN. I was not aware of that. And if I am not mistaken, I 
think the Senator from Vermont modeled his amendment after a World War 
II amendment on profiteering. It is amazing to me we struck the 
language on profiteering in the omnibus bill, and now look what has 
happened with Halliburton and other companies. They are being 
investigated. They are being charged with gouging taxpayers. We are 
losing money. Frankly, I do not think it is reasonable for taxpayers to 
have to pay this. The Senator from Arizona is on to a good idea.
  Let me give you a couple other examples he might be interested in. 
According to a recent NBC News report, another politically connected 
Pentagon contractor, DynCorps, is hiring senior people to train Iraqi 
police at a cost to American taxpayers of some $400,000 a year per 
trainer. Counting living expenses, tax liability, and reimbursements, 
it is worth about $50 million so far. It turns out the contract only 
had one bidder. It is expected to generate about $800 million in 
revenue to DynCorps over the next 2 years.
  Let me say, when the Senator from Arizona yields back his time, I 
will be offering a second-degree amendment. We will have a chance to 
vote on Halliburton before we get to the tobacco settlement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would respectfully ask my colleague from 
Illinois to withdraw his second-degree amendment. If he wishes to have 
a vote on the amendment----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no pending second-degree amendment.
  Mr. KYL. If the Senator does not wish to lay down his second-degree 
amendment, then that is fine, because we have not had any second-degree 
amendments yet. If it is not his intention to lay it down, then we can 
proceed to a vote on the amendment I have offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when the Senator from Arizona yields back 
his time, I will be offering the second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me renew my request, with all due respect 
to my friend from Illinois. I do not know how many scores of amendments 
have been voted on by this body in the last 48 hours or so, most of 
which have been offered by Members on the Democratic side. We have not 
second-degreed a single one of those amendments. I have checked.
  Of course, it is possible to get a vote on an amendment. Everybody 
around here knows that. At this late date, I just wonder if my 
colleagues want to go through the time and the process that requires. I 
have no objection to my colleague having a vote on the proposal which 
he says he is going to propound here as soon as I yield back my time. 
But I also think he should permit me to have a vote on the amendment I 
have laid down, as we have done for every one of the other amendments 
here. Therefore, again, I would ask my colleague, if he wishes to lay 
down an amendment and have a vote on that amendment--and I certainly 
would not do anything to get in the way of that or object to it--that 
he permit a vote on this as a freestanding amendment. Because if that 
does not happen, then it is going to take us a very long time tonight. 
But we will still get a vote on each of these amendments.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields to the Senator from Illinois?
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have made great progress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The time on this amendment is 
controlled by the Senator from Arizona and the minority manager.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to my colleague, 
the chairman of the Budget Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator would yield for a question, I understand 
your request is to have a vote on your amendment and to have a vote on 
the Durbin amendment back to back. Is that your request?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if the Senator from Illinois wishes to lay 
down an amendment, I have, as I said, no objection to having a vote on 
his amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield further, I want to thank my 
colleague from North Dakota because it has been very much because of 
his leadership--and I think we have helped as well--that we have not 
had a second-degree vote yet, and I do not think we should. We have 
done that because we have worked together.
  I wish for us to continue working together. I wish for us to have, if 
necessary, a vote on the Kyl and Durbin amendments, and a vote on--I 
believe Senator Kennedy has an amendment. I would hope we could do that 
by voice, but it looks like we need a rollcall vote on that. I think we 
may be able to take Senator Landrieu's amendment, and then we can vote 
on final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this has been 4 long days and 4 difficult 
days in which the two sides have worked together with a remarkable 
spirit of cooperation and good will.
  I would call on my two colleagues--both Senator Kyl, whom I like and 
respect, and Senator Durbin, about whom I feel the same way--and ask 
them both to allow those two votes to go away. They can come back on 
other vehicles at a later point.
  Here we are, at 12:30, with an amendment that has a political agenda 
and calls for a political response. I think it is not appropriate, at 
12:25, after we have worked together for 4 days with substantive 
disagreements which we have dealt with in an orderly and cooperative 
way. Can't we just withhold on this budget resolution and deal with 
this issue on a later vehicle?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would respond to the ranking member of the 
Budget Committee, what he says is absolutely true. Everything has been 
done, up until now, by comity. And I complimented--I am not sure you 
heard it, but to the Senator from North Dakota, I complimented his 
handling of this issue as much as the chairman's.

  As the chairman of the Budget Committee will acknowledge, I had been 
waiting for a long time to offer my amendment. He urged me to wait, to 
wait, to wait. Had I offered it earlier, this issue would not even be 
before us. Many of the other amendments that were offered had political 
overtones. I think we all have to acknowledge that. I will acknowledge 
mine does. I think you would have to acknowledge an awful lot of the 
amendments that have been offered here on which we had rollcall votes 
had political overtones. We all understand that.
  I do not need to take any more time on this. I simply put forth an 
amendment that took me about 5 minutes to discuss. I would like to get 
a vote on it. I have no objection to the Senator from Illinois offering 
his proposal and getting a vote on that. We can probably get this done 
quickly instead of talking about it, and just get it done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Do the Senators yield back their time?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, perhaps before I yield back the time, I would 
like to ask my colleague from Illinois if he would be willing to have 
two back-to-back votes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator may yield for 
that question.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, of course I would yield to a question. I 
would say, I am not going to withdraw the second-degree amendment. I 
will

[[Page S2681]]

not ask for any further debate. We can have up-or-down votes in the 
interest of time. But I think because of the comity that has been 
displayed to this point, perhaps if both amendments retreated and were 
saved for another day, it would be in the best interest of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                      Amendment No. 2849 Withdrawn

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, 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. Mr. President, this has been a remarkably good 4 days for 
the Senate. On a bipartisan basis, we have debated this budget 
resolution. Yes, there have been differences. Yes, there have been 
debates. But it has been at a high level with a good tone. Can't we end 
it on that basis? If we cannot, there are other alternatives open. I 
hope my colleagues are listening because there are other alternatives 
open. The alternatives open are to offer amendment after amendment 
after amendment after amendment, and we can be here all night and all 
day tomorrow and all day Saturday and all day Sunday and all day 
Monday, and we can just keep on voting.
  Either this is resolved in a responsible and respectful way or I can 
assure my colleagues we have hundreds of amendments that are all 
prepared that we have just spent hours talking our colleagues out of 
offering.
  I will say to my colleagues on this side, dust off your amendments. 
Let's get ready to debate and discuss and vote for a long time, if we 
can't have a reasonable ending to this predicament.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to make a request and see if my 
colleagues will abide by this. We have an amendment offered by Senator 
Kyl. We have an amendment offered by Senator Durbin. We have an 
amendment pending in the wings by Senator Kennedy, and we have an 
amendment pending in the wings by Senator Santorum. I would ask all 
four of those amendments to disappear in the twilight of this morning, 
that we have a voice vote on Senator Landrieu's amendment, and we vote 
on final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me indicate that it is not just those 
four amendments. Let me just advise my colleagues, when we started this 
process, we had 130 amendments. If we don't dispose of these other four 
in the way the chairman has indicated, I will call each and every one 
of those amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                 Amendments Nos. 2785 And 2851, En Bloc

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, tempers are starting to rise. This is not 
good for the cause.
  We are very close to the finish line. Senator Conrad and I have been 
working together very closely. We have agreed to a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution by Senator Lugar and an amendment by Senator Specter. I send 
those to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments.
  The assistant journal clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], for Mr. Lugar, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2785.
       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], for Mr. Specter, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2851.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 2785

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning summer food 
                            pilot projects)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING SUMMER FOOD PILOT 
                   PROJECTS.

        It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this 
     concurrent resolution assume that in making appropriations 
     and revenue decisions in Function 600 (Income Security), the 
     Senate supports the provision, to the Food and Nutrition 
     Service and other appropriate agencies within the Department 
     of Agriculture, of $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and 
     $127,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 
     2009, to enable those agencies to expand the summer food 
     pilot projects established under section 18(f) of the Richard 
     B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769(f)) to 
     all States of the United States and to all service 
     institutions (including service institutions described in 
     section 13(a)(7) of that Act).


                           amendment no. 2851

                     (Purpose: Strike Section 404)

       Strike section 404(a).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to considering the 
amendments en bloc? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there further debate on the amendments? If not, the question is on 
agreeing to amendments Nos. 2785 and 2851, en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 2785 and No. 2851) were agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2852

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I believe Senator Collins has an 
amendment. I send it 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 Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], for Ms. Collins, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2852.

  Mr. CONRAD. 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 provide a deficit neutral reserve fund for Postal Service 
                                reform)

       On page 28, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 304. RESERVE FOR POSTAL SERVICE REFORM.

       If the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate 
     reports a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto 
     is offered or a conference report thereon is submitted, that 
     reforms the United States Postal Service to improve its 
     economic viability, the Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may revise committee allocations for the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs and other appropriate budgetary 
     aggregates and allocations of new budget authority and 
     outlays by the amount provided by that measure for that 
     purpose, if that measure would not increase the deficit for 
     fiscal year 2005 and for the period of fiscal years 2005 
     though 2009.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend, Senator 
Carper, to offer an amendment that will help the Governmental Affairs 
Committee--GAC, which I chair, report out legislation reforming the 
United States Postal Service.
  The Postal Service is the linchpin of a $900 billion industry that 
employs nine million Americans in fields as diverse as direct mailing, 
printing, catalog production, publishing, and paper manufacturing. The 
health of the Postal Service is essential to thousands of companies and 
the millions that they employ. It is vital that we in Congress, the 
Postal Service, its employees, and the mailing industry work together 
to save and strengthen this institution on which so many Americans 
rely.
  What many people do not realize is that the Postal Service cannot 
survive without fundamental reform. Last month, Comptroller General 
David Walker wrote to me to urge comprehensive--not incremental--reform 
to ensure the USPS' future viability. In a letter to me, he stressed 
that ``comprehensive postal reform is urgently needed'' and noted that 
the Postal Service's current business model ``is not well aligned with 
21st century realities.'' If anything, David Walker is understating the 
point.
  The Postal Service is faced with enormous debts. It owes $6.5 billion 
in debt to the U.S. Treasury and its long-term liabilities include 
nearly $7 billion for Workers' Compensation claims, $5 billion for 
retirement costs, and as much as $45 billion to cover retiree health 
care costs. The fact is, if the Postal Service no longer provided 
universal service at affordable rates, no private company could step in 
and fill the void. The economies simply would not work.
  That is why the Governmental Affairs Committee has embarked on a 
deliberative effort to produce and report out legislation reforming the 
United States Postal Service. We have held six

[[Page S2682]]

hearings to date, and we are not yet finished. Once we have heard from 
all interested parties and gathered and analyzed as much information as 
possible, Senator Carper and I plan to introduce reform legislation. 
This amendment will help us move our bill toward enactment.
  Our amendment sets up a deficit-neutral reserve fund to accommodate 
postal reform. Under the terms of the amendment, if the Governmental 
Affairs Committee reports out a postal reform bill that is fully 
offset, then the Budget Committee chairman can allocate to GAC the 
direct spending authority we would need to bring our bill to the floor 
without it being subject to a budget act point of order. It is my 
intent to seek only offsets for our bill that enjoy a broad, bipartisan 
consensus of our committee. Our amendment would permit the bill to 
offset direct spending increases with parallel revenue increases--say, 
by closing abusive tax loopholes--which is an avenue I plan to explore 
further. Of course, if a suitable offset cannot be found, it would be 
my intent to move forward nonetheless.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2852.
  The amendment (No. 2852) was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, 
has an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. NICKLES. We have no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. It is also cleared on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2775) was agreed to.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, Senator Corzine has an amendment pending.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, has the chairman and the ranking member 
been able to resolve the question on the floor with regard to the other 
withdrawals? If that is the case, I will be prepared to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we give extra points for colleagues who 
withdraw amendments after 12 o'clock. Three colleagues will make about 
2 minutes worth of remarks and then we can be voting on final passage. 
I believe Senator Kennedy is first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All remaining general debate time is 
controlled by the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I had an important amendment dealing with 
a Medicare proposal to follow the recommendation of the Medicare 
actuaries, which indicate that we are paying the HMOs and the PPOs 
$1,100 a year more than is being paid to Medicare, which over a 10-year 
period is $42 billion.
  My amendment would have used that $42 billion to offset the expenses 
under the current prescription drug program. I understand now that 
there has been a proposal offered by the leaders. I have the assurance 
from our leader he will make the best effort to give us the opportunity 
to address this in a timely way in the next legislation that comes 
through here. On that basis, I withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts 
for his generosity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is my understanding that as a result of 
the suggestion of the chairman of the Budget Committee, the four 
pending matters would not be voted on, which would include the proposal 
I offered, the proposal of the Senator from Illinois, and the proposal 
of the Senator from Pennsylvania, who will speak last, and as Senator 
Kennedy mentioned, his as well. I want my colleagues to know this is 
being done by the four of us in an effort to try to get finished here 
very soon.
  It seems to me we ought to take one lesson from what has occurred 
here tonight, which is that those of us who wish to bring amendments to 
the floor, to have them debated and voted on, who I think have every 
right to have those amendments voted on, will have to in the future 
offer these amendments at a different time in the process. I hope my 
colleagues will recognize that when we do that, it is for the purpose 
of getting that vote.
  I think my colleagues would have to agree that the process followed 
here tonight was not fair and the only reason I have withdrawn the 
amendment I proposed was so we can complete action. Rest assured that 
the proposal will be back and my colleagues will have an opportunity to 
vote on it in the future.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania 
2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is controlled by the minority 
manager.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, in the interest of fostering this 
bipartisan feeling that has been so prevalent throughout these 4 days, 
I will yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania for 2 minutes.


                           amendment no. 2853

  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. President, I send my 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 Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2853.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send this documentation in support of 
the amendment to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that it be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                           CANDIDATE KERRY'S BUDGET PROPOSALS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Year 1          Year 2          Year 3          Year 4          Year 5        5-yr total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax Proposals:
    Repeal EGTRRA/JGTRAA provisions to raise taxes on               26.3            44.5            46.4            51.0            55.2           223.4
     folks AGI >200k....................................
    Close loopholes/eliminate subsidies.................             0.0            20.0            20.0            20.0            20.0            80.0
    Extend other EGTRRA/JGTRRA provisions...............           -12.3           -20.2           -18.6           -14.6           -11.5           -77.2
    Outlays from EGTRRA/JGTRRA provisions...............             0.0            -4.8            -4.5            -4.5            -4.5           -18.3
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, tax proposals...........................            14.0            39.5            43.3            51.9            59.2           207.9
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Spending Proposals:
    State tax relief--920 (disc)........................           -25.0           -25.0             0.0             0.0             0.0           -50.0
    Health care--550....................................           -89.5           -89.5           -89.5           -89.5           -89.5          -447.5
    Homeland--450 (disc)................................             0.0            -5.0            -5.0            -5.0            -5.0           -20.0
    Jobs programs--500 (disc)...........................             0.0           -10.0           -10.0           -10.0           -10.0           -40.0
    No child left behind--500 (disc)....................             0.0            -8.0            -8.0            -8.0            -8.0           -32.0
    Special education--500 (disc).......................             0.0           -12.0           -12.0           -12.0           -12.0           -48.0
    College education--500 (disc).......................             0.0            -3.5            -3.5            -3.5            -3.5           -14.0
    Energy & environment--300 (disc)....................             0.0            -3.5            -3.5            -3.5            -3.5           -14.0
    Global AIDS--150 (disc).............................            -7.5            -7.5            -7.5            -7.5             0.0           -30.0
    Veterans' health--700...............................            -8.2            -8.2            -8.2            -8.2            -8.2           -41.0
    Transportation--400 (disc)..........................             0.0            -7.0            -8.0            -8.0            -8.0           -31.0
    Housing--600 (disc).................................             0.0            -1.0            -1.0            -1.0            -1.0            -4.0
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Kerry spending..........................          -130.2          -180.2          -156.2          -156.2          -148.7          -771.5

[[Page S2683]]

 
    Add back--freeze to inflated baseline--920..........           -13.4           -27.6           -45.1           -65.4           -87.3          -238.7
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, spending proposals for amendment........          -143.6          -207.8          -201.3          -221.6          -236.0         -1010.2
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Kerry, Deficit Impact w/o debt serv.....................           116.2           140.7           112.9           104.3            89.5           563.6
                                                         ===============================================================================================
For amendment:
    Total 150 (disc)....................................            -7.5            -7.5            -7.5            -7.5             0.0           -30.0
    Total 300 (disc)....................................             0.0            -3.5            -3.5            -3.5            -3.5           -14.0
    Total 400 (disc)....................................             0.0            -7.0            -8.0            -8.0            -8.0           -31.0
    Total 450 (disc)....................................             0.0            -5.0            -5.0            -5.0            -5.0           -20.0
    Total 500 (disc)....................................             0.0           -33.5           -33.5           -33.5           -33.5          -134.0
    Total 550...........................................           -89.5           -89.5           -89.5           -89.5           -89.5          -447.5
    Total 600 (disc)....................................             0.0            -1.0            -1.0            -1.0            -1.0            -4.0
    Total 700...........................................            -8.2            -8.2            -8.2            -8.2            -8.2           -41.0
    Total 920 (disc)....................................           -38.4           -52.6           -45.1           -65.4           -87.3          -288.7
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, spending proposals......................          -143.6          -207.8          -201.3          -221.6          -236.0         -1010.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Washington Post, Kerry's Spending, Tax Plans Fall Short, February 29, 2004; Joint Committee on Taxation; National Taxpayers' Union;
  JohnKerry.com; LA Times, May 25, 2003.


                                                          NUMBERS TO WRITE IN BUDGET RESOLUTION
                                          [Show all numbers as positive--use on-budget changes and totals only]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2005            2006            2007            2008            2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)(A) Level of Federal Revenus: Write      ...............      38,296.000      79,080.000      69,123.000      76,240.000      88,626.000      351,365
 increase if positive/decrease if negative.
(1)(B) Change in Revenues: Write increase   ...............      38,296.000      79,080.000      69,123.000      76,240.000      88,626.000  ...........
 if positive/decrease if negative and add
 ``reduction in revenues''.
(2) New Budget Authority (function          ...............     151,052.136     221,280.576     223,955.256     252,798.059     276,318.737    1,125,405
 spending + interest): Write ``increase''
 or ``decrease''.
(3) Budget Outlays (function spending +     ...............     145,439.136     215,107.576     216,217.256     244,706.059     267,907.737    1,089,378
 interest): Write ``increase'' or
 decrease''.
(4) Deficits: To make deficit smaller,      ...............     107,143.136     136,027.576     147,094.256     168,466.059     179,281.737      738,013
 increase by positive number, To make
 deficit bigger, decrease by positive
 number.
(5) Public Debt: Write ``increase'' or      ...............     107,143.136     243,170.712     390,264.968     558,731.027     738,012.764    2,037,323
 decrease'' but show as positive.
(6) Debt Held by the Public: Write          ...............     107,143.136     243,170.712     390,264.968     558,731.027     738,012.764  ...........
 ``increase'' or decrease'' but show as
 positive.
103 Function BA and O: Write ``increase''
 or decrease'' but show as positive:
    Fct. 050..............................  BA                        0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000  ...........
                                            O                         0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000  ...........
    Fct. 150..............................  BA                    7,500.000       7,500.000       7,500.000       7,500.000           0.000
                                            O                     7,500.000       7,500.000       7,500.000       7,500.000           0.000  ...........
    Fct. 250..............................  BA                        0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000  ...........
                                            O                         0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000  ...........
    Fct. 270..............................  BA                        0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000  ...........
                                            O                         0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000  ...........
    Fct. 300..............................  BA                        0.000       3,500.000       3,500.000       3,500.000       3,500.000  ...........
                                            O                         0.000       3,500.000       3,500.000       3,500.000       3,500.000  ...........
    Fct. 350..............................  BA                        0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000  ...........
                                            O                         0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000  ...........
    Fct. 370..............................  BA                        0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000  ...........
                                            O                         0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000  ...........
    Fct. 400..............................  BA                        0.000       7,000.000       8,000.000       8,000.000       8,000.000  ...........
                                            O                         0.000       7,000.000       8,000.000       8,000.000       8,000.000  ...........
    Fct. 450..............................  BA                        0.000       5,000.000       5,000.000       5,000.000       5,000.000  ...........
                                            O                         0.000       5,000.000       5,000.000       5,000.000       5,000.000  ...........
    Fct. 500..............................  BA                        0.000      33,500.000      33,500.000      33,500.000      33,500.000  ...........
                                            O                         0.000      33,500.000      33,500.000      33,500.000      33,500.000  ...........
    Fct. 550..............................  BA                   89,500.000      89,500.000      89,500.000      89,500.000      89,500.000  ...........
                                            O                    89,500.000      89,500.000      89,500.000      89,500.000      89,500.000  ...........
    Fct. 570..............................  BA                        0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000  ...........
                                            O                         0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000  ...........
    Fct. 600..............................  BA                        0.000       1,000.000       1,000.000       1,000.000       1,000.000  ...........
                                            O                         0.000       1,000.000       1,000.000       1,000.000       1,000.000  ...........
    Fct. 700..............................  BA                    8,200.000       8,200.000       8,200.000       8,200.000       8,200.000  ...........
                                            O                     8,200.000       8,200.000       8,200.000       8,200.000       8,200.000  ...........
    Fct. 750..............................  BA                        0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000  ...........
                                            0                         0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000  ...........
    Fct. 800..............................  BA                        0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000  ...........
                                            0                         0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000  ...........
    Fct. 900..............................  BA                    1,884.136       7,298.576      14,926.256      23,145.059      31,897.737  ...........
                                            0                     1,884.136       7,298.576      14,926.256      23,145.059      31,897.737  ...........
    Fct. 920..............................  BA                   43,968.000      58,782.000      52,829.000      73,453.000      95,721.000  ...........
                                            O                    38,355.000      52,609.000      45,091.000      65,361.000      87,310.000  ...........
    Fct. 950 (Write increase or decrease    BA                        0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000  ...........
     reduction in receipts).
                                            O                         0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000           0.000  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, what I sent to the desk was a budget as 
proposed by Senator Kerry. This is a combination of the documentation 
from the L.A. Times, Washington Post, and other sources, of the 
proposals he has made with respect to this year's budget.
  For the information of Members, the proposal reflects 129 different 
line items in the budget, of which 124 are increases and 5 are 
decreases. As a result of the proposals put forth by Senator Kerry, 
taxes would be raised on the American people $351 billion over the next 
5 years.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not control the time.
  Mr. SANTORUM. If I may continue, Mr. President. The Government would 
spend $1.89 trillion more over the next 5 years and borrow $738 billion 
more. In other words, the deficit would be $738 billion more under the 
proposals put forth by Senator Kerry. When asked about that, his 
campaign said they have more refinements to do.
  The bottom line is what we have proposed is a responsible budget to 
cut the deficit in half over the next 3 years, and what the Senator 
from Massachusetts is offering around the country is a budget that 
would increase the deficit by $738 billion, increase taxes on the 
American people by $350 billion, and increase spending in Washington, 
DC, by almost $1.1 trillion.


                     Amendment No. 2853, Withdrawn

  I would love to have had a vote on the amendment. But in the spirit 
of comity that we have here at quarter of 1 in the morning, I will 
withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is 
withdrawn.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have the Bush budget and I could send 
that to the desk. I am the only one who has time remaining here 
tonight. I would say to my colleagues, I have 300 charts, and I would 
be willing to go through all of them tonight, talking about the 
deficiencies of the Bush budget.
  Let's just start with the debt that is being added and put on the 
American people by the Bush budget: $3 trillion of additional debt in 
just the next 5 years when we already have record budget deficits--the 
biggest budget deficit in the history of the country. The President is 
asking us to take $2.4 trillion from Social Security--every penny of 
Social Security surplus--over the next 10 years and use it to pay for 
income tax cuts primarily directed to the wealthiest among us.

[[Page S2684]]

  We could go on and on and on about the deficiencies of this budget: a 
94-percent cut in the COPS Program; a 60- percent cut in port security 
at a time when our security is at risk; a 33-percent cut to 
firefighters.
  We could have an extended and lengthy discussion about the 
deficiencies of the Bush budget. We could go through the entire history 
of this President, who told us 3 years ago that we could have massive 
tax cuts and we would still have no budget deficits. He told us at the 
time he would completely protect Social Security, not taking it to use 
for other purposes, and now he takes $2.4 trillion, violating that 
pledge.
  We could go to his statement in the next year in which he promised us 
that the deficits would be small and short-term. Instead, now we see 
the biggest deficits in the history of our country.
  Then we could go to the third year, when the President told us the 
deficits would be small by historical standards. Instead of being 
small, they are the biggest deficits in the history of the United 
States.

  Now he has told us the deficit will be cut in half if only we adopt 
his budget. Let me say to my colleagues, the only way he gets that is 
he leaves out big chunks of Federal expenditures.
  First, he says there is no cost for the war past September 30. None. 
Does anybody believe that? There is no cost for Iraq, there is no cost 
for Afghanistan, there is no additional cost for the war on terror?
  The Congressional Budget Office says there is $280 billion of 
residual costs. Not one penny of it is in the President's budget.
  I could go on and on about the deficiencies of this budget. I will 
not send the Bush budget to the desk. I will not ask for a vote. In the 
interest of the good tone that has been set, and out of friendship and 
respect for the chairman who has conducted himself in a most honorable 
and decent way, I ask that we go to final passage.
  I also yield, again in the spirit of bipartisanship, 3 minutes to the 
chairman of the Budget Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank all of our colleagues. I knew 
that we were attempting a lot to try to finish this tonight. I knew we 
would have a lot of votes and, I say to Senator Byrd, I knew it would 
not be easy. I thank Senator Byrd for his help. I thank all colleagues 
for their patience. With a little exception in the last hour, this has 
been managed quite well.
  I thank my friend and colleague, Senator Conrad, for his work. We 
have handled I don't know how many amendments. I think we voted on 15, 
16 amendments today. We had a lot of cooperation. We got a lot of good 
work accomplished. We have a budget which we are ready to pass that 
will cut the deficit in half in 3 years.
  I thank our colleagues. I thank Senator Conrad's staff; Mary Naylor, 
Sue Nelson, and his entire team, as well as Hazen Marshall, Stacey 
Hughes, and my entire team. They worked endless hours.
  I urge adoption of the resolution. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                          mental health parity

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to begin by complimenting my 
friend from Oklahoma and the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee on 
a job well done. He has skillfully navigated a difficult course to 
produce the Budget Resolution before us today. Congratulations.
  I also want to tell him that even though he has served as the 
Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee for only two short years, he 
has set a very high bar for future Chairmen to meet.
  I would like to raise the issue of mental health parity as the Senate 
debates the FY 2005 Senate Budget Resolution.
  It is my understanding the Resolution before us assumes the revenue 
impact of enacting a mental health parity law at a cost of $2.3 billion 
over five years. However, I want to make sure that this is indeed the 
case because the assumption I just mentioned is not specifically 
referenced in S. Con. Res. 95. Rather, the overall revenue number is 
such that it assumes Congress will pass mental health parity 
legislation.
  Mr. NICKLES. I understand the concern of the distinguished senior 
Senator from New Mexico regarding mental health parity legislation and 
I would concur with my colleague's assessment. S. Con. Res. 95 does 
assume the revenue impact of enacting mental health parity legislation.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Chairman for his 
consideration and explanation of this important matter.


                             AMTRAK FUNDING

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am aware that some of my colleagues are 
concerned about budgeting sufficient funding for Amtrak. I would like 
to point out that this budget does not specifically provide sufficient 
funding for the continuing operations of Amtrak, our Nation's intercity 
passenger rail carrier. The President's budget this year proposes $900 
million for Amtrak, an amount generally and widely considered to be 
insufficient to safely operate the railroad; it would likely have to be 
shut down. Amtrak officials have stated that $1.798 billion would 
sufficiently fund their operations and capital needs in fiscal year 
2005. This amount would help Amtrak return to a good state-of-repair, 
and let them provide safe, reliable service. Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation Committee Ranking Member Hollings has shown great 
leadership as a supporter of passenger rail service in our country, and 
I want him and others to know that we are not endorsing the President's 
budget request for Amtrak.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member of the Budget 
Committee. His hard work in highlighting shortcomings in the 
President's budget is truly commendable. As my friend from North Dakota 
states, I feel it is important to recognize the need for adequate 
funding for Amtrak. Earlier this year, the Senate passed S. 1072, the 
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 
2004, SAFE-TEA, which reauthorized many Federal surface transportation 
programs. As part of that reauthorization package, we authorized $2 
billion per year for Amtrak for 6 years. The Senate recognized that 
funding for Amtrak is a priority. Rail travel provides passengers an 
alternative to air travel and driving, and the benefits are numerous. 
Ridership on Amtrak trains totaled over 24 million last year. I am 
certain we will not allow funding for this important service to fall 
below adequate levels requested by Amtrak President and CEO David Gunn, 
who has made such great progress recently. It is important that we 
maintain the critical momentum he has established.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, my good friend from South Carolina, 
the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation, has been a tireless and influential advocate for 
passenger rail, and his leadership is unparalleled on this issue. 
Although my friend Senator Conrad, the ranking member on the Senate 
Budget Committee, has pointed out that this budget does not explicitly 
provide for adequate funding for Amtrak, I am hopeful that Senator 
Hollings' efforts will lead to a long-term funding source for the 
railroad so that it may finally take advantage of efficient, multi-year 
planning and realize additional efficiencies on its system. The attacks 
on 9/11 taught us a valuable lesson concerning transportation options, 
and we need to heed that lesson so we do not find ourselves in a 
situation again where options for travelers are severely limited and 
our economy suffers because of it.
  Last year, the Congress appropriated $1.2 billion for Amtrak--the 
highest amount ever. Also last year, Amtrak carried over 24 million 
passengers--their highest amount ever. I am quite certain this is no 
coincidence. It is also no coincidence that this record was achieved 
during the first full year under the leadership of Mr. Gunn. He is 
doing a remarkable job of improving the reliability of the railroad, 
and his success is a success shared by our Nation as a whole.
  In the meantime, given the funding levels we are finally providing to 
Amtrak, I am pleased that my colleagues are seeing that we can no 
longer nickel-and-dime our national passenger railroad. I hope that we 
can do the right thing to continue to ensure that

[[Page S2685]]

Amtrak is given the resources it needs to continue on its path to a 
state-of-good-repair.


                             yucca mountain

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an issue 
that has come up during this year's budget debate regarding the nuclear 
waste disposal fund and Yucca Mountain. I am glad to see that my 
friends, Majority Leader Frist and Chairman Nickles, are on the floor 
to discuss this issue with me.
  Let me start by explaining that the President requests $880 million 
this year in his budget for the nuclear waste repository at Yucca 
Mountain. Of that amount, $131 million is provided in discretionary 
appropriations under the proposed discretionary cap in the same manner 
as last year. However, $749 million of this amount is funded by a new 
proposal that will require a change in law. This change in law would 
take receipts that now go to the nuclear waste disposal fund and use 
them to pay for activities at Yucca Mountain. Let me be clear, that 
without this law change, the President's budget only provides $131 
million for Yucca Mountain under the proposed discretionary cap.
  Now let me turn to the Senate budget resolution. This year's 
resolution assumes discretionary appropriations of $577 million for 
Yucca Mountain in 2005, which is same level that was enacted in 2004. 
It should also be noted that the resolution does not assume the change 
in law with respect to the nuclear waste disposal fund receipts. I ask 
Chairman, Nickles, I am wondering if the Senator could confirm that I 
am correct in my description of the budget resolution.
  Mr. NICKLES. Yes, Senator Domenici is correct in his statement.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank Chairman Nickles. I want to explain why there 
is a problem. It appears that in the budget resolution and probably 
throughout the rest of the year, we will live within the President's 
proposed discretionary cap. But within the President's proposed cap 
level, only $131 million is assumed for Yucca Mountain if the law 
change is not enacted. However, the administration and many in Congress 
still expect that we will provide funding for Yucca Mountain above $131 
million in the Energy and water development appropriations bill. Under 
this scenario, the Energy and water bill finds itself in the hole by at 
least $303 million, which is the difference between what is assumed in 
the Senate budget resolution and what the President has requested for 
Yucca Mountain, and by as much as $749 million if the allocation to my 
subcommittee were only to include the President's requested amount of 
$131 million.
  In order to support this budget resolution, I need to have confidence 
that I will have the resources available to the Energy and water 
appropriations bill to provide funding for Yucca Mountain without 
having to take funds out of other programs in the Energy and water bill 
such as the Corps, DOE civilian science, and DOE labs.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank Senate Domenici for his statement. This is a 
tough issue, and I want him to know that I understand the dilemma he is 
facing. I appreciate his willingness to work with me on this, and I 
give him my commitment to support a level of discretionary funding in 
the budget resolution conference report and throughout the rest of the 
year that will provide the resources necessary for his committee to 
fund Yucca Mountain without having to take resources from the other 
programs in the Energy and water bill if the President's law change is 
not enacted.
  Mr. FRIST. I thank Senator Domenici and Senator Nickles for working 
so hard to resolve this issue. I understand the difficult position that 
Senator Domenici finds himself in this year with regard to Yucca 
Mountain. I want him to know that he has my support in getting the 
necessary resources for Yucca Mountain in the Energy and water 
appropriations bill without having to take funding from other programs 
in the bill if the President's proposed law change is not enacted.
  (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join Mr. Bingaman in offering an 
amendment to the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution that helps small 
businesses by restoring, and in some cases reasonably increasing above 
fiscal year 2004 appropriated levels, funding cuts proposed by 
President Bush for the Small Business Administration.
  The President's budget requests 15 percent less in funding for the 
SBA than requested last year, while promising more assistance in 
lending and counseling. For example, the budget request claims to save 
taxpayers $100 million by cutting all funding for the SBA's largest 
small business lending program, while at the same time claiming to 
increasing access to loans by 30 percent. Sound familiar? It should. 
The President proposed eliminating all funding for these small business 
loans his first year in office, that time shifting the more than $100 
million in funding to borrowers and lenders by increasing fees, fees 
that the General Accounting Office exposed as excessive for 8 years. 
The administration wanted to overcharge them even more. We in Congress 
rejected it. This time the President has proposed paying for it through 
accounting and program gimmicks that are unworkable and the small 
business community and small business lenders have rejected.
  We are all in favor of more efficient and cost-effective government, 
but the SBA's 7(a) loan program does not need fixing. It already is 
structured to provide long-term loans to small business at a cost of 
about 1 percent. That is one Federal dollar generating $99, an 
excellent bang for the buck! This valuable resource just needs 
reasonable funding. The problems over the past four years have all been 
created by unreasonable budgets, propped up by funding schemes that 
never materialize and create unnecessary instability in the delivery of 
capital for small businesses.
  Today we are trying to address the needs of small businesses next 
year, fiscal year 2005, to prevent the same funding crises that we have 
experienced in the SBA small business loans year after year. If the 
President's fiscal year 2005 Budget for the SBA is adopted, there will 
be zero funding for the SBA's largest loan program, which provides 
about 40 percent of all long-term capital to small businesses in this 
country; termination of all micro-entrepreneur loans and complementary 
business training; termination of ten of 20 small business counseling 
and development programs, including assistance to Native Americans and 
Women's Business Centers.
  For the SBA's counseling and business development programs, this is 
the most damaging budget the President has proposed in four years. Cuts 
to or inadequate funding of these programs are routinely attributed to 
vague and unfounded claims of duplication. Such claims mistake a common 
mission of training and counseling for duplication, ignoring the 
reality that small businesses vary greatly and have different needs. 
Just as it would be ineffective to have only one type of loan or 
venture capital financing structure for 23 million small businesses in 
this country, it would be ineffective to water down specialized 
management and training programs to impose counseling and training 
assistance, most are grant programs that have cost-sharing components 
with state and local entities, such as matching grants, so they 
leverage more for the small businesses than the face value of the 
Federal grant.
  Without funding, budget gimmicks will force borrowers to face higher 
fees or lack of access to affordable capital; high interest credit card 
loans; higher bankruptcies because they go into business with 
inordinately high debt or can't get counseling to survive the rough 
times. At worst, because the most damaging budget gimmick attacks the 
small businesses' source of more than 40 percent of long-term loans, it 
is very possible that, together with the overall cuts, the Agency would 
be little more than an insurance agency for cookie-cutter loans made by 
a handful of large banks in only a fraction of the states and areas now 
served, or closing its doors within a couple of years.
  This amendment also takes a step in the right direction for restoring 
funding to the New Markets Venture Capital initiative that was 
rescinded in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill: $10.5 
million for guaranteed debentures, and $13.75 million in grants for 
NMVC technical assistance. That

[[Page S2686]]

money was reserved for a second round of funding, and our Committee had 
an agreement with the SBA that it would offer that round in the fall of 
2002. However, as companies spent significant money and time to begin 
preparing proposals, SBA broke the agreement and did not issue a 
solicitation for the second round of funding. Because the $24.25 
million reserved for a second round of funding was not obligated, it 
was available to be rescinded and it was rescinded as part of the 
fiscal year 2003 appropriations process. New markets venture capital is 
important for developing public-private partnerships to invest in areas 
with high unemployment where the private sector rarely invests. This 
amendment helps restore some of the critically needed New Markets 
Venture Capital funds.
  The amendment I am offering with Mr. Bingaman takes a reasonable 
approach. In general, the $171 million paid for in this amendment 
restores funding to programs that are critical to small business 
development and job creation in our towns and cities.
  The $171 million results from:
  Adding $101m to the 7(a) Loan Program (zero-funded).
  Adding $3m to the Microloan Program (terminated).
  Adding $25m to the Microloan Technical Assistance Program 
(terminated).
  Adding $8m to the Program for Investment in Microentrepreneurs 
(PRIME) (terminated).
  Adding $2m to Native American Outreach Program (terminated).
  Adding $3.5m to Export Assistance Centers Program (terminated).
  Adding $3m to the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) FAST 
Program (terminated).
  Adding $1m to the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Rural 
Outreach Program (terminated).
  Adding $2m to the New Markets Venture Capital Program (zero-funded)
  Adding $3m to the New Markets Technical Assistance Grants Program 
(zero-funded).
  Adding $1.5m to the Women's Business Centers Program (increases 
funding to $13.5m).
  Adding $17m to the Small Business Development Centers (increases 
funding to $105m).
  Adding $500k to the 7(j)/8(a) Programs (increases funding to $2m).
  Adding $250k to the Veterans' Outreach Program (increases funding to 
$1m).
  Adding $250k to Small Disadvantaged Business Program (increases 
funding to $1.75m)
  Americans need jobs. And many who have them are scared of losing 
them. Adequately funding public-private partnerships of the SBA is one 
of the fastest ways to fuel the economy, creating businesses, creating 
jobs, and improving the innovation of this country. I ask my colleagues 
to vote for this amendment.


                           amendment no. 2759

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I speak on Senate amendment 2759, which 
Senator Kohl and I introduced to restore juvenile justice funding to 
the Department of Justice. The proposed amendment would increase the 
administration of justice function by $122 million and offset the 
allowances function of the budget.
  The prevalence of justice crime continues to be among the greatest 
criminal justice challenges faced by our nation, and a major concern to 
every parent. In 2002, juveniles accounted for 16.5 percent of all 
criminal arrests in the United States. Persons under 18 committed 10 
percent of all murders, over 17 percent of all rapes, nearly 24 percent 
of all robberies, and 50 percent of all arsons. Additionally, in 2002, 
101 juveniles under 15 were arrested for murder. Juveniles under 15 
were responsible for six percent of all rapes, 11 percent of all 
burglaries, and one-third of all arsons. And, unbelievably, juveniles 
under 15--who are not old enough to legally drive in any state--in 2002 
were responsible for 8 percent of all auto thefts.
  To put this in some context, consider this: in 2002, youngsters age 
15 to 18, who are only seven percent of the population, committed 16.5 
percent of all crimes. Even with recent modest reductions in the 
juvenile crime rate, I believe that there is strong potential for 
significant increases in juvenile crime above already too-high rates as 
the children of the baby boom generation are coming into the prime age 
for criminal activity.
  The national juvenile crime problem required a change in the Federal 
approach, which the Congress addressed in the 107th Congress. As one of 
the primary authors of the reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 which passed last Congress, I 
focused this act works on reducing juvenile delinquency while 
adequately addressing the needs of juvenile offenders. Moreover, those 
reforms made federal policy on juvenile crime consistent with the 
realities of the problem.
  As part of the reauthorization, we restructured juvenile justice 
assistance programs, including the Juvenile Accountability Incentive 
Block Grant, JABG, Program. The reauthorization reformed the federal 
role in the nation's juvenile justice system by providing relief from 
burdensome federal mandates and authorizing block grant assistance to 
states and local governments, which includes accountability-based 
juvenile justice programs. These grants have been successful in 
reducing the recidivism rate of juveniles by up to 70%.
  Another major component of juvenile assistance, delinquency 
prevention, was also strengthened in the reauthorization. Delinquency 
prevention funding supports valuable mentoring programs, after school 
programs, therapy and other services for troubled children. These 
programs offer education and community activities to deter children 
from drugs, gangs, and other opportunities to engage in criminal 
behavior.
  The authorization strengthened the act, and authorized it at $350 
million each year.
  Despite Congressional authorization, the President has requested 
drastically reduced levels for juvenile justice for the past 3 years. 
Overall funding has been cut by almost two-thirds. According to the 
President's budget request for Fiscal Year 2005, juvenile justice 
programs are to receive $150 million less than the congressionally-
authorized amount. The Kohl-Hatch amendment would restore juvenile 
justice funding to the same level it was in Fiscal Year 2004--$320 
million which is still under the authorized amount.
  I urge my colleagues to support this much needed amendment to the 
Budget Resolution. We must put stock in our children and help them stay 
away from a life of crime.


                           amendment no. 2771

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I discuss Senate Amendment 2771, an 
amendment I propose to the budget resolution. This amendment seeks to 
restore $600 million to the Department of Justice's Office of Justice 
Programs for law enforcement assistance.
  The Office of Justice Assistance provides grants to the states and 
localities to aid law enforcement officers in the fight against crime. 
In addition to the COPS Office grants, the Office of Justice Programs 
offers states the Byrne Grant program and the Local Law Enforcement 
Block Grant, LLEBG Program, both of which have dramatically increased 
the capabilities and effectiveness of state and local law enforcement 
agencies.
  Despite this tremendous help to our states, the President has not 
requested any money specifically for the Byrne Grant program or the 
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, LLEBG program in the Fiscal Year 
2005 budget request. As he has done for the past 2 years, the President 
proposes, and the budget resolution recommends, to consolidate these 
grant programs into one Justice Assistance Grant Program. However, in 
the process of consolidation, the new proposal seeks to eliminate a 
number of components of these grant programs. In addition, the budget 
proposes to reduce funding for COPS, thus reducing overall law 
enforcement assistance funding by 63 percent, or just over $1.035 
billion.
  The Byrne Grant program funds a number of successful crime reduction 
programs and is the Department of Justice's most flexible assistance 
account. Without these funds, many states would not be able to focus 
their resources at or operate specific programs. For example, in my own 
state of Utah, Byrne Grants provide the majority of funding for 
multijurisdictional drug task forces and DARE training. I am concerned 
that without these task forces, Utah's ability to wage the war against 
drugs would be seriously diminished.

[[Page S2687]]

  Byrne Grants assist many states in controlling and preventing drug 
abuse, crime, and violence, and in improving the functioning of the 
criminal justice system. Currently, Byrne Grants have 29 specific 
purpose areas to combat drugs, gangs, financial and white collar 
crimes, and to improve the court system, the correctional facilities, 
and forensic capabilities. The proposed Justice Assistance Grant would 
only have six purpose areas. Many functions covered under the Byrne 
grants would no longer be eligible for much needed funds.
  The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program has also been 
successful by offering state and local law enforcement agencies the 
ability to hire officers and purchase needed equipment. These programs 
have made it possible for local police and sheriffs departments to 
acquire efficiency-enhancing technology and equipment. Without these 
funds, our law enforcement offices would loose valuable equipment which 
has been able to enhance their crime fighting objectives.
  My amendment seeks to restore local law enforcement assistance back 
to the Fiscal Year 2004 level. In order to do this, I am requesting 
that the offset come from function 800 in the budget resolution, 
general Government.
  As many of you know, the Department of Treasury is funded under this 
function. The Department of Treasury has $11.658 billion in 
discretionary budget authority for Fiscal Year 2005. In Fiscal Year 
2001, the Department of Treasury had $10.332 billion in discretionary 
budget authority.
  I recognize the needs of the Internal Revenue Service to modernize 
its systems, to fight abusive tax shelters, to reduce the tax gap, and 
to provide service to taxpayers. However, despite the increased needs 
of the IRS, because of the reorganization the Department of Treasury 
has lost two major components since 2001--the United States Secret 
Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. These two 
agencies had a combined budget of $1.584 billion in Fiscal Year 2001.
  With a significant reduction in resources, one would imagine that the 
Department of Treasury's budget would have significantly decreased as 
well. However, instead of seeing a decrease in budget authority, of at 
least $1.584 billion, the Department of Treasury's budget has continued 
to increase since Fiscal Year 2001.
  In light of this, my amendment proposes to offset funds for the 
Office of Justice Programs with funds from Treasury that previously 
went towards major law enforcement agencies.
  I hope that the appropriators will continue to fund the Byrne Grants 
and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants at the same level they have 
in the past. However, there will not be room in the budget for them to 
do so unless my amendment passes.
  These highly successful and popular programs provide needed 
assistance to state and local law enforcement for a wide variety of 
programs and services. Eliminating these programs represents a severe 
blow to federal efforts to assist our communities in the war against 
crime.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.


                           amendment no. 2793

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to discuss Senator Dorgan's 
amendment to S. Con. Res. 95, the budget resolution. Although I am 
highly supportive of increased funding for law enforcement assistance, 
I cannot support this amendment. This amendment proposes to reduce 
unnecessarily the tax cut in order to achieve the important goal of 
enhancing law enforcement efforts.
  As I have stated before, I am supportive of existing Federal 
assistance to law enforcement officers, such as the Byrne grants, the 
Local Law Enforcement Block grants, and the COPS grants. These highly 
successful, effective and popular programs provide needed assistance to 
state and local law enforcement for a wide variety of programs and 
services.
  Eliminating funding for these programs represents a severe blow to 
communities and neighborhoods across the country desperately in need of 
Federal resources to win the war against crime. In fact, I have filed 
my own amendment--with Senator Biden's support--to restore the Office 
of Justice Programs' law enforcement assistance to the same level as 
that in Fiscal Year 2004. However, my amendment does not reduce the tax 
cut. It simply allocates funds from other areas of the budget.
  That being said, I cannot vote for a reduction in the tax cut. A $2.2 
billion reduction in the tax cut affecting the top 1 percent of 
taxpayers may seem like a good idea to some. However, as many Senators 
on my side of the aisle have pointed out, a high percentage of small 
businesses pay taxes at the individual level, not as corporations. 
These include sole proprietorships, partnerships, S corporations, and 
limited liability companies. Smaller businesses are the engine of job 
creation in this country. Why in the world, during this time when jobs 
are very much needed, would we want to harm the potential for some of 
these businesses to expand and create more jobs?
  Under today's law, the top individual tax rate is 35 percent, the 
same tax rate that corporations pay. Because so many privately-held 
businesses do pay tax at the individual and not the corporate rate, it 
is important that we keep this parity in the tax law. This amendment 
would raise the individual rate above the corporate rate and once again 
introduce a disparity in the tax rates on businesses in this country. 
This would be poor public policy so I must oppose it.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment which 
does not affect the tax cut, and not to support Senator Dorgan's 
amendment.


                           amendment no. 2783

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Boxer amendment purports to deal 
with the loss of manufacturing jobs and the outsourcing problem. If 
some on the other side want to do something about manufacturing jobs, 
they should stop obstructing the FSC/ETI bill with poison pill 
political amendments. When we come back after next week, I'd ask those 
on the other side to put results ahead of politics and let us finish 
the bipartisan JOBS bill.
  This amendment, on the other hand, just suggests that the Finance 
Committee repeal the tax policy of deferral and raise taxes on small 
manufacturers. The tax policy of deferral insures that American 
companies like Intel and Hewlett-Packard, compete on a level playing 
field with foreign companies. Eliminating deferral means U.S. companies 
will face a tax burden that is not shared by Japanese, German, British 
or other competing companies.
  The Boxer amendment, though styled as a tax increase on the wealthy, 
contains a tax increase on our small business manufacturers. It would 
reverse the bipartisan Finance Committee bill's lower rate for 
manufacturers. Instead of 32 percent, small business manufacturers tax 
rates would be raised to a level higher than what the Fortune 500 pay.
  If you care about manufacturing jobs, why would you punish our 
manufacturers by raising their marginal tax rates? If you care about 
manufacturing jobs, help us get the FSC/ETI bill passed and don't raise 
taxes on manufacturers.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Boxer amendment.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, like a lot of my colleagues this week, I 
have been visited here in Washington by a number of my constituents.
  We get to hear, first hand, about the lives of the people we 
represent, about how we can help them or hurt them.
  As we debated the budget this week, a couple of those meetings really 
stood out in my mind. When I met with Delaware's League of Local 
Governments, their top priority was increased funding for public safety 
and homeland security. These are the mayors and county executives from 
my State, the public officials closest to the needs of our communities.
  They came to tell us that they need more cops on the beat, they need 
more resources and more attention from us here in Washington to deal 
with the security of the chemical plants in their towns, to name just 
one important example.
  As they brought this message to us here in Washington, not just to me 
but to all of us in the Congress, we were presented with this budget 
resolution, that cuts 30 percent from the support for first responders, 
the very fire fighters and police officers that we so often pay lip 
service to. Lip service is all they get from this budget.
  I joined with my colleagues in offering an amendment to restore and 
increase funding for homeland security,

[[Page S2688]]

in keeping with the message we heard this week from our State and local 
officials. But that amendment was rejected, because it would have taken 
a small amount from the tax cuts--just a small amount--from the tax 
cuts going to those with the top 1 percent of incomes in this country.
  I offered an amendment during the budget debate to restore funds cut 
from the COPS Program, that has put more policemen and women on the 
streets of towns and cities in Delaware and across the country. This 
budget, in a false economy, had reduced funding for law enforcement 
grants by over 60 percent.
  My amendment would have restored a billion dollars to the COPS 
program, the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, and the Byrne program. 
And it would have taken an additional 1 billion dollars off of the 
deficit.
  Those amendments were rejected to protect the tax cuts that go to the 
top 1 percent of income earners in this country. Those are not the 
priorities of the local government officials who came here this week 
looking for help to strengthen public safety in their communities.
  But that is the top priority of this budget resolution: sacrificing 
every other priority to avoid shaving barely 1 percent off of a tax cut 
that will total $690 billion dollars for people in the top 1 percent 
income level in this country over the next 10 years.
  I also had the pleasure of meeting with the American Legion of 
Delaware this week. It is always moving, and a little humbling, to meet 
with the men and women who have given so much to this country. But 
these days, with so many of our troops still in the field, these 
meetings have even more meaning.
  I know that a lot of my colleagues met with their veterans this week, 
too, and that they heard the same thing I did: health care is their top 
priority. This budget makes it harder for veterans to get health care, 
and makes it more expensive.
  We offered amendments this week to add $2.7 billion to this budget 
for veterans' health care, and to pay for it by shaving less than 1 
half of 1 percent off of the tax cuts for those in the top 1 percent of 
income earners in this country. That amendment was rejected, too.
  To prevent a tiny reduction in the tax breaks for those who have the 
most we refused to add funds for veterans' health care.
  In the debate this week on the budget resolution we made fundamental 
choices, and those choices revealed the principles, the values, that 
will guide us for the rest of this legislative session, and for years 
to come.
  The values in this budget are not those of the local officials who 
came to see me this week. They are not the values of the veterans who 
came to town, either. And they are not my values.
  When you write a budget, you have to put your money where your mouth 
is. At the end of the day, you have to be willing to make the choices--
you have to set the priorities. And at the end of the day, those 
priorities, those values, will be written in black and white--and in 
the gallons of red ink in this budget resolution.
  The statement made by this budget is one that I categorically reject, 
and that I urge my colleagues to reject.
  I have to say that the budget resolution that is before us this week 
is perhaps the most irresponsible, disingenuous, and I have to add, the 
most callous that I have seen in my time here in the Senate.
  This budget resolution, puts us on a track toward historical levels 
of debt, to be left to our children and grandchildren. This budget 
resolution slights the most basic responsibilities of our Government, 
with cuts in homeland security, in education, health care, 
transportation, clean water, and scientific research, despite growing 
needs in all of those areas.
  This budget resolution will cripple our ability to meet the looming 
crisis in the Social Security System because it borrows virtually all 
of the reserves that Social Security is now building up in anticipation 
of the retirement in just over 10 years of the baby boom generation.
  Even borrowing all of those Social Security reserves does not balance 
this budget. Even cutbacks in heath care, in medical research, in law 
enforcement, in education won't bring this budget back into balance. 
These false economies that will cost us more in the future will not 
bring the budget into balance.
  In fact, under this budget, deficits continue to grow and grow, into 
the future. On paper, this budget claims to reduce the deficit over the 
next 5 years. There are 2 problems with that claim.
  First, the claim that this resolution will reduce the deficit ignores 
the cost of the continuing war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and the 
continuing war on terrorism. Whatever those costs may be, there is one 
number that we know for a fact is false, is dead wrong, and that number 
is zero.
  By the estimate of the Congressional Budget Office, those costs could 
run to $280 billion over the next 10 years.
  There is supposedly an allowance in this budget for $30 billion, but 
that is only a small fraction of what we can expect, and it is not even 
counted as part of the deficit. If we spend it, it will add to the 
deficit, but in this resolution, it is not counted, nor is the $250 
billion more the CBO expects us to spend.
  Millions of Americans are finding out now, and tens of millions will 
soon find out, that the Alternative Minimum Tax, designed to make sure 
millionaires did not manage to escape paying tax altogether, is set to 
fall on middle-class families. It will cost tens of billions of dollars 
to prevent that from happening. The administration agrees that it needs 
fixing, too. But this resolution assumes only 1 year of AMT relief, 
leaving out of the deficit count tens of billions in certain costs over 
the coming years.
  The claim that this resolution reduces the deficit over the next 5 
years is based on taking all of the reserves of the Social Security 
system, reserves that will be needed in the next decade for the largest 
wave of retirements in our country's history. If you leave that out, 
the deficit 5 years out will be closer to $550 billion, not the $237 
billion they claim.
  The other problem with the claim that this resolution will reduce the 
deficit in the next 5 years, is that the next 5 years, as bad as they 
are, are not real problem. The real problem our Nation will face lies 
in the years after that, when the deficits explode, on a collision 
course with the coming crisis in the Social Security system. It matters 
little what happens in the next 5 years if we careen into budget 
collapse in the years that follow.
  That is just what this resolution would do. It leaves us on a path to 
add more than $2 trillion to our debt over the next 10 years.
  It demands sacrifice from the middle class, who face rising health 
care costs and high college tuition payments at a time when job 
security is shaky, when the search for a new job takes longer and 
longer, and when we are losing the bedrock manufacturing jobs that have 
been the foundation of our middle class.
  This budget demands sacrifice from everyone, except those Americans 
who have already been most blessed by the opportunities and advantages 
offered by this great country. For those Americans, who have received 
and will receive the lion's share of the recent tax cuts, not a dime of 
sacrifice will be asked.
  Out of a total, 10-year tax cut of over $1.8 trillion, the top one 
percent will get $690 billion. The average taxpayer in the top 1 
percent will get a 10-year tax cut of over half a million dollars. That 
is what this budget resolution, and the votes we have taken here on the 
Senate floor, will go to any length to protect. The reason that the 
rest of us must sacrifice, we are told, is that we face massive 
deficits. We just don't have enough money.
  Like the child who killed his parents, and then begged for mercy 
because he was an orphan, the majority, who has insisted in the face of 
exploding deficits on tax cut after tax cut after tax cut, now claims 
we do not have the money to fund the most basic promises to American 
citizens.
  To make up for those deficits, to pay for those tax cuts, this budget 
goes after those who are least able to help themselves. Unfortunately, 
their sacrifices will be in vain because this budget will still leave 
us with a massive burden of increasing debt. But this budget does not 
ask for a dime of sacrifice from those who have enjoyed the greatest 
economic success in this country, and who--on top of their growing

[[Page S2689]]

wealth and incomes--have been the major beneficiaries of the recent 
rounds of tax cuts.
  Over and over in this debate we have debated amendments to restore 
cuts in public safety and homeland security, in veterans' health care, 
in education funding--to keep the many promises to Americans that we 
have made. To support those priorities that help average Americans, 
those amendments called for small reductions in the tax cuts going to 
the top 1 percent of Americans.
  We are not talking about cancelling tax cuts for average Americans. 
And we are not talking about cancelling tax cuts for the wealthiest 
among us. We are just talking about reducing the already huge tax cuts 
that they are going to receive.
  If this budget resolution is adopted, we will break promises to 
governors, mayors, school boards, teachers, parents, and children. The 
No Child Left Behind program will be funded at a level $8.6 billion 
below what we promised when that law was passed.
  If this resolution is adopted, we will leave veterans' health care 
$2.7 billion below what it is needed to keep our commitment to those 
who have already given so much--who continue to give so much--to our 
country.
  If this resolution is adopted, we will shortchange the working poor 
in this country who are doing just what we hoped they would do when we 
reformed welfare. But the earned income tax credit, that President 
Reagan himself called the best anti-poverty program we have, will be 
cut by $3 billion. That program will be cut by $3 billion, because this 
Senate refused to take a tiny nick out of the tax cuts going to those 
with an average income of a million dollars a year. This Senate would 
rather take $3 billion from the working poor than take a tiny fraction 
from the those who already have so much.
  The list goes on. It includes Senator Lieberman's amendment, to 
provide an additional $7 billion for homeland security. These funds 
would have helped to secure our ports and our borders and our 
transportation system, guard against bioterror, and support first 
responders.
  That amendment, that would take a little more than 1 percent of the 
total tax cut going to the wealthiest 1 percent--leaving them with more 
than nine-tenths of their tax cut, more than $680 billion--that 
amendment was rejected.
  This budget resolution has one principle and one principle only: 
protect those tax cuts at any cost, including trillions of dollars in 
additional deficits and debt.
  We know what those cuts will cost us in the future, and how much 
sacrifice they demand from those who can least afford it, but what have 
they done for us so far?
  I ask my colleagues to remember the first time that President Bush 
called for tax cuts. That was back in the last presidential campaign, 
when the economy was booming and the budget was in surplus. He promised 
us that we could afford huge tax cuts, that were designed to shrink 
federal revenues, and to prevent the build-up of budget surpluses. Hard 
is as it to recall, the threat he was most concerned with was that we 
would balance the budget and then keep on building up surpluses.
  Then, as the economy slowed down, he claimed that those same tax cuts 
would stimulate growth--the tax cuts he designed in the midst of the 
strongest economic boom our country had ever seen.
  When those tax cuts failed to stimulate growth, and as deficits began 
to expand, virtually wiping out the $5.6 trillion ten-year surplus 
projected when he came into office, we were told that we needed even 
more tax cuts. Not only have the deficits continued to grow, but those 
deficits and the tax cuts that brought them on have done nothing to 
create jobs.
  You have to go all the way back to the Hoover administration to find 
a record of job losses to rival this one. We have come out of 
recession, and have restored a respectable level of economic growth, 
and the stock market has come back to around the levels it reached in 
1998. We are 37 months past the last peak in the business cycle, and on 
those measures things are looking up.
  But this recovery is unique in our history. When it comes to jobs--
the one real measure of economic health--we are, compared to our 
experience, 5.4 million jobs behind where we should be. While we have 
lost 2.4 million jobs over this period, we have also failed to produce 
new jobs at normal rates.
  As the population grows, that means that more and more people are out 
of work, more than just the 2.4 million who had a job when this 
administration came into office, and who don't have one now.
  In addition, there are millions who should be in the labor force, who 
have either dropped out and stopped looking, or never entered the labor 
force--over two and a half million. So while the unemployment rate is 
officially 5.6 percent, counting those who have despaired of finding 
work in this economy the rate is actually 7.4 percent.
  The reason so many are discouraged from looking for work is clear--
the duration of unemployment is the longest in 20 years. The number of 
people who have exhausted their long-term unemployment benefits is 
growing. Despite repeated efforts, this Congress has refused to extend 
long-term unemployment benefits.
  Last month, no new private sector jobs were created. None. The small 
amount of hiring that happened was done by governments, not by the 
private sector, the only engine for real, sustained economic growth.
  We have enacted tax cuts that will cost us $2.3 trillion dollars, 
counting the extra interest needed because all of that money is 
borrowed. We have turned balanced budgets, and historically high 
surpluses, into historically high deficits.
  We are still 2.4 million jobs in the hole, by official numbers and 
millions more jobs short of where we should be this far into an 
economic recovery.
  This resolution shrugs off these sorry facts. It does nothing to 
change course in the face of these failures. As a matter of fact, this 
budget resolution will result in higher deficits than no change in 
current policy. No budget resolution at all would be better than the 
one before us today. I will vote against it and hope my colleagues will 
join me.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I support the budget resolution, S. Con. 
Res. 95. Let me begin by commending Chairman Nickles for his 
outstanding leadership as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. He 
has fairly and respectfully brought both sides of the aisle to the 
table on an issue that is inherently partisan. He has done so in a 
manner that encouraged cooperation, if not agreement. Last week, we 
completed a difficult markup in less than 2 days. We could not have 
done so without the leadership of both the chairman and the ranking 
member and the hard work of all of the Republican and Democrat members 
on the Budget Committee.
  After more than 20 years on the Senate Budget Committee, this will be 
Chairman Nickles' last floor debate on the Congressional Budget 
Resolution. We will miss him as both our chairman and as one of the 
Senate's most responsible and trusted protectors of the taxpayer 
dollar. Chairman Nickles has built a reputation for being fiscally 
conservative not by saying he's a fiscal conservative, but by actually 
being one. I applaud him and his dedication to fair budgeting and wish 
him the best of luck in his future endeavors.
  I would also like to thank the ranking member for the technical 
knowledge he brings to the table during these debates. Last week, he 
explained very succinctly how the budget caps and assumptions work. I 
was pleased to hear my friend from North Dakota talk about the 
importance of the caps versus the assumptions. Both the Republicans and 
Democrats have stacks and stacks of assumptions that identify our 
funding priorities, but these assumptions don't set in stone the 
specific levels of funding. They just help us set targets. Sometimes 
those targets are higher, sometimes those targets are more to the left 
or more to the right, but they never shift downward partly because we 
pass dozens of amendments every year that wrongly focus on the 
individual programs, not the overall limits.
  Despite attempts by my colleagues to turn this into a debate on 
appropriations, I'd like to remind everybody that we are not taking 
shots at the targets yet. The appropriators are the first ones who 
actually get to do that. Today, we're talking about the targets

[[Page S2690]]

set by the President and the committee-reported budget resolution. Like 
last year, when the President released his budget in February, I read 
the entire thing. I read the summaries and studied the tables and 
analyzed the assumptions; and, I truly believe the President laid the 
foundation for a good budget. Some people disagree with the underlying 
assumptions of the President's proposal and the budget plan that it was 
built upon and some want to turn it upside down. But, these arguments 
are more political than substantial, and they hinder our progress 
toward appropriations.
  I believe the Budget committee rightly built upon the strong 
foundation laid by the President with respect to the Committee-reported 
resolution. We reported a resolution that will cut the deficit in half 
in three years and allow America to continue down the road to economic 
recovery. Yet, we did not have much luck passing this resolution in the 
committee in a bipartisan fashion. The vote was 12 in favor and 10 
opposed.
  Why the split? Because we, as Republicans, voted to hold the line on 
spending and live up to our promise to provide tax relief for all 
Americans. In contrast, we had more than 30 amendments from our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who wanted to increase 
spending and raise taxes to pay for it. Again, these amendments were 
more political than substantial, and they delayed our progress 
tremendously. The proponents of these amendments were trying to tell 
the Finance Committee how and when to raise taxes, but they cannot do 
that. Raising taxes is firmly under the jurisdiction of the Finance 
Committee, and they certainly do not need to take our advice on the 
subject.
  In most cases, these proposed amendments would have increased 
discretionary spending and increased the deficit. During a time when 
deficit spending is higher in nominal terms than ever before, wouldn't 
it make more sense to decrease spending rather than increase it? We 
have a huge deficit and yet we still cannot control the spending of our 
colleagues. The debate on the floor this week is turning out to be 
similar.
  Throughout the week, too many amendments have been introduced that 
would certainly have increased the size of the Federal government and 
blown the Federal deficit out of the water. Many of these amendments 
have also proposed to simply shift funds from one program to another 
based on budget ``assumptions.'' Let me again remind my colleagues that 
the budget resolution does not set spending levels for individual 
programs. Unfortunately, I don't think this message is getting through 
to some people. As such, I have no doubt that many more amendments like 
those we've seen so far will be offered before the final vote.
  For example, an amendment that proposes to increase funding under 
function 450 for Firefighter Assistance Grants by eliminating tax 
relief for working Americans does not guarantee that funding will 
actually find its way into those grant accounts. That decision will be 
made by the appropriators and the Senate during the debate on 
appropriations. That means much of the rhetoric we've heard throughout 
the debate is political, not practical. Right now, we can only decide 
the amount of money, not where it will end up.
  We are not making the decisions this week as to which individual 
programs will be funded. We are setting the spending limits for our 
Appropriations Committees. We are setting the limits that will hold our 
colleagues in check when it comes to spending. The whole process 
reminds me of the cartoon that shows two bears in the woods--one has a 
target on his chest and the friend is saying ``rotten birthmark.'' 
Thankfully, we are not shooting at the bear today. The Appropriations 
Committee will do the shooting.

  Some of that shooting will be monitored down the road. My friend and 
colleague from Pennsylvania established a spend-o-meter last year that 
shows exactly how much our colleagues across the aisle want to increase 
spending on appropriations bills and under authorizing legislation. 
Most recently, the spend-o-meter proved useful during debate on the 
omnibus bill when the other side of the aisle proposed amendments that 
would have increased spending from $341 billion to almost half a 
trillion dollars in less than 24 hours. My friend and colleague has 
been using the spend-o-meter to keep track of how the proposed 
amendments on the budget resolution would impact the deficit, and let 
me tell you, the results are just as troubling. According to the charts 
presented by the Senator from North Dakota, he adds $5 billion and $6 
billion and only gets $1 billion more spent. When I add $6 and $5 
billion, I get $11 billion in budget requests.
  If we were talking about a business, and we were the owners, we would 
be looking for areas of waste and unnecessary costs so we could trim 
costs and reinvest the money. The President did suggest the same kind 
of cuts based on GPRA in over 60 programs, resulting in $4.9 billion of 
savings. Not much you say? Show me your cuts. The economy grew while we 
constrained spending. We balanced it by growth of the economy, not by 
cutting a dime.
  Constraining spending and shifting the targets we've been talking 
about can happen at the same time. Although few in number, some of the 
amendments offered today, including one I intend to offer, would 
actually shift the targets to a better position that will help us grow 
the economy. But, I think it's safe to say that most of the amendments 
offered by the other side will be outrageous attempts to raise taxes 
under the guise of increasing appropriations for very popular programs. 
Again, let's be clear that we will not be passing an appropriations 
bill today.
  We will continue working on the budget resolution, which I believe 
sets forth a good budget. This year we had to make tough choices about 
our priorities. This budget reflects those priorities. Of the 3.3 
percent increase in discretionary funding, 92 percent of it goes to the 
soldiers and citizens protecting our men and women overseas and at 
home. This budget gives our men and women serving in the Armed Forces 
and our diplomatic corps the tools they need to fight for democracy and 
win the war on terror.
  This budget, however, isn't just about defense and homeland security. 
This budget is also about creating a better and brighter future for our 
kids. The committee-reported resolution supports the President's 
efforts to provide more funding for education than ever before in the 
history of the United States.
  We have heard many arguments and we will continue to hear many 
arguments today and throughout the week, claiming that this budget 
resolution is an attempt to sell our education system short. That is 
simply not true. Under this budget, we assume that the Appropriations 
Committee will invest billions more in Title I grants under the No 
Child Left Behind Act, in Part B grants for individuals with 
disabilities, and Pell grants to students who want to take their 
education one step further.
  Writing this budget resolution was not an easy process. It is never 
easy to cut or freeze spending. But we had to make tough choices this 
year. We had to freeze spending in most categories and limit percentage 
growth in all others. We had to clamp down on the tax relief we could 
provide to working Americans. We had to set spending caps at a 
responsible level that would allow our Appropriations Committees to 
pass 13 appropriations bills. To the credit of the Budget Committee, we 
made these tough choices. We produced a resolution that will allow 
Congress and America to move forward without overstepping the authority 
of the Budget Committee. We do not make the decisions on where to spend 
the money, just on how much is spent, although many amendments would 
give you the opposite impression.
  I said this during the committee markup and I'll say it again today--
this budget is about moving forward. We've faced some tough times in 
recent years. The huge spike in spending during the last year of the 
Clinton administration set the stage for troubled times in 2001. With 
the technology bust of the late 1990s and the year 2000, many of our 
healthiest industries were struck down to the point of barely 
breathing. But, that was just the beginning.
  The terrorist attacks of 2001 and the international war against 
terror have forced us to address the decisions by previous 
administrations to gradually weaken our Armed Forces. Now, we are 
paying the price. We are playing a

[[Page S2691]]

catch-up game--a catch-up game that costs billions, not millions, of 
dollars.
  That's why we need to pass a budget this week that will rein in 
spending while allowing our defense sector and our economy as a whole 
to continue to recover. The budget resolution before us today makes 
some general, but critical assumptions. One of the most important 
assumptions focuses on preventing attempts by our colleagues to raise 
taxes on our working families.
  The committee-reported resolution proposes to extend the personal tax 
relief currently scheduled to expire at the end of 2004. Contrary to 
the statements made by my colleagues, this tax relief helps middle- and 
lower-income taxpayers. The $1,000-per-child tax credit, the 10 percent 
income tax bracket expansion, and the marriage penalty relief are three 
of the most important tax provisions passed in decades. These 
provisions put more money back into the hands of our neighbors, 
families and friends.
  This week, we have an opportunity to pass a budget that plans for the 
future, while taking care of our present-day needs. This budget aims to 
cut the budget deficit in half in just a few short years. I believe we 
can do it.
  The tax relief put in place last year has already resulted in growth 
in almost every sector of our economy. Our gross domestic product 
increased by more than 4 percent last quarter and robust spending on 
technology, infrastructure and equipment points to strong continued 
growth through the next year. This growth will lead to more companies 
paying into the Federal pot and more money flowing from the private 
sector to the public sector and back again.
  That is what this debate should be about--passing a budget that will 
help, not hurt, America's recovering business sector and job markets. 
We have heard the scare tactics on Social Security and unemployment and 
outsourcing, but what we haven't heard a lot about is how to help 
address the problems. This debate should focus on progress, not 
politics. I have been working with my colleagues from both sides of the 
aisle on an amendment that would propose a step in the right direction. 
My amendment would add $250 million to the Nation's job training 
programs.
  For generations, the skills and ingenuity of the American workforce 
have fueled the greatest economy in the world. Today, America faces an 
emerging challenge that threatens the prosperity of generations to 
come. Our challenge is to equip our workforce with the skills needed 
for jobs in the new, global economy. Our prosperity rests with our 
ability to create and fill the high-skilled jobs that the 21st century 
economy demands.
  We have talked about the loss of American jobs because of increasing 
globalization. We have talked about the loss of American jobs because 
of increasing productivity. I am here to talk about how we can keep 
high-paying jobs in America's factories, in America's businesses, and 
on America's shores. As we consider job creation in this country, we 
must address the growing skills gap that threatens our ability to 
compete--and succeed--in a more complex, knowledge-based economy.
  As the country continues its economic recovery, people are asking: 
``where are the jobs?'' It may surprise you to learn that many high-
skilled jobs in this country remain unfilled because employers can't 
find qualified workers. According to a 2003 survey conducted by the 
Center for Workforce Preparation, an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, half of the employers reported difficulty in finding 
qualified workers. The problem is greatest for small employers. Nearly 
60 percent of employers with 11 to 50 workers report having a hard time 
finding qualified workers. Small employers--our greatest source of 
economic growth--can't create jobs if they don't have the skilled 
workers to fill the jobs.
  The gap between the demand for high-skilled workers and the supply 
will only widen in the future. Looking ahead 2 years, only 30 percent 
of the employers surveyed believe that the skills of their workforce 
will keep pace with demand. According to the 2003 study by the Center 
for Workforce Preparation, the manufacturing industry--which has faced 
some of the most severe job loss--faces the greatest skills gap. 
Manufacturers predict that by 2005 only 21 percent of their workforce 
will have the necessary skills. Almost 80 percent of American workers 
won't be qualified for American manufacturing jobs.
  Without any action, technology and other advances will outpace the 
ability of American workers and business to update skills needed to 
compete in the new economy. But there is good news. There is action we 
can take to retrain workers to fill the jobs needed in this country, 
now and in the future. First, we can increase budgetary resources for 
job training programs under the Workforce Investment Act. Second, and 
more importantly, we can make sure the Nation's job training system 
created under the Workforce Investment Act effectively prepares our 
workforce for good jobs that the evolving economy demands. This 
amendment will do the first. To do the second, my Colleagues must agree 
to send legislation reauthorizing and improving the Workforce 
Investment Act into Conference.
  I am offering this amendment to increase job-training budget 
authority because I agree with Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan 
that: ``what will ultimately determine the standard of living of this 
country is the skill of the people.'' Job training under the Workforce 
Investment Act will help our workers get back to work or find better 
jobs. It will improve the lives of our workers and help them achieve 
the American Dream for themselves and their families.
  This investment in our Nation's job training and employment system is 
an important investment in our future. Like any investment of the 
taxpayers' money, the investment in Federal job training programs must 
be fiscally responsible and generate results. While I support an 
increase in resources for job training, it cannot come at the expense 
of fiscal discipline. Therefore, my amendment is offset fully from 
account 920. My amendment will increase resources for Fiscal Year 2005 
in the job training function. It will responsibly shift the target in 
this area. Beyond that, we must improve the workforce development 
system to better meet the needs of American workers and businesses 
before investing additional resources.
  We cannot meet the challenges of the 21st century economy by simply 
throwing more money into the existing workforce development system. We 
have to improve the Workforce Investment Act to better prepare American 
workers for the good jobs of today and tomorrow. Again, there is good 
news. We have a bill that does this. It is a bipartisan bill that 
passed out of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee 
unanimously. We passed it on the Floor unanimously last November. 
That's as bipartisan as you can possibly get.
  Where is the bill now? Here is the bad news. We can't appoint a 
conference committee, which is the committee made up of Republicans and 
Democrats who would meet with the House to work out differences between 
what they passed and what we passed. The Workforce Investment Act can 
help more than 900,000 dislocated workers a year find the well-paying 
jobs in this country that are available. That is 900,000 opportunities 
that can help fill the skills gap and make American workers and 
businesses more competitive. I have heard a lot of talk about losing 
American jobs. If we really want to take care of jobs in this country 
and make sure jobs stay in this country, we would appoint a conference 
committee for the Workforce Investment Act bill and enact this vital 
legislation.
  Last week, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee held a 
hearing that addressed the skills of the American workforce. Dr. Diana 
Oblinger, executive director of Higher Education for Microsoft--an 
American company that symbolizes innovation and growth--presented some 
of the best testimony I have ever heard. She said that being able to 
``outthink the rest of the world'' may be the most important 
competitive advantage. In this knowledge-based, global economy, I agree 
with Dr. Oblinger that the brainpower of our workforce is our greatest 
resource.
  This amendment recognizes that the first priority for workers who 
have lost their job is finding a new job. But this

[[Page S2692]]

amendment is only a band-aid. It will not fix the Nation's job training 
programs. If we are going to continue to ``outthink the rest of the 
world'', we must improve the job-skills and training of our greatest 
resource now and into the future.
  With that, I believe this budget is a fiscally responsible measure 
and I urge my colleagues to work together to pass both my amendment and 
the resolution by the end of the week. Once again, I thank Chairman 
Nickles, Ranking Member Conrad, and all of the committee members for 
their work so far and hope we can move to final adoption of the 
Congressional Budget Resolution before the April 15 deadline.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the importance 
of accurate data to the debate over the budget resolution, particularly 
as it relates to the distribution of the tax burden. Over the past 
several days, a number of my colleagues have made claims that the tax 
relief we have enacted over the past three years only benefits the 
wealthiest of Americans.
  In this debate, as well as all tax policy debates, it is important to 
use accurate data, and to debate the issues in an intellectually honest 
manner.
  One of the key questions in any tax relief package is fairness. In 
evaluating fairness, we frequently look at whether a proposal retains 
or improves the progressivity of our tax system. Critics of tax relief 
continue to attempt to use distribution tables to show that tax relief 
proposals disproportionately benefit upper income taxpayers.
  The tax relief that has been enacted to date, in the 2001 and 2003 
tax relief packages, is promoting investment incentives so that 
companies will purchase additional capital and labor.
  Criticizing these plans for benefiting wealthy taxpayers assumes that 
the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.
  Recent studies, including one produced by the National Center for 
Policy Analysis, indicate that this is untrue. The May 2003 study 
measures income mobility by breaking same age workers into five income 
levels and by monitoring their movement between the income quintiles 
over 15 years.
  The study shows there is considerable economic mobility in America 
and that large numbers of people move up and down the economic ladder 
in relatively short periods of time. Moreover, in recent years earning 
mobility has increased.
  The study demonstrates that within a single 1-year time frame that 
one-third of workers in the bottom quintile move up and one-fourth of 
workers in the top quintile move down. One-half of the remaining labor 
force changed quintiles within one year and 60 percent of workers are 
upwardly mobile within 10 years. The study also showed that after 10 
years, two-thirds of workers change quintiles.
  A University of Michigan study also concludes that taxpayers tend to 
move between income groups during their lifetimes. This makes sense. 
Taxpayers are likely to be lower-income earners early and late in life 
but are likely to be higher-income earners during the mid-points of 
their lives.
  My understanding is that the Congressional Budget Office--CBO--is 
considering the use of income mobility concepts in its analyses. I'm 
pleased that the non-partisan official scorekeeping organization 
recognizes the important issue of income mobility.
  What allowed these people to escape the lowest income quintile and 
start earning more money is college education and acquiring necessary 
skills on the job. Interestingly, anecdotal evidence shows 80 percent 
of individuals on the Forbes 400 list were self-made, as opposed to 
those who inherited fortunes.
  Again, this underlines the importance of taking advantage of 
educational opportunities. Education allowed these people to overcome 
differences in parental income, increased their chances to escape low 
wage jobs, and determined the success of their future earnings.
  Too often distribution tables are used in an almost fetish-like 
manner. It is important to understand that the tables are, at best, 
snapshots. The reality is much more complex. Distribution tables are 
useful policy tools, but they must be used in context.
  The NCPA study confirms that there is substantial economic mobility 
between generations. Almost 60 percent of sons whose parents' incomes 
were in the bottom 20 percent are in a higher income group; 31 percent 
have incomes in the top 60 percent.
  Therefore, whoever is saying that once rich, Americans stay rich, and 
once poor, they stay poor, is purely mistaken. I welcome this data on 
this important matter for one simple reason: it sheds light on what 
America really is all about--vast opportunities and economic mobility.
  Built by people from all over the world, our country truly provides 
unique opportunities for everyone. These opportunities include better 
education, healthcare services, land financial security. But most 
importantly, our country provides people with freedom to obtain 
necessary skills to climb the economic ladder and live better lives.
  We are a free nation. We are a mobile nation. We are a nation of 
hard-working, innovative, skilled and resilient people who like to take 
risks when necessary in order to succeed. We have an obligation as 
lawmakers to incorporate these fundamental principles into our tax 
system.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I cannot support final passage of this 
budget resolution. In my judgment, this budget, like the President's 
budget that it reflects, is divorced from the reality that working 
families in Michigan and across the country face every day. The 
challenges facing our country today are enormous. We are allocating 
resources around the globe to combat terrorism. Our troops are putting 
their lives on the line every day to secure and rebuild Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Social Security and Medicare face unprecedented strains as 
the baby boom generation nears retirement. At the same time, the 
Federal deficit is ballooning to historic proportions.
  Crafting a budget to accommodate these and other priorities requires 
a careful and balanced approach. But unfortunately, the 
administration's budget and the resolution before us today focus too 
heavily on promoting massive tax cuts mainly for the wealthiest 
Americans, adding a large amount to our national debt and forcing 
painful cuts in our Nation's priorities like education, health care and 
protection of the environment--cuts that have real consequences for all 
of us.
  This resolution, like the President's proposal, would make permanent 
the tax cuts pushed through Congress by the President in 2001 and 2003, 
which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates will cost $1.1 
trillion over the next 10 years. Substantial revenue reductions like 
these have already left in their wake the largest annual deficit in our 
Nation's history, estimated by CBO to be a staggering $478 billion for 
this year and they are projected to continue.
  Moreover, this resolution hides its true future effects by failing to 
account for large expenses that we all know are coming. By using 5-year 
projections instead of the customary 10-year numbers, this budget 
disguises the size of our deficits. The cost of extending the tax cuts 
past 2010 explodes just outside of the 5-year window. It is also 
outside of this 5-year window that the surplus we have in the Social 
Security trust fund disappears, thereby making the unified budget 
figures even worse. When this budget plan is played out over 10 years, 
our deficits skyrocket and use up every penny of the Social Security 
surplus, funds that Social Security will need as our baby boomers start 
to retire.
  The President's budget blueprint also failed to include a number of 
inevitable costs, such as the cost of continued military operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. I am glad to see that the Budget Committee 
recognized this fact and placed into a special reserve fund $30 billion 
for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2005. However, it 
is clear that more will be needed; it is unrealistic to fail to reserve 
amounts for Iraq or Afghanistan in 2006 or subsequent years.
  This budget also doesn't take into account likely reforms to the 
Alternative Minimum Tax, reforms that are needed to keep tens of 
millions of middle class taxpayers from paying a tax that was 
originally meant to apply only to a small portion of high-income 
taxpayers. Because of these and other omissions, achieving the 
President's goal of cutting the deficit in half by

[[Page S2693]]

2009 is hollow rhetoric, especially if he continues to stick to his 
agenda.
  Following the path of continuing the President's tax breaks is 
fiscally irresponsible. The tax cuts are heavily slanted toward the 
wealthiest Americans. The average tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent 
would be nearly 90 times larger than the average tax cut for middle-
income households.
  In its attempt to accommodate these reckless and inequitable tax 
cuts, this budget proposes a significant number of cuts to vital 
programs. Despite the fact that millions of jobs have been lost since 
the beginning of the Bush Administration--many in the manufacturing 
industry--this budget offers little help to those looking for 
employment. I am disappointed that we couldn't pass the amendment 
offered by Senator Boxer that would have placed top priority on 
creating jobs in the U.S. now, discouraging the shipping of jobs 
overseas, and helping workers dislocated by global forces beyond their 
control.
  Instead this resolution contains significant cuts to one of the most 
successful federal/state partnerships in government, the Manufacturing 
Extension Program (MEP). The MEP creates programs to help our country's 
manufacturers be more productive and competitive, thus, keeping jobs 
here at home. The resolution also completely slashes funding for The 
National Institute of Standards and Technology's Advanced Technology 
Program (ATP), which focuses on improving the competitiveness of 
American companies in the global marketplace by encouraging R&D through 
public-private collaboration in the development of promising 
technologies. In the face of a loss of 2.6 million manufacturing jobs 
over the past few years, we should be doing all we can to promote 
programs that help create manufacturing and hi-tech jobs. Supporting 
the MEP and ATP programs is one way to do this.
  Additionally, I am extremely disappointed that this plan fails to 
extend unemployment insurance to workers who have exhausted their 
benefits. The number of individuals exhausting their regular State 
unemployment benefits and not qualifying for further benefits is higher 
than at any other time on record--about 90,000 workers a week; 
extending unemployment insurance is the right thing to do for displaced 
workers and for the economy because it provides an economic stimulus by 
putting money in the pockets of people who need it most.
  And the misguided priorities don't stop there. Despite our attempts 
to amend it, this budget inadequately addresses the needs of our 
children by failing to fund our education programs.
  The No Child Left Behind Act, approved overwhelmingly by this body 
just over 2 years ago, is intended to help our school children make 
progress toward reaching their full potential by providing things such 
as smaller classes, after-school programs, and technology and 
technology training for teachers. But the President's budget refuses to 
provide our school systems the funding they were promised. And now, 
despite attempts to change this, the budget resolution also 
inadequately addresses the need for increases in education funding to 
assist local schools. We cannot expect our schools to adequately meet 
the high academic standards that have been set if we neglect to provide 
them with the tools they need to succeed.
  Not only does this budget fail our young school children, it also 
fails our older children who seek financial assistance to attend 
college. The Pell grant program is the single largest source of Federal 
Government grant aid devoted to financing postsecondary education. This 
program reaches over one-fifth of all undergraduates each year. Despite 
the program's successes, this body opposed increasing the maximum Pell 
grant by a $1,050 by reducing tax breaks for the wealthiest among us.
  This budget also fails to meet the needs of our veterans by 
underfunding the Department of Veterans Affairs, forcing real cuts in 
the health services for America's veterans. Not only should we be 
redoubling our efforts to care for those who have already served in the 
military, but as a new generation of soldiers returns home from 
countries around the globe, we must ensure that they have access to a 
veterans' health system that is able to provide them with the care and 
services they have earned. Despite these obligations to the men and 
women who have been sent into harm's way to protect us and our way of 
life, I am disappointed that this body voted down more than an 
amendment to increase veterans' medical care, even when the cost was 
fully offset. Our veterans deserve not only our recognition and our 
gratitude, but also the appropriate funding for well-earned services 
and benefits.
  And the unwise cuts don't end there. This budget would make steep 
cuts in housing programs that provide assistance to low-income 
families, our seniors, and the disabled. The proposal also cuts foreign 
aid, environmental programs, health programs and the list goes on and 
on, calling for significant reductions in nearly every part of 
government in an attempt to pay for the President's tax cuts.
  I am pleased that the Senate passed the amendment offered by the 
Senator from North Dakota, Senator Baucus, to strike the reconciliation 
instructions requiring mandatory program cuts targeted at critical 
programs like Medicaid and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). I hope 
this will end the attempts to cut these vital programs that serve low-
income families and individuals, populations that are, unfortunately, 
growing. This is not the time to cut these critical and effective 
programs.
  Medicaid, as my colleagues know, is the largest source of funding for 
medical and health-related services for low-income individuals. In 
2003, the program assisted 24.8 million children, and 13.6 disabled, 
blind, and elderly individuals. The EITC program has been highly 
successful in assisting persons in low-income families raising children 
to transition from welfare to work. EITC helps individuals and 
families, particularly single working mothers, meet essential needs, 
from putting food on the table to paying monthly rent to assisting in 
required educations expenditures. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 
the EITC helps lift over four million people out of poverty annually, 
including more than 2.7 million children. Cuts to either of these 
programs are unacceptable.
  This budget is divorced from the reality that American families face 
every day. It burrows us deeper into the deficit ditch, continues our 
reckless reliance on the Social Security surplus and fails to provide 
vital programs with adequate funding. I cannot support it.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the budget 
resolution that the Senate is voting on today. We have been presented a 
fiscally irresponsible budget that calls for record budget deficits and 
deep cuts in programs for education, first responders, veterans, and 
the environment. I find it difficult to pin point exactly how this 
budget benefits the hard working Americans who are being asked to pay 
for this reckless fiscal plan.
  This budget plan does nothing to address the growing Federal debt 
that we are preparing to pass onto our children and grandchildren. In 
fact, this budget calls for a record $477 billion deficit this year, on 
top of the record $450 billion deficit last year. We have a 
responsibility to bring accountability back to the budget process. The 
$1.7 trillion in tax cuts that we have enacted over the past three 
years have not fulfilled any of their promise--they have not done 
anything to curb our growing economic problems; they have not continued 
the budget surpluses we reached under the previous administration; and 
they have not restored confidence in the fiscal decisions of our 
Government.
  Perhaps even more disturbing, this budget fails to reflect the 
spending realities that face our country in the coming years. The 
endemic long-term deficits forecast in this budget will significantly 
add to the Federal debt that is expected to top $15 trillion by 2014. 
This five-year budget plan also contains no funds for our continuing 
commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The costs for these operations are 
so excessive--an estimated $280 billion over ten years--that including 
them in the budget would produce an unfathomably large national budget. 
Where will the money come from for future requests? The hope to cut the 
deficit continues to move farther and farther from reality.
  Once again, this Congress is poised to enact a fiscally irresponsible 
budget

[[Page S2694]]

plan offered by this administration. Time after time the President and 
many of my Republican colleagues have shown that they do not care about 
the long-term effects his policies have on our financial future. After 
record budget surpluses during the final years of the Clinton 
administration, the Bush administration has sent Congress three budgets 
in a row that have turned record surpluses into record deficits. The 
President's own budget predictions call for the Government to be a 
record $521 billion in the hole in 2004. This budget resolution is full 
of red ink for as far as the eye can see. With the retirement of the 
first of the baby boom generation just four years away, we can no 
longer afford to continue on the President's path of fiscal 
irresponsibility.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, just this week the National Conference of 
State Legislatures released its latest Unfunded Mandates Report. Based 
on President Bush's budget request, and the budget resolution before 
us, the NCSL Report labels the $40 million in fiscal year 2005 funding 
for election reform under the Help America Vote Act an unfunded mandate 
of $560 million.
  The budget resolution before us does not include sufficient funds to 
ensure that necessary election reforms can be achieved by the States in 
time for the 2006 elections. I regret that the resolution does not 
reflect the bipartisan recommendation of the Senate Rules Committee 
with regard to payments to the States for election reform under the 
Help America Vote Act, P.L. 107-252, HAVA.
  In our letter of February 24 to the Budget Committee, Chairman Lott 
and I expressed our concerns that the $40 million funding level 
proposed by President Bush's budget for fiscal year 2005 was 
insufficient to fully fund the required election reforms which States 
must implement by the first Federal election in 2006. Based on 
estimates by the States, the bipartisan Carter-Ford, Commission, and 
numerous experts, Congress authorized a total of $3 billion over 3 
fiscal years for implementing these requirements. To date, Congress has 
funded roughly $2.4 billion in section 257 requirements payments. It is 
imperative that the remaining $600 million be provided in fiscal year 
2005 to ensure that the States will be able to meet the requirements of 
HAVA, including the replacement of punch card systems and the 
deployment of fully disabled-accessible voting systems, by 2006.
  Folloiwng the November 2000 election debacle, Congress responded by 
placing new requirements on the States for the conduct of Federal 
elections with the promise that we would fund 95 percent of the cost of 
those mandates. For the first time in our Nation's history, the Federal 
Government will be a full partner with the States in the funding of 
Federal elections. To expect cash-strapped State and local governments 
to make up for the shortfall in promised Federal funds threatens to 
derail the very election reforms Congress mandated that the States 
implement.
  Voting is the voice of a free and democratic society. I believe that 
Congress can, and will, find the necessary funds to fulfill our promise 
to the States and our commitment to the American electorate to see that 
every eligible voter has an equal opportunity to vote and have their 
vote counted. While I will not insist on offering an amendment to this 
budget resolution, I am serving notice that I intend to work with my 
colleagues to see that we fully fund HAVA in fiscal year 2005 to ensure 
that the bipartisan reforms we enacted are implemented by the 2006 
elections.
  Mr. Daschle. Mr. President, I had hoped to offer an amendment to 
increase funding for the Rural Education Achievement Program. I will 
withhold that amendment, but I would like to take this opportunity to 
highlight the challenges facing rural schools.
  Rural schools play a very important role in educating our Nation's 
children. Nearly 40 percent of America's schoolchildren attend public 
schools in rural areas or small towns with populations of less than 
25,000. Almost 50 percent of the Nation's public schools are located in 
rural areas and small towns, and 41 percent of public school educators 
teach in rural community schools.
  Rural schools face formidable challenges in their efforts to provide 
a high-quality education to each of their students. These school 
districts tend to be less effective in obtaining State and Federal 
competitive grants, in large part because many cannot afford 
professional grant writers. The costs of providing a good education 
also tend to be higher in rural districts. Teachers, for example, are 
paid the same whether they are teaching 30 or 5 students in a 
classroom. Transportation costs are much higher in rural districts, 
since school buses must travel longer distances. Unfortunately, these 
costs can adversely affect the budgets of rural districts and make it 
harder for them to provide the services necessary for high achievement.
  Nevertheless, and appropriately, the same level of academic results 
are expected of them as in urban and suburban school systems. These 
students certainly deserve an equal opportunity to achieve those 
results. The geographic isolation of rural districts will make it more 
difficult to achieve the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act. Schools 
found in need of improvement may not have the ability or the resources 
to implement provisions such as public school choice and supplemental 
services.
  Increasing funding for the Rural Education Achievement program would 
provide rural school districts with additional funding and flexibility 
to help these students achieve proficiency. Providing additional 
funding to rural districts would give them more options for providing 
high-quality services to children, such as distance learning and more 
teacher training.
  The President proposes to freeze funding for the Rural Education 
Achievement Program in his budget for fiscal year 2005, despite the 
major challenges facing schools in rural communities. I believe we 
should provide the full $300 million as promised by title VI of the No 
Child Left Behind Act, and I hope to work with my colleagues to achieve 
that goal as we work on the appropriations bills this year.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am in opposition to the budget before the 
Senate. Many pundits will argue that the Senate budget is meaningless 
political posturing and a waste of time. After all, no money is 
appropriated by the decisions we make in this resolution. No taxes are 
changed. No laws are passed.
  But those who write off the budget debate are making a real mistake 
and missing a real opportunity. The Senate's budget resolution is our 
one chance to demonstrate that we have a coherent plan for our country. 
The budget is our opportunity to show that we have the courage to face 
our challenges, the common sense to meet our obligations, and the 
vision to lead the nation into a brighter future.
  Sadly, the budget before us fails on all three counts.
  Our current fiscal situation is a disaster. The Federal balance sheet 
has swung from a record surplus of $236 billion in fiscal year 2000 to 
a record deficit of $477 billion projected for this fiscal year. Now--
as the baby boom generation prepares to retire, as our nation faces 
unprecedented threats to our security, as well-paying manufacturing 
jobs bleed off our shores--does our budget face our fiscal shortfall 
with the gravity and seriousness of purpose the situation demands?
  No, it does not. Instead, we have a document that masks Treasury-
draining tax policy with 5-year projections--closing the window to the 
public before the price tag for the President's ill-considered tax 
breaks reaches the trillions of dollars. Instead, we have a budget that 
doesn't include in its bottom line the estimated $280 billion in 
additional funds over the next 10 years it will take to continue to 
fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  Certainly, the cost of the war in Iraq is a contentious issue. The 
exploding price of the President's tax breaks is unsettling. And the 
$2.8 trillion the budget before us plans to add to the federal debt in 
the next 5 years is downright terrifying. A courageous budget would 
acknowledge those hard, cold numbers honestly. This budget does not.
  Nor does it contain the sort of common sense that might make it a 
fiscal plan worth supporting.
  As school districts everywhere cut back on teachers, academic 
options, counseling, books, even heat to pay for the mandates of the 
Leave No Child Behind Act, does this budget meet the

[[Page S2695]]

government's acknowledged obligation to pays its fair share?
  As Republican and Democratic Governors alike struggle to meet the 
health needs of the uninsured, does this budget propose to meet the 
federal government's obligations to the States under Medicaid? No.
  As the costs to the government and society of young criminal 
offenders pile up, does this budget meet its obligation to fund the 
cost savings juvenile crime prevention programs that keep kids out of 
jail? No.
  As farmers and ranchers struggle with shrinking profit margins, 
violent weather conditions, and market-wrecking diseases like mad cow 
disease, does this budget meet its obligation to guarantee a safe and 
available food supply? No.
  The list of unmet obligations is longer than the budget document 
itself: TANF reauthorization, transportation reauthorization, higher 
education reauthorization, Federal nutrition program reauthorization--
health, education, safety, welfare--all needs unmet; all duties undone.
  If the first rule of commonsense budgeting is pay what you owe, then 
this budget is a violation of common sense.
  But perhaps even more than common sense--or courage--what this budget 
lacks is vision.
  We should face head on and plan for--the hemorrhage of manufacturing 
jobs. But this budget merely dabs at the wound with unrelated upper 
income tax cuts, ill-conceived trade agreements, and empty promises of 
better times to come.
  We should face head on--and plan for--the looming crisis in Social 
Security shoved onto the baby boom generation by our precarious fiscal 
situation. But this budget merely shortens its time frame to 5 years 
and ignores the train wreck just around the corner.
  We should plan for a prosperous future for next generation. But this 
budget skimps on feeding them when they're born, skimps on teaching 
them as they grow, and is generous only in loading them down with debt 
when they enter the working world.
  We are capable of producing a budget with courage, common sense, and 
vision. We have not. The people of this country deserve a budget with 
courage, common sense and vision--everything this budget is not. For 
those reasons, I oppose the resolution.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the budget 
resolution that the Senate is considering today. Quite simply, this 
resolution does not reflect the priorities of West Virginians. The 
policies promoted here would not be in the best interests of the 
overwhelming majority of West Virginians.
  This budget resolution calls for more of the same failed economic 
policies that have been implemented over the last 3 years. It provides 
for additional tax cuts for the wealthy. It short-changes investment in 
important domestic programs. It understates the cost of supporting our 
troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And it forecasts more 
outrageous deficits for our children to pay off.
  West Virginians are rightfully worried about our economy right now. 
Many of them are unemployed, and many others are nervous that their 
jobs will be the next ones shipped overseas. They are having trouble 
making ends meet on wages that have stagnated. They are struggling to 
have health care for themselves and their families. They have a right 
to expect that when laying out our economic policy for the coming year, 
Congress will address these pressing concerns. I am very disappointed 
that the budget resolution we are considering today offers no 
leadership on these important issues.
  Instead, as has been the pattern of the last 3 years, this budget 
resolution provides for more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Let 
me be clear. Some of the tax cuts called for in this budget resolution 
are ones that I look forward to supporting. The increase in the child 
tax credit, relief from the marriage penalty, expansion of the lowest 
tax bracket--these are tax cuts for hard-working Americans that 
Democrats have been fighting for all along. Families in West Virginia 
deserve to have these tax cuts extended, and I will work with my 
colleagues to ensure that we do so.
  However, this budget resolution calls for additional tax cuts for the 
very wealthiest Americans as well. The legislation asks us to 
accelerate the elimination of estate tax--something that helps married 
couples with estates worth more than $7 million. The resolution asks us 
to extend the tax cuts on dividends and capital gains income--something 
that will benefit less than 20 percent of the people in my state. I 
simply do not believe that Congress ought to consider additional tax 
cuts for the most fortunate in our society in a year when our troops 
are in the fields, millions of Americans are feeling the pain of 
joblessness, and the government is running record deficits. To those 
who hid behind the spurious argument that tax cuts for the wealthy are 
really for small businesses, I would remind them that less than 2 
percent of our Nation's small businesses pay taxes in the highest 
bracket.
  With tax revenues already at their lowest point in decades, as a 
share of the economy, critical Government services are underfunded in 
this budget resolution. The resolution provides just $369 billion for 
all domestic, discretionary spending outside of homeland security. 
While that may sound like a great deal of money, it is just $2 billion 
more than last year, and certainly not enough to keep pace with 
inflation or program growth.
  Let me give you just a few examples of the painful results of such a 
budget. First, this budget turns its back on our schools and reneges on 
a promise Congress made when it enacted the No Child Left Behind 
legislation. In 2000, I voted for the No Child Left Behind Act because 
I strongly believe that education is the key to our future and we must 
invest in higher academic standards. Based on that legislation, our 
schools have accepted annual testing, and its expense, higher academic 
standards for students, and higher standards for teachers. But this 
budget does not follow through with the resources we promised schools 
that accepted these changes. This year alone, we are $8.6 billion short 
of promised funding. In West Virginia, funding is $60 million less than 
promised.
  Students are not the only ones to lose out under this budget 
resolution. Anthony Principi, the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, told 
Congress that Veterans Administration health care is underfunded. He 
testified that he needed $1.2 billion in additional funds. At a time 
when military personnel are serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, new 
veterans are coming home, and 60,000 veterans are on waiting lists for 
health care, we simply must fund VA health care. Yet, this budget does 
not.
  The Federal Government also has a responsibility to maintain its 
commitment to Medicaid in order to protect access to health care for 
our poor children, needy families and seniors in nursing homes. This is 
especially true during times of economic downturn when Medicaid 
beneficiaries need it the most. Last year, I worked with several of my 
colleagues in the House and Senate to successfully pass $20 billion in 
State fiscal relief. This legislation prevented several States from 
making cuts to their Medicaid programs. However, the projected budget 
deficits for states in the coming year are between $39-$41 billion--in 
spite of the slight upturn in the economy. Eighteen States have already 
introduced measures to reduce Medicaid coverage, eliminate benefits, 
increase copays, limit access to prescription drugs, or decrease 
payments to providers. Additional states will be forced to enact 
similar measures if fiscal relief expires on June 30.
  Instead of trying to undermine Medicaid funding, we should continue 
to provide state fiscal relief in order to hasten our nation's economic 
recovery and improve coverage options for the uninsured. And I am very 
disappointed that this budget resolution offers no assistance to states 
to prevent these devastating cuts.
  As the ranking Democrat on the Aviation Subcommittee of the Commerce 
Committee, I cannot help but note that this resolution does not provide 
sufficient funds for the Essential Air Service program or the Small 
Community Air Service Development Program. I will certainly fight for 
adequate funding to maintain the Federal Government's commitment to 
making sure that small and rural communities continue to be connected 
to the national air transportation system. This

[[Page S2696]]

budget resolution will make that fight an uphill battle.
  I cannot support this budget. I refuse to believe that this is the 
best that Congress can do, and I will not try to explain to West 
Virginians that there is room for additional tax cuts, but not enough 
money for education, child care, health care, infrastructure 
improvements, homeland security, and other important domestic 
initiatives.
  I also refuse to ask West Virginia's children to assume enormous 
amounts of additional debt to fund such misguided priorities. Make no 
mistake, while this budget imposes painful restrictions on services 
that West Virginians care about, it still increases our national debt 
by unprecedented amounts in the coming years. These outrageous deficits 
will have a tangible, negative impact for middle-class Americans. As 
Government borrowing goes up, we know that interest rates will also 
arise for families with home mortgages, student loans, car loans, or 
credit card debt.
  If this resolution is to be the blueprint for our economic policy 
this year, then we are in for another dismal year. I ask my colleagues 
to oppose this budget resolution and to work together to craft a budget 
that is consistent with the values of hard working American families.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as we continue to debate the priorities 
of this year's budget resolution, I want to take this opportunity to 
discuss a growing problem in America--one that has had an especially 
devastating impact on South Dakota and other rural States. That problem 
is the spread of methamphetamine.
  Over the course of the last decade, there has been a dramatic 
increase in the trafficking and abuse of methamphetamine in rural 
States. In fact, a spokesman for the Drug Enforcement Agency recently 
stated, ``Meth is now the number one drug in rural America--absolutely, 
positively, end of question.'' South Dakota, like many States across 
the country, is struggling to find ways to combat this latest drug 
epidemic.
  Methamphetamine is highly addictive, and can have devastating health 
effects, including psychotic behavior and brain damage, and produces 
withdrawal symptoms of depression, anxiety, fatigue, paranoia, and 
aggression. Chronic methamphetamine use can cause anxiety, confusion, 
and violent behavior. Every year, hundreds of people die from 
methamphetamine-related causes, and the number of admissions to 
treatment for methamphetamine throughout the United States increased 
from 14,554 in 1992 to 80,678 in 2001, an increase of over 500 percent.
  The problem is getting worse. In 2001, 10 percent of all South 
Dakotans who sought State-funded inpatient treatment services indicated 
that meth was the primary substance of abuse. In 2002, the number grew 
to 17 percent. In June 2003, that percentage jumped to 33 percent. 
Fifty-seven out of 66 counties in South Dakota in 2001 reported 
problems with methamphetamine use, and because meth-related problems 
are showing increased movement from the outside edges of the State 
toward the center, the sad truth is that soon there won't be a single 
county in my State that is not seriously affected by methamphetamine.
  In addition to having serious adverse health affects, methamphetamine 
presents our Nation's law enforcement agencies with unique and 
significant challenges.
  Unlike other illegal drugs that are produced in foreign countries and 
smuggled into America, meth is being produced and distributed right 
here in America. Methamphetamine can be manufactured in small, 
clandestine labs that operate out of homes, barns, hotel rooms, and 
even car trunks. The equipment, ingredients, and even the recipe are 
readily available in pharmacies, hardware stores and on the Internet. 
Producers of methamphetamine tend to be small-scale operations seeking 
to make only enough for personal use and minor sales--much like the old 
alcohol stills--so that police can't simply choke off a major supply by 
targeting a big dealer. And because these clandestine operations are 
usually making only small quantities, shutting down a single meth lab 
does little to limit supply.
  So law enforcement faces one of its most urgent and complex 
challenges. It is being asked to shut down something as deadly as 
heroin, but as easy to make as bathtub gin.
  We must act to reverse this trend before it is too late. That is why 
I am supporting amendments to the budget resolution that will provide 
needed assistance to rural communities in their efforts to combat 
methamphetamine. Programs such as COPS, Byrne Grant, and Local Law 
Enforcement Block Grants play an essential role in providing the 
resources for our State and local law enforcement officers in their 
efforts.
  Just last night, on NBC nightly news, one of the lead stories was 
entitled ``Meth labs, a toxic threat to rural America.'' We don't need 
more stories in the news to know methamphetamine trafficking and abuse 
are already a major problem in rural areas. There is evidence that the 
drug is beginning to take hold in our Nation's urban and suburban 
areas. We must act now to prevent further damage.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate passed the Baucus 
amendment to strike what would amount to devastating cuts to the 
Medicaid program. I am pleased that this amendment was adopted, and I 
believe it was an important step in correcting what I believe was a 
gross misplacement of priorities in the Budget Resolution before the 
Senate.
  At the same time that this budget resolution cuts taxes for wealthier 
Americans by billions of dollars, it also included a provision that 
will help clear the way for an $11 billion cut in Medicaid. This cut 
would be devastating to millions of low-income families, children, 
disabled and senior citizens who are served by this critical health 
care program.
  And to make matters worse, this cut would come at a particularly bad 
time. States continue to face fiscal crises as a result of a weakened 
economy. They are already struggling to keep up with the rising demands 
and costs of Medicaid as more families need help during trying economic 
times. This budget resolution would have made it even harder for States 
to meet the needs of families, and would certainly lead to more 
uninsured Americans as States are forced to make painful cuts in 
Medicaid.
  Estimates show that an $11 billion cut in Medicaid would cost 
Wisconsin approximately $200 million over 5 years. Wisconsin has been a 
leader in providing comprehensive health services that working families 
need, but how would our State be expected to absorb a cut of this 
magnitude and continue to provide the comprehensive services people 
count on? This provision could force cuts in critical health benefits, 
preventive benefits, dental coverage, vision coverage, or speech and 
occupational therapy. It could force States to limit enrollment and 
lead to an increase in the number of uninsured families. It could lead 
to higher costs for seniors enrolled in State prescription drug 
assistance programs. It could limit options for long-term care for the 
elderly and disabled. And it could lead to cuts in reimbursement to 
health care providers.
  We should be appalled by the prospect of cuts in basic safety net 
programs like Medicaid during a time when many lower-income Americans 
need more help. We should be especially shocked when the cut occurs at 
the same time that we provide billions in tax cuts for the wealthy. But 
this budget resolution would have put $11 billion in Medicaid cuts on a 
fast track and left low-income working families, children, seniors and 
people with disabilities out in the cold.
  I am pleased that the Senate voted to reject these harmful Medicaid 
cuts and to finally begin to put this budget's priorities in the proper 
order for our Nation's working families.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on S. Con. Res. 
95, the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution.
  I support the budget before us because I believe it strikes a good 
balance between fiscal discipline, continued tax relief, and strong 
support for our military and the security of our homeland.
  Before I expand on S. Con. Res. 95, I would like to reflect on a few 
events and developments that have shaped the current landscape in 
America. Since President Bush's inauguration in 2001 America has faced 
a myriad of debilitating events such as: a stock market

[[Page S2697]]

that had been in decline since 2000 along with a recession according to 
leading economists; unprecedented corporate scandals; and, terrorism on 
American soil. This triad of events was a perfect recipe for increased 
unemployment, a ballooning deficit and a struggling economy. In an 
attempt to rectify these problems, the President, in conjunction with 
the House and the Senate passed necessary sweeping tax reform that has 
helped right the stock market, reduce unemployment and pave the way to 
sustained economic growth in the future.
  While these past legislative accomplishments were essential and have 
produced phenomenal results such as; gross domestic product, GDP, in 
the third quarter last year grew at the fastest quarterly rate in two 
decades, unemployment has dropped drastically and the combined value of 
the New York Stock Exchange, NYSE, and the NASDAQ has increase 40 
percent. And we need to do more to assure this unprecedented growth 
continues. That is why this budget rejects tax increases on working 
families, maintains tax relief for married couples and maintains the 
10-percent income tax rate for low-wage workers. In addition to 
maintaining tax relief, this budget, in order to allow for continued 
economic prosperity, holds the line on spending and cuts the deficit in 
half in merely three short years. This reduction in spending and 
exercise in fiscal discipline will help curb our towering deficit.
  The United States has also made bounding leaps in the war on 
terrorism. In the past year alone, the United States has toppled two 
evil regimes, in Afghanistan and Iraq, rid the world of Iraq's weapons 
programs, and captured Saddam Hussein. The Budget committee sent to the 
floor an increase in defense funding of $20 billion. After agreeing to 
Senator Warner's amendment, of which I was a cosponsor, the Senate has 
increased military funding by $27 billion for 2005 to make sure troops 
have the resources necessary to continue to fight this war on terrorism 
and protect and defend our interests around the world. In addition to 
providing funding for our military, this budget also takes into account 
the importance of adequately providing funding to secure our home front 
by increasing homeland security funds by $4 billion over last year's 
level.
  With our renewed economic growth and Congress' diligent efforts to 
focus spending on only our essential priorities, we can continue this 
economic prosperity and secure America at home and abroad.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as we debate the fiscal year 2005 budget 
resolution before us, each of us is obligated to measure the budget 
against our State and national priorities. Monday I talked about the 
many ways this budget shortchanges the Nation's priorities. Today I 
want to focus on the ways the budget shortchanges South Dakota's 
priorities.
  South Dakotans want to ensure that our fiscal health and Social 
Security remain sound and stable. They want men and women who have 
worked hard all their lives to retire with dignity. Since January 2001, 
they have watched with alarm as the Bush administration and Congress 
have spent both the budget surpluses it took us so long to accrue and 
the Social Security trust funds that, only a few years ago, both 
political parties declared untouchable. This budget exacerbates that 
dismal situation, and I will be supporting an amendment to protect 
Social Security for generations to come.
  South Dakotans want America's veterans to be treated with dignity, 
too. They want us to honor our commitments to them and ``care for him 
who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and orphan.'' Here 
again, this budget fails. Nearly 60,000 veterans are on waiting lists 
for care at VA hospitals. When our troops fighting in Iraq and 
Afghanistan return home, the lines could get even longer. But despite 
the extraordinary sacrifices our soldiers have made for us, the 
Republican budget offers veterans only longer waits and higher fees. I 
will be offering an amendment to fully fund veterans' health care.
  South Dakotans believe the men and women of the National Guard and 
Reserves should have the right to come home to health care, too. That 
is why I will be offering an amendment to allow those without health 
insurance to purchase TRICARE coverage when they return from active 
duty. The amendment would give Guard members and reservists permanent 
access to TRICARE coverage for themselves and their families.
  South Dakotans feel the pain of low wages, high unemployment, and 
American jobs going overseas. That is why I will be supporting an 
amendment to encourage job creation, discourage shipping American jobs 
overseas, and provide dislocated workers the assistance they need. 
South Dakotans want their children to have a world-class education. 
They believe that, in that effort, we should leave no child behind. 
Even if that child lives in a small, rural school district. Even if 
that child lives on an Indian reservation. The No Child Left Behind Act 
said, if you hold our students to higher standards, we will guarantee 
you the funding to meet those standards. Schools are holding up their 
end of the bargain, but the President and this budget are not. I will 
support an amendment to make good on our national promise and fully 
fund the No Child Left Behind Act, including the Rural Education 
Assistance Program.
  South Dakotans believe we should also make good on our promises to 
Native Americans. In that regard, and in so many areas, our Government 
has fallen short. Perhaps the most flagrant violation of our commitment 
to Native Americans is our failure to provide essential health care 
services to the people who depend on the Indian Health Service. This 
budget provides less than 40 percent of the funding needed to provide 
basic health care services to Indian Country. On a per capita basis, 
that equals about half of what our nation spends on federal prisoners' 
health care. Again, I will be offering an amendment to right that 
indefensible wrong.
  South Dakotans value clean water. The President's budget and this 
budget resolution shortchange critical drinking water projects, as well 
as basic water and sewer services for rural communities. Throughout 
this year's budget and appropriations processes, I will be working to 
restore those funds.
  South Dakotans value their forest land and want to protect it. Last 
December, Congress and the administration enacted the Healthy Forests 
Restoration Act to authorize funds for hazardous fuels reduction in our 
national forests. The President's budget underfunds that program, 
leaving our forests vulnerable and many communities at high risk of 
devastating fire. These funds must also be restored.
  South Dakotans believe that the communities that put food on our 
table deserve our gratitude and a fair chance to maintain their way of 
life. The President's budget and this budget resolution cut essential 
conservation and rural development programs and threaten the economic 
future of rural communities. I will be working to restore those funds, 
too.
  This budget, like all budgets, is about more than numbers. It is 
about choices. It is about priorities. And from the looks of this 
budget, our priorities are all wrong.
  Our Nation is at war, our economy is flagging, our schools are 
struggling, our people are going without health care, and our 
government is facing record deficits as far as the eye can see. But 
despite the tremendous challenges our nation faces, this budget 
inexplicably proposes a staggering $1.3 trillion in new tax breaks, 
primarily for the wealthiest among us.
  South Dakotans have a different set of priorities. In the course of 
this debate, I plan to support a series of amendments that aim to 
reflect those priorities. The amendments will offer a strategy to 
repair our fiscal problems, keep our promises, and prepare our country 
for the challenges of the future.
  Each amendment will fix a glaring weakness in this budget and each 
will be fully paid for. In fact, most will actually reduce the deficits 
that Republican budgets have created. And they will reflect the 
priorities of South Dakotans, who, like virtually all other Americans, 
expect us to make responsible choices.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The Federal budget deficit will reach a record $477 
billion this year, according to figures released in February by the 
Congressional Budget Office. And, if you believe the President's own 
numbers, the

[[Page S2698]]

budget deficit will come in at $521 billion this year. This is a 
stunning turnaround from 3 years ago, when the budget was in surplus. 
But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Over the next 10 years, the 
deficit is projected to grow to $5.5 trillion--another record.
  Deficits do matter, and unless we face up to them, they could 
seriously harm our Nation's economy. Here is why:
  First, deficits mean increased spending on interest instead of 
priorities. In the short term, deficits can help stimulate the economy 
or pay for emergency spending. But in the long term, they limit our 
Nation's ability to fund much needed priorities. This means less money 
for education, less money for environmental protection, and less money 
for health care. The administration--largely because of the projected 
deficits--has pledged to limit spending on domestic programs this year 
to 1 percent growth.
  The budget before the Senate today reflects these constraints by: 
failing to reimburse state and local governments for the federal 
responsibilities in paying for the incarceration of illegal immigrants; 
reducing the effectiveness of our police officers by cutting almost 
$700 million from the COPS program; cutting almost $250 million from 
firefighter grants; underfunding No Child Left Behind by $8.9 billion; 
and underfunding Port Security by more than $550 million. These are not 
frivolous or unimportant programs: these are vital priorities that must 
be funded.
  Last year we spent $318 billion in interest on the national debt 
alone. Our total non-defense discretionary spending last year was only 
modestly larger, coming in at $421 billion. Every dollar of that $318 
billion was money that could have been available for education, 
healthcare, defense, infrastructure, job development, homeland 
security--or to return to the American people as tax cuts, if we had 
paid down the debt.
  Second, deficits lead to interest rate increases. We have been 
fortunate in recent years; interest rates and inflation have remained 
low. But as the economy picks up, the downward pressure on interest 
rates will be relieved and the impact of deficits will be felt. This 
will add huge expenses to variable home mortgages and auto loans. An 
increase of just 1 percent would add $2,000 per year to the cost of a 
$200,000 home mortgage. This is more than the majority of American 
taxpayers will receive from the President's latest tax cut.
  Third, deficits prevent us from addressing the looming Social 
Security and Medicare crises. This is an issue that is not addressed in 
this budget resolution. We can not continue to avoid it forever. The 
retirement of the baby boomers will place a tremendous strain on our 
social safety net. In fact, if we do not address the problem, the 
Medicare trust fund will go broke by the year 2030, and the Social 
Security trust fund by 2040.
  Our Nation was poised to deal with these crises at the end of the 
Clinton administration. In 1998, the 30-year trend of deficit spending 
had been reversed, and we paid off $448 billion of the Nation's 
publicly held debt. This opportunity, however, has been lost. Not only 
have we failed to shore up the Social Security and Medicare trust 
funds, but we are also tapping the Social Security trust fund to pay 
our bills--to the tune of $164 billion this year alone.
  So what do we do?
  One possibility is to simply continue along our current path and pass 
our problems on to our children and grandchildren. In fact, the budget 
resolution we are dealing with today raises the federal debt ceiling by 
$644 billion--essentially borrowing from future generations because we 
are unable to muster the political will necessary to pay today's 
obligations today.
  So I strongly believe that the time has come to chart a different 
course, and make the tough choices that the President and this budget 
resolution avoid making. We must adopt a balanced approach to both 
taxes and spending and return to a program of fiscal sanity. This is 
what we did when I first came to the Senate over a decade ago. At that 
time, a small, bipartisan group of Senators came together to get our 
fiscal house in order. Democrats worked to bring spending under 
control. And Republicans pledged not to push for additional tax cuts. 
Today, we must come together again to address the deficit and restore 
our Nation's economic security.
  On taxes, I believe that we must consider rolling back the tax cut on 
the wealthiest in the Nation, to bring the income tax rate from its 
current 35 percent back up to 38.6 percent--what it was just last year. 
This will affect those who earn more than $312,000 per year. And, will 
impact less than one percent of American taxpayers, but will save 
nearly $130 billion over the next decade. Making the President's tax 
cuts permanent, as he called for in his State of the Union Address, 
represents the height of fiscal irresponsibility. In fact, the Tax 
Policy Institute estimates the cost of making these tax cuts permanent 
would cost $1.8 trillion over ten years--$1.8 trillion at just the time 
that baby boomers will start retiring and Social Security and Medicare 
need to be stabilized.
  The tragedy of our current circumstance is that, given the surpluses 
he inherited, President Bush should have the resources available to 
devote additional spending to healthcare, education, and the 
environment. But the wrong policies, at the wrong time, combined with 
the war on terror, escalating the 2001 tax cuts, and now moving to make 
them permanent, plus the recession, have contributed toward the largest 
budget deficit in history.
  And now, the fact of the matter is that we are going to need to 
tighten our belts and bring spending under control. I have no problem 
holding the line on spending, but believe that it must be done in the 
context of a more responsible approach to tax policy.
  Finally, we need to take a good, hard look at Social Security and 
Medicare, and start addressing some of the deeper structural problems 
with these programs now--before they fall into crisis. These are not 
easy answers. But holding off on additional tax cuts, bringing spending 
under control, and dealing with Social Security and Medicare is the 
only path to long term fiscal order, a balanced budget, and a healthy 
and vibrant economy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


            Unanimous-Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous 
consent that following the vote on the adoption of the budget 
resolution, the Senate proceed to executive session and to consecutive 
votes on the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: 
Calendar Nos. 562 and 565.
  I further ask unanimous consent that following the votes, the motions 
to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to 
legislative session with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I 
ask the distinguished leader if he would amend his unanimous consent 
request for it to be in order to ask for the yeas and nays at this 
point.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, what we are doing, so people will stay for 
another 15 minutes or so, is we are going to act on 2 of the 12 judges 
who were reported by the Judiciary Committee last Thursday. The judges 
have been cleared on our side and are ready to have a voice vote on 
each nomination.
  I understand there is going to be a request for a rollcall vote from 
the other side of the aisle. If no one requests such a vote, I will be 
prepared to announce that the vote on adoption of the budget resolution 
be the final vote prior to the recess, but if votes are needed on the 
judges, then Senators should be prepared to stay for these two rollcall 
votes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, again reserving the right to object, there 
will be a request for a rollcall vote, and I assume the leader would 
join in that, that there would be a request for a rollcall vote on the 
two judges, 10-minute rollcall votes so we are only here for 11 
minutes, and everybody will be out on the second one. I only ask to 
protect my rights to ask for those rollcall votes.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, it looks as if we will have final passage, 
and then we will have two rollcall votes. For scheduling what will 
come, I announce that we will be in session tomorrow

[[Page S2699]]

briefly to finish clearing some legislation, but we will not have 
rollcall votes tomorrow.
  We are also attempting to clear additional executive nominations, 
including Mark McClellan to be Administrator of the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services. Following Friday's session, we will 
reconvene on Monday, March 22. I previously announced there will be no 
rollcall votes on that day. However, we will resume consideration of 
the FSC/ETI bill on that day. I will have more to say on that in 
closing later tonight.
  Having said that, following the last vote tonight, the next vote will 
occur on Tuesday, March 23. We will go to final passage now, and then 
two rollcall votes on the judges.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, before we conclude, I again thank the 
chairman of the Budget Committee. I also thank his excellent staff: 
Hazen Marshall, Stacey Hughes, and Beth Felder, who worked closely with 
us through these difficult days.
  I say to our side, I urge you to vote no on this budget resolution. 
It adds $2.86 trillion to the national debt. I do not see any cutting 
of the deficit in half in 3 years or 4 years or 5 years under this 
budget resolution. Instead, I see it adding to the deficit each and 
every year by an additional $177 billion. I urge my colleagues to vote 
no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to S. Con. Res. 95, as amended. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid) is absent 
attending a funeral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 58 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     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
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Edwards
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Reid
  The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 95) was agreed to.
  (The concurrent resolution will be printed in a future edition of the 
Record.)
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FRIST. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________