[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 161 (Thursday, December 15, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13630-S13635]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 3:30
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of the House
message accompanying S. 1932. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1932) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95).
Pending:
DeWine motion to instruct conferees to insist that any
conference report shall not include the provisions contained
in section 8701 of the House amendment relating to the repeal
of section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
Kohl motion to instruct conferees to insist that any
conference report shall not include any of the provisions in
the House amendment that reduce funding for the child support
program established under part D of title IV of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), and to insist that the
conference report shall not include any restrictions on the
ability of States to use Federal child support incentive
payments for child support program expenditures that are
eligible for Federal matching payments.
Kennedy motion to instruct conferees to insist that the
Senate provisions increasing need-based financial aid in the
bill, S. 1932, which were fully offset by savings in the
bill, S. 1932, be included in the final conference report and
that the House provisions in the bill, H.R. 4241, that impose
new fees and costs on students in school and in repayment be
rejected in the final conference report.
Reed motion to instruct conferees to insist on a provision
that makes available $2,920,000,000 for the Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 et seq.), in
addition to the $2,183,000,000 made available for such act in
the Departments of Labor, Health, and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be deemed
that the yeas and nays have been ordered on the next four items which
are set for votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is in order to request
the yeas and nays en bloc.
Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays en bloc.
Mr. DeWINE. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. What is the request?
Mr. GREGG. The point of the request is to allow the yeas and nays on
each item and that they be voted on seriatim.
Mr. DeWINE. I withdraw my reservation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered en bloc.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the
first vote, the subsequent votes be 10 minutes in duration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Motion to Instruct Conferees
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the first motion? The
Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this
motion to instruct the conferees to support something that 72 Senators
have already supported in letters they have signed in the past, 72
Members of this body, and I have the list for anyone who would like to
see it when they come to the Chamber.
This is to support a bill that is currently law, the Continued
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act. It is a bill that has helped companies
in 48 States across this country. More importantly, it has helped
workers in 48 States across this country. It has helped employers who
create additional jobs. The idea is to compensate companies that have
been victimized by illegal foreign dumping in this country. Instead of
giving money to the Treasury, it goes to these companies, and these
companies have the right then to reinvest and create jobs.
Some people have argued this is some sort of special interest. I ask
Members of the Senate, when in the world did it become a special
interest to protect American jobs?
This is a proven way to fight back against illegal trade. It is a
proven way to protect American jobs. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to join my Republican colleagues,
Senator DeWine, Senator Specter, and Senator Craig, all of whom have
already spoken so eloquently in support of a motion introduced by
Senator DeWine yesterday to instruct conferees on the budget bill to
strike an ill- conceived House provision that would repeal the
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, also known as CDSOA.
To repeal or abandon this trade law would be a travesty. The
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act was enacted to save American
manufacturing and our agricultural producers from wave after wave of
unfairly dumped foreign imports.
CDSOA remains one of the most successful trade programs ever enacted.
It maintains America's corporate competitiveness; it enables small and
medium-sized businesses--and family-owned businesses--to invest in
their futures. It keeps American workers employed, so they can receive
health and pension benefits. This law is about American jobs. As
Senator DeWine said yesterday, this law is not about rewarding special
interests: It is about keeping American jobs.
Five years ago, a bipartisan majority of the Senate approved our
amendment to give U.S. companies injured by unfair trade the ability to
invest in their factories and workers with funds collected by the
Customs Service from unfairly traded imports. I particularly appreciate
the continued strong support that Senator DeWine and many of our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to express in
support of this law. In fact, three-fourths of the Senate has publicly
pledged support for the law.
[[Page S13631]]
Before this law was enacted, the Customs Service imposed antidumping
and countervailing duties on dumped and unfairly subsidized imports--to
make foreign exporters stop dumping and charge a fair price. Despite
Customs' efforts, unfair foreign traders refused to trade fairly.
Instead, they continued to dump--year after year. And the prices of the
dumped foreign imports from China, Canada, the European Union, Japan,
and other countries continued to unfairly undercut the prices of
American-made products sold here in the United States.
Faced with eroding U.S. market share, American producers struggled to
stay afloat, unable to invest in new plants or equipment or to meet
their payrolls. This was particularly true for small businesses and
many of our Nation's family farmers, ranchers, and aquacultural
producers. Even today, valiant producers of shrimp and crawfish
continue to suffer from having endured a double whammy: unending unfair
trade and Hurricane Katrina.
CDSOA was enacted to restore conditions of fair trade, so that jobs
that should stay in the United States are not sent overseas or
``outsourced'' as the result of unfair competition. Under the law, each
year, Customs distributes duties collected from unfair imports to those
American companies and workers who can prove that they have been
materially injured by unfair trade.
While the amounts distributed under the program are not large from a
budget perspective---approximately $226 million for fiscal year 2005--
the law is critically important to American companies and workers who
continue to work hard to stay in business, even when foreign producers
refuse to stop dumping. American companies that rightfully receive
distributions under the law include producers of crawfish, garlic,
furniture, honey, lumber, wheat, shrimp, catfish, semiconductor chips,
bearings, mushrooms, crawfish, pasta, steel, raspberries, cement, and a
long list of others--all of which deserve to be reimbursed under the
law for having suffered the negative effects of bringing successful
trade cases against illegally traded imports year after year after
year.
There was a claim on the Senate floor earlier this week that CDSOA
claims may be fraudulent. That shows a basic misunderstanding of the
law. To receive reimbursement under the law, companies must certify, in
writing, that they have made qualifying expenditures in their workers
and facilities. CDSOA reimburses them for those expenditures. And
Customs may verify any claim submitted to make certain that a request
for reimbursement is valid. So there are very careful safeguards in
place under the law to be certain that funds are distributed fairly,
honestly, and legally.
Critics of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act also argue
that the WTO has ruled against the law, so we should abandon it. But
the WTO was wrong in opposing it. The WTO was overzealous in ruling
against the law; it overreached. The WTO decision against this trade
authority was technically beyond the scope of the WTO' legal mandate.
The WTO incorrectly read into international agreements a prohibition
against our law that was never agreed to by any U.S. trade negotiator.
The WTO has no legal basis to request that the United States repeal
this law.
Nearly 800 American companies and workers in nearly every State of
the Nation receive distributions under its provisions. It is critical
to family-owned businesses, like Warwood Tools in Wheeling, WV, and to
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, and to Mittal Steel's facilities in Weirton,
WV. It is equally important to the thousands of steelworkers in Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and elsewhere across the Nation. They, and all hard-
working Americans, deserve to continue to receive these funds so long
as foreign traders keep dumping. If our trading partners don't like
this trade law, I have only two words for them: stop dumping.
In the fiscal year 2004 and 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Acts--
and, now, in the fiscal year 2006 Commerce, Justice, Science, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act--both Houses of Congress included
language that directs the administration to negotiate a solution to the
WTO dispute concerning this law. In fact, the conference report on the
CJS bill that contains this language was approved by the Senate on
November 16 by an overwhelming vote of 94 to 5.
Pursuant to these congressional directives, the administration last
year put this trade law on the table in the Doha Round of trade
negotiations, and the USTR even told our trading partners that it
agrees it is ``beyond question that countries have the sovereign right
to distribute duties as they deem appropriate.''
Even if the WTO disagrees with the law, any retaliation by other
countries against us is negligible--equal to only a few hours of trade
among a few of our trading partners.
Currently, the United States and other nations are seeking to
complete negotiations in the Doha Round of international trade talks by
the end of 2006. Now is not the time to weaken the hand of our trade
negotiators by attempting to repeal one of our Nation's most prominent
and effective trade laws.
In fact, now is the time to do more to hold foreign unfair traders
accountable, not less.
I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in support of this
motion to instruct the conferees to strike from the budget
reconciliation bill any provision that would repeal this critical trade
law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this proposal is a motion to instruct which
has no binding effect and, thus, I assume Members are just going to
vote the way they feel like voting.
I will point out this: No. 1, the effect of this motion, if it had a
binding effect, would be to take $3 billion away from the Federal
Treasury and give it to specific companies in violation of a WTO
ruling. It may have made sense at one time, but since the WTO ruling,
it makes no sense. Because of that ruling, other companies are now
being penalized inappropriately because we continue to assess this
fine.
No. 2, it is very hard for me to understand why, in a bill that is
supposed to be reducing the deficit, we would want to increase the
deficit by passing this type of instruction. Therefore, I oppose the
motion to instruct.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The Legislative Clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from South Carolina
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
Vitter).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Santorum) would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Washington
(Ms. Cantwell), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
California (Mrs. Boxer), would vote ``aye.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 20, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 354 Leg.]
YEAS--71
Akaka
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Carper
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Martinez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Thune
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--20
Alexander
Allard
Bond
Brownback
Chafee
DeMint
[[Page S13632]]
Ensign
Frist
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Inhofe
Kyl
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Sununu
Thomas
NOT VOTING--9
Biden
Boxer
Cantwell
Chambliss
Dodd
Graham
Isakson
Santorum
Vitter
The motion was agreed to.
Change of Vote
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 354, I voted ``yea.'' It
was my intention to vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent
that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the
outcome.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask that the Record show that I
would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 354, the DeWine motion to
instruct conferees on S. 1932. I continue to support the Continued
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, and I agree that its repeal should not
be included in the conference report.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I regret that I was unable to vote this
afternoon on the DeWine motion to instruct conferees with respect to S.
1932, the deficit reduction bill.
The DeWine motion to instruct conferees was crafted with the goal of
preventing Senate conferees to S. 1932 from agreeing with the House
provision that repeals the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of
2000 (CDSOA) during conference deliberations. Despite widespread
support for this provision of law, the House companion bill repeals
CDSOA. I have been a supporter of CDSOA since it was first crafted by
Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio.
Mr. President, I ask that the Record reflect that, had I been here, I
would have voted in favor of Senator DeWine's motion to instruct
conferees to not repeal CDSOA during conference deliberations on S.
1932.
I ask unanimous consent that my letter of November 29, 2005, to the
Honorable Charles Grassley, Chairman, Committee on Finance, on the need
to maintain CDSOA, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Dear Chairman Grassley: I write today concerning a
provision contained in H.R. 4241, the House-passed savings
reconciliation bill, that repeals the Continued Dumping and
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 [P.L. 106-387]. The Senate
companion bill, S. 1932, does not include this repeal. I am
optimistic that the Senate will not concur with the House
action during conference deliberations on this bill. Please
know that I was a cosponsor of the free-standing bill
introduced by Senator Mike DeWine that was the blueprint for
this amendment.
Over two years ago, the World Trade Organization (WTO)
ruled that the Byrd Amendment is inconsistent with the United
States' WTO obligations. The WTO has since authorized eight
WTO members to retaliate against the United States. Canada,
the European Union, Japan and Mexico have imposed about $115
million in retaliation on U.S. exports after the United
States failed to meet a December 2003 WTO deadline for
repealing the act.
However, in H.R. 2673, the Fiscal Year 2004 Consolidated
Appropriations Act, Congress included a provision that
directs the Bush Administration to immediately initiate WTO
negotiations to recognize the ability of WTO members to
distribute monies collected from antidumping and
countervailing duties, and to provide regular reports on such
negotiations.
Earlier this year, 25 Republican Senators wrote to Majority
Leader Frist urging that the Senate not agree to any
provisions that would repeal CDSOA. Prior to that letter,
over 70 Senators wrote to President Bush expressing the view
that U.S. negotiators needed to re-engage WTO members and to
continue to push for maintaining CDSOA. It was the view of
these Members that U.S. trade laws are designed to insure a
level playing field for U.S. industries and their workers
that are being harmed by unfair trade.
As you may recall, the Bush administration stated in its
November 2002 appeal ``[T]he Panel in this case has created
obligations that do not exist in the WTO Agreements cited.
The errors committed are serious and many about a statute
which, in the end, creates a payment program that is not
challenged as a subsidy.''
With this in mind, I urge you to oppose efforts to repeal
CDSOA during House-Senate conference negotiations on H.R.
4241 and S. 1932, the spending reconciliation bills.
Thank you for your kind consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Rick Santorum,
United States Senate.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Motion to Instruct Conferees
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). There is 2 minutes evenly
divided.
Mr. GREGG. Is that on the Kohl proposal?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I call up my motion, which is at the desk,
to reject the $16 billion cut to the child support program which is in
the House bill but which is not in the Senate bill. The House position
will result in $24 billion in child support payments going uncollected,
and would impact families in every single State. The child support
program is a proven success and it has won high praise in the
President's 2006 budget for providing a $4 return on every dollar
invested in the program.
The House conference report is opposed by a wide range of interests,
including the National Governors' Association and the National
Conference of State Legislatures. I strongly urge my colleagues to join
me in sending a message to the conferees that the Senate will not
support cutting benefits for over 17 million children.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. The motion of the Senator from Wisconsin is not binding so
I am sure they will vote as they please. It is well-intentioned and I
agree with the concept. However, there are issues within the child
support questions which should be subject to conference and which, if
you read the motion literally and which if it had any binding effect,
would undermine our capacity to have flexibility in conference.
Specifically, for example, under the law today, you can use Federal
money and make the State match, so what is happening is States are
taking Federal money, and instead of using their State dollars to
match, they are using Federal money to get more Federal money. That
makes no sense at all.
The House has corrected this program. This language would undermine
that. I hope we do not support the motion to instruct. The conference
will do a good job on this. It does not need this instruction.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from South Carolina
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
Vitter).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Washington
(Ms. Cantwell), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
California (Mrs. Boxer) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 16, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 355 Leg.]
YEAS--75
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Burns
Byrd
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Coburn
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
[[Page S13633]]
NAYS--16
Allard
Allen
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Cochran
DeMint
Ensign
Gregg
Hagel
Inhofe
Lott
Martinez
McConnell
Sununu
NOT VOTING--9
Biden
Boxer
Cantwell
Chambliss
Dodd
Graham
Isakson
Santorum
Vitter
The motion was agreed to.
Motion to Instruct conferees
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior
to a vote in relation to the motion to instruct offered by Senator
Kennedy.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just take 30 seconds because the
other 30 seconds will be taken by the chairman of the HELP Committee.
All this motion does is insist that the student aid program--which
provides $8 billion more for Pell eligible students--that passed out of
our committee, virtually unanimously, will be affirmed in the
conference. Effectively, we are taking what was the bipartisan
agreement in our committee under the leadership of Senator Enzi and
instructing the conferees to support that position.
Many of our colleagues have voiced their public support for this
motion, including Senators Durbin, Harkin, Dodd, Reid, Lieberman,
Kerry, Reed, Corzine, Clinton, and Lautenberg.
If you are for American competitiveness in the global economy, you
will vote for this motion.
If you are for a strong national security, you will vote for this
motion.
If you are for opportunity for every American, you will vote for this
motion.
I urge my colleagues to join me in doing what is right for American
families, especially at Christmas, and send a strong message that
students need our help now.
I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Wyoming.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I concur with what the Senator from
Massachusetts just said. As the body will remember, the Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee had the heaviest lifting in
the savings bill, and we met that requirement. We met that requirement
while we provided for some grants for both low-income and people who
would major in math and science and some special languages.
I would appreciate the support of this body on this instruction. I
have been negotiating with the House for 5 full days, and this is one
of the issues that is still up. This instruction would help us in that
negotiation. I would appreciate the support.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
support Senator Kennedy's motion to instruct conferees. The motion
instructs Senate conferees to insist on preserving the Senate
provisions that increase need-based financial aid in S. 1932. Forty
years ago, President Johnson sought to increase accessibility to
education by signing into law the Higher Education Act of 1965. In
President Johnson's words, ``To thousands of young men and women, this
[Act] means the path of knowledge is open to all that have the
determination to walk it . . . a high school senior anywhere in this
great land of ours can apply to any college or any university in any of
the 50 States and not be turned away because his family is poor.''
Access to higher education has long been and remains a great American
goal. The good news is that the number of students enrolling in
institutions of higher education has nearly doubled over the past 35
years--from 8.5 million in 1970 to approximately 16 million in 2005.
The bad news is that, despite the importance of a college education in
the 21st century, so many millions of young adults never make it to
college. Sadly, many fail to make it to college due to financial
constraints.
Never has higher education played such a critical role in closing the
gap between the haves and the have-nots. Over the course of their
lifetime, college graduates earn over $1 million more than those
without college degrees. Today, 6 out of every 10 jobs require some
postsecondary education and training. By 2010, the number of jobs
requiring advanced skills will grow at twice the rate of those
requiring only basic skills.
In addition to the individual benefits of earning a college degree,
investing in and producing more college-educated Americans is vital to
our Nation's growth. Economists estimate that the increases in the
education level of the U.S. labor force between 1915 and 1999 directly
resulted in at least 23 percent of the overall growth in U.S.
productivity.
Unfortunately, the cost of a college education is far out of reach
for many American students and is hitting poor families the hardest--
not just those from poverty-stricken areas but those who come from
family farms and those who may be new immigrants. According to the
College Board, the inflation-adjusted, real increase in tuition, fees,
and room and board at public colleges over the last 5 years has been 2
percent. At 4-year private schools, the same costs have increased by 17
percent.
Federal financial assistance is simply not keeping pace with rising
college costs. In the 1970s, the maximum Pell grant for low-income and
working class families covered about 40 percent of the average cost of
attending a 4-year college. Now it only covers about 15 percent. Smart,
hardworking kids from low-income backgrounds deserve a chance to go as
far as their talents will take them. According to Postsecondary
Education Opportunity, a higher education research group, the
percentage of the Nation's poorest students who earned a bachelor's
degree by age 24 increased only from 7.1 percent in 1975 to 8.6 percent
2003. The students left behind represent a huge untapped resource for
our country.
Recently, many reports have sounded the alarm that America is losing
its edge as the world's technological innovator to countries such as
China and India. These countries are moving from being the world's
supplier of low-wage, high-labor work to becoming the world's
technological leaders by investing in their talent pool. In recent
years, Americans have felt the effects of the impact of education as
newly educated workers from China and India compete for prime jobs once
held in the United States. According to the National Academies, in
2004, China graduated 600,000 engineers and India 350,000, while the
United States produced only 70,000 engineers. To keep America's edge,
we must recognize the value of investing in higher education and
provide our young adults with the assistance they need so that they can
compete in the global economy.
The Senate provisions included in S. 1932 that increase need-based
financial aid--Pell grants and new need-based aid programs such as
ProGap and SMART grants--will help many deserving students reach their
educational potential. In contrast, the House fails to seize an
opportunity to expand Pell grants and other need-based aid. Instead,
the House bill includes provisions that would make college more
expensive for families. These provisions include: No. 1, a temporary
increase in origination fees for direct loan borrowers; No. 2, repeal
of a scheduled reduction in the maximum student loan interest rate--
from 8.25 percent to 6.8 percent for students and from 9 percent to 7.9
percent for parents; No. 3, imposing a new 1 percent borrower
origination fee that will make it more expensive to consolidate loans;
and No. 4, requiring lenders to charge student and parent borrowers a 1
percent insurance fee on student loans.
By insisting on the Senate provisions, we will boost need-based aid
and in turn help the United States maintain its competitive edge. But
most importantly, we will be a step closer to living up to the promise
that President Johnson made to America's youth 40 years ago: providing
access to higher education for those determined to realize the American
dream.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GREGG. We yield back the remainder of the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on
agreeing to the motion.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from South Carolina
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
Vitter).
[[Page S13634]]
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Washington
(Ms. Cantwell), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
California (Mrs. Boxer) would vote ``aye''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 8, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 356 Leg.]
YEAS--83
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--8
Bond
Burr
Coburn
DeMint
Gregg
Hagel
Inhofe
Sununu
NOT VOTING--9
Biden
Boxer
Cantwell
Chambliss
Dodd
Graham
Isakson
Santorum
Vitter
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Motion to Instruct Conferees
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes
equally divided on the Reed motion to instruct conferees. The Senator
from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I offer this motion along with my colleague,
Senator Collins from Maine. I will shortly yield to her the last 30
seconds. I also offer it on behalf of myself and other Senators,
including Senator Lautenberg.
The reality is very clear to so many poor families in this country.
Energy prices are rising, temperatures are falling, and they are going
to be in a very vulnerable and very disadvantaged position. This
amendment would add $2.9 billion in additional funding for LIHEAP. It
would bring it up to the authorized level of $5.1 billion.
We have considered this proposal in various procedural means four
times. A majority of the Senate has always supported it. I hope it
continues to do so.
I yield my remaining time to Senator Collins.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this
motion to instruct the conferees to add $2.9 billion for the LIHEAP
program. The time is growing late. In northern Maine, the high
temperature earlier this week--the high temperature--was 12 degrees.
Let's act now to avert a real crisis for low-income families across
this country.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today for one very simple reason--to
ask for the support of my colleagues for the Reed-Collins-Kennnedy-
Snowe motion to instruct the conferees to S. 1932, to add $2.92 billion
for the Low Income Home Energy Assistant Program, or LIHEAP. This
funding, along with the expected $2.18 billion in fiscal year 2006
appropriations, will confirm the commitment we made just this past July
and bring LIHEAP up to the level of $5.1 billion we authorized in the
2005 Energy bill.
In the Nation's colder States such as Maine, the days are
relentlessly marching toward winter, the clock is ticking as the
thermometer edges ever downward and it would be unconscionable for
Congress to adjourn for the year without providing critical, additional
assistance for LIHEAP at a time when home heating oil prices have been
predicted to increase by up to 44 percent this coming winter.
There should be no mistake--this is an emergency and a crisis that is
no longer an impending crisis as I have been saying for months--it is
now here. I feel very strongly that it would be an abrogation of our
responsibility to stand by and allow more and more of our elderly on
fixed incomes and low-income people, including children, to suffer
because of a lack of heat.
This past week, it was reported to one of my Maine offices that two
elderly people--who have already used up their entire LIHEAP allotment
for a winter that has not yet officially arrived--were admitted to the
hospital with hypothermia. In one of the households, the residence was
so cold the water in the toilet bowl was frozen. It has been said that
a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. What
a failing grade we would get for LIHEAP. The fact is, countless
Americans don't have room in their budget for such a surge in home
heating prices--but surely, in looking at our national priorities, we
can find room in our budget to help Americans stay warm this winter.
It does not take a crystal ball to predict the dire consequences when
home heating oil in Maine has risen to $2.59 per gallon, up 66 cents
from a year ago, kerosene prices average $2.72 a gallon, 52 cents
higher than this time last year, and propane is at $2.20 per gallon, 17
cents higher than last year. Some projections have a gallon of heating
oil reaching $3.00 later in the winter.
So understandably, we are hearing the mounting concern ``how will I
pay for home heating oil when it's already almost 30 percent more than
last year, and I struggled to make ends meet then?'' ``How will I
afford to pay half again as much for natural gas?'' People need to know
now that they can count on us--U.S. Congress--for assistance, not the
most disruptive country leader in the Western Hemisphere who comes
bearing gifts of discounted oil to our communities and States. This
country should take care of its own.
Home heating oil in my State is a necessity of life--so much so that
73 percent of households in a recent survey reported they would cut
back on, and even go without, other necessities such as food,
prescription drugs, and mortgage and rent payments. Churches, food
pantries, and local service organizations are all hearing the cry and
sensing the growing need.
Because of the supply disruptions caused by the Gulf hurricanes at a
time when prices were already spiraling up, prices have been driven
even higher and are directly affecting low-come Mainers and how they
Will be able to pay for their home heating oil, propane and kerosene
this winter. A recent Wall Street Journal quoted Jo-Ann Choate, who
heads up Maine's LIHEAP program. Ms. Choate said, ``This year we've got
a very good chance of running out.'' Eighty-four percent of the
applicants for the LIHEAP program in the State use oil heat. Over
46,000 applied for and received State LIHEAP funds last winter. Each
household received $480, which covered the cost of 275 gallons of
heating oil.
The problem this winter is that the same $480 will buy only 172
gallons, which a household will use up in the first 3 to 4 weeks in
Maine. What will these people do to stay warm for the four or five
months left of winter? The water pipes will freeze and then break,
damaging homes. People will start using their stoves to get heat. The
Mortgage Bankers Association expects that the steep energy costs could
increase the number of missed payments and lost homes beginning later
this year. My State is anticipating at least 48,000 applicants this
winter, so there will be less money distributed to each household
unless we can obtain higher funding for the LIHEAP program.
Ms. Choate says that Maine plans to focus on the elderly, disabled,
and families with small children, and is studying how to move others to
heated shelters. This is why our efforts are so very important. And it
isn't just Maine. It is happening in all of the Nation's cold weather
States. Quite simply, without increased funding, we are forcing the
managers of State LIHEAP programs to make a Solomon's choice as to who
gets served.
The facts are that LIHEAP is projected to help 5 million households
nationwide this winter. But that is only
[[Page S13635]]
about one-sixth of households across the country that actually can
qualify for the assistance. So this is a perennial fight we wage even
when prices aren't as high as today. And now, that battle becomes all
the more pivotal.
I Thank Senators Reed and Collins for their leadership on this motion
to instruct the conferees for increased LIHEAP funding, and I am proud
to stand shoulder to shoulder with them to secure what is, in essence,
literally life-or-death funding for our most vulnerable Americans. The
cold weather won't wait--and neither should we when it comes to helping
citizens survive through the coming winter.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let's remember what this amendment does in
the context of the LIHEAP issue. This amendment will add $2.9 billion
to the national debt and pass that debt on to our children in order to
pay for energy costs which are being incurred today.
The correct way to do this is the way we proposed in the Senate, as
Republicans, which is to pay for it. That is what we will do in the
conference. There is already $1 billion additional money for LIHEAP in
the conference, and it will probably go up. The difference between
those dollars and what is being proposed in this amendment is we
actually pay for it.
It is inappropriate to go to this number, which is a 130-percent
increase in the LIHEAP program, when spending on oil is estimated to go
up by 28 to 30 percent or maybe even 40 percent. Increasing the program
by 130 percent when the oil costs are going up 30 to 40 percent is
inconsistent on its face.
It is especially inconsistent when one is taking that bill and giving
it to one's children and their children's children so they end up
paying for today's oil costs rather than their oil costs 2 or 3 years
from today or two or three generations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from South Carolina
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
Vitter).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Washington
(Ms. Cantwell), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
California (Mrs. Boxer) would vote ``aye.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 28, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 357 Leg.]
YEAS--63
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bingaman
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Crapo
Dayton
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Grassley
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thune
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--28
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Coburn
Cochran
Cornyn
Craig
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
McConnell
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thomas
NOT VOTING--9
Biden
Boxer
Cantwell
Chambliss
Dodd
Graham
Isakson
Santorum
Vitter
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I regret that I was unable to
vote this afternoon on the Reed motion to instruct conferees with
respect to S. 1932, the deficit reduction bill.
The LIHEAP program is of critical importance to Pennsylvania. My
State routinely faces very harsh winters. Now that the cold weather is
here and bills must be paid, I believe we must act to provide
additional funding for this program. My record shows that I have been a
consistent LIHEAP supporter, and I am hopeful that an increase will be
promptly approved.
Mr. President, I ask that the Record reflect that, had I been here, I
would have voted in favor of Senator Reed's motion to instruct.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
Under the previous order, the Presiding Officer appoints Mr. Gregg,
Mr. Domenici, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Allard, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
Stevens, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Specter, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. McConnell, Mr.
Conrad, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Leahy conferees on the part
of the Senate.
____________________