Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 32 (Tuesday, March 14, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 32 (Tuesday, March 14, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2054-S2116]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR
2007

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 83, which the clerk
will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 83) setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2007, and including the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2006 and 2008 through 2011.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there are
40 hours equally divided remaining for debate.
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the time consumed since 9 o'clock
be credited to the budget time and the budget time be reduced by that
amount of time and that it be allocated to our side.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand Senator Feingold will speak to
the amendment offered by himself and Senator Conrad and after Senator
Feingold finishes speaking, I ask we go into a quorum call with the
time equally divided as was ordered.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. I am very
pleased to join the Senator from North Dakota in the pay-go amendment,
which I understand he will be offering soon.
There is no Senator more dedicated to a fiscally responsible Federal
budget and to restoring sound budget rules than Senator Conrad. He is
an acknowledged expert on the budget and the rules that govern its
consideration. One might say he is the ``Robert C. Byrd'' of the
budget.
You do not have to be a Kent Conrad to understand the pay-go rule.
Our amendment is the same amendment one or the other of us have offered
since the original pay-as-you-go rule expired a few years ago. It
simply reinstates the pay-as-you-go rule that had been such an
effective restraint on the fiscal appetites of Congress and the White
House.
Over the past 5 years, we have seen a dramatic deterioration in the
Government's ability to perform one of its most fundamental jobs, and
that is balancing the Nation's fiscal books. In January of 2001, the
Congressional Budget Office projected, in the 10 years thereafter, the
Government would run a unified budget surplus of more than $5 trillion.
But little more than 5 years later, we face immense deficits and
backbreaking debt.
This must stop. Running deficits causes the Government to use the
surpluses of the Social Security trust fund for other Government
purposes, rather than to pay down the debt and help our Nation prepare
for the coming retirement of the baby boom generation.
Every dollar we add to the Federal debt is another dollar that we are
forcing our children to pay back in higher taxes or fewer Government
benefits. When we choose to spend on current consumption--through
appropriated accounts or mandatory spending or tax cuts--without paying
for that spending, we are robbing our children of the opportunity to
have their own choices.
When we spend on our wants, by cutting taxes or through Government
programs, without paying for those decisions, we are saddling our
children and even our grandchildren with debts they must pay from their
tax dollars and their hard work. That is not right.
That is why I am joining Senator Conrad in his amendment to fully
reinstate the pay-go rule. We need a strong budget process. We need to
exert fiscal discipline.
When the pay-go rule was in effect, that tough fiscal discipline
actually

[[Page S2055]]

governed the budget process. Under the current approach, it is actually
the other way around: the annual budget resolution determines how much
fiscal discipline we are willing to impose on ourselves.
Obviously, it is not surprising to know that simply has not worked.
When Congress decides it would be nice to create a new entitlement or
enact new tax cuts and then adjusts its budget rules to permit those
policies, we are inviting a disastrous result. And actually that is
what we have seen happen--a disastrous result in terms of the fiscal
health of our country.
I have tried in the past to contrast this approach to going on a
diet. If you want to lose weight, you set the number of total calories
you are allowed to consume first, and then what you are supposed to do,
I understand, is to make the meals fit under that cap--not the other
way around.
Imagine trying to lose weight by deciding what you want to eat first
and then setting a calorie limit to accommodate all of your cravings.
If you want a few extra beers, fine, just dial up the limit on your
calorie intake. If you want some fudge brownies, that is fine, too,
just raise the calorie limit accordingly.
It may taste pretty good at the time, but it is awfully sure you will
end up gaining weight, such as the Nation is racking up debt. Because
this ill-advised diet is exactly how the current, mutated version of
pay-go works--and we have seen the results--the results are the debt we
are leaving our children and grandchildren, and that debt continues to
balloon and balloon.
In the case of the budget resolution before us, Members are permitted
to indulge themselves in tax cut and mandatory spending policies--that
are normally restrained by pay-go--to the tune of an estimated 10-year
cost of $270 billion without having to find offsetting savings.
We need to return to the wise restraints under which Congress
functioned during the 1990s and which were instrumental in balancing
the Federal budget. That is precisely what this amendment the Senator
from North Dakota and I are offering would do.
Many of us have lived under this rule, and we know how effective it
was. If this budget does nothing else, it should reinstate the old pay-
go rule. If we do that, maybe we can begin to turn these annual budgets
around and stop racking up these deficits and adding to the already
enormous Federal debt.
I urge my colleagues to support the commonsense, time-tested pay-go
amendment by my colleague from North Dakota.
Mr. President, of course, that time I used was, as I understand, to
come off the budget resolution; is that correct?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is the Chair's understanding.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Presiding Officer.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, what I want to do is to follow up today on
the comments by Senator Feingold, who has been talking about pay-go as
a tool to begin reducing our budget deficit. As I do that, though, I
want to say there are a lot of things we can do to reduce our budget
deficit.
First of all, the fact is, the budget deficit last year was over $300
billion; this one we expect to be over $400 billion. That is on a cash
basis of accounting. David Walker, the Comptroller General of our
country, tells us if we were to use an accrual basis of accounting,
which we require by law our businesses, our corporations to use, our
budget deficit for the current year would be over $700 billion. But we
operate under a cash basis of accounting, so we are told it is going to
be over $400 billion.
As we look forward, down the road, by monkeying with the rules, by
making some misassumptions, we can pretend the deficit is going to get
smaller over the next several years. We can pretend, for example, we
are not going to be spending more money in Iraq or Afghanistan, and we
can pretend we are not going to fix the alternative minimum tax. We can
pretend a wide variety of things. But the truth is, as the baby boomers
get ready to retire and we play this game of pretend, the budget
deficit does not get any smaller.
I think we are on a road to ruin. With the notion of $400 billion
budget deficits and $700 billion trade deficits for as far as the eye
can see, as the baby boomers get ready to retire, I do not see a whole
lot of likelihood things are going to get better unless we do things
differently in our Nation's capital. I am tired of hearing people just
blame the Senate or just blame the House or just blame the
administration. We are all in this together. If we are going to get out
of this mess, we are going to get out of it together.
Let me mention a couple things before I talk about pay-go that we
ought to be doing. The Internal Revenue Service reported last month
that the tax gap for calendar year 2005 was about $290 billion. What
they mean by that is there was about $290 billion--this is the net
number--$290 billion that was owed in taxes that were not collected by
the Federal Government.
In a few minutes, I am leaving and going to a hearing of the
Governmental Affairs Committee. We will be having a hearing on
contractors, how we are doing with respect to making sure that
contractors we retain to do work for the Department of Defense or for
civilian agencies; that before we start paying them the money they are
charging for the work they are doing, we are taking out of that payment
the taxes they owe and have not paid. We are talking about literally
billions--with a ``B''--billions of dollars that are going uncollected,
going to contractors we retain.
The President has proposed in his own budget some things we can do
differently, some additional moneys for the IRS, to enable them to
collect taxes that are owed. For every extra $1 we provide to the IRS,
they will probably collect $7 or $8 that is not being collected that is
owed. Senator Bayh, from Indiana, has a proposal that would probably
enable us to collect another $15 billion a year to cut the tax gap
further. There are other ideas we need to consider.
But before we go raising taxes--and somewhere down the road we are
going to have to--but before we raise taxes, we simply need to do a
better job of collecting the taxes that are owed that are not being
collected.
Let me also mention improper payments. We find, on the same committee
I mentioned before, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs--one of the subcommittees that Senator Coburn and I serve on
has been working on improper payments. What do I mean by an ``improper
payment''? It is a payment the Federal agency makes that is wrong. It
is either too much or too little. As it turns out, there are a lot more
improper payments that are too much than too little. Overall, the net
number for improper payments is close to $50 billion a year. That does
not include all the agencies.
Another thing we can do a whole lot better on is with respect to
oversight. I think there is something to be said for divided
Government, where you do not have one party in charge of everything,
whether it is Democrats or Republicans, because right now we do not do
a very good job of oversight. The Democrats do not control the
committees, do not control subcommittees. For the most part, we have
not done the job we need to do on oversight of this Republican
administration. I do not say that in a partisan way. It is the fact. If
the shoe was on the other foot and the Democrats were running
everything--the House, the Senate, and the White House--we might be
guilty of the same kind of thing.
But there are moneys we are spending in the Department of Defense--
and some of it is in Iraq and some of it is in other places--that is
shameful in the way we are misallocating it. And even when it is
pointed out by whistleblowers, we still go ahead and pay the money. It
is crazy. We are doing the same kind of thing with some of our domestic
agencies as well. We have begun putting a spotlight on this kind of
behavior in order to reduce it, and I think it is actually starting to
have an effect, but we need to keep it up.

[[Page S2056]]

The President has proposed something called expedited recision
powers. It is also called a line-item veto. It is another thing we are
going to be probably debating here: whether it makes any sense to help
reduce the budget deficit. We actually passed--in fact, I authored,
when I was in the House of Representatives, gosh, almost 20 years ago,
at least 15 years ago--expedited line-item veto power for the
President. I called it a sort of 2-year test drive on line-item veto
powers, to see if the President would abuse the power.
The Congress could override the line-item veto with a simple majority
of either the House or the Senate. It was a power that would last for 2
years. If the President abused it, it would not be renewed. If the
President did not abuse it and it was actually helpful, then it could
be renewed beyond that 2 years. I think that is probably a better
approach, if we are going to try something such as this, than what the
President has suggested. I think his suggestion is wrought with the
temptation for abuse by the executive branch.
That brings us to pay-go. Some of you have heard me quote Denis
Healey, former chancellor of the Exchequer, many times--the ``theory of
holes.'' What is the ``theory of holes''? The Senator from North Dakota
has heard me say this more than a few times. He has probably used this
line a time or two as well: When you find yourself in a hole, stop
digging. We are in a hole. It is time to stop digging.
Whenever any of us come to the floor and we say we want to cut taxes,
even though we know it is going to increase the deficit, we ought to
have an offset for it. When any of us come to the floor and say we want
to increase spending on our favorite program, however meritorious, we
ought to come with an offset. We ought to come up with a way to have no
effect on the budget deficit, which is already huge. And we can do it
by either cutting spending somewhere else or we can do it with respect
to raising some revenues somewhere else.
But these pages in front of me, I do not know how old you guys and
gals are--probably 15, 16 years old--you are juniors in high school.
Someday somebody is going to have to pay the debt. Someday these
chickens are going to come home to roost. They probably are not going
to come home on my generation. They are probably going to come home on
your generation. You guys and gals are the same age as my own children.
It is not fair. It is not fair to you.
We should simply decide to set aside some of the rancor that goes on
around here, and with Democrats who have good ideas, and Republicans
who have good ideas, and the White House that has some good ideas, take
that collection of ideas, which includes, as far as I am concerned,
looking at entitlement programs. I am never interested in savaging
entitlement programs, but they should not be off limits either.
If some of them can be means tested, we should consider doing that.
We are going to have to do some things we as Democrats don't want to do
and some things Republicans and the White House don't want to do if we
are going to make serious progress. We need to make serious progress
because we have a serious problem. One way we can start is by adopting
pay as you go. It had a great road test for many years. We ought to put
it in place today.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.

Amendment No. 3013

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for himself,
Mr. Feingold, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Obama,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Salazar, Mrs. Clinton,
Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Carper, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Chafee,
proposes an amendment numbered 3013.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To fully reinstate the pay-as-you-go requirement through
2011)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

(a) Point of Order.--
(1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to
consider any direct spending or revenue legislation that
would increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget
deficit for any 1 of the 3 applicable time periods as
measured in paragraphs (5) and (6).
(2) Applicable time periods.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term ``applicable time period'' means any 1
of the 3 following periods:
(A) The first year covered by the most recently adopted
concurrent resolution on the budget.
(B) The period of the first 5 fiscal years covered by the
most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
(C) The period of the 5 fiscal years following the first 5
fiscal years covered in the most recently adopted concurrent
resolution on the budget.
(3) Direct-spending legislation.--For purposes of this
subsection and except as provided in paragraph (4), the term
``direct-spending legislation'' means any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that
affects direct spending as that term is defined by, and
interpreted for purposes of, the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(4) Exclusion.--For purposes of this subsection, the terms
``direct-spending legislation'' and ``revenue legislation''
do not include--
(A) any concurrent resolution on the budget; or
(B) any provision of legislation that affects the full
funding of, and continuation of, the deposit insurance
guarantee commitment in effect on the date of enactment of
the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.
(5) Baseline.--Estimates prepared pursuant to this section
shall--
(A) use the baseline surplus or deficit used for the most
recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget; and
(B) be calculated under the requirements of subsections (b)
through (d) of section 257 of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 for fiscal years beyond
those covered by that concurrent resolution on the budget.
(6) Prior surplus.--If direct spending or revenue
legislation increases the on-budget deficit or causes an on-
budget deficit when taken individually, it must also increase
the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget deficit when
taken together with all direct spending and revenue
legislation enacted since the beginning of the calendar year
not accounted for in the baseline under paragraph (5)(A),
except that direct spending or revenue effects resulting in
net deficit reduction enacted pursuant to reconciliation
instructions since the beginning of that same calendar year
shall not be available.
(b) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the
Senate only by the affirmative vote of \3/5\ of the Members,
duly chosen and sworn.
(c) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of
the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be
limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or
joint resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative vote of
\3/5\ of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn,
shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the
Chair on a point of order raised under this section.
(d) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this
section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, and
revenues for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis
of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget of the
Senate.
(e) Sunset.--This section shall expire on September 30,
2011.

Mr. CONRAD. The amendment I have sent to the desk is the pay-go
amendment. In many ways I believe this is the most important amendment
to be considered today. This amendment would reestablish the budget
discipline that worked so well in previous years, a rule that has been
allowed to lapse by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
Here is where we are. The debt of our country is skyrocketing. At the
end of the first year of this Presidency, the debt stood at $5.8
trillion. That year the President told us if we adopted his fiscal
plan, he would have maximum paydown of the debt. In fact, he said if we
adopted his strategy, we would virtually eliminate the debt. The
President was wrong. The debt was not paid down. The debt was certainly
not virtually eliminated. Instead, the debt has skyrocketed. At the end
of this year, they now tell us the debt will be $8.6 trillion. And if
the budget before us is adopted, by 2011 the debt will be $11.8
trillion. It will have doubled on this President's watch. All of this
is before the baby boomers retire. We are on an unsustainable course,
and it must be changed. We need to do it as soon as we can.
On the question of pay-go, that simply says if you want more spending
on mandatory programs, you have to pay for it. If you want to have more
tax cuts, you have to pay for them, or you

[[Page S2057]]

have to get a supermajority vote in the Senate. That is the pay-go
discipline. It says, yes, you can have more tax cuts, but you have to
pay for them; you can have more spending on mandatory programs, such as
Medicare and Social Security, but you have to pay for them. That is
what pay-go is about.
Here is what Chairman Greenspan said:

All I'm saying is my general rule is I like to see the tax
burden as low as possible. And in that context, I would like
to see tax cuts continued. But, as I indicated earlier, that
has got to be, in my judgment, in the context of a pay-go
resolution.

We have not only heard that advice from the Chairman of the Federal
Reserve, but from the respected Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group
that says deficits do matter, that the buildup of debt is
unsustainable, and said this about pay-go:

Exempting tax cuts from pay-go does nothing to promote
fiscal discipline. It would neither control spending nor
shrink the deficit. All it would do is exempt any tax
legislation from fiscal scrutiny, regardless of the
circumstances. Such an enormous and unnecessary loophole
would not be wise policy given that deficits are back for as
far as the eye can see. Since spending and tax decisions both
have consequences for the budget, there is no good reason to
exempt either from enforcement rules.

I believe they have it exactly right. Our friends, having adopted an
enormous loophole, say: You can have all the increased spending you
want, all the increased tax cuts you want, as long as they are in the
budget resolution. If they are in the budget resolution, they are
exempt from pay-go.
Here is what has happened as a result. This chart goes back to 1990.
We had a strong pay-go rule in effect from 1991 until 2002. We climbed
out of the deficit ditch during those years. In fact, we actually went
into surplus. In fact, we went into surplus to such an extent we
stopped raiding Social Security trust funds to pay other bills.
Then our colleagues on the other side got control of the White House
and both Houses of Congress, and they ended the pay-go rule. Look what
has happened. Surpluses were eliminated. We have plunged back into
deficit, bigger deficits than we had even back here.
That is what has happened without the discipline of pay-go. What we
are saying today is, let's reinstitute the discipline of pay-go. Let's
do it now.
This chart shows how we would eliminate the loophole that currently
exists. The current loophole put in place by our colleagues on the
other side exempts all tax cuts and mandatory spending increases
assumed in any budget resolution, no matter how much they increase
deficits. What we are offering today is the budget discipline, the pay-
go rule that worked so effectively in the past. It says all mandatory
spending and tax cuts that increase deficits must be paid for or
require a supermajority, 60 votes, in the Senate. That is what we ought
to do.
This is what has happened in terms of deficit increases when we had
the budget pay-go loophole that is currently in effect. In 2006, $12.5
billion allowed under the Senate GOP budget with their pay-go loophole.
In 2007, $36 billion of additional deficit allowed. In 2007 to 2011,
almost $214 billion is going to be permitted, if we don't shut it down.
I hope my colleagues will adopt the pay-go rule, the budget
discipline that has worked so well in the past. It is critically
important that we do that. This is our opportunity. For those who say
they are fiscally responsible, here is your chance. You are going to be
able to prove with one vote whether you are serious about doing
something about these runaway debts and runaway deficits or whether it
is all talk. This is going to be the chance. This will be a vote that
tests whether Members are willing to stand up and take a tough vote and
reimpose the budget discipline that has worked so well in the past.
I ask what the time situation is.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed 7\1/2\
minutes on the amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
If there are others who want to speak on pay-go, this is an
opportunity. We have hopefully a few minutes left on this amendment
before we go to the next one. We have been taking time so far this
morning off the resolution. Perhaps when the chairman returns, we can
make an arrangement to take additional time off the amendment as well
so we can keep on our schedule.
With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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 ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 5 minutes
Senator Feingold used be attributed to the amendment and taken off the
amendment time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. If the Chair could inform me how much time is left on our
side on the amendment?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. CONRAD. And how much time remains on the other side on the
amendment?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 28 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the pay-go amendment.
Pay-go is a term that has sort of taken on a motherhoodlike atmosphere
around here. There are some terms which occur in the legislative
process or in the political arena that become perceptionwise different
than what they are in substance. The perception becomes the issue
versus the substance.
Pay-go has taken on that sort of status because it sounds like
something that makes sense. But to be honest, what pay-go is is a tax
increase. It is that simple. The way this amendment is structured, it
guarantees a tax increase. Rather than saying they are for tax
increases, they are saying they are for pay-go. In fact, the last chart
the Senator referred to which showed very large numbers in this bill
which he didn't call taxes were just that--taxes.
If you want to adjust those numbers, you are going to have to raise
taxes by the $214 billion he cited in that chart. So pay-go is a
stalking horse for a tax increase. It is really that simple. It is also
technically not an appropriate approach, and this is why.
CBO scores things around here, and CBO basically drives the decisions
of the budget process because what the Congressional Budget Office says
is what the baseline is; in other words, how much a program will cost
in the outyears, how much tax revenue will occur in the outyears as a
result of a tax proposal. But CBO uses different standards for
different groups of spending and taxes. For discretionary spending,
they have one set of standards. For entitlement spending, they have
another set of standards. For tax revenues and tax cuts, they have
another set of standards.
So when you create this pay-go language, which the Democratic side is
offering, you are creating a one-size-fits-all and applying it to
different accounting systems, and it produces perverse effects. The
most perverse effect is it basically means you have to raise taxes, but
you will never actually impact entitlement spending.
Why is that? Because under the way CBO works, they say entitlement
programs never end. It is amazing. You can have an entitlement which
had an authorization life of, say, 10 years, but CBO would score it as
if it went on forever, never sunsets, never is perceived by CBO as
having to be reduced or in any way adjusted. That is the decision they
have made in scoring entitlements.
On the tax side, however, they take the exact opposite approach. If
you have a tax cut which is authorized for 5 years or 10 years, at the
end of the 5 years or 10 years, they presume that tax cut is followed
by a tax increase and, as a result, they presume there has to be more
income coming in because taxes will go up.
The practical effect of that is that this pay-go proposal will never
actually be applied to an entitlement that already exists, but it will
always be applied to a tax cut that already exists,

[[Page S2058]]

which results in tax cuts being significantly prejudiced by this
approach because it is a one-size-fits-all approach.
If CBO were to change its scoring mechanisms and say that
entitlements didn't go on forever, then it would be logical to have
this type of an approach--potentially logical--because then you would
actually have to pay for entitlements and you would have to pay for tax
cuts. But under this proposal, that is not the case. Under this
proposal, only tax cuts would have to be adjusted and paid for and
would be affected by pay-go, and it would essentially be, therefore, a
tax increase mechanism. So when our colleagues vote for this, they are
voting for tax increases. It is that simple.
Another problem with this technical problem is it again goes to CBO
scoring. For example, under the CBO scoring, CBO uses capital gains as
a revenue loser. It does not score capital gains for the dynamic effect
it has on the economy. When we cut capital gains rates--it has been
proven every time we have done it--we generate revenue. Why is that? It
is called human nature, and human nature usually overwhelms
accountants. They just sometimes cannot handle the concept of human
nature, but human nature goes to work when you cut the capital gains
rates because when somebody owns an asset and has owned it for a while,
it is an asset which they know if they sell they are going to have to
pay 30 percent taxes on. Then we cut the tax rate on that asset to 15
percent, if they sell it, and there is an incentive for them to sell
that asset and to reinvest those dollars in something that is probably
more productive. But if the tax rate stays at 30 percent, there is no
incentive for them to go out and make that sale because they recognize
they are going to pay a very high level of taxes on it. So assets get
locked up. Stocks that might be sold get locked up, investments in real
estate that might be converted get locked up, small businesses that
might be converted get locked up, and farms that might be sold get
locked up because the incentive to sell is reduced by the high level of
taxes.
So when we cut capital gains rates, which is what we have done, we
create this huge infusion of economic activity. People start to sell
assets which they wouldn't otherwise have sold, and that generates
income to the Federal Government because taxes are being paid that
would not have been paid before and there would be no tax revenue
coming in because people would sit on these assets. We generate a tax
event.
More important, the money which was invested in that asset is
reinvested and, by human nature, it is reinvested in something that, to
the person doing the investing, is going to be more productive. By
creating more productive investments, we end up creating more economic
activity, more jobs--many more jobs--and, as a result, once again, we
generate more revenue to the Federal Government.
A capital gains cut actually generates a lot of revenue. We see on
this chart that CBO--the blue line--simply is not willing to score that
type of economic activity, the real economic activity, the actual
economic activity generated from capital gains cuts. We have had a huge
infusion of revenues into the Federal Treasury as a result of the
capital gains tax, huge--$60 billion, $75 billion, $81 billion.

What happens is CBO uses these artificially low numbers to score that
capital gains cut even though capital gains is paying for itself. If
they used the accurate numbers, then pay-go wouldn't even apply to a
capital gains cut because capital gains would pay for itself. It would
pay for itself because it would generate so much revenue. But CBO
scores it as a loser, even though it is a winner, so a capital gains
cut is subject to the perverse approach under the CBO scoring rules of
having to pay twice if you have pay-go in place. First, it would pay
because it would generate the revenue to cover the cost of the cut,
which CBO claims is a cost--it is not a cost; it is actually a revenue
winner--and then it would have to pay on the presumption it was going
to cost money, when, in fact, it is not going to cost money, and then
you have to find revenues to cover it.
There is a perverse accounting mechanism working here if we put pay-
go in place relative to items such as capital gains reductions. That is
a technical reason this proposal does not work.
The bottom line of this proposal is simple: It is a tax increase. The
basic engine of this proposal, the basic effect of this proposal would
be the engine to drive tax increases.
There is a fundamental disagreement between the two parties as to
whether we should have tax increases driven by an accounting mechanism
or whether we should have them driven by policy. It may be we should do
some tax increases around here in certain areas. The Senator from North
Dakota has pointed out some loopholes that should be closed, and I am
for that. And he has suggested we should collect more taxes that are
owed. I am for that, too. But I don't think we should use an accounting
mechanism to basically repeal the capital gains rate and the dividends
rate, which is the purpose of this amendment.
This amendment is targeted to two tax cuts: dividends and capital
gains. And then later on, when the rates adjust, when the rate
adjustment comes to an end, it will be targeted on rates. It is like a
laser beam aimed at those two issues. If it were to be in place today,
it is unlikely we would have a capital gains rate or dividend rate at
the present levels.
The result, in my opinion, would be to chill the economic recovery
because I think a huge part of our economic recovery has been these
numbers right here, capital gains activity: people realizing their
gains, selling an asset, and reinvesting it in something more
productive, which creates economic activity, jobs, and revenue.
There is a fundamental disagreement here. This is a stalking horse
for a tax increase, in my opinion. It is doing it through a technical
vehicle, but it is clearly going to have that result. If we were to put
a major new entitlement on the books, it would actually impact that, I
give it credit for that. But we already have on the books a pay-go
which affects new entitlements--new entitlements. I would love to have
a pay-go that affects existing entitlements, and if they want to
redraft the amendment to do that, I would be happy to take a look at
that.
The practical effect of this amendment is singular in purpose: It
will force a tax increase.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I could not disagree more. I could not
disagree more. Pay-go doesn't require a tax increase. This is just not
true. What does pay-go say? Pay-go says if you want to have new
mandatory spending, you have to pay for it. If you want to have new tax
cuts--new tax cuts--you have to pay for them. That is what pay-go says.
Nowhere does it say anything about increasing taxes. The chairman is
just wrong; it doesn't say that. It doesn't require that.
It does say if you want new mandatory programs, such as the new
prescription drug benefit that was passed--if we had pay-go in effect
at the time the new prescription drug program was offered, we would
have had to pay for it either through increased revenue or from cuts
elsewhere. That is what pay-go says. It doesn't say there has to be a
tax increase. That is just a red herring argument. Frankly, I am
surprised the chairman makes it.
Here is what the chairman used to say about pay-go not so very long
ago. In 2002, the chairman, who now argues against pay-go, said this:

The second budget discipline, which is pay-go, essentially
says if you are going to add a new entitlement program or you
are going to cut taxes during a period, especially of
deficits, you must offset that event so that it becomes a
budget-neutral event that also lapses.

That is what the chairman said in 2002 when he was an advocate for
pay-go. He went on to say:

. . . If we do not do this, if we do not put back in place
caps and pay-go mechanisms, we will have no budget discipline
in this Congress, and, as a result, we will dramatically
aggravate the deficit which, of course, impacts a lot of
important issues, but especially impacts Social Security.

That was the chairman 4 years ago, and he was absolutely right in his
support of pay-go then and in his recognition that pay-go was essential
to budget discipline. He was right. He wasn't talking about requiring a
tax increase then. This is a new argument which has been concocted to
try to derail putting back the budget discipline which is absolutely
needed.

[[Page S2059]]

Pay-go doesn't require anything unless you try to increase mandatory
spending, in which case you have to pay for it or get a supermajority
vote. It doesn't do anything to taxes unless you try to cut taxes
without paying for it. That is what pay-go does. There is no
requirement of a tax increase here; there is a requirement we start
paying for programs.
When--when, I ask--are we going to start paying for things around
here instead of just increasing the spending, cutting the taxes, and
running up the debt? Because that is what we are doing. Since pay-go
lapsed, the deficits and the debt have exploded. This is an opportunity
to begin the process to rein in the growth of deficits and debt. That
is what pay-go is about, and that is why it should be supported today.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me briefly respond to the Senator from
North Dakota. I was right then, and I am right now. Times change and
dynamics of what is happening around here change substantively.
The only thing that will be impacted by this pay-go amendment, if it
is adopted, is tax increases. That is it, because there isn't a major
new entitlement being proposed. In fact, as I mentioned before, the way
the scoring occurs around here, all the entitlements will continue.
These are the entitlements that are exempt: Food Stamp Program, TANF,
Commodity Credit Corporation, veterans compensation, child care, State
children's health, rehabilitation services, ground transportation,
Federal unemployment insurance, child nutrition, and the list goes on
of entitlement accounts exempt from the Senator's pay-go and pay-go
generally. There is a pay-go in the bill.
What isn't exempt is the fact if this were in place today, capital
gains and dividends would be subject to it. And that is totally
inconsistent because capital gains, as I pointed out--what happened to
my chart? Somebody took it down, I guess as a courtesy to the Senator
from North Dakota because this is such a devastating chart and he
didn't want it to undermine his arguments.
As this chart points out definitively, the money is in the bank, or
at least it is in the Federal Treasury until we spend it. We are
generating huge amounts of revenues from capital gains. Under this pay-
go amendment, were it in place, you would have to pay for capital gains
because CBO does not score it relative to what it actually does.

The next event to which this is going to apply is the death tax, if
pay-go is in place. That is the only thing it will impact in this
budget window over the next 5 years because the only thing that is
planned in this next 5 years will be the death tax and the rates, and
it will be used as the club to generate tax increases. That is all it
is for in the context of today.
You look over this 5-year window of what this budget says, you take
this pay-go language and lay it over that 5-year window, and the only
thing it will impact is taxes, and it will basically be used as a
lever, as a club, to raise taxes. It shouldn't be called pay-go, it
should be called tax-go. The Senator from North Dakota made this case
for us when he held up his chart that showed all these bars--and he
didn't identify what they were--of numbers that this budget allegedly
doesn't cover that are losses of revenue, according to the Senator from
North Dakota, because we have cut taxes. He didn't actually say they
were loss of revenue from tax cuts, he used some other term for it. I
don't know what the term was, but he had one bar that was $216 billion.
Well, that is death taxes, rate cuts, dividends and interest, for the
most part.
There might also be some R&D tax credits in there and some State and
local deductibility. So it is ironic, to say the least, that they would
claim that this is a balanced approach.
Another ironic thing is we have heard the Senator from North Dakota
and other Members come to the floor and say the AMT is an outrage, the
alternative minimum tax. Well, I haven't heard them suggest how they
are going to pay for fixing the AMT, but under their amendment, they
would have to, and that is an $800 billion hole. I happen to think we
should fix the AMT, and we should fix it in the context of revenue
neutrality. But I don't see any amendments floating around here, and I
haven't seen any amendments floating around here to accomplish that.
So I don't see how you can argue anything other than the fact that
this proposal, as it is presented, has one fundamental impact: and that
will be that over the next 5 years any attempt to extend any tax cut
will be put to a 60-vote point of order and will be, therefore,
pressure to raise taxes. It will be pressure to raise taxes to do that
extension. It will have no impact on anything else because there are no
new entitlement programs planned in this bill. And because CBO scores
all entitlements that already exist as going on forever, they won't be
hit by this proposal.
So as I said earlier, it is a one-size-fits-all proposal that
disadvantages tax cuts. The irony is the tax cuts that pay for
themselves, such as capital gains and dividends cuts, which generate
economic activity, which generate income, will end up having to be paid
for twice. That really doesn't make any sense, and it will be driven by
an accounting mechanism. I don't think policy should be driven by an
accounting mechanism when it is so unfairly applied where it basically
impacts tax policy one way and entitlement policy another way. I would
rather see something that was fair. But, in any event, I don't support
this because it is a tax increase mechanism.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the chairman keeps repeating himself: this
is a tax increase. You can use the words, you can repeat it 100 times,
it doesn't make it true. It is not a tax increase. Pay-go very simply
says: if you want to increase or create a new mandatory spending
program, you have to pay for it. You don't have to pay for it with a
tax increase, you can pay for it by cutting other spending. If you want
to have more tax cuts, you can have them, but you have to pay for them,
either through cutting spending or raising other taxes. That is what
pay-go says. That is what pay-go does. It restores a budget discipline
that is desperately needed.
The chairman says they have pay-go. They have a figment of pay-go
because their pay-go exempts all tax cuts and mandatory spending
increases that are assumed in any budget resolution, no matter how much
they increase the deficit. The record is very clear. What has happened
with weakened pay-go? What has happened?
Let's go back. Pay-go was put in place right here, and we climbed out
of the deficit ditch and we actually achieved budget surpluses. When it
was weakened, here is what happened: surpluses were eliminated, we
plunged back into deficit, and the debt is skyrocketing.
That is the choice before the body. Do we really want to continue on
this path of running up the debt of the country to record levels? That
is the course we are on.
I would again remind my colleague of what he said in previous years.
Back in 2002 the distinguished chairman, in floor debate, said this
about pay-go:

The second budget discipline, which is pay-go, essentially
says if you are going to add a new entitlement program, or
you are going to cut taxes during a period, especially of
deficits, you must offset that event so that it becomes a
budget-neutral event.

He went on to say:

If we do not do this, if we do not put back in place caps
and pay-go mechanisms, we will have no budget discipline in
this Congress.

He was right then. He continued:

And, as a result, we will dramatically aggravate the
deficit which, of course, impacts a lot of important issues,
but especially impacts Social Security.

The chairman argues on one tax type alone. He argues on capital
gains. Let me say that CBO has reviewed that question, and they wrote a
letter to the chairman of the Finance Committee that said this:

After examining the historical record, including that for
2004, we cannot conclude that the unexplained increase in
capital gains tax revenue is attributable to the change in
capital gains tax rates.

This is after their careful analysis. I would acknowledge the
chairman's chart that shows increased capital gains tax receipts higher
than previously projected. CBO has studied

[[Page S2060]]

this, and they say they can't attribute that to the lower rates. I
think most people would say the increased revenue is initially, in
part, an effect of lower capital gains rates. But over time, a capital
gains tax reduction loses revenue, not gains it. In other words, you
get an initial bump, but after that you start losing it.
On the larger question of whether tax cuts pay for
themselves, we don't have to have a theoretical discussion.
We have what has happened in the real world.

In 2000, we collected over $2 trillion in revenue. Then we had the
big tax cuts of 2001, and our Republican colleagues and the President
all assured us: Don't worry, that will generate more revenue.
Well, guess what. It didn't. That is the problem with their argument.
It didn't work. It failed, and it failed miserably.
In 2001, we had almost $2 trillion in revenue, big tax cuts, and the
revenue went down; in 2002, less revenue than 2001; in 2003, less
revenue than in 2001; in 2004, less revenue than in 2001. We didn't get
back to the revenue base we had in 2000 until 2005. In real terms, we
are nowhere close to the revenue base we had in 2000. We are nowhere
close because this ideological argument failed in the real world. That
is a fact. It failed. It didn't work.
One of the reasons we have runaway deficits and debts is our
colleagues have just been wrong. They bet the farm on a concept that
didn't work in the real world. Now the question is, Do we do something
to reestablish budget discipline, or don't we? I hope we will.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, how much time is left on this amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). The Senator from North Dakota has
5 minutes. The Senator from New Hampshire has 11 minutes.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me simply respond to some of the things
the Senator said.
We haven't seen a budget plan from the Democratic side of the aisle
for the last 2 years. In fact, even when they were in control of the
Senate, we didn't get a budget across the floor from the other side of
the aisle. I think one of the reasons is because they would have to
openly admit to the fact that what they are basically saying, in
language which is not specific but which is clear, is that they are
going to raise taxes, that they want to raise taxes, and pay-go is just
a stalking horse to accomplish that. It is that simple. The facts are
very clear.
If you take this pay-go language and you template it over this
budget, there are no entitlements that are going to be impacted. None.
But there are taxes that are going to be impacted: specifically,
capital gains, dividends--if they aren't addressed in this
reconciliation package that is still being worked on--and the death
tax.
I think most people in this country know that when their rates go up,
they are getting a tax increase. And the effect of the pay-go language
will be that if you get to the time when the rates have to be extended,
the pay-go language will either force them to go up or force taxes to
be raised somewhere else. It will be basically a major club used for
the purpose of defeating the maintenance of things like the capital
gains rate, dividend and interest rate, the dividend rate, and the
death tax. That is the purpose, and it couldn't be any clearer from the
facts.
I wish the Senator would present a budget because I think if he did,
you would see that. Clearly, he hasn't addressed how they are going to
do AMT. That amendment has been offered from their side. It was in
committee, and it is, I presume, going to be offered again before we
finish. Are they going to offset that with tax increases, that almost
$1 trillion tax event? If they are going to stick to their language,
they should. I don't think they will. So there is a different standard.
The point is obvious. This language, as it is presently structured,
because of the facts that we have before us, which is a 5-year budget
which has no new entitlements in it, and because CBO scores
entitlements as going on forever and therefore they are never impacted
by this pay-go language, this pay-go language will not affect the
spending side of the ledger at all. But it will affect the tax side of
the ledger. And when the death tax needs to be extended, this pay-go
language will require a tax increase. When rates need to be extended,
this pay-go language will require a tax increase. When dividends and
interest, dividends and capital gains, should they not be extended in
this reconciliation agreement need to be extended, this pay-go will
require a tax increase, and that is the purpose of this.
This concept that CBO writes us back and says: Well, we can't really
figure out that the capital gains cut generated capital gains income,
that is one of the problems here. The CBO is taking a very strict
green-eyeshade approach to budgeting. The way they build their
baseline, they use four or five different major assumption groups. The
assumption group they use for entitlement, the assumption group they
use for taxes is entirely opposite and unfair and disproportionately
impacts the capacity to do anything on the tax side of the ledger
around here. And this amendment, if it were agreed to, would lock in
that unfairness.
Clearly, capital gains generate revenue. Now, maybe the Senator from
North Dakota wants to repeal the capital gains rate. He is saying in
the outyears they don't generate revenue, they lose revenue. I happen
to think they create a great deal of capital activity and investment
and people are willing to take risks because they have a tax rate that
is reasonable.
In the industrialized world, in major industrialized countries, we
still have one of the highest rates of taxation on capital there is.
Most industrial nations don't even tax capital formation because they
recognize it creates jobs. We do, and the rate we have is reasonable,
in my opinion. But if the Senator from North Dakota wants to raise it
because he thinks in the outyears it is a revenue loser--fine. Say so.
Offer a budget that does that. I would be happy to debate that rather
than move under the terminology that is misleading, this motherhood
terminology of pay-go, which is nothing more than ``tax-go'' in the way
it will be applied to this bill and to the next 5 years. Obviously I
oppose this amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, again the chairman repeats over and over
that this requires a tax increase. He is wrong. No colleague should be
fooled by that rhetoric. It requires new mandatory spending to be paid
for. You can pay for things one of two ways: You could do it with a tax
increase. You could also do it by spending cuts.
The same is true of new tax reductions. Under pay-go, you have to pay
for them. You could pay for them with tax increases elsewhere, but you
could pay for them by reducing spending elsewhere. The chairman seems
to have forgotten that is the way pay-go works.
What the chairman is saying is he doesn't want to worry about
increases in the deficit and debt. What the chairman is saying is he
wants to continue this pattern because this is what has happened under
his fiscal plan. The debt is skyrocketing: $5.8 trillion at the end of
2001, $8.6 trillion at the end of this year, headed toward $11.8
trillion if this budget is adopted.
What the chairman is saying is he doesn't want to worry about paying
for tax cuts or more spending. He wants to continue to charge up the
credit card. He wants to continue sending this debt to our kids and our
grandkids. He wants to be free to take the easy political course, that
is saying we can have new spending, such as the new prescription drug
plan, and not pay for it; that we can have more tax cuts even though we
are deep in deficit and not pay for them. That is the position he is
taking. If we want to be clear here, that is what this debate is about.
Do you want to stay on this reckless course of running up the debt? And
the chairman says, not only with his speech here today and his position
on pay-go here today, but with his budget, that he wants to run up the
debt. He wants to take no responsibility to either reduce spending or
to pay for more tax cuts. Instead, he prefers to send the bill to our
kids and our grandkids. Let the foreigners continue to loan us the
money so they can buy up U.S. assets. That is his position.
I think that is a reckless position. I think that is a position that
weakens America. I think that is a position that makes us more
vulnerable. I take the chairman back to the position he took

[[Page S2061]]

previously on pay-go. At that point he was right. In 2002, he argued
for pay-go and he said then:

. . . if we do not do this, if we do not put back in place
caps and pay-go mechanisms, we will have no budget discipline
in this Congress and, as a result, we will dramatically
aggravate the deficit which, of course, impacts a lot of
important issues but especially impacts Social Security.

That is what he said then. He was right then and it is the right
position now. If you don't have this budget discipline, you are going
to continue on this path and this course of running up the debt. That
is what the chairman's budget does. It is precisely what we should not
do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from North Dakota
telling us what I am saying. I do wish the Senator from North Dakota
had brought forward a budget so we could see what he is saying and what
their side thinks they should do. Right now their budget is a blank
piece of paper as an overall document, and it has been for the last few
years. But if we look at what they did in committee, I think you can
get an idea. They proposed amendments which would have increased
discretionary spending by almost $19 billion and mandatory spending by
$127 billion. That is a lot of new spending. And they raised taxes by
about $130 billion. That is a lot of new taxes. So there is no
discipline on their side of the aisle relative to controlling the rate
of growth of this Government. In fact, just the opposite. They want to
expand the rate of growth significantly and they want to raise taxes on
the American people to accomplish that. That has always been their
position and we are going to see amendment after amendment offered to
this budget which will essentially increase spending.
We have already got a few in line here. I think Senator Kennedy is
going to offer one for $6.5 billion as the next amendment, or one of
the coming amendments here. There are others coming down the pike. They
are all going to be paid for by raising taxes.
The position of the other side of the aisle on this, although they
manage to keep it a little foggy because they don't put forward their
own budget, is pretty clear. They want to increase and grow the size of
this Government significantly and they want to raise taxes to do that.
What the pay-go amendment does is raise taxes. You can't deny this.
There are only three items of any significance that they are going to
impact in this budget. My budget has no new entitlement spending in it
so pay-go won't apply to any entitlement spending. It has a lot of
entitlement spending presumed in it because entitlement spending is, of
course, a big part of the budget. But none of that entitlement spending
is affected by pay-go because, as a practical matter, pay-go will be
exempting those entitlement accounts.
This reflects what were the amounts of tax increases offered from the
Democratic side in committee when we marked this bill up: $133 billion,
and the amount of new spending, $127 billion. It puts in stark terms
how much new spending was proposed in committee by the Democratic
membership, and new taxes.
Now they want to use this vehicle of pay-go to essentially repeal the
tax cuts. That is what they are trying to do. The only items, as I
mentioned, that are going to be impacted by this pay-go language will
be the extension of the tax cuts. What tax cuts will need to be
extended in the next 5 years? There are the rates, there are capital
gains and dividends, and there is the death tax. Those are the big
ones. Also maybe State and local deductibility in that category; I am
not sure. That may be extended further than this window. But in any
event, those are the big ones.
They are saying to a person whose rates go up: Your rates are either
going to go up or taxes are going to have to be raised somewhere else
to keep them at their present level. This argument that you are going
to cut spending around here, and to raise taxes--I would love to see
the other side of the aisle come forward with that proposal. I might be
willing to do that and there might be two other people on this side of
the aisle who might be willing to do that, but I have not seen a
proposal from the other side of the aisle to cut spending anywhere.

The Senator from North Dakota argues that this budget adds enormously
to the debt. It adds a lot less to the debt than anything the Senator
from North Dakota has presented because he is not willing to freeze
nondefense discretionary spending. He has not put forward a budget that
reduces debt.
What this budget at least does is put in place discipline on the
discretionary side of the ledger. It sets a cap--$873 billion. As long
as you have that cap you have something around here to enforce so you
can limit spending. It doesn't do as much as I would like to do on the
entitlement side, but at least it puts in place a mechanism for us to
have a point of order should entitlement spending get out of control--
should more than 45 percent of an entitlement account, which is
supposed to be an insurance account, end upcoming out of the general
treasury--and I understand they are going to try to repeal that point
of order. And then they claim they are for budget discipline?
The inconsistency of their position is reflected by the facts on the
ground and the facts on the ground are pretty clear. The only thing
this pay-go amendment will affect is taxes and it will force tax
increases and it will make the extension of the tax cuts much more
difficult to accomplish, which will be a tax increase.
If your rates go up, if your tax rates go up, that is a tax increase.
I think everybody in America probably understands that. You can call it
pay-go if that is the term you want to use. If that is the new term we
are going to use around here for raising taxes, we will call it pay-go
and I guess that is what they want to say. When you raise taxes around
here, we will call it pay-go.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the chairman says we have offered no
budget. The chairman well knows the majority has the responsibility to
offer a budget. Our responsibility is to critique that budget. We have
done so by pointing out that this is the effect of the chairman's
budget. It increases the debt every year by over $600 billion. That is
the budget that has been offered by the majority. When we were in
control, they didn't offer alternative budgets.
Mr. GREGG. That is because you didn't offer a budget.
Mr. CONRAD. They didn't offer alternative budgets.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. CONRAD. I am afraid I have only got a minute left.
Mr. GREGG. I will give you another minute if you want to yield on
that point.
Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to complete my thought and finish.
Over all the years when we were in control, Republicans did not offer
alternative budgets.
With respect to what we did in committee, every amendment we offered
was paid for. The Senator is entirely correct. We offered amendments
with revenue of $133 billion and with increased spending of $126
billion. So we paid for every amendment. We didn't pay for it with tax
increases. We paid for it by closing the tax gap, money that is owed
that is not being paid, which the revenue commissioner has said could
be collected.
I ask for an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. GREGG. I ask for 30 seconds also.
Mr. CONRAD. Let's take a minute and a half.
Mr. GREGG. Take a minute.
Mr. CONRAD. We ask unanimous consent for a minute apiece.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. And we offered to close tax loopholes, these egregious
tax loopholes that we have pointed out repeatedly. That is not a tax
increase. It is more revenue. It is not a tax rate increase on anyone.
But that gets us back to the fundamental question of, What is the
direction we are going to take? Are we going to continue to run up the
debt of the country, as the chairman proposes? Or are we going to take
a new turn and go back to the budget disciplines that have worked in
the past? I urge my colleagues to go back to the budget disciplines we
have had in the past. If you

[[Page S2062]]

want to spend more money, you have to pay for it. If you want to have
more tax reductions, you have to pay for them. It is a simple
principle. We have had it in the past. The chairman has endorsed it in
the past. It is the right course.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I think the Senator is making my case.
Basically, he is admitting the fact that he is proposing to raise taxes
by $133 billion. You can't do it the way he is reflecting. You are
going to have to do it some other way. In fact, all his offsets raise
about $11 billion, according to the Finance Committee. The uncollected
taxes there--sure, we would like to get them, but CBO won't score them
so we can't use it. The fact is the pay-go language is one way to
generate a lot of new revenue because it will essentially say you can't
extend the tax cuts and you are going to have to raise taxes
dramatically if you do try to extend those tax cuts, so if you want to
raise some big-time taxes around here you vote for this pay-go
language.
Simply as an aside, I have to say the reason we didn't offer a
budget, in response to the Senator, when they were in control of the
Senate was because the last year they were in control of the Senate,
they didn't offer a budget themselves. They haven't offered a budget
now for 6 years, I think--maybe it is 5. We would love to have them
offer a budget because then we would see very specifically this
philosophy which is reflected in the amendment process, which is one of
growing the Federal Government, spending a lot more money and raiseing
a lot of taxes to do it.
Mr. President, I understand under the prior order the Senator from
Missouri is to be recognized to offer an amendment.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I speak in favor of the PAYGO amendment
introduced by my friend, and ranking member of the Budget Committee,
Senator Conrad. This amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, seeks to
fully reinstate the pay-as-you-go requirement for direct spending and
revenue legislation in the Senate through 2011.
During the 1990s, the Senate's PAYGO rule worked well to reduce
Federal deficits, and the rule is badly needed today. Back then, PAYGO
applied equally to increases in mandatory spending and decreases in
revenue. It neither forced tax increases nor spending cuts but rather
enforced fiscal balance and budget discipline. New spending or tax cuts
could only become law if they were offset or found 60 votes in support.
Unfortunately, the original PAYGO rules were abandoned to provide for
a series of unfunded tax breaks. Those tax breaks were not paid for by
reductions in Federal spending and there was only one way to pay for
them--by increasing our deficit to historically high levels and
borrowing more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks
plus the cost of borrowing for them.
Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claim, the fiscal
policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add
more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 years. This
budget does nothing to reduce our deficits and, in fact, makes them
worse.
Americans deserve better financial leadership. The people I talk to
in Illinois are not fooled by what's going on. Working families
understand that the same principles that apply to their family budgets
should apply to our national budget as well. They understand that, in
this life, you get what you pay for and if you don't pay for it today,
it will cost you more tomorrow.
You don't have to be a deficit hawk to be disturbed by the growing
gap between revenues and expenses. Americans are willing to share in
the hard choices required to get us back on track, as long as they know
that everyone is pulling their weight and doing their fair share.
That's why it is so important that we reinstate PAYGO in a way that
meaningfully enforces the budget discipline that both sides of the
aisle need in order to honestly tackle our country's short-term and
long-term fiscal challenges.
This is an important amendment at an important time for our country.
I am pleased to once again join Senators Conrad and Feingold on this
amendment and to be part of a bipartisan group of cosponsors. I urge my
colleagues to vote for fiscal responsibility and for good budget
leadership. I urge my colleagues to support this PAYGO amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

Amendment No. 3011

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking
member for arranging the debate on this amendment. I call up an
amendment we have at the desk, Talent-Lieberman amendment No. 3011.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Talent], for himself, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Thune and Mr. Warner, proposes an amendment
numbered 3011.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase funding for defense)

On page 9, line 20, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 9, line 21, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $3,000,000,000.

Mr. TALENT. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Carper as a
cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, this amendment is a rather simple one. It
raises the number in the budget for defense up to what the
administration proposed. The budget resolution, as it came out of
committee, would have reduced the amount of money requested for
national defense by $3 billion. This restores that. It is in my
judgment, as I said often on the Senate floor, not all we need to do
but it is a first step.
We have to understand context here. The number the President
submitted was itself almost $4 billion the President submitted was
itself almost $4 billion less than what only a year and half ago the
President and the administration said they would need for fiscal 2007.
Under the pressure from the Office of Management and Budget, the
Department of Defense has had to reduce its request for the last 2
fiscal years by an amount totaling almost $10 billion and, at the same
time, has reduced the amount it said it is going to request for the
next 5 years by almost $670 billion--this while we are in a war and
this while our responsibilities around the world and even outside the
global war on terror have never been greater is a mistake.
I think the first step to correcting that mistake is to pass this
bipartisan amendment and restore at least what the President has
requested for fiscal 2007.
Let me give some history, some context. We need to go back to the
early 1990s and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
At that time, there were concerns about the budget as well and the
Government took those concerns out on the national defense. All
throughout the 1990s, the Defense budget shrunk. It was the only part
of the budget that shrunk. There were some years it shrunk in normal
dollars, not even just as against inflation. There was a belief at the
time of the collapse of the Soviet Union that we were in an era of
peace and we would not need to spend as much on the national defense.
Certainly, that was true with regards to certain parts of the national
defense. Unfortunately, it turned out not to be true with the Defense
budget. I will explain that in a minute.
First, in order to accommodate those shrinking budget there were
reductions in the force structure. The number of people we have in the
Department was cut across the board by anywhere from a quarter to a
third.
The problem with that is we anticipated we would need the men and
women in America's military less with the collapse of the Soviet Union,
but it turns out that we needed them more. It turned out that history
had not ended--it had been frozen during the time of the Cold War, and
it thawed out with a vengeance. All the regional and ethnic rivalries
that had been submerged in the bipolar nature of the Cold War era came
to the surface. We had to deploy our men and women in conventional
exercises of one kind or another far more in the 1990s than we

[[Page S2063]]

had to do in the Cold War decades in the years before.
What happens when you have fewer people and you use them more? You
stress the force, you stress the people, you stress the equipment, you
increase the operation and maintenance budgets.
In an era when we thought we would be able to save money on defense,
we actually had to spend more, and increasingly the urgent crowded out
the important.
Money was put in O&M in order to keep the tip of the spear sharp, if
you will, while the rest of the spear rusted.
We took, for many years as a practical matter, a procurement holiday.
We did not buy the equipment we needed to buy to recapitalize the
platforms, which is what we in the Armed Services Committee call the
weapons, the trucks, the support equipment that the men and women in
America's military use.
In the 15 years from 1975 to 1990, we typically bought 78 scout and
attack helos. In the years from 1991 to 2000, we bought, on average,
seven. Whereas, we would buy 2,083, tanks, artillery, and other armored
vehicles; we bought, on average, 145. In some cases we acquired about
10 percent of the platforms that we had bought in the 15 years previous
to 1990. As a result, the capital equipment that the military is using
is old.
Let us talk about some of our aircraft: B-52 bombers are 44 years
old; C-130 transports, 33 years old; and KC-135 tankers, 43\1/2\ years
old. I could give similar statistics for the other parts of the
services as well.
The number of ships we have is going down. In the 1980s we aimed at a
600-ship Navy, and we are now below 300. If we continue at the current
shipbuilding levels, we will get down to 200 or below. That is not
consistent with the national security of the United States.
But what happened? The Bush administration took over, and to their
credit, they raised Defense spending above inflation. There were modest
increases in the early part of this decade, and part of the hope was we
could recapitalize the infrastructure and make up for that procurement
holiday. For a lot of reasons, that didn't happen. The operational
tempo continued to grow.

We all know about the military employment level in the global war on
terror. There has been what we call mission creep in other areas as
well. Think about the tsunami that occurred about a year and a half
ago. It was American military forces that were the structure through
which we delivered that relief.
We have increased the homeland security mission, the international
humanitarian relief operation, special operations, ongoing training
operations. The operational tempo was at a historic high, and that ate
up a lot of the increases.
Personnel costs: We have great men and women in the military. They
are very highly skilled people. There is no such thing as a ``grunt''
anymore in America's military. Today, you have highly skilled people,
and we owe it to them, and we must pay them accordingly.
Personnel costs are now $17 billion more per year, adjusted for
inflation than in 1999. Seventeen billion dollars more comes out of the
hide of the rest of the budget.
China is 5 to 10 years ahead of schedule in what we figure would be a
rearmament process. I am not saying China needs to become an enemy of
the United States. I hope that doesn't happen. I believe it need not
happen. But they are clearly attempting to develop a military
capability to exclude the United States from the Western Pacific,
should she choose to do so. And the thing that is more likely to
encourage them in that ambition than anything else is the reality or
even the perception of American weakness.
In addition, we now have the new generation of platforms coming on
line. Remember, platforms are ships, planes, tanks, trucks, and other
kinds of support equipment.
For the generation of platforms that the new generation of servicemen
and women are going to be using to replace the old ones, it is
essential that we complete the development of these programs and that
we buy out the platforms that we have proposed to buy. The DDX
destroyer and the Joint Strike Fighter combat systems, which is the
heart of America's Army, its F-22, air-to-air superiority fighter, the
new aircraft carriers, the submarines which are essential to our
national defense strategy both for intelligence and also in the western
Pacific, all of these are coming online in the next few years.
Even with the President's submitted proposal, we cannot purchase the
required new generation of platforms.
For all of these reasons, I have been urging for months--in fact, my
advocacy on this point goes back to 1993, when I was a new Congressman
in the House--I have been warning that we needed to spend more on
defense.
I need to point out to the Senate that this is an obligation of the
United States we cannot escape. It is similar to the basic capital
assets of a company. You have to keep it up. It is not optional to
allow the military equipment that our men and women use to age and
eventually to collapse. We are going to pay this bill. The longer we
wait, the bigger the bill will be.
That is one of the reasons why the investments which the President
has proposed and which this Congress has provided in the last 5 years
have not been enough even to allow us to tread water. We have continued
to slip backward because we did not do what we needed to do in the
1990s.
What do we need to do now? There are a number of us on both sides of
the aisle who are proposing, first of all, to restore the number the
President has proposed.
I would like to see us go above that in this fiscal year, about $3
billion more than what the President has proposed. That is the amount
that the Department of Defense said it needed for fiscal 2007 in the
fall of 2004. That was the last budget projection we got from the
Department of Defense that was unaffected by the stricture of the OMB.
I think we need to go to that point. I said that in speeches on the
floor of the Senate last fall. A number of us sent a letter to the
President urging him to submit a budget at that number. That is about
$443 billion apart from the spending on the Department of Energy that
is also included in the defense budget.
Then I think we need to take next year for a searching and honest
review of what the Defense budget needs to be in the near future.
I am not the only one who has proposed that. There are a number of
Senators on both sides of the aisle and the Armed Services Committee
who suggest that we need a systematic increase in the Defense budget.
It is now about 3.7 or 3.8 percent of the gross domestic product.

Let me emphasize that. I don't want that figure to slip by without
people marking it.
We are spending about 3.8 percent of the gross domestic product on
national defense. That includes the supplemental, 3.8 percent in a time
of war.
Whatever else is causing the deficit--and there are obviously
disagreements on the floor of this body, and we just witnessed an
eloquent debate highlighting those disagreements--whatever else is
causing it, the Department of Defense and military budget is not. That
figure is historically very low. It is much lower than the late 1970s
when Jimmy Carter was President.
To try to save money on defense, to believe that you are saving money
by reducing the Defense budget below the minimum, is a classic example
of being pennywise and pound foolish because the bill comes due. We do
not have the option of not meeting our responsibilities in the world
today.
The reality, the perception but much less the reality of American
weakness encourages instability in the world. Instability in the world
is antithetical to the kind of security that people need for economic
growth. So I can put it on as low a level as possible. If we do not
adequately support the national defense, we are certainly going to get
ourselves into bigger economic trouble.
American weakness leads to conflict abroad, conflict abroad can lead
to war, and war is very bad for the national deficit.
So we need this searching review. We can have that. We can decide
where we need to be structurally beginning next year. I think the Armed
Services Committee is going to do that.
I want to close on a hopeful note. This is well within our
capability. This is a great nation, a strong nation.
If the Government will meet its obligations and do what it is
supposed to

[[Page S2064]]

do, the people will drive the prosperity of this country. They will
produce the wealth on which they depend, on which this Government
depends, to sustain those programs that are necessary to protect our
security and also help the weak and the helpless among us.
We had a funeral for President Reagan in the recent past. He laid in
State. And I thought Members of both parties did a wonderful job
eulogizing him.
We should learn the lesson of history that his administration taught
us. He understood the importance of American power in the world.
When he became President, we also had gone through a time when the
forces had become hollow, when that shaft of the spear, if you will,
had rusted. President Reagan dealt with it decisively. He proposed two
double-digit increases in the national defense, which the Congress
sustained him on. And it was that action which was a key factor in
winning the Cold War because the rest of the world saw America's
commitment, America's willingness, America's strength, America's
confidence in the future and eventually decided that freedom and
democracy was the future of the world because we were leading in that
direction. We were willing to make the commitment necessary to walk
that path.
Let us do the same thing today. This is a bipartisan amendment.
Senator Lieberman and I are offering it.
I have been handed a note that Senator Graham wishes to be added as a
cosponsor.
I ask unanimous consent that he be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TALENT. We can do this.
Yes, we have to resolve the other problems in the budget that are
causing the deficit, but defense is not that area. Defense has given at
the office. Now it is time to tend to American security and American
needs. For that reason, I offer the amendment. I hope the Senate will
sustain it and support our men and women in uniform.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. TALENT. Sure.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will not argue with the Senator on the
need for this additional defense spending. My own view has been that
what the President asks for at a time of war with respect to the
defense, we ought to provide. We ought to stand shoulder to shoulder
with the President at a time of war with respect to defense
expenditures.
What I do want to ask the Senator, how is he funding this increase?
Is it correct that the Senator is paying for this increase with cuts in
function 920?
Mr. TALENT. The Senator is correct.
Mr. CONRAD. Am I correct, then, in understanding that the Senator
would pay for this increase in defense in part by cutting homeland
security?
Mr. TALENT. The function 920, as I understand, is essentially the
overhead across the board from a number of different agencies. So it
comes out of administrative overhead, travel, et cetera, and I believed
that funding these essential programs for the military was more
important than that. So I challenge the agencies to find that funding
to support this amendment.
It is similar to what has happened in the past. We had several
amendments last year that took substantial amounts out of function 920
in order to increase programs.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I say to my colleague, the Senator is
correct; function 920 is the other discretionary accounts. So the
effect of the Senator's amendment is to ``plus up'' defense, but he
does so by cutting homeland security, cutting law enforcement, cutting
veterans' benefits, cutting defense itself.
I say to my colleague, there is no new money here. This is taking out
of one pot and putting it into the other pot. And one of pots that is
being taken from is defense itself, homeland security, law enforcement,
and others. My own assessment of cutting these function 920 accounts is
that it is kind of robbing Peter to pay Paul. I hope we do not do much
of this in the process of writing this budget.
I support the underlying interest of the Senator in restoring the
defense money that was cut in the Committee on the Budget by the mark
of the Committee on the Budget chairman. However, I alert my
colleagues, it is being paid for--are you willing to cut homeland
security and law enforcement, veterans, and other defense accounts?
Mr. TALENT. No. I am willing to ask all the agencies to sacrifice
travel budgets and expenses in order to fund the national defense.
I say again, this has happened in the past to support other important
programs. The Coleman amendment last year, for example, increased CDBG
funding by $2 billion with a function 920 offset. I am telling the
Senator what he knows. The Senator is an expert on the budget.
So we have gone into administrative overhead in the past, where
necessary, to support important programs. I cannot think of anything
more important than giving the President at least what he has asked for
for national defense. This is a question of whether we will fund the
national defense in time of war at the President's request, at least.
Who has the floor, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yielded for a question. The
Senator from Missouri still has the floor.
Mr. TALENT. Again, I thank the Senator and admire very much the
sincerity with which he confronts these budgetary problems.
Perhaps in view of the Senator's question, it would be good for me to
emphasize the point I made during the speech. There are certain
functions of the Government which, if we do not perform at least at a
minimal level, have the opposite effect that people want when they seek
to reduce the deficit. This is one of them. These bills must be paid,
and the longer we wait to pay them, the more they will cost.
For me, it is deja vu all over again. I said this in the 1990s. We
were successful as a Congress in the 1990s in the latter part of the
decade in getting more money into the budget above what the Clinton
administration requested, but we did not get enough in. So those bills
which were not paid have accumulated, with compound interest, at very
substantial amounts.
It is true that an increase which is slightly above inflationary
rates, which would have been adequate if we had done it in the 1990s,
is not adequate anymore. And if we do not do something of the nature I
am talking about now--not just with this budget but next year's budget
as well--then the bill will grow and grow and grow, and 2 and 3 and 4
years from now, it will be even greater. My friend and the Senator from
New Hampshire are going to have an even bigger problem to confront in
trying to deal with the budget deficit.
It is not an option to not sustain the national defense. To the
extent America is perceived as weak, much less to the extent that
America is weak, it promotes instability and conflict in the world.
Apart from the threat to human freedom, I will say to those who are
concerned about the budget, that is very bad for the deficit. That is
really negative for the deficit.
Let us sustain the national defense. I encourage the Senator to
continue working with his friend and my friend from New Hampshire to
solve these other structural problems in the deficit and would be happy
to support some bipartisan resolution. Let us not take it out on
defense.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me say this Senator agrees with the
Senator on the need to deal with the fundamental defense needs of the
country. I say to the Senator, I know it is his intention to be cutting
travel and overhead, but the way function 920 works is these will be
across-the-board cuts to the other domestic elements of the budget;
that is, homeland security will take a cut. They will decide where it
goes. The Committee on the Budget does not decide that. So homeland
security, in the programs themselves, may take reductions. That will be
up to the Committee on Appropriations. Law enforcement will be cut to
pay for this increase in defense. Defense itself may well be cut to pay
for this increase in defense. Veterans programs will be cut, or at
least the veterans function will be cut.

I want my colleagues to understand how this works. Although I know it
is the stated intention to cut overhead and to cut travel, that may
well not be

[[Page S2065]]

the result here because the way function 920 works, there will be an
across-the-board cut to discretionary programs, and those accounts--and
this will be a decision by the appropriators, how they spread these
reductions--will be the money used to pay for an increase in defense. I
find it a troubling approach in terms of the pay for--not the plus-up.
The Senator is correct to ask that we provide the funding the President
has requested in defense.
Let me say that one of the great concerns I have in these defense
accounts going forward--and I say this to my colleague from Missouri,
and I think the Senator referenced this--we have these systems which
are aging, whether it is our bombers, our fighters, our ships in the
Navy, our aircraft carriers. The tanker fleet is more than 40 years
old, much of the bomber fleet is more than 40 years old, and many of
our naval ships are reaching the end of their useful lives. So how are
we going to recapitalize the defense accounts? It will be one of the
great challenges of our generation. I don't begrudge for a moment this
increase in defense. It will help us take on some of those very
substantial challenges we will confront in the future.
We will have to do some thinking outside the box on how we will
recapitalize the force going forward. I am told by National Guardsmen
that much of the equipment they took to Iraq is never coming back. It
is junk. The incredible heat, the combat conditions they have faced--
much of this equipment is simply being eaten alive.
Mr. TALENT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
Mr. TALENT. Given the time available, I did not speak as long as I
could on this subject, but the Senator is referring to what the
Pentagon calls resetting the force. In other words, after a war, we pay
through the supplementals for the equipment that is actually destroyed.
But a lot of the equipment is not destroyed; it is either left there or
it suffers what a business would call accelerated depreciation. It
comes back, but it only has a few years of useful life.
The Senator is correct, we have that bill to deal with, as well.
Mr. CONRAD. I have now talked to officials at the Department of
Defense, I have talked to the leaders of the services, at least some of
them, about the daunting challenge we face for the future. My own view
is we are probably going to have to think outside the box in terms of
how we fund recapitalization on the force going forward. It will
behoove us to begin thinking how we will take on those challenges.
I personally believe we will need to consider leasing or some other
way of spreading costs instead of our current practices of paying for
new systems with cash on the barrelhead. I do not believe we are going
to be able to recapitalize the force in the way we have in the past.
I thank the Senator for, on the one hand, the proposal on restoring
some of the proposed cuts here, but I am concerned about the way it is
being paid for. I know the intention is to take it out of overhead. The
way 920 works, we really do not know how it will be done. The fact is,
the budget resolution controls the numbers that will be given to the
Committee on Appropriations, but it does not tell them how to make the
reductions. We do not control that. That is controlled in the
appropriations process, as the Senator knows. The unintended
consequence might be that actually this increase in defense be paid for
by reducing homeland security, law enforcement, veterans, and defense
itself. Those are decisions which will be made by the appropriators.
That is why I wish that instead of paying for it in this way, we paid
for it in some other way that assured that it was not just taking out
of one pocket and putting it in the other.
With that said, we need to restore this funding. We have a very
serious problem going forward. Because of the burgeoning debt of the
country and the deficits, defense is going to face very difficult
challenges in the future when we try to rebuild these aging systems
which are critically important to our national defense.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. TALENT. I think I had half an hour. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I will not take the whole 11 minutes. I
will do the Senate that favor, anyway.
First of all, the Senator is tremendously knowledgeable about the
budget. I respect very much what he is saying. I am pleased he
recognizes the importance of the underlying thrust of the amendment. My
understanding is the function 920 line has about $11 billion in it, so
what I am calling for is a reduction of about a quarter in our overhead
expenses, travel expenses. That has been done in the past in order to
fund important programs.
We are in agreement that there is a shortfall in defense. Nothing is
more important across the board right now than sustaining at least the
President's request. I argue, and perhaps will argue further in this
process, that we need to do a little more this year, but we should at
least do this, and we can do this with a reduction in overhead that
occurs all the time in the private sector. I think we should.

Now, the Senator mentioned various efficiencies we can use to make
the money go further. I have been a strong supporter of those on the
Armed Services Committee. I think there are efficiencies we can gain in
terms of leasing and other kinds of measures. I would not want to leave
the floor this morning leaving the Senate with the impression that is
going to be enough to meet the obligations we have before us for
national defense and national security.
Remember, we are talking about the security of our homes, our
families, our jobs. Remember what the attack on 9/11 did to the
economy. We just saw numbers about how revenues were off in the early
part of the decade. Well, that was not unrelated to the fact we were
attacked. I am not saying we would not have been attacked had we been
stronger throughout the 1990s; I am saying that right now, we are too
far out on a margin of risk. The further you go on that margin of risk,
the greater instability, the greater the lack of confidence in the
world, and that hurts our economy.
I said substantially the same thing a couple years ago when we were
debating the highway bill. I was arguing in favor of bonding for
infrastructure investment. Investment in defense, like investment in
infrastructure, is not an optional expenditure of the Government. We
have, if you want to look at it this way, a deficit in the national
defense. As bad as the budget deficit is, I would argue the deficit in
the national defense is worse because that deficit imperils both the
national security and the economic security of the United States.
So we need to make some tough decisions. I agree with the Senator
when he says that. We can at least take this decision now. This
amendment is offered on a bipartisan basis. And this concern is
bipartisan in the Armed Services Committee. When we had what we call
our posture hearing, looking at the posture of defense, Senator Inhofe,
Senator Dayton, Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman, and I all raised the
issue of whether, going forward, we needed a structural increase in the
national defense.
We are not asking for that here. We are not asking for that this
year. We want to do a study of this issue. We want to look at it in a
searching and bipartisan way and then report back, I hope next year--
early next year--to the Senate on what we need to do. But right now, we
need at least to give the President what he has asked. I would hope we
could find a way to go a little further than that in this budget and
give the President what he asked for in the fall of 2004, before the
Office of Management and Budget got at the Defense projections. That is
why I am offering the amendment.
I very much appreciate the spirit in which the Senator has responded.
I hope he can stretch a point and perhaps find a ``yes'' vote for this
amendment, and then debate, in as bipartisan a fashion as possible, the
other structural issues we are dealing with with the deficit.
I thank the Senate again, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to say to the
Senator, I intend to support his amendment.
Mr. TALENT. I am very grateful.
Mr. CONRAD. Even though I think using section 920 is the wrong way to

[[Page S2066]]

go. The Senator indicated he has been informed there is $11 billion in
the 920 accounts. I just direct the Senator's attention to page 29 of
the concurrent resolution on the budget.
If the Senator would direct his attention there and go down the table
to allowances, 920, I think the Senator would see there, in fact, is no
money in section 920. In fact, section 920 is $500 million in the hole.
There is no $11 billion there. That is the problem we have. There is no
$11 billion there. Section 920 is actually $500 million underwater.
This will just put it further underwater, which will require an across-
the-board cut in these other areas: homeland security among them, law
enforcement, veterans benefits, defense. Actually, we do not know what
the appropriators will do. So I just say that for the information of my
colleagues, who may have some sense that there is money in this
account, that there really is not.
Mr. President, is the Senator prepared to yield back his time?
Because I would be willing to yield back our time in the interest of
trying to get back on schedule.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I am more than happy to yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back time on this
side as well, so we can go to Senator Kennedy's amendment and try to
get back on schedule as much as we can.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. All time
on the pending amendment is yielded back.
Under the previous order, the Senator from Massachusetts is now
recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment. Under the
agreement, there will be 1 hour of time equally divided.
The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.

Amendment No. 3028

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of myself, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, and the Senator from
New Jersey, Mr. Menendez, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself,
Ms. Collins, and Mr. Menendez, proposes an amendment numbered
3028.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To support college access and job training by: (1) restoring
program cuts slated for vocational education, TRIO, GEAR UP, Perkins
Loans, and other student aid programs; (2) increasing investment in
student aid programs, including increasing the maximum Pell Grant to
$4,500; and (3) restoring cuts slated for job training programs; paid
for by closing $6.3 billion in corporate tax loopholes.)

On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $1,479,000,000.
On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $3,988,000,000.
On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $634,000,000.
On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $206,000,000.
On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $19,000,000.
On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $1,479,000,000.
On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $3,988,000,000.
On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $634,000,000.
On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $206,000,000.
On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $19,000,000.
On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $6,326,000,000.
On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $1,479,000,000.
On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $3,988,000,000.
On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $634,000,000.
On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $206,000,000.
On page 5, line 12, increase the amount by $19,000,000.
On page 18, line 24, increase the amount by $6,326,000,000.
On page 18, line 25, increase the amount by $1,479,000,000.
On page 19, line 4, increase the amount by $3,988,000,000.
On page 19, line 8, increase the amount by $634,000,000.
On page 19, line 12, increase the amount by $206,000,000.
On page 19, line 16, increase the amount by $19,000,000.
On page 53, line 1, increase the amount by $6,326,000,000.
On page 53, line 2, increase the amount by $1,479,000,000.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment will provide $6.3 billion
to restore the cuts in key student aid programs, vocational education,
and job training, and increase investment in those programs by 15
percent. That is the total: $6.3 billion. To pay for these investments,
we close tax loopholes, laws that have no purpose, that allow corporate
tax evasion. These offset provisions have been passed in the Senate on
numerous occasions and have not survived the conference. But they have
been voted on and passed. So this amendment effectively pays for
itself. That is enormously important.
These two charts indicate where the United States is internationally
in the areas of math and science. The chart on the right shows that the
United States has fallen behind in mathematics, and this other chart
shows that American colleges and universities have fallen behind in the
development of professionals in the natural sciences. That is
effectively math, science, and engineering. If you look at this chart,
it shows that in 1975, the United States was third in the world. If you
look at the year 2000, we are 15th in the world. Really, no one
disputes these findings and these conclusions.
I once again draw the attention of our Members to three excellent
studies. These three excellent studies, which have been done by the
National Academy of Sciences, the Academy of Engineering, and the
Institute of Medicine, all make the same case as these charts do and
make a number of recommendations. We have included a number of the
recommendations that these institutions which reviewed our education
system have made in order that the United States continue to be a
highly innovative economy in the next 15 to 20 years. They make the
very strong and powerful case that by being an innovative economy, we
are also going to be the strongest economic power in the world and also
have the strongest national security.
Education is key to our national security. This is ``Rising Above the
Gathering Storm'', the report by the National Academy of Sciences. That
report was requested by our former Secretary of Education, Senator
Lamar Alexander, and Jeff Bingaman. It is an excellent study and
review. I am going to include just selected parts of these reports in
my remarks.
And now we have the report from the Council on Competitiveness which
has reached effectively the same judgment and decision as the National
Academies report. The Council on Competitiveness talks about
recommendations organized in three broad categories: education;
training; and lifelong skill development, the continuation of training.
That is exactly what our amendment addresses.
And then, finally, the National Association of Manufacturers--not
known to be a particular Democratic organization--talks about the
importance--again, these are studies that were completed in 2005--the
importance of emphasizing science and math technology, including
enhancing our education, career training, and continuing education and
training programs.
These are exactly the programs included in our particular amendment
that the Senator from Maine and I offer with the Senator from New
Jersey. It is in response to the challenge we are facing
internationally. We offset that by closing tax loopholes.
First let's talk about Pell grants. In this amendment, we have
increased the maximum Pell grant to $4,500. As you can see, this has
been frozen at $4,050 over the period of the last 4 to 5 years. There
will be those who will say: Well, we have increased the total amount of
funding because there are more children who are receiving the Pell
grants. But the reason there are more students receiving Pell grants is
because there are more students in need.

This amendment will increase immediately the Pell maximum
up to $4,500. This is not enormously inconsistent with what
the President has said. In his last two Presidential
campaigns, he has indicated that he favored the $4,500
maximum. The cost for this will be $1.8 billion. So this is
the increase in the Pell Grant Program.

The second aspect of this amendment is to open up access to
educational opportunity by investing in the TRIO Program, the GEAR UP
program, and the LEAP program. This amendment provides the additional
help and assistance for those programs.

[[Page S2067]]

Let me show who is affected by these programs. Nearly 1.5 million
students benefit from the tutoring, the counseling, and other services
provided by the Gear Up programs in over 1,700 schools. This program
keeps students interested in school and prepares them to attend
college. It has been enormously successful in opening up opportunities
for helping young children, many from disadvantaged communities, into
the colleges and universities across our country.
The amendment also addresses the TRIO Talent Search and Upward Bound
Programs, special programs to recognize talented young people who
perhaps might not have had the range of courses in their high schools
but, nonetheless, have demonstrated a commitment and a desire to
enhance their own educational opportunities. The results have been
absolutely extraordinary.
If you look at the difference in the success of students in these
programs compared to students who don't participate, you will see that
nearly 90 percent of the Upward Bound students graduate from high
school, compared to only 68 percent of all low-income students.
You will also find that nearly 70 percent of Upward Bound students
attend college, compared to only 54 percent of low-income students. And
50 percent of Upward Bound students attend a 4-year college, compared
to just 22 percent of low-income students. So this is really about
access to higher education. We are basically saying, with these
reports, the United States needs every talented person in our country,
and these programs help achieve that goal. We are offering an amendment
that is going to open up that kind of opportunity for individuals to
take advantage of and participate in this effort to maximize our
ability to be competitive.

Next, there is an important aspect for us in this amendment, as it
will invest in critical career and technical education programs. I have
taken the figures from Massachusetts, but this is typical of what is
happening around the country. We have a total of 61,000 students in
career and technical education in Massachusetts, and about 90 percent
of them pass what they call the MCAS test. That is a stringent test
that our State has instituted and has been commended on for years as
being the gold standard in terms of measuring the academic achievement
of students. This is the continuing vocational education programs, and
it amounts to $1.3 billion of the amendment.
What this does show is that individuals are gaining the skills they
are going to need to compete in this era of globalization. About 90 to
95 percent of those who graduate from career and technical education
programs in Massachusetts go on to college or get good jobs. This
amendment invests in these programs that are critically important.
We have seen in the chairman's mark on the budget that with regard to
discretionary spending in 2000, the chairman's mark includes the
President's proposed level of $873 million. You will hear descriptions
of how that provides additional opportunities to enhance education for
young people. But the fact remains, we need a quantum jump in investing
in young people. We need it in the areas I have outlined, and we need
it in additional areas. This year the Chinese will be graduating
600,000 engineers, according to one report. India graduates 350,000
engineers. The United States is graduating 72,000 engineers, and half
of those are foreign students. We have seen the expansion of research
that is taking place in India, where Intel has just hired 2,500 Indian
engineers to do some of their most advanced research. IBM is following
a similar kind of program. We are talking about outsourcing and
offshoring jobs, and we are not talking about blue-collar jobs. We are
talking about those who are going to be at the cutting edge of
investment.
What we are saying now is that we have to equip every young person
with the ability to deal with the challenges of globalization. That
means they are going to have to attain these kinds of skills for
themselves. This is going to be a continuing learning process, and it
has to be a national commitment.
This Nation has responded when it has been educationally challenged.
When we had the Industrial Revolution, we developed the public school
system. At the end of World War II, we had 10 to 12 million Americans
serving in the armed forces who had given 3 to 4 years out of their
lives. We had the GI bill. Those Americans came back and they
participated in our educational system. What we found is that they
repaid $7 for every dollar invested in them. When you are investing in
education, the benefits to society are huge. They come back manyfold in
terms of our prosperity and our world leadership. This is not a no-sum
game. This is a process by which the Nation gains.
Then we were faced with the Sputnik challenge when the Russians sent
Sputnik into space. Virtually overnight Republicans and Democrats came
together and passed the National Defense Education Act. Many of those
students who have gone through the National Defense Education Act
Scholarship Program serve in our Defense Department today with great
success.
Today we have a similar challenge with globalization. Are we going to
say it is business as usual, as this budget says, or are we going to
say this is serious business? In a budget that reflects a nation's
priorities, are we going to say we are sufficiently concerned about
this kind of challenge that we are not going to hold the young people
behind by denying them the opportunity to deal with the challenges of
global education? That is what the amendment is basically about. That
is why we strongly believe in it. It is clearly in the national
interest. It is a reflection of what the priorities are for the
American people. The American people understand the importance of
investing in students and workers. It is key to their prosperity. We
cannot have a competitive economy with breakthroughs in innovation
unless we have highly skilled, highly trained individuals. If you look
over the various scientific magazines you see that in the last twenty
years the U.S. share of research articles has declined from 38 percent
to 30 percent. Meanwhile, China's share of articles more than doubled.
Other countries are investing in their young people, and the United
States can't afford to fall behind in this regard. The challenge to the
Senate is whether we are going to begin that process of investing in
the young people of this Nation or whether we are going to be an also-
ran Nation down the line.
I will include in the Record the names of the more than 100 groups
that support this amendment. I ask unanimous consent to print that in
the Record.
The being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

100 Groups Support the Kennedy-Collins Amendment

Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities.*
American Association of Community Colleges.*
Coalition of Higher Education Assistance Organizations.*
National Counci1 for Community and Education Partnerships.*
National Association of State Directors of Career and
Technical Education.
National Association for College Admission Counseling.
National Women's Law Center.
National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity and its 30
members: American Association of University Women,
Washington, D.C.; American School Counselors Association,
Alexandria, VA; Barre Technical Center, Barre, VT; Bismarck
State College, Bismarck, ND; Burlington Technical Center,
Burlington, VT; Cape Cod Community College, W. Barnstabe, MA;
Career Communications, Overland, KS; Center for Technology,
Essex, Essex Junction, VT; Cisco Systems, Inc., Annapolis,
MD; Cold Hollow Career Center, Enosburg Fall, VT; Douglas
County School District, Highlands Ranch, CO; Educational
Equity Consultants, St. Joseph, MO; Feminist Majority
Foundation, Arlington, VA; GrayMill Consulting, Tehachapi,
VT; Her Own Words, Madison, WI; MAVCC, Stillwater, OK; Mid-
Atlantic Equity Center, Chevy Chase, MD; Minot Public
Schools, Minot, ND; Missouri Gender Equity Program, Columbia,
MO; National Women's Law Center, Washington, D.C.;
Nontraditonal Career Resource Center, New Brunswick, NJ;
North Dakota Department of Public Instruction, Bismarck ND;
Northeast Community College, Norfolk, NE; Northern New
England Tradeswomen, Essex. VT; Patricia A. Hannaford Career
Center, Middlebury, VT; Project Lead the Way, Clifton Park,
NJ; Randolph Area Vocational Center, Randolph, VT; TALL, The
College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ; Thompson Sohool District,
Loveland, CO; Tradeswomen Now and Tomorrow, Chicago, IL; West
Virginia Women Work!, Morgantown, WV; Wider Opportunities for
Women, Washington. D.C.; Williston State College, Williston,
ND; Women Work!, Washington, D.C.

[[Page S2068]]

PIRG Higher Education.*
US Student Association.*
The Workforce Alliance.
Student Aid Alliance (66 Members): American Association of
Colleges of Nursing; American Association of Colleges of
Pharmacy; American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education; American Association of Collegiate Registrars and
Admissions Officers; American Association of Community
Colleges; American Association for Higher Education; American
Association of State Colleges and Universities; American
Association of University Professors; American College
Personnel Association; American College Testing; American
Council on Education; American Dental Education Association;
American Federation of Teachers; American Indian Higher
Education Consortium; American Jewish Congress; American
Psychological Association; American Society for Engineering
Education; American Student Association of Community
Colleges; APPA: The Association of Higher Education
Facilities Officers; Association of Academic Health Centers;
Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools;
Association of American Colleges and Universities;
Association of American Law Schools; Association of American
Medical Colleges; Association of American Universities;
Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities;
Association of Community College Trustees; Association of
Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges; Association of
Jesuit Colleges and Universities; Citizen's Scholarship
Foundation of America; Coalition of Higher Education
Assistance Organizations; College Board; College Parents of
America; College and University Personnel Association for
Human Resources; Council for Advancement and Support of
Education; Council for Christian Colleges and Universities;
Council on Government Relations; Council of Graduate Schools;
Council for Higher Education Accreditation; Council of
Independent Colleges; Council for Opportunity in Education;
Educational Testing Service; Hispanic Association of Colleges
and Universities; Lutheran Educational Conference of North
America; NAFSA: Association of International Educators;
National Association for College Admission Counseling;
National Association of College and University Business
Officers; National Association of College Stores; National
Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education;
National Association of Graduate and Professional Students;
National Association of Independent Colleges and
Universities; National Association of State Student Grant and
Aid Programs; National Association of State Universities and
Land-Grant Colleges; National Association of Student
Financial Aid Administrators; National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators; National College Access Network;
National Collegiate Athletic Association; National Council
for Community and Education Partnerships; National Council of
University Research Administrators; National Education
Association; NAWE; Advancing Women in Higher Education;
United Negro College Fund; United State Public Interest
Research Group; United States Student Association; University
Continuing Education Association; and Women's College
Coalition.

*Also members of Student Aid Alliance.

Mr. KENNEDY. I withhold the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment is a classic tax-and-spend
amendment of which we have seen a large number coming from the other
side during markup. In fact, $133 billion in new taxes and $126 billion
in new programs were offered by the other side. That is called growing
the Government--dramatically. It is also called putting a lot of burden
on people working to pay taxes.
This amendment is a continuation of that approach. The euphemism
``loophole'' is used to try to avoid the fact that what we are
proposing is major tax increases to pay for this. If you are going to
have a responsible budget, you have some budget discipline. You have
set priorities. We have attempted to do that with this budget.
Certainly this Presidency has done a great deal in the area of
education. The Senator from Massachusetts says we need a massive effort
in the area of education. I would say adding $9 billion just last month
into the higher education accounts is a pretty big effort. The Senator
from Massachusetts voted against that. It was in the Deficit Reduction
Act where we took a big chunk of money and put it into higher
education. I believe $4.5 billion went to low-income students who were
college bound. There was about $4 billion which went to reduce
origination fees for students who want to go to college. Those are big
numbers. And $1.9 billion went to people who were taking up special
education as their vocation when they got out of college or math/
science. There was loan forgiveness for those folks who decided to
pursue those disciplines which are in great need. That was a huge
infusion, and this administration supported that.
In general, this administration's support for education has been so
much more dramatic than the last Democratic administration that it is
almost embarrassing, I would think, for members of the other party to
come to the floor and claim this administration hasn't done too much in
this area when you consider what they have done in comparison to what
the Clinton administration did.
This chart reflects that in dollar terms, the type of increases we
have seen on an annual basis. You can see that the Clinton increases
for title I, for example, were about a third of what this President
did. Clinton increases in IDEA special education were about one-seventh
of what the President has done. The Pell grants, this President has
significantly increased Pell grant funding. The Clinton administration
actually reduced it. And the total discretionary funding on an annual
basis, this administration has added an annual $3 billion increase; the
Clinton administration about half a billion dollars. Those are big
numbers, a big commitment to education.
Yes, the President's budget, as it was sent up, in some of those
accounts that have grown so dramatically did limit the rate of growth
this year. But we actually adjusted that in our bill, and we have put
another $1.5 billion into these accounts which is reasonable.
Of course, I have to emphasize that we don't actually control that
number. That is controlled by the Appropriations Committee. All we do
is control the top number. The Appropriations Committee makes the
allocations. We have departed from the guideposts which the President
put out there and put in some ideas of our own, but they will all be
decided, of course, by the allocations made by Senator Cochran,
chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
The number commitment which is shown by this chart is dramatic, and
it is reflected in the fact that we just did a $9 billion infusion in
the higher education accounts over 5 years, which is significant. Every
time we have done a Republican budget, the Senator from Massachusetts
has, in his own inimitable way, come to the floor and offered an
amendment to dramatically increase spending. This year isn't any
different. I am not surprised by the amendment. But I do think if you
are going to have a disciplined budget, you have to live within the
spending restraints with which you are confronted.
We have heard a lot from the other side about the failure to address
the issue of debt. The failure to address the size of the Federal
Government is what drives debt. If you are going to allow the Federal
Government to grow by $6.3 billion, which is what this amendment does,
if you are going to raise the cap so that spending is not limited but
is suddenly exploded by $6.3 billion, you are going to aggravate the
debt. You are going to pay for it with loophole closings, but we all
know it is a little difficult to do that. The spending is easy, but the
paying for it is hard. As a result, you will end up without any
discipline.
This amendment is essentially an attempt to break the caps, to
eliminate fiscal discipline, and to do it in account areas in which
every account could use more money, but these accounts have not been
underfunded. These accounts have been aggressively funded by this
administration, especially in comparison with the prior administration.
It is hard to argue that on top of these dramatic increases, the $9
billion which we specifically put in for higher education is not a
fairly significant commitment--in fact, a very large commitment--to
funding higher education. Where this money is going to flow, I am not
sure. That will be the decision of the Appropriations Committee. But I
am confident that, because year in and year out the Appropriations
Committee has supported programs such as TRIO and GEAR UP, those
accounts will be funded because we have adequate resources to do it.
I strongly oppose the amendment on the grounds that, A, it breaks the
caps and therefore ends fiscal discipline; B, it is a tax-and-spend
amendment in the tradition of some of our more liberal colleagues; and,
C, it is spending money in accounts where we have already made very
strong commitments as a party and as a Government under

[[Page S2069]]

this President. Those accounts have received substantial increases and
will continue to receive strong support.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the time agreement, the Senator from
Massachusetts controls 15 additional minutes; the Senator from New
Hampshire controls 23 minutes. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 1 minute and then I yield 10 minutes to
the Senator from Maine.
I quickly want to respond to my colleague from New Hampshire. When
you say there was $9 billion in aid added last month to higher
education, this includes 3.7 billion for a grant program that only
helps ten percent of students who need it. Most of this $9 billion
helps banks, not students. The $6 billion increase for the Pell grant
that I supported and worked on with the Chairman of the HELP Committee
was jettisoned completely in the Senate bill. Instead there was no
additional grant aid for 90 percent of poor students, and this is at a
time when 400,000 students would like to go to college, are ready to
attend college, but can't because of cost. Now I will yield to the
Senator from Maine.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 10
minutes.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleague
from Massachusetts in sponsoring this important amendment. I want to
recognize that the Senator from New Hampshire is a longtime champion of
education programs and, indeed, under President Bush, education
programs have received considerable additional spending. But we can and
we should do more. There is no greater investment in the future of this
country than to invest in the education of our young people. This
amendment would restore cuts and increase funding for absolutely
critical education and job training programs in this budget.
Let me talk about some of those programs. Let's begin with the Pell
Grant Program. Pell grants go to our neediest families. The average
income of a family whose student is receiving a Pell grant is only
about $16,000 a year. We are proposing to provide a $450 increase in
the Pell grant maximum award. That would increase it from $4,050 to
$4,500.
The maximum award has not been increased for 4 years, while the cost
of higher education has skyrocketed. Let's look at the impact on
students.
In 1975, the year I graduated from college, the amount of the maximum
Pell grant award was sufficient to cover approximately 80 percent of
the average costs of attending a public 4-year institution--80 percent.
Today it covers less than 40 percent of those costs. That disparity
means that higher education is further and further out of reach for too
many low-income students.
Let's talk about the impact of another program. It is the TRIO
Programs, the aspirations-raising programs. I know firsthand what a
difference these programs make in my home State of Maine where too few
families have experience with higher education and, thus, their
children find higher education to be something unknown or something
they are not sure they can handle.
These aspiration-raising programs give the mentoring assistance, the
encouragement, the help that is needed so that talented young people
realize that higher education is within their grasp.
The Upward Bound Program is a wonderful program that has changed so
many lives. Just yesterday, I talked with a student from the University
of Southern Maine who told me that but for the TRIO Programs, he would
not today be in college.
The GEAR UP Program has been very successful in my State. I have met
with members of the University of Maine at Farmington GEAR UP
partnership which partners with the middle school in Dicksfield, ME.
Listen to these results and I think it will help convince my colleagues
of the need to maintain an increased funding for this important
program.
When this middle school first got its GEAR UP grant in 1999, only 37
percent of the graduating high school students went on to postsecondary
education--only 37 percent. But last June, the first group of students
that had gone through the GEAR UP Program graduated. Mr. President, do
you know how many of them went on to higher education? More than 82
percent. What a difference this program has made. It doubled the number
of students going on to higher education. It has completely changed the
aspirations of students growing up in this small rural community in
western Maine.
Another important restoration in the Kennedy-Collins amendment is for
vocational education under the Perkins program. Again, I have seen
firsthand the incredible results of Federal investments in vocational
education. The United Technology Center in Bangor is a wonderful
example of a regional technical high school that encourages students to
stay in school, to expand their horizons, and to gain new skills.
I visited the United Technology Center twice and, believe me, the
Federal funding, the $171,000 that this school receives, is making all
the difference in the lives of the students enrolled there. I saw an
excitement about learning. I talked to students who told me that the
standard high school curriculum didn't reach them. They are learning so
much in this vocational education setting, and that Federal investment,
again, changes lives.
I hope very much that we will adopt this amendment. The budget is all
about setting priorities, and surely--surely--in this country we can
make the investments we need to help our neediest students pursue
higher education, to help families who may not have the experience of
going on to college so they receive the encouragement, mentoring, and
support they need, and to help our vocational education programs.
Finally, my State has seen a real loss of manufacturing jobs in the
past decade. The workforce investment training programs have been
essential in helping displaced workers start new careers and new lives.
I hope we will adopt this amendment. I think it will make a great
deal of difference to individual families, to our States, and to our
economy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I am not sure what budget the Senator from
Maine is talking about, but it is not the budget we brought to the
floor as a Republican Senate. The budget that was reported out of
committee by the Republican membership funds vocational education. The
President's may not have, but our does, and there is $1.4 billion in
the budget for that program. We actually put in money that would allow
the TRIO Program, the GEAR UP Program, the LEAP Program, and the
Perkins loan programs to be increased if the committee wants to do
that. We added $1.5 billion of additional funding.
What the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Massachusetts are
suggesting is that we should blow the caps by $6.3 billion, raise taxes
by $6.3 billion, and do that to fund accounts which already have
received significant dollars and which are going to continue to receive
significant dollars.
As I mentioned, the higher education funding has received a $9
billion infusion just by the passage of the reconciliation bill in
February which was voted against by the Senator from Massachusetts.
This budget has a very strong commitment to education, as have
budgets that have come before this body, as has this President who has
done more for title I, IDEA, and Pell grants by a factor of three,
four, five times what the prior administration did and has made a
stronger commitment in the education accounts than probably in any
other account, with the exception of accounts necessary to fight the
war on terrorism that are discretionary.
It does seem to me a bit over the top to say that within the number
$873 billion, which is what we are already spending in discretionary
money, there is no ability to adequately fund education in light of the
track record that we have funded education very well.
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Sununu.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The
senior Senator from New Hampshire I think has laid out a very strong
case for why this amendment fails to enact the kind of basic fiscal
restraint, basic fiscal responsibility that is essential--

[[Page S2070]]

essential in this particular time and place in our country's history,
but I think essential at any time exercising that financial
responsibility on the behalf of the taxpayers.
I wish to talk, though, about the broad failings of this amendment,
and I am concerned that we are going to see similar failings in
amendment after amendment offered in this debate. This amendment fails
on a number of counts.
First, to pick up on the point that was made by the committee
chairman, there is a complete failure to recognize the additional funds
and resources that are already part of this budget, the additional
funds in the education account that have been made available for
vocational education, for TRIO, for Perkins, depending on what the
priorities and desires and goals of the committees of jurisdiction are.
By offering this amendment, the suggestion is that those resources
mean absolutely nothing in this debate, that we cannot possibly get the
job done with the allowances made in those areas, and I think that
suggests either a lack of leadership within the Congress or the Senate
on those particular areas, a lack of confidence in the committees of
jurisdiction to do their job, or a lack of homework being done to
understand how much has been made available in the last several years
and what resources are actually available.
Second, this amendment carries with it a suggestion that under no
circumstances should any program in the education accounts ever be
eliminated or redirected to better use those resources elsewhere. I
think anyone outside of Washington who hears that statement--that no
program should ever be eliminated, no funds should ever be redirected--
would think that cannot possibly be so; people within Washington,
within the beltway, within the Senate cannot possibly think in those
terms. But, unfortunately, this amendment makes plain they do think in
those terms and, in fact, some legislation now being proposed in this
very area creates 10 or 15 new education programs without looking at
what exists currently and trying to find a way to better use those
dollars.
It is unfortunate because it does those who are in the greatest need
of these kinds of programs, support, and services an injustice because
we don't want to do the hard work of oversight, of looking at when
programs were created and how funding can be better used.
In the case of TRIO, for example, which has been mentioned, it is a
worthwhile program, it is a program I have supported, but I have always
made clear that I am willing to look at other programs in the
Department and redirect funds and redirect resources to make sure a
worthwhile effort such as TRIO gets the resources it needs.
So, one, there is no regard made for the resources that are actually
in the budget.
Two, there is the suggestion that we couldn't possibly ever modify or
eliminate a program to get more resources into the areas targeted by
this amendment.
Three, there is the suggestion that we couldn't possibly redirect
resources in any other part of the budget to education, that we
wouldn't want to touch something politically sensitive such as
agricultural subsidies, such as spending subsidies for fossil fuel, oil
and gas research and development, which we greatly expanded in the
Energy bill that was passed last year. No effort has been made to
honestly identify areas that should be a lesser priority than those
targeted by this amendment.

Fourth is the assumption that seems all too common, that if we want
to spend more money, we should just raise taxes. We can talk about
loopholes all we want, but the fact is, it is a tax increase, and they
are tax increases that may have been passed in the United States Senate
but were not signed into law, were not supported in the other body, and
have little or no likelihood of ever making it through. So I think
throwing out a tax increase in an effort to make an amendment budget
neutral when you know those resources are never going to be delivered
is deficit spending, pure and simple. It is wrong, it is not fiscally
responsible, and it should be rejected.
Budgets are about setting priorities. We can do a better job, a more
honest job of setting priorities. I am always willing to look at
redirecting resources, whether it is from within the Department of
Education to things that should be a priority, whether it is from other
programs to this. If we are not willing to do that, we shouldn't be
willing to vote for amendments that blow the budget caps.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 6 minutes
remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New
Jersey and 1 minute to the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for
4 minutes.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kennedy-
Collins-Menendez amendment. It is an amendment that sends an important
message to our Nation. Yes, budgets are about values and priorities. We
tell our children in this country that education is a fundamental value
that is of the highest importance, and then we submit a budget that
speaks of much different values than that which, in fact, we hold up to
our children.
If this amendment is passed, it says: If you work hard, if you are
aiming for a goal, we will help you achieve it. It says no matter the
happenstance of where you were born, the station in life into which you
were born, we will give you the opportunity to fulfill your God-given
potential. That is what this amendment says. It says we are willing to
make the investments necessary in our young people to strengthen our
country's future.
However, the budget before us does none of those things. I sat as a
member of the Budget Committee listening through this process and, I
must say, eventually cuts have to come from someplace. The suggestion
that everything is in the education budget that we have had in the past
is simply not reality. At the end of the day, we are still over $700
million short in higher education than from where we were. It does
nothing to increase the maximum Pell grant, and we can see from this
chart no matter what we talk about in terms of how we try to portray
the numbers, there is one unmistakable fact: In the cost of attendance
at a 4-year college institution, at a public college, versus the
ability of what you can maximally achieve with a Pell grant, there is a
huge gap, and that gap has continued to grow. So what we are telling
our young people is, yes, education is a value, a higher education,
college education degree is incredibly important for your own
fulfillment, for the Nation's success in a global economy, but, sorry,
we are just largely not going to help you. You are going to have to do
that on your own. You are going to have to borrow and graduate under a
mountain of debt. That is not a value that I think Americans share.
They want to see the fulfillment of their children's potential
realized.
So this does nothing to increase the maximum Pell grant, which will
be frozen for the fifth year, and will decrease the actual real dollars
in values as it has over the last 4 years. It does nothing to increase
work-study grants, which will mean 1,000 fewer students will receive
awards next year. It would take away low-cost loans in terms of the
underlying budget for nearly a half million low-income students, loans
that are forgiven--forgiven--for those who are serving in vital public
service sectors such as teachers, nurses, law enforcement, or military
officers. It will mean that more than 1.5 million low-income students
would lose out on early intervention and college preparation programs
that help make sure they are enrolled in and graduate from college.
That is why I am proud to be offering this amendment with my
distinguished colleague and a tremendous leader on education, Senator
Kennedy. I am also glad to be joined with Senator Collins in this
effort. This amendment provides a real opportunity to change the course
of events for our Nation and to meet our competitive future.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the need to more widely invest in
education is widely recognized by our Nation's employers. We have seen
recent

[[Page S2071]]

studies by the National Academy of Sciences warning that our country is
losing its edge in math and science education. We have seen employer
groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers call for
greater investment. We have the opportunity to answer those calls by
approving this amendment.
Prior to my election to the Senate, I worked at a college in Maine,
and I saw firsthand how vital these Federal programs were. I hope we
will adopt the amendment. It will make a difference to our families,
our States, and our Nation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator
from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains on either side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 50 seconds
remaining. The Senator from New Hampshire has 15\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, there is an inconsistency in the argument
coming from the other side of the aisle. The Senator from New Jersey
and the Senator from Massachusetts argue that we need a significant
infusion of funds into higher education funding to assist students
going on to college. Yet they both voted--I believe the Senator from
New Jersey, in the House at the time, and the Senator from
Massachusetts, in the Senate--against the deficit reduction bill which
included a $9 billion infusion into higher education. That was a big
number.
The argument that Pell grants haven't been increased flies in the
face of the fact that we have created a new account which actually
allows up to $8,000 of the cost for a low-income individual to go to
college, to be reimbursed on the basis of the Pell structure, and as a
result those funds which weren't available prior to the deficit
reduction bill are available today. That is $8,000 for low-income
students who pursue certain types of disciplines that they can get.
In addition, our commitment as a Federal Government since President
Bush took office has been dramatic in the area of title I. These are
the numbers. They have gone up exponentially--exponentially--under
President Bush. Look at what they did under President Clinton. They
just crept along. They just crept along. President Bush came into
office and we increased them dramatically.
What about the IDEA? IDEA funding, once again, under President
Clinton, just crept along. When President Bush came into office they
increased dramatically. Massive increases in funding in IDEA, massive
increases of money in title I, massive increases of money going into
higher education accounts to assist people wanting to go to college.
Not enough. Not enough. You have to come here and propose an amendment
which breaks the caps and ignores the fact that we put an extra $1.5
billion into these education accounts over what the President requested
with our budget and ignore the fact that we fully funded the vocational
accounts over what the President requested and say, no, we have to
raise taxes by $6.3 billion and raise the caps by $6.3 billion. Tax and
spend.

I have to say this President has had a commitment to education which
has been unique in the history of this country relative to dollars,
relative to philosophy, and relative to results. I take a back seat to
no one on funding education in this institution, and I believe we have
a record to stand by, and this budget continues that record.
I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Budget Committee. First of all, let me try and set up my remarks. I
chaired the State Board of Education in the State of Georgia from 1996
to 1998, which is a period of time during the last administration. When
I heard some of the speeches this morning about our commitment to
education and about this budget, I found myself compelled to come to
the floor and maybe add a perspective that might not yet have been
heard on some of the comments that were made.
First of all, I commend Senator Gregg and the committee on what they
have done. As the Senator said as he left a minute ago, this represents
a $1.5 billion increase over the President's budget for education. When
this Education bill passes this year in the appropriations act, we will
have increased Federal spending on education by 33 percent since the
election of President Bush. It is unprecedented in the history of this
country, our commitment to elementary and secondary education.
The Senator from Massachusetts made a comment about the Pell grants.
He said: Well, you will hear us say that we are really spending more on
Pell because there are more students receiving them. And his comment
was--and I wrote it down: Well, there are more poor children receiving
Pell money. That is why there is more money going out.
There is a phrase that was left out of that. Today, there are more
poor children qualifying for higher education, and that is a good
thing, not a bad thing. That is why more money has gone out while the
level of Pell funding might not have been raised from the $4,050 level.
In fact, this President's commitment to leaving no child behind,
seeing to it that students can read and compute math at grade level and
can go to high school ready to learn in the sciences and those other
areas that are a prerequisite for a postsecondary education, no
administration ever in the history of this country has made the
commitment this one has.
With regard to the comments on Perkins--and I am a big Perkins
person. I will tell you now, I will be on the floor of the Senate when
the appropriations bill comes through fighting for Perkins money. But
the illusion was created that the President zeroes out Perkins. Perkins
is a discretionary program. Perkins was not delineated in last year's
budget resolution, but it was fully funded in the appropriations act.
So anyone who says this budget cuts out Perkins is making the
assumption that of the $1.5 billion in increased funding that we are
going to spend in this budget resolution, none of it would be
appropriated by this Senate to go to Perkins.
Let me tell you how bad that is in terms of an idea. Last year, the
budget read exactly the same way, and this Senate, by a vote of 99 to
0, funded Perkins. So this budget resolution gives a $1.5 billion
increase in discretionary spending so that programs such as Perkins,
which are not delineated because they are not mandatory in the budget
resolution, are funded in the appropriations act.
But let us get to mandatory. IDEA is kind of my special passion.
Children with disabilities is something I have worked on all my life. I
married a special education teacher. I married a special education
teacher 10 years before Public Law 94-142 was passed, which was the
Special Education Act that really put in the mandates that today are
IDEA. And for years, this Congress and this Nation mandated on our
local governments that they spend 40 percent more per FTE, full-time
equivalent, on a special needs child than they did on an average child
or a nonspecial needs child. Yet we funded none of it. For years we
funded none of it.
Under this administration, we have gone from funding what was about
10 percent when the President was elected, to where now we are almost
to half of that 40 percent mandate or 20 percent in total of the FTE
the Federal Government is funding. In this budget resolution, as a
mandatory item, there is inclusion from now through 2011 for that
commitment to IDEA and to children with disabilities to increase so
that we meet the Federal promise made over 30 years ago, or almost 30
years ago. So we shouldn't play word games.

I will be the first person to tell you that I will be on the floor
with the appropriations bill fighting for pieces of that $1.5 billion
increase to go to enhanced programs such as Perkins. I believe in our
commitment to the less fortunate, whether they be disabled or whether
they be in poverty, and I was proud to be one of the coauthors of No
Child Left Behind which, in and of itself, is a commitment to our title
I children who are free and reduced lunch children and, in fact, our
children most in need. But we should not characterize this budget as
cutting short a commitment to America's children but, rather, a
reaffirmation of a commitment that was made in 2001 and has continued
to result in a 33-percent increase in the investment in our children.

[[Page S2072]]

One last point. I didn't hear this said, but I know I will hear it
said before this debate is over, or certainly before the appropriations
bill passes. We do two things in the Congress of the United States. We
authorize and we appropriate. A lot of times because of the public
misunderstanding of the difference between the two, people will say we
are cutting short our commitment to this or to that or the other
because we authorized X but we appropriate Y. Well, from defense to
education to everything in between, we always have an authorization
that is higher than the appropriation. but the appropriations for
education are not in this budget resolution. It does not portend a
reduction but an increase--in this case, $1.5 billion, and in the case
of education, 33 percent in the first 5 years of this President of the
United States, the President who declared and this Congress affirmed
that we shall leave no child behind.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, the Senator from
New Jersey, and myself understand that we are facing a worldwide
challenge. That is not just what we are saying; that is what the
Academy of Sciences is saying, the Academy of Engineering is saying,
the Institute of Politics is saying, National Association of
Manufacturers, Council of Competitors. You can't do business as usual.
The rest of the world is playing for keeps. The question is whether we
will or not. When we faced the challenge of Sputnik, America responded
and doubled its involvement in education. We are facing a worldwide
challenge now, and we believe these investments will make sure we move
toward the goal of maintaining the United States as No. 1. Anything
else will put us behind.
I believe my time is up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Massachusetts has
expired.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the Senator's passion. I just wish he had
been there when we voted on the deficit reduction bill and we put $9
billion in student assistance and increased the Pell grant concept
$8,000 per student, students with low income to pursue academic careers
which are needed in this country so we could be more competitive.
As I have mentioned before, the numbers are pretty staggering, what
we put into education accounts, and this budget puts in another $1.5
billion over what the President suggested, although again it is not
binding. Nothing we do in this budget is binding in a specific account.
The only binding number we have and we should keep is that top line on
the issue of how much we are going to spend as a Government. I would
say not only is it important to pass along good education to our
children, but it is also important to pass along a healthy economy to
them and a nation which they can afford to live in. But raising their
taxes as this amendment does is not going to make us more competitive
or make them have a better lifestyle. It means they end up paying more
taxes. Not living within your budgets is not a good idea for
government, it is not a good idea certainly for students, and I think
this amendment sets a bad precedent. It establishes a precedent of
saying, well, we will just blow the cap off with either higher taxes or
more debt. It is a very inappropriate approach and certainly unfair to
those kids who want to go to college and have a country they can afford
to live in and be able to make a decent living in and not have to pay
too much in taxes.

This amendment, in my opinion, is excessive, inappropriate, and
clearly, as a result of busting the budget, is not constructive to
fiscal responsibility and to maintaining fiscal discipline here at the
Federal level.
Now I would yield back the remainder of my time. I understand the
next amendment will be offered by the Senator from Rhode Island.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment is to be offered by the
Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I ask my colleague from Rhode Island
if we could allow Senator Kennedy to pay respects to Maggie Inouye for
1 minute? We will extend the time of the Senator appropriately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank my colleagues.
(The remarks of Mr. Kennedy are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')

amendment no. 3014

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I call up amendment 3014 which is at the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] proposes an
amendment numbered 3014.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
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 part B of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act)

On page 18, line 24, increase the amount by $2,000,000,000.
On page 18, line 25, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
On page 19, line 4, increase the amount by $1,320,000,000.
On page 19, line 8, increase the amount by $600,000,000.
On page 19, line 12, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $2,000,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.
On page 28, line 2, decrease the amount by $1,320,000,000.
On page 28, line 5, decrease the amount by $600,000,000.
On page 28, line 8, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the order, the Senator from Rhode Island
is recognized and in control of 30 minutes and the opposition controls
30 minutes.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that
Senators Hagel, Collins, Kohl, Coleman, and Roberts be added as
cosponsors if they are not already so listed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAFEE. I rise today to offer an amendment that moves us closer
to honoring the promises we made when we enacted the Education For All
Handicapped Children Act of 1975 which later became the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA. IDEA has its genesis in the
Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. As we
all know, this decision declared separate but equal is inherently
unconstitutional. Prior to 1975, it was estimated that 2 million young
people either were not receiving any public educational services or the
services they were receiving were inadequate.
Based on the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education,
parents of disabled children sought redress through the courts. In
1972, the District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in
PARC v. Pennsylvania and the U.S. District Court of the District of
Columbia in Mills v. Washington, DC Board of Education applied the
principle in Brown to the education of disabled children. As a result,
States felt compelled to provide educational services to individuals
with disabilities and sought the Federal Government's help in providing
those services.
On November 18, 1975, the House of Representatives passed the
Education for All Handicapped Children Act by a vote of 404 to 7. The
Senate followed the next day by passing the bill by a vote of 87 to 7.
They were overwhelming majorities, as they should have been.
As it was enacted, IDEA mandated that States provide public education
to all children, and it also must provide a free appropriate public
education to special needs students. In return, the Federal Government
promised to pay 40 percent of the per-pupil expenditures for students
with disabilities. Unfortunately, we have failed to fulfill our promise
to this program. We have made great strides since 1995 when we were
contributing just 7.3 percent of the cost. I would like to say a little
bit about who pays these costs. There is a lot of talk in this Chamber
about income taxes and marginal rates and dividend taxes and capital
gains taxes. There is not enough talk in this Chamber about property
taxes and that

[[Page S2073]]

these special education costs are borne by the property tax payer. Now,
the income tax--obviously you pay more the more you make no matter what
the percentage. The more you make, the more you pay. The less you make,
the less you pay. If a streak of bad luck hits and you unfortunately
lose your job, you pay less income tax. The same thing with a sales
tax. You don't have to buy the deluxe model, whatever it might be. You
can buy the economy model and pay less sales tax. If you want to buy a
Cadillac, you pay more sales tax. If you buy a Chevrolet, you pay less
sales tax. That is your choice. But with property taxes, they are
always there. You lose your job, that property tax is always there. And
for many people, even if they have paid for that house, their castle,
whatever it might be, their 2-bedroom castle, 10-bedroom castle, those
property taxes are still there. And if an area gets gentrified or
increases in value, sometimes those property taxes can soar. So for
people on fixed incomes in particular, this is a very difficult tax,
especially compared to income and sales taxes. And this IDEA is borne
by the property tax payer.
In fiscal year 2005, we were providing 18.5 percent--far from the
goal of 40 percent for IDEA--and last year, we actually regressed. We
went down to only 17.8 percent of our promised 40 percent for IDEA--
contributing only 40 percent. We are not to 40 percent of these special
education costs which are borne by the property tax payer. Essentially
what these percentages mean is this: For fiscal year 2006, we provided
$10.5 billion for part B grants to States, and our Federal share last
year should have been $23.8 billion--far, far away from our goal. In
fiscal year 2007, the President has proposed a $100 million increase.
Our estimated full funding cost is $25.1 billion. Under this proposal,
we fall further behind, and my amendment would increase funding by $2
billion and have the Federal Government pay at least half of what was
promised or 20 percent. We are only going half of what was promised
back in 1975.
Mr. President, our budget decisions have real-life consequences for
our constituents. The burden of the Federal Government's failure to
live up to its promises as I said is borne by these property tax
payers. Full funding of IDEA is not a choice for State and local
schools; it is a mandate. Schools are the largest cost to property tax
payers; sometimes as much as 80 percent of the municipal cost is borne
by its tax payers. It is usually above 50 percent. For any municipality
all across the country, the most rapidly increasing school costs are in
special education.
Listen to this. In North Providence, while general school spending
has gone up $11 million or 19 percent over the last 5 years, special
education has gone up $7.5 million or 74.9 percent in 5 years. And this
is typical. That is just one town in Rhode Island, North Providence,
RI. General school spending has gone up 19 percent over 5 years,
special education has gone up 74 percent. And that is typical.
The Federal Government has an obligation, as we set forth in 1975, to
help with these rising costs. That property tax is a tough tax to pay,
as we all know. The IDEA burden on school districts is increasing
because the costs are rising the more we learn about children's
disabilities. We are getting better at diagnosing, but that is why
these costs are increasing so much.
Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his continued leadership on
this issue. I also thank Senators Collins, Kohl, Coleman, and Roberts
for their support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me just say----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator from North Dakota speaking in
opposition to the amendment?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am just going to take time off the
amendment on our side, not speaking in opposition. I do want my
colleagues to know what is occurring here. I entirely agree with the
Senator from Rhode Island in terms of his priorities, in terms of
additional funding for IDEA. I just want to rise and make the point
that I made on the previous amendment that used section 920 funding.
The problem is there is no 920 money available. In fact, if we look
at the budget, we see that 920 is already $500 million in the hole. So
the result of this amendment, which seeks to add $2 billion, is really
a nullity because what it is going to do in terms of what the
appropriators see is on the one hand they will get $2 billion, on the
other hand $2 billion will be taken away. So what happens, what do the
appropriators do? We don't know what they will do. They could add $2
billion to this account and take $2 billion from other accounts. They
could. They could just wind up doing nothing.
That is the reality of the budget resolution. I know it is confusing
to people. But I am entirely in sympathy with the Senator from Rhode
Island in what he is seeking to do in terms of adding funding. The
problem we have is using 920 as the function to fund these things
because there is no money there. It is an across-the-board cut, and the
appropriators will see no real increase. This becomes more than
anything a statement of what one wants to accomplish. But the hard
reality here is there is no 920 money available. It will have to be an
across-the-board cut, however the appropriators determine to make it.
There is no new money here.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator from Rhode Island yield?
Mr. CHAFEE. Yes.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, first I want to congratulate the Senator
from Rhode Island. I think this is a good amendment, and it is done the
right way. He has basically come to the conclusion--and a lot of us
agree--that IDEA could use some more money, that there is an unfunded
mandate.
There are some issues here, of course, as to whether, like a dog
chasing its tail, we can ever catch up with the level of Federal
funding that should be in IDEA because some States in some ways are
overcoding too many kids in the system. But that is a debate for
another time.
We have already tried to address that in the most recent IDEA
reauthorization. But his initiative of putting $2 billion into this
account is an appropriate one and he has done it the right way. He
basically says within the budget we are going to set the priorities
working with a spending cap. He is saying let us do it as an across-
the-board cut and put the additional money we would have into the IDEA
account. It is a legitimate way to approach this 920 act because it
actually delivers the message which the Senator from Rhode Island
wishes to deliver, and as it is executed the Appropriations Committee
would actually get the money over there into that account with an
across-the-board cut.
The argument which is made is, Well, this has no substance because
the 920 account is going to be left up to the appropriators as to
whether they would take the approach of the across-the-board cut, which
is equally applicable in moving this budget, other than the top line
cap number. The top line cap number, which is $873 billion, is the only
number in this budget that has force of law. Everything else below
that--$400-plus billion that we have allocated in this budget
theoretically to defense, an extra $1.5 billion we put into education,
the money we put into health care, the money we put into environmental
protection--all of those are suggestions essentially to the appropriate
committee, which is the Appropriations Committee in this context, in
the discretionary account. They may or may not follow it.
But I think the Senator from Rhode Island is bringing this forward in
a way which is responsible, staying within the caps provision increase,
and proposing an across-the-board cut to pay for it. He is giving
responsible suggestions to the Appropriations Committee, which is all
the budget does, anyway. It gives suggestions, and they have no binding
effect other than the top line cap number, as I mentioned before. I
congratulate him on the proposal. Considering the cards which we
played, which were dealt relative to the budget, he is doing it in the
proper way.
We all recognize that there is a certain illusoriness to all of these
numbers because they do not have the force of law. But even the
amendment offered by Senator Kennedy has no impact other than to raise
the cap by $6.5 billion. It doesn't raise taxes. He claims it does. But
we have no authority to raise taxes in this resolution,

[[Page S2074]]

and we are certainly not doing anything that would legally bind the
Finance Committee to raise taxes. All he is doing is raising the caps
by $25 billion. That could be spent on defense, all of it, if the
Appropriations Committee wants to do that. He is suggesting that it be
spent somewhere else.
The Senator from Rhode Island is at least doing it the right way,
which is living within the spending priorities which will make the
Government fiscally responsible on the discretionary side of the
ledger, but within those let us allocate some more money for IDEA. He
has a good proposal. It is the way it should be done. I congratulate
the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. GREGG. Certainly.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, the State of New Hampshire doesn't have an
income tax or State sales tax. All of its revenue is generated by a
property tax. Am I correct?
Mr. GREGG. We do have a State corporate income tax but all of the
school funding in the State essentially is generated by local property
taxes--the vast majority of it. There is a sliver of it that comes from
the State government but it is not a significant amount in the treasury
overall.
Mr. CHAFEE. Does the Senator hear from his school committees and
local councilmen about the rising costs of special education and the
difficulty that places on the property tax payer?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, there is no question that the Senator from
Rhode Island has touched on an important subject with this amendment,
which is the fact that the Federal Government has never fully lived up
to the commitment to special education as initially made. We have made
dramatic progress under this President, especially in comparison to the
prior Presidency. We are almost up to 20 percent of funding. But there
was an original commitment of 40 percent. Certainly every community in
New Hampshire--and I am sure Rhode Island--feels they have to pick up a
Federal share from here and take it from some other part of the
education which they think is important in order to pay the Federal
share of special education.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Chafee
amendment, of which I am a cosponsor.
Prior to the enactment of IDEA, students with disabilities were too
often left out of our public education system. Today, IDEA is making
sure that they have the same access to a high quality education and a
real chance to live successful, productive lives--as their peers. Yet
year after year, school districts in Wisconsin tell me that IDEA needs
more funding. This year's budget is especially worrisome. It proposes
to cut the Federal share of IDEA costs from 18 percent to 17 percent.
That is less than half of the 40 percent ``full funding'' level that
Congress committed to paying when IDEA was first adopted 31 years ago.
I believe that a budget resolution serves as a statement of our
Nation's values and priorities. Even though this amendment will not
provide the funding increase needed for special education, it states in
no uncertain terms that our Nation's priority must be to fully fund
special education. I support the Chafee amendment and expect to support
additional IDEA amendments that will go a step further and provide real
increases for this important program. I hope my colleagues will join me
in making a strong statement in support of special education as a top
priority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield the remainder of his
time?
Mr. CHAFEE. I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota controls the
time in opposition, 28 minutes. Does the Senator wish to use any of
that, or does the Senator yield that time?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, for a moment, let me consult with the
chairman and bill manager. Let me take one moment to consult with him
and see how we might proceed.
I ask if the Senator from Rhode Island would be prepared to yield
back his time.
The Senator has already yielded the time. I am prepared to yield back
the time on our side as well.
Let me say that it would be very helpful, if Senator Burns and his
staff are listening, if he could come and do his amendment next--I know
it is not scheduled until 1 o'clock--so we are using the time
efficiently here on the floor.
With that, I yield my time on the Chafee amendment.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask
unanimous consent that the time be allocated equally to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it might be useful to use this time to
alert our colleagues on where we are. We will have six votes at roughly
3 o'clock. At 1 o'clock Senator Burns will offer his amendment on
veterans, and then Senator Akaka will offer his. I urge colleagues to
be alert to what is actually occurring on the floor. It may be that we
will have other circumstances in which the full time is not used.
If Senators are in the queue, it would be very helpful if they can be
prepared to come if all time is not used on an amendment.
The other thing I want to make certain colleagues understand is right
now we have over 100 amendments pending. Let me repeat that. We have
over 100 amendments pending. We know we can do three amendments an hour
when we are voting. If we were to vote starting now on all of these
amendments, it would take 33 hours of straight voting. And we are not
done debating amendments yet.
Colleagues need to understand exactly where we are. If we play this
out, if everybody insists on their amendment, we are going to be here
probably until the wee hours of Saturday morning. We will be here all
day today, on into the night, all day the next day, and all day the
next day. We won't complete business until some time Saturday morning
in the wee hours. That is where we are headed.

The chairman and I are asking Members to take shorter time
agreements. We will ask the next sponsors of amendments to take half an
hour, equally divided. If Members could take less than that, please do
so. Remember, the alternative is to be in vote-arama where Members get
a minute per side.
The only conceivable way we get done Thursday night is No. 1, Members
take short time agreements; No. 2, some Members reserve their
amendments and save them for another day or another vehicle.
That is where we are. Colleagues should know that. I hope very much
colleagues and their staff understand the posture of the Senate. If we
do not find a way to get cooperation from Members on taking short time
agreements, if we do not get agreement from Members on restricting the
number of amendments, we will be here until some time early Saturday
morning. Do the math. It is inescapable that is the case.
With that, I hope Members will take this opportunity. If colleagues
want to speak on the budget, we have time now until 1 o'clock. At 1
o'clock the next amendment will be offered. It will be Senator Burns on
veterans. There is time now. We have half an hour. I hope colleagues
will use that time so it is not lost.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BURNS. 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. 2999

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment and to
speak on the budget. I congratulate my good friend from New Hampshire
who has had this job, and my good friend from North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator intend to send an amendment
to the desk?

[[Page S2075]]

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent the amendment now before the
Senate be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my amendment which
is at the desk be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
Mr. BURNS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:

The Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns], for himself and Mr.
Chaffee, proposes an amendment numbered 2999.

Mr. BURNS. 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 increased funding for veterans health programs,
and to negate the need for enrollment fees and increase in pharmacy
copayments)

On page 23, line 24, increase the amount by $823,000,000
On page 23, line 25, increase the amount by $733,000,000.
On page 24, line 3, increase the amount by $854,000,000.
On page 24, line 4, increase the amount by $845,000,000.
On page 24, line 7, increase the amount by $888,000,000.
On page 24, line 8, increase the amount by $880,000,0000.
On page 24, line 11, increase the amount by $923,000,000.
On page 24, line 12, increase the amount by $914,000,000.
On page 24, line 15, increase the amount by $958,000,000.
On page 24, line 16, increase the amount by $949,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $823,000,000
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $733,000,000.
On page 28, line 1, decrease the amount by $854,000,000.
On page 28, line 2, decrease the amount by $845,000,000.
On page 28, line 4, decrease the amount by $888,000,000.
On page 28, line 5, decrease the amount by $880,000,0000.
On page 28, line 7, decrease the amount by $923,000,000.
On page 28, line 8, decrease the amount by $914,000,000.
On page 28, line 10, decrease the amount by $958,000,000.
On page 28, line 11, decrease the amount by $949,000,000.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 30
minutes. Under the order, time is equally split, 30 minutes to the
Senator and 30 minutes to the other side.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce this amendment,
but first I congratulate the managers of this bill. It is their
responsibility to hammer out a budget in very difficult times. I cannot
think of two managers who are more capable of doing this.
I understand the need to hold the line in discretionary spending and
to make some reasonable modifications to a lot of programs. I support
those goals. We need to get a handle on Government spending, but in
doing so, we have to make sure we do not ask some folks to bear more
than their fair share when it comes time to cutting back.
I speak in two areas today, one in agriculture and agricultural
programs. Right now, it has been forecast there will be some cuts
there. We want to make sure those are moderated or do not happen. We
have a situation in agriculture right now where with the unprecedented
amount of dollars we are spending on energy and fertilizer costs, the
farm is in dire trouble. We will be talking about that later. In fact,
next year when we redo the farm bill, that will be the proper time to
start talking about any kind of cuts or modifications to agriculture.
The amendment I am offering today, along with Senator Chafee, is
designed to ensure that the U.S. Government keeps our promise to our
veterans. There is nothing more important to the American people than
this particular item in our budget.
The VA budget proposes $795 million in savings by increasing fees
placed on Priority 7 and 8 veterans. The suggested increases includes a
$250 annual enrollment fee and more than doubling prescription copays,
from $7 to $15. This increased burden placed on our veterans is not
acceptable.
Approximately half of these cuts come from the expected collection
from fees and the other half is through forcing over a million veterans
to opt out of the system. That is not right, either.
Prescription drug costs have risen steadily over the past few years.
I have a chart that shows this. On the national average, $634 was the
average annual prescription drug cost for veterans in Fiscal Year 1999
compared to what we see instead now, with $762 in prescription drug
costs for veterans in the Rocky Mountain region.
Recently, we have also seen spikes in the price of gas. The
inflationary pressures add a burden to our veterans and those retirees
who live on fixed income.
This budget asks our veterans to pay even more just to be part of the
VA health care system. These fees lead us down the road to turn the VA
into another HMO, which will make it harder and harder for our veterans
to be able to afford basic care.
We need to reject these fees and copays. When we do, we need to
ensure that we include the additional $795 million in the budget or we
will leave the VA underfunded. This increase I am proposing will be
fully offset with no additional taxes or added taxes.
These fees are not what we promised our military folks when they went
off to war and when they stood ready to defend this country. For those
folks who signed up to fight for this country, this was not their
expectation, and it was not our promise at the time, either.
In addition, my amendment includes a $27 million increase in budget
requests in the area of medical and prosthetic research. The increase
will maintain funding for critical medical research programs.
The budget proposes a decrease in funding for medical and prosthetic
research, from $412 million down to $399 million. When inflation is
factored in, these programs need to be increased to $426 billion in
order for us to maintain the critical research regarding serious
injuries for our veterans returning home from Iraq and
Afghanistan. Let's face it, we have a lot more research to do while we
are involved with this particular conflict than any other conflict we
have ever faced.

This research funding is critical for unique problems associated with
our veterans who are returning from overseas with traumatic
amputations, central nervous system injuries, loss of sight or hearing,
and other serious injuries which prevent them from returning to a full
and productive life. We have to do everything we can to make sure they
have the ability to recover. I am a veteran. I know how important VA
health care programs are to those who served this Nation.
We have invested a great deal in health care services for veterans.
Because of these investments, the quality of care offered at VA
facilities has surpassed the care at regular health care facilities. In
fact, our satisfaction rate with the veterans today is much better than
it was just 5 or 6 years ago.
The VA hospital and our 10 outpatient clinics in Montana are some of
the best in the Nation. We must ensure that our veterans can afford the
care offered in these great facilities.
We did not used to have outpatient clinics in the VA. We all had to
go to the hospitals that were in each State or in each region. Those
outpatient clinics have filled a void by helping to cut down on travel
and to serve people instead of serving a bureaucracy.
I am committed to doing everything I can to help our Nation's
veterans, and this amendment today is a first step to ensure that our
veterans get the health care they deserve.
I have never felt so strongly about this as I did after visiting
Iraq. Whenever you visit Bethesda Naval Hospital, whenever you visit
Walter Reed, you will see our young men and women coming home with
injuries we have never seen before because we are saving more lives on
the battlefield--lives that would have been lost. Now we save them
there, and we are able to bring them home, repair them, and get them
ready for public life.
Mr. President, I see no other person on the floor.

[[Page S2076]]

I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. AKAKA. 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. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to respond to a statement made by my
good friend, Senator Burns.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator speak in favor or in
opposition to the amendment?
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the amendment
offered by my friend, Senator Burns.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls the time in opposition.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, we must go beyond what his amendment seeks
to accomplish. In a few minutes, we will begin discussion of our
alternative amendment. Our amendment would provide the funds to ensure
that veterans will not see their out-of-pocket costs increase. Our
amendment would add resources to care for newly returning
servicemembers. Our amendment would shore up the system for all
veterans needing mental health care.
The Burns amendment is based on the premise that the President's
budget is ``good enough.'' The opposition urges veterans to be pleased
that they are getting an increase at all in this tough budget climate.
In my view, especially in this time of war with so many competing
demands, we can and should do much better. Veterans should not have to
``get what we give them.'' They ought to be provided with what they
deserve. Let us not forget the sacrifices made by these men and women
and the sacrifices made by their families.
What we have heard much about is that VA is already adequately
funded. The administration, and my friends on the other side of the
aisle, continually cite a 50-percent increase in veterans spending
since the year 2001. I applaud my colleagues for their support of
veterans as demand for VA's top-quality health care services has
increased.
It only makes sense for spending on veterans programs to increase in
accordance with the increases we have seen in the defense budget,
particularly since Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. Colleagues,
these increased costs for veterans are a direct result of our global
war on terrorism. As we so willingly fund them while they are on active
duty, we must be willing to fund taking care of them after they have
served our great Nation.
Let there be no mistake, it is, in fact, Congress that has done the
heavy lifting. Each year, it is the veterans' leaders in the Senate and
the House who go beyond what President Bush has proposed. I do not say
this to laud Congress. I say it to remind my colleagues that we need to
make veterans a priority. We need to make sure veterans are taken care
of. Veterans are looking to us to make a difference, and we cannot let
them down.
The opposition warns that too many veterans are eligible for VA care
and too many are depending upon VA for help. I take a different
approach. I am thrilled that veterans are turning to VA for their care.
For years, we struggled to make the VA health care system something to
be proud of. And it has accomplished that. It is highly rated. It seems
cruel now to tell veterans: Now that VA care is good, we are going to
force you out.
We must go beyond ``good enough.'' I urge my colleagues to support
our alternative amendment.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMINT). Who yields time?
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. With regard to what my friend from Hawaii has done today,
I remind my colleagues that there has already been an increase in this
budget since a year ago. We are basically prioritizing our money to be
spent where it is supposed to be. If you look at the total budget
growth, it has grown from about $72.6 billion to $74.9 billion in the
last 5 years, an increase of around 50 percent. The result is a 69-
percent increase in veterans health care since President Bush has taken
office. So we are not underspending. We are just not doing a very good
job of assigning our priorities where the money should be spent.
We asked the VA to look at their costs to give us some idea of how
they are being more efficient now. The reporting of the VA has become a
lot better. It gives us a better handle on where we should be spending
those dollars. My amendment does not shortchange any veteran. We just
have to do a better job in our priorities. We have asked the VA to be
outcome-oriented, and the outcomes have been improved. Access to health
care has increased. The quality of care has increased. Patient
satisfaction is up to 83 percent. That was unheard of just 4 or 5 years
ago.
By asking for increases over and above, basically we are doing
nothing more than engaging in a bidding war. I can use the auction
method pretty easily because that is where I cut my teeth. I don't mean
to make light of the process, but we have to draw the line somewhere.
I am a veteran. I respect the effort to take care of veterans. In our
State of Montana, we now have outpatient clinics that are taking care
of our veterans, not just at Fort Harrison but at several other
locations where veterans do not have to travel long distances either to
get their drugs, be a part of their prescription drug programs or to
get their health care. What we are doing with this amendment is putting
the money right back into the system where it should be spent. We are
paying for it with no impact on the budget and without raising taxes.
I think my good friend from Hawaii raises taxes with his amendment. I
thank him for his diligence and his love for veterans. I don't have any
opposition to that. What we are doing right now is talking about how we
approach taking care of these fine young men and women who find
themselves needing medical care that they can get nowhere else in
America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ALLARD. I yield to the Senator from Idaho.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the chairman for yielding. I will speak softly
today because I am just recovering from laryngitis. I believed it was
important, as chairman of the authorizing committee who proposed to the
chairman of the Budget Committee the underlying budget proposal for the
funding of the VA for this coming year, that I discuss the Burns
amendment.
When I consider the Burns amendment, I feel the same way I felt with
the President's 2007 budget and the announcement for VA. On the one
hand, I am pleased that the VA budget is a top priority during debate
on the budget resolution. It should be. America's veterans have always
been and will remain a top priority of this Senate. On the other hand,
I am sobered that the President and the underlying resolution propose a
9.6-percent increase in funding for veterans medical care, with
additional revenue generated on top of that through various fee
proposals on higher income veterans with no service-connected injuries.
The chart to my left clearly demonstrates my concerns. From 2001 to
this budget, it is visible what this Congress has done to fund
veterans, a 69-percent increase in a very short time.
Let me remind everyone that there is plenty of money in the
President's budget request for returning Iraqi veterans and Afghan
veterans. They represent only 2 percent of VA's patient population.
They are and will remain our top priority, and they are funded. There
is also plenty of money in the President's budget for the care of
service-connected veterans and low-income veterans. I believe those are
statements of fact. They should not be, nor do I believe they can be,
challenged. There are significant increases for important initiatives
we all support for our veterans: an additional $345 million for mental
health services, including PTSD treatment; $64 million for homeless
programs; and $161 million for prosthetics and sensory aids.

The question before us now is the extent the Congress will fund
medical care services to every veteran who shows up at the door,
irrespective of their income or their need for treatment associated
with a service-related disability. In other words, are our veterans
hospital doors open for all?

[[Page S2077]]

Assuming the adoption of the Burns amendment, this resolution will
assume a 12.4-percent increase in direct appropriations for VA medical
care. Senator Akaka is proposing an amendment of an increase of about
15 percent, or may. Any way you cut it, the spending proposed for the
2007 budget under either amendment will result in a 70-percent-plus
increase in VA medical care from 2001 to 2007. That is the reality of
the numbers being played within these amendments. Assuming a 12.4-
percent rate of growth, VA medical care will double every 6 years. I
never dreamed when I became chairman of the VA Committee that in my
tenure I could preside over a $100 billion-a-year VA budget.
These amendments simply advance that to a reality. With Senator
Akaka's 15 percent annual growth, the budget would double every 5
years. Is it right? Is it justifiable? Is it reasonable in today's care
of America's veterans? The bottom line is this: At these rates, VA
spending will soon collide with demands made on all other areas of
Government. The President's budget proposal began to address the fiscal
challenge we faced. I thought he was responsible in doing it. I could
not deny that it was a responsible act, and I encouraged the Budget
chairman to put it in the budget. I continue to believe those proposals
were eminently reasonable. However, I know that the majority of my
colleagues do not find these proposals reasonable. Why? In large part
because every veteran service organization in the Nation doesn't want
them. They have lobbied and argued that they should not happen. I
understand why.
I have also spoken directly to all of those organizations and
suggested if not now, when. If not now, when do we begin to face the
reality of not a doubling every 6 years but a doubling every 5 years?
When do we face the reality of VA colliding with Social Security and
Medicare and Medicaid and the military defense budget itself? Those are
the realities we face in this Congress, not in 2007. We will not face
them because we are going to choose not to face them. I do not believe
that is responsible.
I am left with a tough decision. Without enactment of the President's
proposal, the system will need an additional $800 million. That is what
Senator Burns recognizes. That is what he is offering. I cannot in good
conscience vote to purposefully underfund VA medical care, if the
President's fee proposals will not be carried forward. Therefore, I
will support the Burns amendment. Is it fiscally responsible? I will
leave that to the decision of fellow Senators.
What isn't fiscally responsible under today's budget system is to
suggest that we will double this budget every 5 years and have it
collide directly with every other program that is out there, without
saying to those veterans who are capable and able that if they want
service from the finest health care delivery system in the country
today--and that is our VA--and they are not service connected and they
are not disabled and they are income disqualified, that they ought not
pay $21 a month to gain access to the best health care system in the
country. That is less than a carton of cigarettes. No, this Senate does
not have the political will to say so. Or $15 a month for a
pharmaceutical that could cost you $300. It is the best deal in the
country, folks. I am proud of it. I defend it because I support our
veterans. But I am also asking every veterans service organization,
starting today, working through next year, to help us find a solution
to this problem other than just dumping billions more into it each year
out of the general fund budget.
To suggest that these needs are not there is to deny reality, but to
suggest there are alternative and responsible ways of funding them is a
reality we must face. Simply throwing more and more money at the budget
is shirking that responsibility, especially when doing so sets up
painful choices. I have spoken to them. Those choices collide directly
with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. We won't face those
choices yet, either.
I want to avoid the painful choices because I want to make sure the
VA system is there today for America's veterans and there tomorrow for
tomorrow's veterans because our history would suggest to us there will
be tomorrow's veterans. We are a nation which has found it necessary
from time to time to use force as an extension of our foreign policy
for the purpose of securing our freedoms and maintaining our Nation.
That policy approach produces a veteran. And because of that, in the
words of Abraham Lincoln, for he who hath borne the battle and for his
widow and for his orphan, that is our responsibility as a nation. The
Burns amendment recognizes it in the broad sense. I believe it fails to
recognize the reality of where we must go in the long term. The
President attempted that this year. I agreed with him. The Budget
chairman agreed with him.
We will see where the Senate takes us. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 21 minutes 14 seconds
remaining.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I say to my friends, the Senator from
Montana and the Senator from Idaho, that we agree that veterans need
quality care and services, but we differ on how much to provide for
this care and who is eligible.
I believe all veterans deserve access to quality care. I also believe
that we must make this a priority. I say again to my friends, VA health
care should grow, and that is not a bad reality. We spend exorbitant
amounts on these men and women while they are in active service. They
deserve our care when they are done serving.
The budget has gone up. Let's think about what we have purchased with
that budget: hundreds of new clinics, hundreds of thousands who never
had insurance and who can now come to the VA for world-class care, a
leading research program, and a system where care is second to none.
Let's not deny that health care costs money. We agree on that.
Indeed, there is an increase in the VA budget, but it undercounts the
number of returning service members. It does not do enough for mental
health, and it flat lines rehabilitation care.
As I have said, we are pleased that the President's budget is much
better than last year's. This is not a bidding war; this is getting it
right.
Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time on this amendment to
Senator Murray.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Akaka for his
tremendous leadership on this veterans issue. I couldn't agree with him
more. This isn't about a bidding war; this is about getting it right.
I want to, first of all, thank Senator Burns for his amendment
because what it does is recognizes and acknowledges the serious problem
we have today in making sure we have the funds available to pay for the
services that our veterans not only deserve but were promised to them.
We are at a critical time in our Nation's history. We are at war.
What message does it send to those we have sent overseas if we are
telling veterans today that they are going to have to pay copays and
increased fees once they return? What message does it send to those who
are serving us overseas today that the veterans who have gone before
them are waiting in long lines, they are not getting help and the
promises that were given to them?
What I appreciate is that Senator Burns' amendment acknowledges the
serious challenge we have within this budget in making sure we meet the
rising demand for our veterans today.
I know Senator Craig has said we have increased the VA budget
dramatically. My colleagues all remember us last year having to come to
the floor to add billions of dollars to the veterans budget because we
were shorthanded. But, Mr. President, to many of us, you will recall,
it was not a surprise. We have hundreds of thousands of men and women
who are coming home from a war in which we are currently engaged who
are now needing to access veterans health care facilities. Of course,
there is an increased cost. At the same time, we have an aging Vietnam
veterans population who are accessing our veterans health care
services. At the same time, health care across the board is increasing
the costs. Everyone who is

[[Page S2078]]

providing health care has to pay increased costs. So of course the VA
budget, as a health care system, has to increase its costs as well.
I also should remind my colleagues that because so many employers
today cannot afford the cost of rising health care, they are not
providing health care to their employees, and those who are veterans
are turning to the VA, increasing the numbers who access it, and they
have a right to do that.
On top of that, Medicare Part D, which we need to talk about, is
already a problem. Our folks across the country are calling in to ask:
Whom do we sign up with for Medicare Part D? And they are being asked
by our own DHS: Are you a veteran? And if they say, yes, they say:
Don't sign up for Medicare Part D, go to the VA. That is great. They
deserve that, but it is increasing the numbers accessing our VA.
Yes, of course, the budget has gone up, but does it meet the need?
That is the test this country needs to consider and that we as Senators
need to consider in this budget.
Again, my colleague from Montana has acknowledged that in his
amendment. Here is where we have a problem. How do you pay for it, and
when you pay for it, is it a reality?
This function 920 everybody is robbing from is merely saying that we
are not going to increase the budget to pay for this, we are going to
pretend there is money out there. That may work very well now, but it
will not work when we get to next fall, probably after the election,
and we actually are sitting down and writing our appropriations bills
and passing them on this floor, within the cap of those appropriations
bills, and there will not be the funding to increase this.

So let's not do some imaginary proposal and all go home and get well
on making sure we provide the services. We will be offering an
amendment with Senator Akaka that actually provides the increased
costs, to make sure we have the funding available.
The acknowledgment is clear on this floor. Charging our veterans a
fee and a copay for health care that they were promised is not the
right way to balance this budget.
Should we be providing tax cuts for the wealthiest or should we be
providing within our budget the means to keep the promises that were
made to those men and women who served our country honorably before and
are serving it honorably today and, I might add, we will be asking
another generation, no doubt in the future, to serve us.
They will watch what we do on this floor. They will watch what we do
and how it impacts us next fall and whether we have the actual money
within our budgets to provide the health care that is promised when we
ask them to sign on the dotted line and serve our country in the
future.
Although I commend the Senator from Montana for the sentiments in
this amendment, I actually believe the amendment coming from Senator
Akaka and myself is the right amendment because it is not an empty
promise. It actually is a promise fulfilled, and our veterans deserve
that.
Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I retain the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Texas in
support of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the Burns
amendment and ask to be added as a cosponsor.
It is very important that we add something to this budget to
accommodate the extra needs we are seeing for veterans coming back from
Iraq and Afghanistan.
I think it is especially important that we not make the decision
right now about the copays. I do not support what is in the President's
budget regarding copays for the category 7 and category 8 veterans. I
am looking for some alternatives that might bring in some income, that
might give health insurance capabilities to these people who have no
health insurance coverage.
We are looking at some other threshold besides $27,000 annual income
of a veteran who does not have service-related injuries. That is the
definition of a category 7 and category 8 veteran. They are not
veterans who have had service-related injuries, they are veterans who
have had no service-related injuries who make about $27,000 a year or
more. I think that is a pretty low floor.
I would like to look at ways to increase it to a higher floor or make
sure they have access to health insurance, which many of them do not. I
haven't run the numbers on that, but I certainly think we should be
working with the veterans groups to determine what would be reasonable
and still allow us to prioritize the health care for our veterans which
is what all of us want.
Senator Burns is right, we need more research into prostheses. The
good news is that they are coming back, they are not being killed in
war, as we have seen in so many previous wars. But the bad news is they
are losing limbs, and we need to help them have the very best
prostheses they could possibly have and enhance their ability to use
them.
We will be working on those items. Senator Burns' amendment is the
right approach because we do need to have that flexibility in this
budget to try to come up with the right approach. It is too early to
say what we are going to do with the President's proposal, that there
be a $250 enrollment fee for these category 7 and category 8 veterans.
I thank the Senator from Montana for putting this amendment forward,
and I certainly hope we will adopt his amendment, which I think is a
step in the right direction.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am a proud original cosponsor of Senator
Burns's amendment to the budget resolution that increases VA funding by
$823 million. Properly caring for our veterans is our Nation's duty. We
asked these men and women to risk their lives in service of our
country, and medical care is the least our country can give in return.
The President's budget request for VA medical services assumes an
added $795 million in revenues; but it does this by more than doubling
copays and instituting a $250 enrollment fee for certain categories of
veterans. The cost of $795 million then is shifted from the Government
to veterans themselves.
Not only would many veterans have to pay higher fees under the
President's proposals, but those who could not afford the fees would
have no choice but to abandon VA healthcare altogether.
Especially in a time of war, a policy that leads to increased denial
of service to veterans is simply unacceptable. Battlefield medicine has
made huge strides in the last few decades. The result has been a much
higher percentage of wounded soldiers living through their initial
injuries, able to return home to their families. These wonderful
advances in medicine deserve and receive our praise, but they mean that
the VA will be caring for more and more injured soldiers as they return
home. And many of these injuries, such as burns, amputations, and
blindness, are of the type that will require care for a lifetime. The
United States owes these injured soldiers this care, and thus the funds
to provide it should not come from other veterans.
Senator Burns' amendment will address these problems by adding $795
million to the VA budget in order to eliminate the higher copays and
enrollment fees. Furthermore, it adds another $28 million to compensate
for cuts in VA medical R&D.
I will proudly cast my vote for this veterans healthcare funding
measure, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BURNS. 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. AKAKA. 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. 3007

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to call up amendment No. 3007 and
ask for its consideration.

[[Page S2079]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time on the amendment is yielded back,
the clerk will report the next amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka], for himself, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Bill Nelson, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Schumer,
Mr. Salazar, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Obama, Mr.
Dodd, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Rockefeller,
proposes an amendment numbered 3007.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion
in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes)

On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $1,350,000,000.
On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $135,000,000.
On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $1,350,000,000.
On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $135,000,000.
On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.
On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $1,350,000,000.
On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $135,000,000.
On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
On page 23, line 24, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.
On page 23, line 25, increase the amount by $1,350,000,000.
On page 24, line 4, increase the amount by $135,000,000.
On page 24, line 8, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
On page 24, line 12, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
On page 53, line 1, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.
On page 53, line 2, increase the amount by $1,350,000,000.

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Hawaii restate that
unanimous consent request? He just yielded himself 10 minutes? I have
no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator has 10 minutes.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators
Rockefeller, Clinton, Durbin, Feingold, Dodd, Bingaman, and Lautenberg
as cosponsors to amendment No. 3007.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to stand here with my
colleagues who join me in offering this veterans health care amendment
which adds $1.5 billion for health care. What we have before us are two
different approaches, similar to what we had last year.
I want to take my colleagues back a year when we offered a similar
amendment to the budget resolution at that time. We argued that more
attention must be given to mental health, prosthetics, and to keeping
veterans from being homeless.
The opposition questioned our number, as there was the belief that
the VA could continue providing quality care with fewer resources. And
that belief prevailed. Our amendment was rejected at that time,
virtually along party lines. The prevailing votes were misled to
believe that the budget year was too tight and that a much smaller
amount of funding was needed.
Unfortunately, this turned out to be the wrong course. Four months
and two supplemental requests later we finally ended up with more
funding, nearly the exact amount we advocated for earlier in the year.
We must not repeat this mistake and we must get it right the first
time.
I want to say at the outset that the President's budget is much more
robust than his budget last year. The veterans called last year's
budget ``tight-fisted'' and ``miserly.'' I view this budget as a much
better starting point.
What is again missing--in dollars and in deed--is this administration
still does not count caring for veterans as part of the cost of war.
Defense spending for our servicemembers while in combat has necessarily
gone up; accordingly, so must our commitment to caring for our veterans
once they return home.
We are all too familiar with the scenario last year. You remember the
VA wildly underestimated the number of younger vets returning from Iraq
and Afghanistan. And this year, the administration thinks even fewer
vets will come for care. This is a terrific gamble, as this
miscalculation was one of the primary causes of last year's shortfall.
While I largely agree with the President on the overall amount needed
for VA health care this year, I take issue with how he chooses to fund
the system.
Let's make this crystal clear: The administration's approach and the
resolution that is before us asks veterans to pay more for their care
through increased copayments for medications and a new user fee for
middle-income veterans. Our approach instead asks for appropriated
dollars.
Middle-income veterans will see their prescription drug bills
doubled, and it forces veterans to pay a $250 fee for simply choosing
VA as their health care provider. With these substantial new out-of-
pocket costs, the administration is banking on 200,000 veterans being
unable to afford VA care.
Many have argued that a user fee imposed upon middle-income veterans
is only fair. They say it equates to a modest sum each month. If my
friend, Lou Green, a veteran from the Korean war, living in New Jersey
on a fixed income, could stand here, he would ask which of his monthly
expenses would we have him forgo. If these proposals were enacted, his
five prescriptions would add $35 per month, and the new fee would add
$21 per month. This would bring his new expenses to $670 a year. He
would have to choose which bills to pay. Would it be his medications?
Would it be his gas bills for his car? Would it be the cost of heating
his home?
What we have heard much about is that the VA is already adequately
funded. The administration, and my friends on the other side of the
aisle, are claiming a 50-percent increase in veteran spending since the
year 2001.
Let there be no mistake: It is in fact Congress that has done the
heavy lifting. Each year, it is the veterans' leaders in the Senate and
House who go beyond what President Bush has proposed. The simple fact
is that the administration has requested less than half of the new
funding made available to veterans during its tenure. Congress, by
approving amendments to increase VA funding, has added another 39
percent of funding. Even with large increases since fiscal year 2001
this is an average increase of less than 10 percent to accommodate high
medical care inflation and a high annual growth in patients. The growth
in the number of patients is almost twice the amount in resources.
These facts underscore the need to support my amendment.
Our amendment would add $1.5 billion to the resolution in real money
by closing tax loopholes. The Burns amendment is merely a budget
gimmick which fails to raise the top line for VA funding. I would like
to elaborate on how our $1.5 billion number was arrived at, and you can
see it on this chart.
We add $825 million to reject the policy proposals--the copay
increase and enrollment fee. In addition, there is a seldom-talked-
about proposal to discontinue the practice of using insurance moneys to
offset out-of-pocket costs for veterans. Each of these proposals must
be rejected. It seems shortsighted and cruel to enact proposals which
will drive veterans out of the VA health care system.
The VA also requires funding to absorb new patient workload from new
veterans returning home from both Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom
and from older veterans who are just now turning to the VA. In the
first quarter of this year, the VA saw a 21-percent increase in OIF/OEF
veterans seeking VA care. They are now seeing 144,424 OIF/OEF veterans
total. This is 32 percent more than they project for fiscal year 2007.

Our amendment adds $231 million, taking into account that new
veterans are eligible for 2 years of VA care immediately upon their
return and separation from service.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.

[[Page S2080]]

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask for additional time to complete my
statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, the other amendment accepts the
administration's estimate, which already looks wrong.
Funding is added for vet centers and rehabilitative care--two
accounts which did not fare well under the proposed budget. Both
programs are critically important. Vet centers are the first place
returning servicemembers go for care. Yet vet centers have continually
been underfunded. Again, the alternative amendment provides not one
penny more than the administration.
The amendment also provides funds to allow for a substantial increase
in mental health care. Experts predict that as many as 30 percent of
those returning servicemembers may need some kind of mental health care
treatment, from basic readjustment counseling to care for debilitating
PTSD.
A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association reported that 35 percent of Iraq veterans received mental
health care during their first year home. Our amendment adds $321
million for mental health care. Again, the opposing amendment chooses
to rely on the administration's estimate, despite these recent
findings.
Each year the Congress debates its priorities and concerns for our
Nation through the budgetary process. This is one of the few times the
citizens of this country can cut through the rhetoric and the
complicated legislative maneuvers to see what each of us truly stands
for. This budget is a good starting point for our veterans, but we
certainly can and should do more.
At this time I yield to the Senator from Washington, my good friend,
Senator Murray.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I wonder if I might take a few moments to
speak in opposition, if it is all right with the Senator from
Washington, and then also there are a couple of other housekeeping
issues I would like to deal with.
No. 1, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time on the Burns
amendment on both sides be yielded back. I have checked with the other
side, and they agreed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALLARD. Second, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Mikulski be
added as a cosponsor to the Burns amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Akaka
amendment. The reason I do is I am supporting the Burns amendment
primarily because it negates the need for the fee proposals in the
President's budget and increases funding for research. The President
already provides an 11-percent increase from the fiscal year 2006
level, and over the years from 2001 it is a 69-percent increase. There
may be some increased needs as we move through the next budget year for
veterans. If that happens, then I see no problem with us going ahead,
and the Senate historically has always been more willing to put that
money in an emergency supplemental.
The concern I have with the Akaka amendment is that it increases
taxes. There were a number of amendments that were offered--and I
assume they will be offered on the floor--in the Budget Committee that
raise taxes to take care of this program or that program. The point I
would make is that the tax reductions we did a number of years back
have served this economy well, and when you allow the economy to grow,
then all these programs are going to benefit indirectly because you
increase revenues to the Federal Government. I would like to elaborate
on that just a little bit before the Senator from Washington makes her
statement.
If I might just talk a little bit about some of the comments made by
the other side, in particular Senator Conrad, as to what happens when
we cut those taxes, reduced those taxes known as the President's
economic growth package. It was predicted that when we would do that we
would reduce employment. Senator Conrad noted for the record that the
President has ``put us on a fiscal course that means lower
employment.'' In reality, employment went up as reflected in this
chart. He predicted that there would be ``a raise in interest rates,''
that the Republican budget would ``raise equilibrium real interest
rates.'' That is Senator Conrad, again, in the Congressional Record.
In reality, interest rates have stayed down. The statement was made
that ``the economic growth package will crowd out private sector
investment.'' Again, the comments were proven wrong by what happened to
our economy. We see here that the private business investment surges.
Then, the ``determining the economic growth'' comment that was made
by Senator Conrad, again in the Congressional Record, that ``the budget
will undermine potential gross domestic product and hurt economic
growth,'' we see right here that we sustained economic growth.
So the bottom line is that when we cut taxes, we help the economy. So
I think it is bad to try to increase taxes at a time when our economy
is doing so well. That is the objection I have to the Akaka amendment.
I sympathize with him in making sure that we have enough money to
take care of our veterans, particularly at a time when we are in
conflicts. But I also need to make sure we have some accountability as
far as taxpayer dollars are concerned, how they are spent. I think the
President has been very generous with the 11-percent increase he is
advocating from 2006 to 2007. He does that without increasing taxes. He
has found a source of funding which negates the fees that were proposed
in the President's budget a lot of us would just as soon not be there.
So I find myself supporting the Burns amendment and opposing the
Akaka amendment pretty much based on tax issues that are in those two
amendments. I just think this would be the wrong time to increase
taxes, when it would have just the opposite effect of the tax cut we
implemented a few years back.
So I just wanted to make that point. I think on this side you are
going to find that we all support veterans. I can't recall a year when
we haven't given substantial increases to veterans. But we also need to
have some accountability in this process, and I think we restore that
through the Burns amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time is left on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is just under 17 minutes.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Akaka and the amendment he
has offered today that will truly and in reality help make sure we keep
the promises we made to the men and women who serve this country
overseas and who fought for us in the past and are fighting for us
today and will be asked to fight for us in the future. These are people
who have served our country. They have kept us safe. They have
sacrificed for each and every one of us, and now they need our help.
They need the support and the health care that was promised to them
when they joined the service, and they need the health care and support
in coming home and making sure that we have the services available to
them.
Unfortunately, the budget that is now before us is going to leave
many of those veterans who have served this country so honorably
without health care, without job assistance, and without the support
they need to rebuild their lives on the homefront.
Any of my colleagues who have gone out to their State and talked to
these men and women, particularly the ones coming home today, you know
they are having a hard time with getting jobs, dealing with health care
issues, dealing with posttraumatic stress syndrome, facing lines at our
veterans facilities, and not being adequately served, much less those
veterans who are facing the same long lines and who are being
ultimately denied care. Our veterans deserve better. That is why
Senator Akaka and I are here today offering this amendment to provide
$1.5 billion to keep that promise to America's veterans.
There are two amendments in the Chamber, one offered by Senator Burns

[[Page S2081]]

and one offered by Senator Akaka. Our colleagues need to understand
that the amendment that has been offered by Senator Burns is window
dressing. How do I know that? Because we were offered the same
amendment last year by, I believe it was Senator Ensign. And what
happened? As we warned our colleagues time and time again from the
beginning of last year until June, we are billions of dollars short in
health care. Finally, in June, the VA Secretary came to us and he said:
You know what, you are right; we were $3 billion short. If we sit here
in the Chamber and do an empty-promise amendment again, we are going to
find ourselves back in the same position.
The Akaka amendment adds real dollars. It puts real, actual money
into the budget, so next fall, when we are writing our appropriations
bills, we have the capacity within the veterans subcommittee to make
sure we can provide the real services our veterans were promised.
I believe our veterans deserve better, and I believe America can do
better, and I believe the Senate ought to stand up right now when we
are at war and tell those who are serving us that we are going to be
there for them and support the Akaka amendment which provides real
dollars.
One of the real concerns I have with the budget that is in the
Chamber today, that Senator Akaka is trying to amend, is it balances
the VA health care dollars by assuming fees and copayments, new fees
and new copayments to our veterans. I will tell you, I have talked to
many people who have served our country. Not one of them signed a form
saying, I will join the service and fight for my country with an
asterisk on it, without the promise that we will provide the health
care for them when they come home. It is a disservice to those veterans
now for us to have a budget in the Chamber of the Senate that says,
never mind, now that you have served, now that you are home, now that
you need health care, we are going to charge you a fee, we are going to
charge you copayments which will dissuade you from getting the health
care that you need. That is really the wrong message to send. There is
no fine print when someone signs up to serve our country saying
``exclusions apply.'' For us to impose those fees is wrong, and I hope
this Senate goes on record today supporting the Akaka amendment that
will make sure that next fall when our budget is tight, there is money
there to make sure we are not having to come forward with proposals to
do that.

That is why it is so important that we support the Akaka amendment.
It is the real amendment in the Chamber. It is not an empty promise. It
is not just a be-happy amendment, everything is great, we-supported-
veterans amendment. It has real dollars in it, and it is absolutely
critical.
Senator Akaka has done an excellent job of defining what is in this
amendment. It is really critical that we help our Iraq war veterans who
are making the transition back home with the $231 million for
transition assistance. Any one of us out talking to our veterans knows
they are having trouble coming home and getting a job and getting
health care. This is critical outreach money, increasing support for
PTSD and menatl health care.
Senator Durbin is on the floor. He has been a strong advocate for
making sure we adequately fund PTSD for veterans out in rural
communities who do not have access.
I talked to a woman the other day who was talking about the fact that
80 percent of our Guard and Reserve are coming home and getting a
divorce. Divorce should not be a result of serving your country. We
ought to make sure we have the funds to help those in need, to make
sure they transition back into our communities.
This amendment includes support for our veterans clinics, $81
million. Anyone who has been out there knows we do not have enough
clinics available, especially in our rural communities, to make sure
those folks who have served us get the services they need. Importantly,
this amendment and this amendment alone eliminates the fees and
copayments that are a tax on our veterans, that this Senator says they
should not have to pay. I heard my colleagues from the other side say
this amendment raises taxes. What this amendment does is pay for this.
Senator says they should not have to pay with real dollars by closing
corporate tax loopholes.
I would ask any one of us to go home and ask a corporation or ask a
millionaire: Are you willing to pay a little bit more to make sure that
those who served us are taken care of when they return home? I doubt
any one of us will get a letter from any one of them saying: I am not
willing to pay.
The Akaka amendment is the real amendment. It provides real dollars,
assures that when we are here next fall doing the VA budget that we
actually have the dollars to make sure we are supporting our veterans.
This amendment is supported by the independent budget.
I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the
letter from AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of
America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars in support of the Akaka
amendment.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The Independent Budget,
March 14, 2006.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: On behalf of the authors of The
Independent Budget, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans,
Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars
of the United States, we are writing in support for the
Akaka-Murray VA Health Care Amendment, which would add $1.5
billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical
care account in fiscal year (FY) 2007.
We firmly believe that asking veterans to pay for part of
the benefits a grateful nation provides for them is
fundamentally contrary to the spirit and principles
underlying the provision of benefits to veterans. No
requirement that veterans be burdened with co-payments is
justified, especially in a time of war.
To ensure that VA would have the necessary resources, your
amendment would mitigate additional burden otherwise intended
to be placed on sick and disabled veterans through the
expansion of VA's collection authority, increased co-
payments, and new enrollment fees. Moreover, this amendment
would provide additional funds for VA to treat Operations
Iraqi and Enduring Freedom veterans. Over 144,000 have
already sought care from the VA for such services as mental
health, readjustment counseling, and rehabilitative care,
which is well over the projected number of 109,191 for
FY2007.
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of our nation's sick
and disabled veterans.
Sincerely,
David G. Greineder,
Deputy National Legislative Director, AMVETS
Richard B. Fuller,
National Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of
America
Joseph A. Violante,
National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans
Dennis Cullinan,
National Legislative Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars of
the United States.

Mrs. MURRAY. I commend Senator Akaka, and I tell my colleagues, when
we vote in a few minutes, you can vote for the Burns amendment if you
want to say: I support veterans. But if you want to make sure we are
there for our veterans when they come home with real dollars, you will
vote for the Akaka amendment.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Senator from Washington for her eloquent
statement. I know we have other Members who want to speak on this
amendment. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Durbin from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Hawaii for his leadership on
this issue.
How many of us in this Senate have been visiting with the families of
veterans, welcoming the veterans home, being there when the soldiers
are sent off to battle, standing and saying: We will not forget you--
trust us, we will not forget you? Now we have a chance to vote. And the
American people can judge whether we are going to remember these
soldiers and these veterans.
Senator Akaka and Senator Murray have come forward with an honest way
of paying for the help veterans need. They have said it is not free.
They acknowledge that it is going to cost us, but they acknowledge that
it is a promise we made. Did we not say to these young men and women:
If you will risk your life for America, if you

[[Page S2082]]

will put your life on the line for our country, we will not forget you,
we will stand by you? And they come home, some of them wounded, some of
them broken in spirit, and need our help. As Senator Akaka has said,
now is the moment to stand up and say that we will be there.
There is an amendment to be offered on the other side without money.
Senator Akaka does the responsible thing for our veterans.
We are going to say to the wealthiest among us and to the most
profitable corporations: You have to give back a little bit. Is that
such a hard ask? Is that difficult for us to do at a time when we are
asking hundreds of thousands of our sons and daughters, brothers and
sisters, the husbands and wives of America, to give up parts of their
lives in service of our country? Is it too much to ask that a wealthy
corporation give back a little bit so that these veterans will be taken
care of?
I have been out to Walter Reed. Senators on both sides of the aisle
have visited veterans. We meet these young men and women. Some of them
have lost a leg, an arm, sometimes two legs, some suffered head
injuries. They are fighting to come back through rehabilitation, and
once they have made it through the critical phase and they are back
home, we want the veterans hospitals to be there to help them, and that
is what the Akaka amendment is all about, so that we keep that
commitment.
We know as well many of these veterans come back without any visible
scars, but because of what they have seen, the stress they have lived
under, things they have been asked to do, they are haunted by that
experience. They don't want to lose their marriage. They don't want to
turn to alcohol and drugs. They want the helping hand of counseling.
I went out to the Heinz VA Hospital outside Chicago and sat in on one
of these sessions with these returning bright, strong, healthy looking
soldiers who were torn inside because of demons in their minds from
what they had seen, and they sit there in counseling sessions and try
to come to grips with the struggles that they have in their lives.
Should we not be sitting there with them? Should we not give them the
very best counseling? That is what Senator Akaka proposes. The Senator
challenges this Senate not just to wave the flags in the parade but to
stand up for the soldiers and the veterans who march behind those flags
every single day for America.
I am proud to support the Akaka and Murray amendment. I do not stand
alone. Virtually every major veterans group in America knows that this
is the real deal, the Akaka-Murray amendment is the real amendment.
That is why it has the support of so many organizations--the Paralyzed
Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, Retired Enlistment
Association, the American Legion. These are men and women we counted on
for America's safety and America's future. Now they count on us. I urge
my colleagues to join in supporting the Akaka-Murray amendment. It is
the real amendment to help our veterans.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, Senator Vitter has asked to be added as a
cosponsor to the Burns amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I do not have any further speakers on this
side of the aisle. I don't know whether Senator Akaka has any further
speakers on his side or whether he is willing to yield back some time.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 47 seconds.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I had another Member who had wanted to
speak. I would at this time reserve my time.
Mr. ALLARD. I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I yield as much time as he needs to Senator
Salazar of Colorado.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii controls 3 minutes.
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I would like to speak in support of
Senator Akaka's amendment to provide an additional $1.5 billion in
funding for veterans' healthcare.
As our Nation struggles with a growing healthcare crisis, we can all
agree that the VA healthcare system serves as an example for how
healthcare should be provided. In addition, through its medical
research programs, the VA is frequently responsible for great strides
in medical science that contribute significantly to the quality of
healthcare services across the country.
We owe it to our service members, our veterans, and our Nation to be
honest about our needs, and to provide funding adequate to meet those
needs.
While this budget represents an improvement in terms of VA healthcare
over last year's budget, it continues to propose revenue-generating
policies that would increase costs for our Nation's veterans and serve
to drive many of those veterans out of the system.
For example, the administration has once again proposed to raise
premiums and co-pays for Priority 7 and 8 veterans. But we all know the
impact these policies will have on veterans in our States--over 27,000
veterans in my State of Colorado alone would be forced out of the
system.
This amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, would add $1.5 billion
in funding for VA medical services, and would offset that increase by
closing corporate tax loopholes. It would ensure adequate funding for
VA healthcare without increasing costs for Priority 7 and 8 veterans,
and would provide needed resources for the specific areas of mental
health, readjustment counseling, and rehabilitative care.
At a time when some of our veterans are returning home from Iraq and
Afghanistan, it is important that we stand up as a Senate in full
support of our veterans.
Our veterans deserve better. They deserve our support of Senator
Akaka's amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this important
amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an issue on which I hope
we can find common ground--veterans care.
At this moment, we are debating two different amendments; one is very
good, the other is significantly better. I remind my colleagues that we
were in the same position almost exactly 1 year ago.
In March of last year, we stood here and debated competing veterans
amendments. The Senate voted down an amendment by Senator Akaka 47 to
53. It instead embraced a smaller amendment by Senator Ensign. Just a
few months later, we learned the VA would face a billion-dollar budget
shortfall. This shortfall was avoidable, regrettable, and threatened
care for our veterans.
I know that none of us wants to relive the experience of last summer.
We don't want to have to explain to our veterans why we didn't support
them, why we didn't demand a budget that matched their sacrifice, why
we yet again took the President's word on how much funding our veterans
needed.
Senator Burns' amendment is a good step forward. It eliminates, for
the fourth year in a row, the President's proposal to establish a new
enrollment fee and double prescription drug copayments for Priority 7
and 8 veterans. That proposal would have balanced the budget on the
backs of moderate-income veterans. It sends the wrong message to our
troops in Iraq. I urge my colleagues to vote for Senator Burns'
amendment.
But like last year, Senator Akaka's bill offers a better option,
grounded in real estimates of the VA's need. In addition to blocking
the new fees, Senator Akaka's amendment would add $231 million for
treating Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. The underestimation of this
workload was one of the major contributors to the shortfall crisis last
year.

[[Page S2083]]

It also would add $321 million for mental health initiatives. A
recent Army report indicates that more than one-third of soldiers and
marines who served in Iraq have subsequently sought mental health care.
This is a rate that is higher than in other recent conflicts. The
report may even understate the issue because two-thirds of Iraq
veterans who screened positive for PTSD and other psychiatric disorders
are not receiving treatment, according to The Washington Post.
It would add $122 million for readjustment counseling at vet centers,
and rehabilitative care. These are areas that desperately need
additional resources.
Today, we have thousands of brave men and women risking their lives
for us halfway around the world. At home, we have millions more who
were equally courageous in defending our freedom in previous wars and
conflicts. When it comes to honoring these soldiers and these veterans,
we can and must do more.
Today, the state of care for America's veterans is not worthy of
their service to this country. The VA, for example, continues to insist
on banning new Priority 8 enrollments. Through this ban, the VA has
denied health care to 260,000 vets who assumed upon enlistment that a
working class salary of $25,000 wouldn't prevent them from receiving
the health care they were promised. In Illinois, 8,944 Illinois
veterans were denied health care through the ban just in the last year.
When it comes to America's veterans, it is not only our patriotic
duty to care, it is also our moral duty. When our troops return from
battle, we should welcome them with the promise of opportunity, not the
threat of poverty.
Senator Burns' amendment is an improvement over the President's
original budget. But given this President's record of underestimating
veterans' budgets in the past, we must do more.
It is time to reassess our priorities. A budget is more than a series
of numbers on a page; it is the embodiment of our values. I urge my
colleagues to support the Akaka amendment.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the proposed budget, while far more
realistic than previous years, falls short of our commitment to
America's veterans. The amendment would provide an additional $1.5
billion for VA health care in fiscal year 2007, improving funding for
mental health, vet centers, and rehabilitative care, among others. The
increase would be offset by closing corporate tax loopholes, rather
than by increasing overall taxes. I am pleased to cosponsor this
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
We have a moral responsibility to provide this care to all veterans,
regardless of income. This amendment removes both the $250 enrollment
fee for Priority 7 and 8 veterans, and the copay increase from $8 to
$15. While these amounts may seem inconsequential to some, many of
these veterans make as little as $26,902 a year. At this income level,
such added expense forces difficult choices between essential needs.
All veterans have served our country without reservation. Our
commitment to them should not be contingent on income level.
The VA faces a growing challenge as soldiers return to their homes
and families from Iraq and Afghanistan. Their return will impose new
demands for care directly related to injuries and experiences in Iraq
and Afghanistan and for routine health care. Growing demand, coupled
with the rising costs of health care nationally, increases pressure on
the VA budget. We must ensure that the VA has adequate funding to meet
these growing costs.
This amendment provides support for an essential program and has a
fiscally responsible source of funding. I urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of this amendment. Our moral responsibility to America's veterans
must not be limited.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today, I rise in support of an amendment
to the budget resolution that would provide an additional $1.5 billion
for our veterans. I am a cosponsor of this amendment because this
budget's modest increase in veterans funding is only a small step
toward addressing the needs of veterans in Arkansas and across the
country. It does not go far enough.
I continue to hear from Arkansas veterans who have been subject to
increasingly long waiting lists for VA hospital appointments and who
have experienced unnecessary hardships because the VA does not have the
resources to process their benefits applications in a timely manner.
This situation is unacceptable and our veterans deserve better.
As we look to the VA to provide for our growing veterans population
and to meet the evolving health care needs of our returning brave men
and women in uniform, we must ensure that the VA is provided with the
resources it desperately needs to meet these challenges.
This amendment, which I am proud to support and cosponsor, would
enable the VA to better absorb the new veterans being added to the
system and would provide much-needed funding for the growing mental
health care needs of our veterans. Additionally, this amendment rejects
the budget provisions proposed by the President that would impose a
$250 enrollment fee and a doubling of the cost of prescription drug
copayments from $8 to $15. These provisions would force thousands of
middle-income veterans to pay substantially more for their care.
As the daughter of a Korean war veteran, I was taught from an early
age about the sacrifices our troops have to make to keep our Nation
free, and have been grateful for the service of so many of our brave
men and women from the State of Arkansas. On behalf of them and their
families, I will continue to fight to ensure they are provided with the
benefits, pay, and health care that they have earned. It is the least
we can do for those whom we owe so much and to reassure future
generations that a grateful Nation will not forget them when their
military service is complete. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment because it is our moral responsibility to do so. It is the
right thing to do and it should be a priority for each and every one of
us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for that excellent
statement.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-one minutes in opposition.
Mr. GREGG. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we yield back the remainder of our time on
the Akaka amendment.
I believe the next amendment in order will be the Talent-Cantwell
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

Amendment No. 3019

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

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Talent], for himself and
Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Smith, Mr.
Biden, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Wyden, Mr.
Johnson, Mrs. Dole, and Mr. Coleman, proposes an amendment
numbered 3019.

Mr. TALENT. 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 $99,000,000 in COPS Hot Spots funding as
authorized in the Combat Meth Act)

On page 24, line 24, increase the amount by $99,000,000.
On page 24, line 25, increase the amount by $99,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $99,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $99,000,000.

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment with my
colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, to provide additional
funding for the COPS Hot Spots Program.

[[Page S2084]]

I am grateful, also, for Senator Cantwell's work in this area and her
commitment to provide additional funding to help our law enforcement
officers in fighting methamphetamine. As my colleagues know, last week
President Bush signed into law the most comprehensive
antimethamphetamine legislation ever offered in the Congress, much less
passed. I am pleased we were able to pass an initiative that is going
to reduce the number of methamphetamine labs around the country and
therefore the number of methamphetamine addicts and kids who are raised
in settings where there are toxic meth labs. That legislation is going
to reduce the number of fires related to methamphetamines but this is
not a fight that is ever over.
Methamphetamine is the most deadly, fiercely addictive, and rapidly
spreading drug America has ever known. The drug is not only sold and
consumed in our neighborhoods--that would be bad enough--it is made
there as well using a toxic process that combines cold medications with
harmful chemicals such as iodine, ammonia, starter fluid, drain
cleaner, and rubbing alcohol. The hazardous byproducts of meth
production threaten the health and life of those making the drug, but
also their families, the communities around them, as well as law
enforcement officers who respond when somebody spots the meth lab.
These makeshift chemistry laboratories are found in homes, in hotels,
even the trunks of cars. In addition to the risks of those around the
labs, these kinds of laboratories create a huge amount of environmental
waste. Cleaning up even one of the laboratories can cost $10,000 or
more. That cost alone is devastating to the budgets of State and local
governments around the country.
That is one of the reasons the National Association of Counties lists
methamphetamine as the No. 1 problem counties are confronting.
Among the many provisions in the Combat Meth Act that was passed as
part of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization last week is a provision that
authorizes an additional $99 million per year for the next 5 years
under the COPS Meth Hot Spots Program, which is a program designed to
train State and local law enforcement to investigate and lock up meth
offenders, and also to expand the funding available for personnel and
equipment for enforcement, prosecution, and environmental cleanup. This
additional $99 million is meant to supplement the $63 million that is
already authorized under the Hot Spots Program.
I cosponsored an amendment with my colleague from Arkansas, Mrs.
Lincoln, to restore full funding to that account. This assistance to
State and local agencies has a national impact in importance.
I know many of my colleagues have seen firsthand the immense need for
and benefit of this funding. State and local law enforcement personnel
are fighting on the front lines in the struggle to stop drug
trafficking. They need our help.
I urge the Senate to vote in favor of the amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as
cosponsors: Senators Lincoln, Smith, Biden, Cantwell, Kohl, Harkin,
Bayh, Wyden, Johnson, Dole, and Coleman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, as the Senate can see, methamphetamine is
not a partisan issue. There is strong support on both sides of the
aisle for fighting this drug and for this amendment.
I urge the Senate to support it.
Senator Feinstein has done great work in this area. I know she would
like to be here to speak. I do not know if she will be able to get down
to speak on it. I congratulate her again on her leadership in this
field.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me indicate that on our side Senator
Cantwell had this very same amendment funded in a somewhat different
way. Nonetheless, it is the identical amendment. The two Senators have
agreed to make this the Talent-Cantwell amendment because that
eliminates, then, one amendment that we would otherwise have voted on.
I thank Senator Cantwell for her leadership. I very much thank her for
her willingness to work together with Senator Talent to achieve this
bipartisan amendment.
I also want to say how critically important dealing with this
methamphetamine threat is. I just held a Budget Committee hearing in
North Dakota with the attorney general of North Dakota, the U.S.
attorney from North Dakota, the State's attorney in the affected
county, and with the heads of law enforcement. Without exception they
told me the meth threat is the worst thing they have ever faced in
terms of a drug; that it is destroying people's lives.
I was recently at a meeting. The man next to me was clearly terribly
upset--somebody I have known for a long time, a prominent member of our
community in North Dakota. Finally, he told me his son had that day
been diagnosed as a methamphetamine addict. He told me it was
destroying his family, that he was on the brink of bankruptcy as a
result of a long meth addiction by his son, a meth addiction that was
proving extremely difficult to treat.
We need more money for prosecutors. We need more money for law
enforcement. We need more money for treatment.
This meth epidemic, which may have started in rural areas--I know
some of our colleagues in urban areas have acted as though they are not
aware of this, that this is not on their agenda. Let me assure Members,
it will be on their agenda because we have never seen anything worse.
Nothing has affected rural communities in a more adverse way than this
meth epidemic.
I again thank the Senator from Washington for her leadership and for
her willingness to work across the aisle to come up with a bipartisan
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. I rise in support of this amendment offered by my
colleague from Missouri who has played a leadership role in trying to
tackle a very difficult problem that is impacting various parts of our
country. It is unfortunate the parts of our country that have seen this
problem have to come to the Senate and wage this battle to convince
people who have not had this problem occurring in their communities how
important it is.
I say that because if we do not fight meth and combat it on a
nationwide basis, we will see the meth problem continue to grow across
the country. That is why this particular amendment is so important.
Two weeks ago we took an important step in combating this crisis by
passing legislation to actually authorize a comprehensive program to
combat meth across the country and in the Hot Spots Program. In
Washington State, we have seen methamphetamine grow, first being the
second State in the Union with the number of meth drug labs. Only with
a comprehensive approach by law enforcement, prevention, and a variety
of people in the community were we able to lower that ranking from
second in the country down to fifth in the country. While we have made
some progress, unfortunately, we pushed the problem to our neighboring
State to the south and Oregon became the No. 1 spot in the country for
meth labs.
As we have lowered the number of meth labs being discovered in
Washington State, we also saw a different effect taking place, an
actual increase in the number of deaths related to methamphetamine. We
saw the superlabs coming in, in bigger and stronger positions, trying
to continue to move this deadly product through our communities.
What the Combat Meth Act does is provide resources to State and local
Governments, law enforcement and investigative teams in shutting down
labs, investigating the violent crimes, educating the public, and
helping children impacted by this terrible product. In one county
alone--the Presiding Officer will understand because it is a
neighboring county to his State--in the city of Spokane, 90 percent of
identity theft and 70 percent of burglaries are related to
methamphetamine. During the bust of meth houses in Spokane County,
police find children at least 50 percent of the time. This is a problem
that is much more comprehensive in the impact it is having on
communities than people realize.
When we have a meth house in a community, it not only impacts that

[[Page S2085]]

particular neighborhood and community, but it impacts law enforcement
who also have to come in and investigate and clean up the drug labs. We
know of law enforcement officers injured from trying to fight this
problem by not having the proper equipment when going into these
locations.
This is a problem that is not small or isolated or one that is going
to be fought and won in 1 year's battle. That is why we need to support
this amendment today and continue our efforts, not just authorizing but
actually appropriating the resources to fight this problem.
We must continue to be true to what we have said, that we believe
this battle is worth fighting and that we are going to provide the
resources to do so.
I applaud my colleague from Missouri for his leadership on this
issue. I am sure the people of Missouri, as in Washington State and
other places throughout the country who have this problem, know how
important it is to battle this issue.
It is important we realize a comprehensive approach is showing
success. In Washington, we have seen a comprehensive approach has
actually educated more people and the public to understand how one use
of methamphetamine can be so addicting and lead to such a devastating
result, for individuals, families, communities, and to everyone
impacted in its path.
I applaud my colleague from Missouri for his leadership. I am glad to
join him in this bipartisan effort. I also congratulate Senator
Feinstein who has made this a priority, and to our budget leader for
his help in this issue.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a
cosponsor to the Talent-Cantwell amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be added
to the Conrad-Feingold amendment on pay-go.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Bingaman is available.
How much time remains on the Talent-Cantwell amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 56 minutes remaining in favor of the
amendment and 52 minutes on the other side.
Mr. CONRAD. I don't think that is correct. We only had an hour
available on that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The previous order did not cover this
amendment.
Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will allow me, I suggest we go to the
amendment of Senator Bingaman.
Mr. CONRAD. Senator Bingaman wishes to speak on the Cantwell
amendment for 2 minutes and then to his amendment.
Mr. GREGG. I agree.
Mr. CONRAD. That will take us to 3 o'clock, at which time we will be
voting.
I yield to Senator Bingaman 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I congratulate
Senator Talent and Senator Cantwell for their leadership on this
amendment related to methamphetamine use and the epidemic of that use
in my State and in many parts of the country.
I have had a series of meetings with law enforcement and local
officials throughout New Mexico over the last year. During that time,
one thing rings loudly and clearly: That is that the chief law
enforcement problem facing many of our communities in New Mexico is
methamphetamine use; not just the use itself but all of the resulting
crime that occurs by virtue of people using this terrible drug.
The addiction is very difficult to shake once you become addicted. We
have done way too little to alert young people in our country, as well
as adults, about the dangers involved. We see catastrophic, tragic
results in many of our communities.
This funding will help. It will allow the Federal Government to
assist local law enforcement to some extent in coming to grips with
this. I compliment the Senators on this amendment.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the
COPS Hot Spots amendment to S. Con. Res. 83, the budget resolution,
which increases funding for the Meth Hot Spots program to $99 million.
Last week, the Combat Meth Act was signed into law as part of the
larger USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization measure. The Combat Meth Act is
designed to stop the production, sale, and use of methamphetamines. It
authorizes funding for the Meth Hot Spots program, which trains local
and State law enforcement officials to combat this destructive and
addictive drug.
Illegal drugs are a devastating problem in communities across the
country. The production and abuse of methamphetamine, more commonly
known as ``meth,'' has become rampant in recent years, especially in
rural areas--including many counties in Nevada.
In 2005, 50 meth labs were busted in Nevada alone. This drug affects
the health of those who consume it, destroys families, and harms the
future of our communities. This drug is especially dangerous because it
is extremely addictive, inexpensive to manufacture, and created from
common household products.
There is no doubt meth is sweeping the Nation, and we must work
together to stop it. Despite the fact that many of our Nation's
communities, especially those in rural areas, are fighting valiantly
against the devastating effects of this drug, the President's fiscal
year 2007 budget provides only $40 million for the Meth Hot Spots
program, nearly a 24 percent decrease from fiscal year 2006.
Meth is insidious; it literally robs its victims of their lives. We
must aid local enforcement, as well as fund treatment and prevention
efforts, if we are to emerge victorious.
I applaud the Senate for accepting this amendment in light of the
President's decision to try to slash funding for this important
program. I urge my colleagues to maintain this funding in the final
version of the budget resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Talent
amendment.
The amendment (No. 3019) was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank again both Senator Cantwell and
Senator Talent for the work on that amendment, first, for working
together to come up with an amendment that is bipartisan; second, for
the good manners to the rest of the Members of the Senate for agreeing
to take a voice vote. That is an excellent example for others. We
deeply appreciate Senators accommodating the work of the Senate on this
matter.
I ask unanimous consent Senator Collins be added as a cosponsor of my
pay-go amendment numbered 3013.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

amendment no. 3039

Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself,
Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Menendez, Mr.
Lieberman, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. Harkin,
proposes an amendment numbered 3039.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, 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 make energy more affordable and sustainable, to increase
our national security through foreign oil replacement biofuels and
alternative fuels and advanced/hybrid vehicle use, to accelerate
production and market penetration of clean and renewable energy
technologies and generation, and to more fully utilize energy
efficiency and conservation technologies and practices)

On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $1,689,000,000.
On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $1,654,000,000.
On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $1,454,000,000.

[[Page S2086]]

On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $1,152,000,000.
On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $1,264,000,000.
On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $1,689,000,000.
On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $1,654,000,000.
On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $1,454,000,000.
On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $1,152,000,000.
On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $1,264,000,000.
On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $4,049,000,000.
On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $1,972,000,000.
On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $1,535,000,000.
On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $365,000,000.
On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $177,000,000.
On page 5, line 19, decrease the amount by $283,000,000.
On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $119,000,000.
On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $1,089,000,000.
On page 5, line 25, increase the amount by $975,000,000.
On page 6, line 2, increase the amount by $1,264,000,000.
On page 6, line 8, increase the amount by $283,000,000.
On page 6, line 10, increase the amount by $164,000,000.
On page 6, line 12, decrease the amount by $925,000,000.
On page 6, line 14, decrease the amount by $1,900,000,000.
On page 6, line 16, decrease the amount by $3,164,000,000.
On page 6, line 22, increase the amount by $283,000,000.
On page 6, line 24, increase the amount by $164,000,000.
On page 7, line 2, decrease the amount by $925,000,000.
On page 7, line 4, decrease the amount by $1,900,000,000.
On page 7, line 6, decrease the amount by $3,164,000,000.
On page 12, line 21, increase the amount by $3,549,000,000.
On page 12, line 22, increase the amount by $1,597,000,000.
On page 13, line 1, increase the amount by $1,420,000,000.
On page 13, line 5, increase the amount by $355,000,000.
On page 13, line 9, increase the amount by $177,000,000.
On page 21, line 24, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
On page 21, line 25, increase the amount by $375,000,000.
On page 22, line 4, increase the amount by $115,000,000.
On page 22, line 8, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
On page 53, line 1, increase the amount by $4,049,000,000.
On page 53, line 2, increase the amount by $1,972,000,000.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment I have sent to the desk on
behalf of myself and many of my colleagues does three things. First, it
fulfills the commitment to secure affordable and clean energy that we
made in the Energy bill we passed through the Congress last year, which
is a commitment that has been essentially not honored by the
administration in the budget they have sent to us and not honored in
this budget resolution.
The second thing the amendment does is enable us to take the major
step forward to clean and affordable electricity beyond what was
contained in the Energy bill by extending for 4 years the renewable
energy production tax credit.
Third, the amendment accomplishes these goals in a budget-neutral
fashion. In fact, the amendment overall reduces the deficit by $3.2
billion over 5 years because it raises more funds than it would spend
by assuming the reinstatement of the superfund tax.
Every Senator knows that America faces huge energy challenges. Energy
prices and energy security are among the top concerns we hear about as
we go around our State. Americans want their energy to be more secure,
they want it to be more affordable, and they want it to be cleaner.
Every one of us has devoted a lot of our time in the last three
Congresses to developing legislation that delivers secure, affordable,
and clean energy. Last year, we were successful in passing the first
comprehensive energy bill in 13 years, the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
We did so after repeated requests from the White House to send the
President a comprehensive energy bill. It was a substantial bipartisan
accomplishment.
The President, of course, spoke very glowingly about this legislation
when he signed the bill last August in my home State of New Mexico. If
we finally have a new energy strategy for the 21st century, as the
President said we do now, then where is the funding to implement that
strategy when it comes to energy? Where is the beef in this budget
resolution? If we look at the budget that was sent to the Congress in
early February by the President and at this budget resolution, you
would have a hard time finding that beef.
Let's begin with the President's budget request. Instead of making a
strong push forward on programs to deliver new forms of secure and
affordable energy, the administration budget request basically treads
water. The bottom line proposed for the Department of Energy in the new
budget is almost exactly the same funding level as the current fiscal
year. Some individual programs are up, other programs that are equally
important to our energy security and to affordable energy are cut.
When you look at this budget resolution, you also see an energy
policy that is dead in the water. The budget resolution has a specific
function that is devoted to energy. That is function 270. In the tables
that have been distributed by the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget describing the mark he has presented to the Senate,
discretionary spending in the energy function, function 270, falls from
$3.84 billion in the current fiscal year to $3.83 billion next year. In
fact, the projected spending on energy in 4 out of the next 5 fiscal
years in this budget resolution is less than we are spending this year
on energy. I don't think it is acceptable to have an energy policy over
the next 5 years that is basically a policy of less of the same. That
is not what we voted for. That is not what we supported last year when
we passed the Energy bill.
Let me describe in detail the areas in which this Amendment will
enable us to meet the challenges of energy security and affordability.
The first area is the area of energy efficiency. Nothing lowers your
energy bill more than saving energy. Nothing makes us less dependent on
foreign oil than using less of it. Maximizing the usefulness of every
barrel of oil we consume and every watt of electricity we generate
enjoys broad bipartisan support because it is almost a no-brainer. For
that it was very disappointing to see major cuts to energy efficiency
being proposed by the administration and being carried forward in this
budget resolution.
The disconnect on saving energy dollars and being more secure through
efficiency is even more striking, because energy efficiency is one of
the areas of the energy bill that the President singled out for praise
when he signed it.
Here are his words:

The bill makes an unprecedented commitment to energy
conservation and efficiency--an unprecedented commitment. The
bill sets higher efficiency standards for federal buildings
and for household products. It directs the Department of
Transportation to study the potential for sensible
improvements in fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks
and SUVs. It authorizes new funding for research into
cutting-edge technologies that will help us do more with less
energy.

Yet in this first budget that we are getting after the enactment of
the bill, those authorizations for cutting-edge energy efficiency
technologies are being cut, as is funding for energy efficiency in many
other programs.
I think that this budget resolution needs to keep the commitment to
energy efficiency in the Energy Policy Act that the President praised,
and then his administration ignored.
In the area of transportation vehicles, we have identified $629
million of funding, over what the President proposed, that would be
required to meet the levels we all authorized when we voted for the
Energy Policy Act of 2006, including:
This amendment would allow full funding for the advanced vehicle
deployment programs at the Department of Energy.
It would accelerate new hybrid vehicle technologies into the market.
It would encourage the development of engines that would run
biodiesel.
It would give a strong push to fuel cells in school buses and transit
buses, and would make the Federal government a leading-edge customer
for fuel cells.
This amendment would bolster other technology programs for vehicle
efficiency, and provide full funding for the

[[Page S2087]]

hydrogen research and development programs contained in the Energy
Policy Act. There was a lot of enthusiasm in the Senate last year for
the long-term promise of hydrogen-fueled vehicles. But the current
budget proposal short-changes these hydrogen programs, compared to what
we authorized, by $268 million. If we want to see a technological
revolution in the long term that takes us toward hydrogen-powered cars,
then we need to step up the funding at the Department of Energy beyond
what this budget resolution will allow.
Another key area in keeping energy affordable relates to the
efficiency with which we heat and cool buildings, and the energy we use
when operating appliances in our homes and commercial equipment in the
workplace. This winter, consumers have been paying unprecedented prices
for heating oil and natural gas. And we have been lucky--the
exceptionally mild winter prevented us from seeing sharp price spikes
and spot shortages resulting from the loss of natural gas and oil
production from the hurricanes of last year. But consumers are still
paying too much for energy, and improved energy efficiency can make a
real difference to families struggling to pay the bill from one month
to the next.
In this area, the administration's budget request makes some
completely wrongheaded choices. For example, there has long been a
Federal program to help States implement weatherization programs to
reduce energy waste and save consumers money. By all accounts, it is an
effective way to help cut monthly energy bills for working families. In
the Energy Policy Act, we slated that program for a substantial
increase. In the administration's budget request, though, that program
is going to be cut by 32 percent. That makes no sense, so my amendment
to this resolution provides for the full funding of weatherization
programs, as well as other State energy programs to help consumers, at
the levels we all agreed to in the Energy Policy Act last year.
In the area of energy efficiency for affordability, then, this
amendment would add $1.17 billion. That's the amount that we have
authorized for these programs last year that the administration left
out of its budget request. This funding would fully support key new
programs to help keep energy costs down for consumers.
It would fund rebate programs for energy-efficient appliances.
It would help utilities with new programs to encourage their
customers to save energy.
It would help States improve their building codes for energy
efficiency.
It would accelerate Federal energy conservation standards.
It would capitalize on opportunities to save energy in low-income
communities, where some of the most energy-inefficient buildings and
equipment can be found.
Finally, this amendment provides full funding for the energy
efficiency research and development authorized last year by the Energy
Policy Act. The administration's budget request was $462 million short
of what we agreed made sense for these programs in the Energy Policy
Act and we provide this additional funding, that will make American
industries--like our steel, aluminum, and forest industries--more
competitive by lowering their energy requirements. This funding will
also allow us to make a stronger push towards the next generation of
lighting, in which the old incandescent bulb, which wastes most of the
energy you put in it as heat, is replaced(, by semiconductor lighting
that is incredibly long-lived and energy efficient.
Saving energy through conservation is one way in which we can make
energy more affordable. But conservation is just part of the answer. We
also need to develop new supplies of clean energy to meet our future
needs.
All of us are concerned about the security implications of our
dependence on foreign oil. Improved transportation efficiency is one
key part of the solution, but so is greater reliance on domestic
sources of energy for transportation. One area that captured a great
deal of attention and support in the Energy Policy Act is making
ethanol out of cellulosic plant materials. This would expand the
resource base for ethanol beyond cornstarch, which is the current
feedstock for making ethanol. It would allow ethanol to be made in a
wider geographic area than the Midwest. This is important, because
ethanol is difficult to transport in pipelines and needs to be trucked
to fuel terminals in order to be mixed into gasoline. The energy bill
authorized a half billion dollars in production incentives and
conversion assistance for making ethanol from cellulosic biomass. The
administration's budget request did not include any funding for this
purpose. The budget amendment I have offered would allow for full
funding for important initiatives in the production of ethanol from
cellulose.
This amendment also allows for full funding of the renewable energy
research and development programs in the energy Policy Act. In the
Budget request, the administration proposed to terminate research and
development programs in geothermal energy and in hydropower. These are
important resources that we can't ignore as part of the energy mix. If
my amendment were adopted, they could be fully funded, instead of being
terminated.
Finally the area of renewable energy production, this amendment takes
the first big step beyond the Energy Policy Act. The Energy Policy Act
expanded the renewable production tax credit, and created a companion
Clean Renewable Energy Bond program for public power. Both the tax
credit and the bonds aimed at stimulating the construction of new
capacity for generating electricity from solar, wind, biomass,
geothermal, and other renewable energy sources. These fiscal
incentives, though, expire on December 31, 2007. To qualify, generating
facilities have to be placed in service by that date, which is less
than 2 years away. That means that these incentives are not going to be
stimulating much activity over the next year, because unless your
project is already well along, you will not be completed in time to
benefit from the tax credit or the bond.
My amendment allows for a 4-year extension of both the renewable
energy production tax credit, and the comparable Clean Renewable Energy
Bonds. We need to get these fiscal incentives on a time scale that
actually matches the requirements of putting electric generation
construction projects together. I believe that there is tremendous
interest in building new renewable electricity capacity in this
country. If we could give the market the certainty of knowing that this
tax credit would remain in place until 2011, at this juncture, I
believe that we would see an explosion of new construction. That would
help us in two important ways. First, the new renewable generation
would tend to back out power generated by natural gas, which would take
pressure off of natural gas prices. All consumers would benefit from
that. Second, the additional construction would provide employment both
in States with renewable resources and States where renewable energy
generation equipment is manufactured.
Right now, the extension of these fiscal incentives for energy
production is not in the budget resolution or in the plans of the
Finance Committee for this year. If this amendment were to pass,
though, we would have the resources to act on extending this tax credit
in this Congress, when it can do the most good.
This amendment also adds funding for a variety of other secure,
affordable, and clean energy generation technologies that were left out
of the administration's budget request.
It fully funds the Clean Coal Technology program, which received
almost no funding in the administration's proposals. This program is
essential to helping coal find a place in the generation mix of the
future, which will place a premium on controlling emissions and
capturing carbon. This amendment also makes a major commitment on
distributed electric generation technology, which is likely to have
greater overall system efficiencies.
This amendment also allows us to fix one of the most glaring errors
in the administration's energy budget request--its recommendation that
we terminate all domestic oil and gas research and development
programs. For a country facing $60-per-barrel oil and high natural gas
prices, the idea that we will cut off R&D spending for domestic
production is a little bizarre.

[[Page S2088]]

When you realize that most of the Department of Energy program being
terminated is focused on helping independent oil and gas producers, and
not the major oil companies, it is even harder to understand. There are
a lot of small oil and gas producers in my State of New Mexico, and
they certainly are benefiting from current high prices. But none of
them are in the position to start up R&D departments. And oil and gas
is a boom-and-bust business, while R&D is something that you need to
have a long-term commitment to, in order to achieve results.
The administration's proposed termination of domestic oil and gas
research and development flies in the face of its own statements.
For example, when the President signed the Energy Policy Act last
August, he favorably singled out some of the oil and gas programs it
authorized. Here are his words:

The bill authorizes research into the prospects of
unlocking vast amounts of now--energy now trapped in shale
and tar sands.

Last October, the Secretary of Energy announced funding for 13 R&D
projects aimed at tapping unconventional sources of natural gas. That
funding, like most of DOE's funding for oil and gas R&D, went to
universities, National Laboratories, and independent oil and gas
producers. In announcing these projects, he stated, ``The projects we
are funding today are an investment in our Nation's energy security and
economic security, and will help us obtain the maximum benefit of our
domestic energy resources in an environmentally sensitive way.'' But 3
months later, the administration proposed to zero out those same
programs in the Budget request, at a time when our need for new
domestic sources of natural gas and oil are quite clear.
Finally, just earlier this month, the Department of Energy made
another announcement. It released a set of reports stating that state-
of-the-art enhanced oil recovery techniques could significantly
increase recoverable oil resources of the United States in the future.
According to the Department's reports, 89 billion barrels or more of
oil could eventually be added to the current U.S. proven reserves of
21.4 billion barrels. That would be a huge improvement to our energy
security--an amount of oil that is 9 times greater than even the most
optimistic projection of the resources of the Arctic Refuge. And this
oil would mostly be produced from existing drilling sites in the United
States, with little additional environmental impact. So here is the
irony--both the program that produced the reports and the program
conducting the research on enhanced oil recovery is the same program
that the administration is terminating.
Our need for new domestic sources of oil and gas is quite clear, as
is the need to use advanced technology to find and produce those
resources. There is no argument about the promise of such research--
even the administration agrees. I believe that the Senate should be
more willing to match its rhetoric with funding than the administration
has been. Therefore, my amendment restores the existing oil and gas
research and development programs to the levels appropriated for the
current fiscal year. In my view, that is the bare minimum that we
should do.
Our amendment would add $500 million to Function 600 to increase
discretionary spending for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program. The pending Budget Resolution assumes that appropriations for
LIHEAP will be $1.8 billion in fiscal year 2007--the same as the
President's budget request. We know from recent experience that this
simply is not enough money. Due to very high oil, gas and electricity
prices, the fiscal year 2006 funding of about $2 billion has been
totally inadequate, despite a winter that was milder than normal many
states.
Applications for assistance this winter increased an average of 11.4
percent across the country. In New Mexico, the number of fiscal year
2006 applications is projected to be 20 percent higher than last year.
New Hampshire--30 percent more applications. Texas--63 percent more.
Wyoming--47 percent more. Several states have completely run out of
funds. Because of this dire situation, the Senate recently passed
Senator Snowe's bill adding an additional $1 billion for LIHEAP grants
in fiscal year 2006 by a vote of 68 to 31.
Experts predict that energy costs are going to remain high this year
and next winter. Contracts for natural gas to be delivered in January
2007 are currently selling for over $10 per MMBtu. Our amendment
provides for a needed increase in LIHEAP funds for next winter.
Good energy policy is not something that happens by default. You need
to set out with a clear, comprehensive vision and then--most
importantly--stick with it when it comes to implementation. If we don't
keep our focus on a comprehensive, balanced approach to both energy
efficiency and energy supply, we will not achieve the goals of energy
security and energy affordability that we want. I think that the
administration's budget suffers from that loss of focus. Somewhere
between the signing ceremony and the submission of the next budget, the
energy security of our country was not given a high enough priority. I
believe that this budget resolution before us now perpetuates that loss
of focus. Under its terms, we will actually spend less on our energy
security in four out of the five next fiscal years than we did before
we passed comprehensive energy legislation. Something is wrong with
that picture.
I don't think it's appropriate to set up some zero-sum game on the
DOE budget, where we have to rob Peter to pay Paul down in the
Appropriations Committee this summer. The provisions of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 are important enough to the country that we should
be working together to increase the bottom line for all energy programs
in the energy function of the budget.
A lot of hard work went into crafting the Energy Policy Act of 2005
on the part of all of us in the Senate. Important priorities for
Senators--both Republican and Democratic--in areas such as energy
efficiency, oil, natural gas, clean coal, and others have not been
requested at levels that will allow the Act to be properly implemented.
I believe that we should use this Budget Resolution to get to better
energy outcomes for the nation. At a minimum, we need to fund the
programs we authorized to bring us better energy security and make
energy more affordable in the future. It is not a mystery as to what
those programs are. We extensively debated them at the Committee level,
here on the Senate floor, and in conference during the passage of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005. Seventy-four Senators voted to set up those
programs when they voted for the Energy Policy Act of 2005. There may
be those who say we should go beyond those authorizations and do even
more for our energy future, and I would not disagree. But if the good
work we have done to date on energy bill is not to be wasted, then we
need to vote on this budget resolution to at least fund the programs
that we established. That is what this amendment does, and I hope that
I will have the support of a broad majority of my colleagues to pass
it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time do
I have in opposition to the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Up to an hour.
Mr. DOMENICI. Fine. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a
quorum, and let it be charged to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe there was a unanimous consent
agreement that the Bingaman amendment would run until 3 o'clock, and
then we would start voting. I believe the time was to be equally
divided between the proponents and the opponents. So my understanding
would be the Senator from New Mexico would have about half of that
time. I think it started at about 2:25, so the Senator from New Mexico
would have half of 35 minutes.
Was that not the understanding that was reached? I thought it was the
understanding reached.

[[Page S2089]]

Mr. CONRAD. I agree.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was no such order requested.
Mr. CONRAD. Maybe we could at this moment then put that in place.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would ask that the time between now and 3
o'clock be divided so that the senior Senator from New Mexico, Mr.
Domenici, would have 15 minutes, the junior Senator from New Mexico,
Mr. Bingaman, would have 5 minutes, and at 3 o'clock the voting will
proceed, and that all time on this amendment will have expired, and
that it will be included in the votes which we will proceed with. I
will ask for unanimous consent. In fact, I ask unanimous consent right
now. I ask unanimous consent that--
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, I wish to ask the chairman
if he would withhold for a moment, as I make a personal request.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, I am going to ask unanimous consent, and
then I am going to modify it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the votes for 3 p.m.
today occur in the following order, with 2 minutes equally divided
between the votes, and all votes after the first be limited to 10
minutes in length: The first would be Conrad and Feingold, No. 3013;
second, Talent, No. 3011; Kennedy, No. 3028; Chafee, No. 3014; Burns,
No. 2999; and Akaka, No. 3007. I further ask consent that immediately
following the votes, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the
Bingaman amendment No. 3039, with the same 2 minutes of debate time,
and no second degrees in order to the amendment prior to that vote. I
further ask consent that the votes now start at 3:05, and that the time
between now and 3:05 be divided as follows: 5 minutes to Senator
Bingaman, 15 minutes to Senator Domenici, and then, at 3 o'clock, 5
minutes to the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will start my 15 minutes. I ask I be
notified when I have used 10 minutes, please.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will be glad to notify the Senator
from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
First, might I say to my friend Senator Bingaman, it is not to my
liking we are here opposing each other. We produced the Energy bill,
which we are discussing or debating today, together. Today we have an
argument about how to implement it, how fast to implement it. I am on
the side of the President in terms of implementing it, and the Senator
wants to implement it faster. That does not mean we are at odds with
reference to what we tried to do. It is just how fast we will do it.
I wish to suggest to the Senate that when you have a budget, you have
to make choices. The President made some very significant choices in
this area of how much of the Energy Policy Act should be implemented.
In his State of the Union Address, he spoke rather eloquently about our
addiction to oil. It is interesting, when he spoke about that, he then
turned to issues and matters within the Energy Policy Act, which was
passed by 74 Senators--bipartisan--when he said: Let us move ahead to
substitute in the tanks of our automobiles--instead of gasoline, let us
substitute ethanol and a related product that eventually will come from
cellulose that will be produced, that grows. And we are about to the
point where we know exactly how to convert that to something that can
be used in the tanks of our cars. The President asked for that. That is
a very large item. That is funded. Senator Bingaman has no argument
with that. Obviously, he is for that.
In addition, the President said: We should move ahead with a
technology toward batteries so a hybrid automobile will come onboard
more quickly. That is another $31 million add-on. I am sure the
proponent, my friend, my colleague, supports that also.
He asked for $289 million for hydrogen fuel cells and $281 million
for the development of clean coal technology, including $54 million for
the FUTGEN Initiative, one of the most important projects in the
country. In addition, the President asked for $250 million for the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership--the name for that is GNEP; we have
all heard about it; $148 million for the new Solar America Initiative,
a very important initiative--again, I am sure that is wholeheartedly
supported by the proponent of the amendment, and which I oppose; and
then there is $44 million for wind research to try to make the
technology for wind energy, which is good. It is already producing, and
we are generating great quantities in the State of Colorado, the State
of New Mexico, and many others.
But the distinguished Senator, my colleague, asked for much more than
that. He asked that we add $3.5 billion to this function called
function 207. That just means it is the function that contains energy.
I wish it were increasing funding for all the items the amendment
seeks. I wish the President asked for them. I wish it were possible. I
believe we can go much further for the cause of energy efficiency and
renewable energy as well as conventional forms, but we can't do it all
right now. We have to be realistic about using the funds currently
available.
For that reason, although many of the proposals are very good and I
believe we will do them in due course, I can say to the Senate and
those who are interested in the issues and ideas raised by my
colleague, I believe they are going to be implemented, just not by this
budget. How do you pay for them? Because you see, Senator Bingaman
would not want to say we broke the budget. So he says: Let's pay for
them. The way he suggests we pay for them is dubious. He suggests that
we pay for them by reauthorizing Superfund taxes. That is an assumption
made in this amendment, that we will find the money, the $3.5 billion,
by reauthorizing the Superfund, which has been controversial. It has
not been reauthorized in a long time. I don't believe there is a way to
do it. So we are increasing taxes that should not even be used for
these programs. We are assuming that will happen in order to make this
amendment look as if it is a budget-neutral amendment, and then we are
asking for these good things to be paid for in that manner. I believe
the Senate should reject it.
Again, many, if not all, of the items are good for the country and
should eventually be done. To the extent that we work together to get
them in an energy act, I think we will ultimately work together to get
them funded one way or another. I hope we don't do it today because I
don't think that will add to the budget and to the requirement that we
as an institution produce a budget. That is our primary requirement, to
produce the outline. I think this amendment will not help do that.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, Senator Salazar of
Colorado.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, let me say to my friends and colleagues
from New Mexico, Senators Bingaman and Domenici, I very much appreciate
the bipartisan leadership they are exercising in moving us forward in
grappling with the imperative of national energy independence. I
believe the National Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a first step in the
right direction, and we must take additional steps.
It is because I believe we must take additional steps that I rise
today in support of this amendment for energy independence and energy
security. Our amendment will add about $3.5 billion to energy
efficiency and renewable energy programs authorized in the bipartisan
energy bill of last year; $500 million for the LIHEAP program to help
low-income families heat their homes; it importantly extends the
production tax credit and clean energy bonds for renewable energy. This
is a fiscally responsible way of fulfilling our mandate

[[Page S2090]]

to lead America to energy independence.
In his State of the Union Address, we heard the President commit to
replace 70 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by the year
2025. This is actually a modest goal. I am a member of a bipartisan
group of Senators--six Republicans and six Democrats--that supports S.
2025, the Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act. That
legislation would lead our country on a path to save 2.5 million
barrels of oil per day by the year 2016, 7 million per day by 2026, and
10 million barrels per day by the year 2031. We can reach these goals
and the President's goals, but we can only do it if we invest adequate
resources in renewable and energy efficiency programs for the Nation.
The importance of making these investments now could not be more
clear. Today we import almost 60 percent of our oil, accounting for
one-quarter of the U.S. trade deficit. At our current rate of
consumption, we will be importing 70 percent by 2020. We are currently
held hostage by our dependence on foreign oil, jeopardizing our
national security and our Nation's economic stability.

This amendment takes concrete steps toward the goal of energy
independence. It builds on proposals we have been working on in the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, ideas we have laid out in S.
2025 and ideas that I have discussed with the President in his recent
trip to the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, CO.
Our amendment would speed up development of renewable energy
technologies, incentivize alternative fuels production, and improve
energy efficiency in our cars and homes. Currently, transportation
accounts for two-thirds of domestic oil consumption. That is why this
amendment is so important, because it will provide full funding for the
Energy Policy Act advanced vehicle deployment programs. We want to
accelerate the development of hybrid vehicle technology, create fuel
cells for school buses and transit buses, and improve the technology in
biodiesel engines. Our amendment makes smart investments in renewable
energy to make it affordable and accessible to all Americans.
It will fund research and development for renewable energies to the
levels we authorized last year as a Senate in the Energy Policy Act of
2005. This amendment will double the funding for renewable energy
development at DOE's top renewable energy lab, the National Renewable
Energy Lab in Golden, CO. By supporting the technological advances
occurring at places such as the National Renewable Energy Lab, we will
usher in a new era in solar production, wind power, and biofuels.
It extends existing production tax credits for electric power and
liquid fuels produced from renewable resources until 2011. This will
provide greater predictability for manufacturers and purchasers that
want to make renewables a viable alternative.
Our amendment will also place an additional $296 million into clean
coal R&D. We are on the brink of breakthroughs in coal gasification and
clean coal technology that will allow us to take full advantage of
America's unparalleled coal resources. We must support these
technologies and get them to the market as soon as possible. This
energy independence amendment will also provide funding for the
production incentives for cellulosic ethanol that we authorized in last
year's Energy bill. Cellulosic ethanol is an untapped and potentially
massive energy source. I appreciate the President's expression of
support for its development. Current methods of producing ethanol have
an energy return of about 35 percent. We can do much better.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The time of the Senator has
expired.
Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 20 seconds to
finish my statement.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield the Senator off the resolution an
additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, the investments we make as a nation in
wind energy, solar power, and cellulosic ethanol are important for the
energy independence of America. As I have often said, the bipartisan
leadership of the Senate Energy Committee can get us to energy
independence if we make sure that what we do is take care of the
cornerstones of energy independence, which include renewable energy,
conservation, new technologies, and balanced development of our natural
resources.
I yield the floor and thank Senator Conrad.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Reid of Nevada be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, the distinguished Senator from New Mexico
has 8 minutes remaining. Does the senior Senator wish to yield back his
time?
Mr. DOMENICI. Are we there now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. DOMENICI. If I yield back, do we go to votes? Are we finished?
Mr. CONRAD. No, we would not.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Illinois is to be recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Senator Durbin has a disaster in his hometown.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back his time.
Under the previous order, the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, as the Senator from Illinois is coming to
speak about a natural disaster that has hit his hometown, let me alert
colleagues to once again please cooperate with the chairman and myself
on trying to work out the timing of amendments. We have a series of
amendments we are trying to get lined up to be debated tonight which we
would then vote on tomorrow morning. We are running into a little bit
of difficulty because of Senators' schedules. We urge people to try to
work with us to resolve those matters as expeditiously as possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the
first vote in the seven votes that are coming at 3:05, that all further
votes would be 10-minute votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The assistant Democratic leader.

Springfield Tornados

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee,
Senator Gregg, as well as Senator Conrad, for yielding this time.
For the last 2 days, I have been asked by many of my colleagues in
the Senate and I have received calls and e-mails from across the
country about my hometown of Springfield, IL, which was hit by two
tornados on Sunday evening. I wanted to take a few minutes to tell the
Senate where things stand.
On behalf of the people of Springfield, IL, our State capital, Mr.
Lincoln's hometown, we are grateful for the outpouring of support from
all across the State and all across the region. We will get through
this disaster together, and we will rebuild Mr. Lincoln's hometown. A
series of photographs which I have here show homes and businesses blown
apart by the tornados. Imagine this image multiplied by hundreds of
times, and you have an idea what Springfield looks like.
This morning, I was on the phone early with Mayor Tim Davlin, who had
gone through the area, visited some of the neighborhoods, and was
speechless to describe what has happened to the homes of so many fine
families in Springfield, IL. These two tornados were part of a violent
storm system that claimed at least nine lives across the Nation and
wreaked havoc along a 350-mile corridor from Lawrence, KS, through
Illinois. They were the worst tornados people can remember in Illinois.
We are somewhat proud of the distinction of being Tornado Alley, so we
have seen some bad ones. They tore through Springfield at 120 miles an
hour, followed by fierce rain and hail. The first tornado touched down
around 8:20 Sunday evening. It was on the ground for almost 6 minutes
and left a path of destruction 5.5 miles long and a half mile wide. The
second tornado touched down at 8:25. It was on the ground for 5 minutes
and left damage 4

[[Page S2091]]

miles long, 300 yards wide. The winds ripped off the roof of our
Springfield Wal-Mart, peeled the siding off buildings, and blew the
windows out of countless buildings, including our State capitol
building. Many homes and businesses were completely leveled by this
tornado.

Trees were pulled up by their roots, utility polls were snapped in
half, traffic signs and signals were toppled, forcing the closure of
major roads into the city of Springfield.
Twenty-four people in central Illinois were injured in the storms,
including 19 in my hometown of Springfield. We are very grateful no one
died. That is due partly to luck but also to the excellent storm
warning system operated by the city of Springfield and Sangamon County.
I salute the Sangamon County government, as well as the city of
Springfield, Andy Van Meter, chairman of the board, and Mayor Tim
Davlin for their great cooperation during this disaster.
The early warning gave people a chance to save their lives. Governor
Blagojevich has already declared a State disaster in Sangamon County
and in six neighboring counties--Ford, Greene, Logan, Morgan, Randolph,
and Scott.
The worst damage by far is in Springfield. Nearly 1,000 homes have
been damaged or destroyed, 10,000 people without electricity, schools
remain closed, and many roads are still not passable.
The worst disasters tend to bring out the best in Americans. That is
true in Springfield today. There has been an amazing outpouring of
courage and generosity. The Red Cross, God bless them, are already
seeking temporary housing for 50 families who have no place to turn.
All the other people whose homes were damaged or destroyed have been
taken in by friends and family.
I commend Governor Blagojevich, Springfield Mayor Tim Davlin,
Chairman Andy Van Meter, and their staffs, and so many community
leaders who have been working around the clock to get help to the
victims.
I commend the mayors of two neighboring towns that were also hit.
Mayor Harry Stirmell of the village of Jerome, which is just a few
blocks from where I live, and Mayor Joe Rusciolelli of the village of
Riverton, which were hit hard, are also working with State and local
officials and with FEMA.
The Governor's office and the mayors' offices are scheduled to meet
with FEMA officials tomorrow. It is my understanding that the FEMA
officials are on their way to Springfield to assess the damage and map
out a recovery plan.
I know I speak for Senator Obama, my colleague, when I say we stand
ready to help. We are going to bring together a bipartisan delegation
that represents this area, including Congressman LaHood, Congressman
Shimkus, and Congressman Evans. We will work together in concert on a
bipartisan basis to make sure help is on the way.
Based on what we already know, we expect Springfield and other
central Illinois communities hit by these tornadoes will qualify for
Federal emergency disaster assistance. We are going to do our best to
make sure that comes quickly.
I close with a real-life story. A story in today's Springfield
Journal Register quotes a man named Tim Williams. Before the tornado,
Mr. Williams' garage in Springfield was filled with antiques, including
a 1955 Buick Roadmaster Riviera that he had just finished restoring and
had driven only 87 miles. Today the car is damaged, but Mr. Williams'
antiques are scattered across the neighborhood.
Like everybody else, he considers himself really lucky. He and his
family made it through this tornado of 2006 alive. Like many in our
town, he is feeling a renewed empathy for the victims of Hurricane
Katrina. As Mr. Williams told a reporter:

You don't realize until it happens to you.

I want to say to my fellow residents of Springfield and to others who
suffered severe losses in these storms: You are not alone. We are part
of an American family. We stand together when times get tough. I didn't
know that today I would be asking for help from across the Nation for
my hometown, but tomorrow it can be the hometown of any Senator on the
floor of the Senate.
I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, government at every
level, will do everything they can to put Mr. Lincoln's hometown back
together again. That is the American spirit. That is the American
family. We are 50 States, but we are one American family.
I am looking forward to working with my colleagues to make sure we
deliver and that the people of Springfield, Sangamon County, and all
the affected counties from this tornado are made whole as quickly as
possible.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 3013

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to the Conrad-Feingold amendment No. 3013.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we deem the
yeas and nays to have been ordered on all seven amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to requesting the yeas and
nays on all the amendments?
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let's make clear, when we say ``all the
amendments,'' what we are intending is that all the amendments that are
in order to be voted on at this point.
Mr. GREGG. Correct, the seven amendments we are about to vote on.
Mr. CONRAD. There is no objection to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. GREGG. To all of them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, is it not correct that under the previous
understanding, there will be 2 minutes before each vote for a wrapup?
That has been our usual practice. That was the unanimous consent
agreement previously entered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we vitiate
this rollcall so we can do the 2 minutes and go back to the rollcall as
would be the proper order. It has not started.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The rollcall has not started. The Senator from
North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is the pay-go amendment. In some
ways, I think this is the most important amendment we face. It is an
attempt to reestablish the budget disciplines that have worked in the
past. Here is where we are headed: Debt up, up, and away.
Pay-go simply says: If you want new mandatory spending, you have to
pay for it. If you want more tax cuts, you have to pay for them. I know
the chairman says that means a tax increase. Not at all. You can pay
for increased tax reductions or increased spending by offsetting other
spending reductions. It is critically important we do this.
I want to emphasize, here is what has happened: We weakened the pay-
go rule after we got back into surplus, and it has been red ink all the
way down. This is our opportunity to reenact the budget discipline of
pay-go. I urge my colleagues to vote aye.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator
from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the practical effect of this is to raise
taxes. That is the only effect it has. If you take the pay-go language
and put it on top of the 5-year budget we offer today, the only thing
it will impact is the fact that taxes will have to be increased to pay
for extending the rate cuts, for extending the repeal of the death tax,
and capital gains and dividends. It is not pay-go, it is tax-go.
For all practical matters, this is a vote on whether you want to
raise taxes.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3013. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 38 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye

[[Page S2092]]

Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCain
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Voinovich
Wyden

NAYS--50

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Warner
The amendment (No. 3013) was rejected.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, could the Chair inform the body what is
next in order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided on the Talent amendment.

Amendment No. 3011

Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, this is the amendment which I offered on
behalf of myself, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Warner.
This amendment raises the top line for Defense in the number which
the President requested to an approximately $3 billion increase. It is
paid for. In time of war, the minimum we ought to do is have the
Defense top line at the number which the President requests.
It is a bipartisan amendment. I ask the Senate for its support.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and
nays on this amendment be vitiated and Senators agree to take it by
voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3011) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3028

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided on the Kennedy amendment.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I offer this amendment along with the
Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, and the Senator from New Jersey, Mr.
Menendez.
As we confront the global economy, America is facing a massive new
challenge. It affects our jobs, our way of life, and even our national
security. Education is the key to meeting that challenge.
This last year, we had many important reports ranging from the
National Association of Manufacturers to the National Academy of
Sciences and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine. All of them say
we have to invest in education to meet the global challenge.
When we faced the challenge of Sputnik, we doubled our investment in
education overnight. We need that kind of commitment again so that we
can compete with China and India and maintain our position as No. 1
economically and militarily.
The amendment that Senators Collins and Menendez and I offered
increases Pell Grants, student aid, and job training. It pays for these
new investments by closing egregious tax loopholes that the Senate has
approved before.
The amendment is supported by 100 organizations, and I ask unanimous
consent to include in the Record a sample of the letters of support we
have received.
This amendment is a downpayment on our future. I urge the Senate to
accept it.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Student Aid Alliance,

Washington, DC, March 14, 2006.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the Student Aid Alliance, a
coalition of 60 associations representing college students,
parents, college and university presidents, faculty,
administrators, and others, we urge you to support the
amendment to the FY 2007 Budget Resolution being offered by
Sens. Kennedy, Collins and Menendez. This amendment will help
millions of students fulfill their dream of a college
education.
The administration's budget will put college out of reach
for far too many American children. It calls for the
elimination of seven higher education programs: the Perkins
Loan Program, the Leveraging Educational Assistance
Partnerships Program (state grants), the Thurgood Marshall
Legal Educational Opportunity Program, GEAR UP, and three of
the highly successful TRIO programs: Upward Bound, Upward
Bound Math/Science, and Talent Search. It also freezes
funding for the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant,
the Federal Work-Study Program, and freezes the maximum award
for the Pell Grant--the anchor of the federal commitment to
ensuring equal educational opportunity--at $4,050 for the
fourth year in a row.
The Kennedy-Collins-Menendez Amendment puts a halt to this
backward momentum, and sends a clear message that as a
nation, we can ill afford to fall behind nations like China,
India, South Korea, and much of the European Union in
producing the intellectual capital needed to boost economic
growth and challenge the United States in the decades ahead.
Given the high stakes involved, this is not the time to cut
federal student financial aid.
We urge you to adopt the Kennedy-Collins-Menendez
Amendment.
Sincerely,
David Ward,
Co-Chair.
David Warren,
Co-Chair.
____

The Workforce Alliance,

Washington, DC, March 13, 2006.
Re Menendez-Kennedy-Collins Amendment to FY07 Budget
Resolution

Hon. Edward M. Kennedy,
Russell Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: The Workforce Alliance wholeheartedly
supports the budget amendment offered by yourself, Senator
Menendez and Senator Collins to increase our nation's
investment in higher education, job training and vocational
education programs that are so vital to economic future of
this country, as well as to the economic prosperity of
America's working families.
Your amendment would bring an additional $6.3 billion into
the FY07 budget in order to expand these critical education
and training programs at a time when our country desperately
needs to increase the skill levels of its workforce in order
to compete in a 21st Century global economy. Your amendment
would finally stop the several-year slide in combined federal
funding for these programs.
The Workforce Alliance (TWA) is a national coalition of
local leaders from the field of workforce development--
including community-based organizations, community colleges,
labor unions, business and trade associations, and state and
local public agencies--who want to improve our nation's
investments in the skills of all its workers, so that more of
America's workers will have the skills they need to advance,
and so that more American businesses will have the skilled
workers they need to compete in today's economy. Your
amendment takes an important step in that direction.
We appreciate your attention to this important matter and
look forward to working with you to ensure that our nation's
budget reflects the right priorities for American workers and
businesses.
Sincerely,
Andy Van Kleunen,
Executive Director.
____

Association of Jesuit

Colleges & Universities,

Washington, DC, March 13, 2006.
Hon. Edward Kennedy,
Ranking Minority, HELP Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Robert Menendez,
Member, Budget Committee U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Kennedy and Menendez: On the behalf of the
Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities and the
twenty-eight Jesuit higher education institutions, I write in
strong support of the Kennedy-Menendez Student Aid and Job
Vocation Amendment to the Senate Budget Resolution for FY07.
This amendment totals $6.3 billion and critically addresses
the increases needed in all student aid programs.
For over four years, the Pell grant maximum award has been
frozen at $4,050. Last year, we finally retired the Pell
Grant shortfall and we had hoped for some increase on Pell
grant maximum award for FY06, but that did not occur. Even
though there were remaining Pell grant surplus funds from
FY06, the administration did not use that additional $273
million for an increase on the FY07 Pell grant maximum award.
This amendment will increase the Pell grant maximum award and
would address the declining value of the Pell grant program
resulting from four years of level funding.
Your amendment also restores critical higher education
access programs such as TRIO programs and GEARUP, in addition
to restoring LEAP and the Perkins Loan Program which were
called for elimination in

[[Page S2093]]

the President's budget. We greatly appreciate the restoration
of the Perkins loan program, an integral part of student aid
on Jesuit campuses across the country.
Ironically, the White House and Members of Congress talk
about America being globally competitive, but we cannot
continue to do so unless the investment to federal student
aid programs increases, remains consistent, and involves
students from low incomes. Otherwise, those global
competitive goals are only rhetoric.
Thank you for your efforts in offering this amendment. AJCU
stands ready to assist your efforts throughout the budget
process and the year.
Sincerely,
Cyndy Littlefield,
Director of Federal Relations.
____

National Alliance for

Partnerships in Equity,

Cochranville, PA, March 13, 2006.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Hart
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: When the President released his FY
2007 Budget we were all in a state of dismay. Considering the
increasingly competitive global economy and the importance of
maintaining our competitive edge, the budget cuts to
education and job training were short sighted. Critical
programs that open the doors of opportunity for students,
workers and families will be closed if the administrations
budget proposal is not corrected.
The National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity applauses
your effort to rally your colleagues by developing the
Menendez-Kennedy Student Aid/Job Training Budget Amendment
and wholeheartedly support its introduction and eventual
passage. We are particularly concerned about the elimination
of the Perkins Vocational Education program and are pleased
to note that your proposal will restore full funding to these
very important programs.
The National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity is a
consortium of state agencies and affiliates who have joined
forces to work collaboratively to promote equity in education
and workforce development, including career and technical
education. NAPE's membership is committed to the creation of
equitable classrooms and workplaces where there are no
barriers to opportunities. Budgets, such as the one proposed
by the administration, will only eliminate opportunities for
students.
Thank you for your vision and support for education
programs and the students who benefit from them.
Sincerely,
Mimi Lufkin,
Executive Director.
____

The State PIRGs' Higher Education Project; United States
Student Association,
March 13, 2006.
Hon. Edward Kennedy,
Russell Senate Office Building,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of students across the
country we would like to thank you for introducing an
amendment to restore cuts to, and provide critical increases
for, education funding in the FY07 Senate budget.
Students and families face one of the most difficult years
in to attempt to finance a college education, as increased
tuition costs and severe state budget cuts are creating
enormous barriers for students pursuing higher education
degrees. Already, too many students take on substantial loan
debt and work long hours in order to cover the costs of a
college education. Nearly two-thirds of all students graduate
with federal education loan debt, and the average student
loan debt has nearly doubled over the past eight years to
almost $17,000. In addition, nearly half of all full-time
students who were employed while in school during this time
worked 25 hours or more every week.
Without change, the FY07 Senate budget threatens to leave
millions of students and families in a deep financial hole.
The original budget proposal called for the elimination of
several vital student aid programs that make college more
affordable, including LEAP funding, Perkins Loans, the
Thurgood Marshall fellowship, and the TRIO and GEAR UP
programs. We support the effort to restore funding for these
programs.
In addition your amendment provides increases to critical
grant programs such as the Pell Grant. The maximum Pell Grant
has been frozen at $4,050 for the past four years. As college
costs continue to rise, students experience these increases
as a cut to funding.
We thank you for standing up for students and introducing
this amendment. We look forward to working with you to build
support for increase funding for our nation's students.
Sincerely,
Luke Swarthout,
State PIRGs' Higher Education Associate.
Jasmine Harris,
Legislative Director, United States Student Association.
____

Coalition of Higher Education

Assistance Organizations,

Washington, DC, March 13, 2006.
Dear Senators: I am writing to urge your support for
amendments that would permit an increase in federal funding
for education that may be offered during Senate consideration
of the Congressional Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2007.
I understand that Senators Specter and Harkin and Senators
Kennedy, Menendez and Collins plan to offer such amendments.
We strongly urge all senators to vote yes on these
amendments, which would permit extremely important
investments in our nation's future. Without additional
spending authority for education provided for in the Budget
Resolution, it will be impossible for the Appropriations
Committee to adequately complete its work this year.
The Coalition of Higher Education Assistance Organizations
(COHEAO) is a coalition of colleges, universities and
commercial organizations that work to foster improved access
to postsecondary education, particularly through the Perkins
Loan Program. The Perkins program plays a critical role in
our nation's financial aid system, especially for the lowest-
income students. It is the original student loan program
created by the National Defense Education Act of 1958 in
response to the Sputnik launch by the Soviet Union. National
Defense Student Loans were needed then, and, renamed, they
are needed today as our country continues to face challenges
that require a highly educated workforce to respond. In order
for this program to remain healthy and to avoid cutting
students off from the financing they need, annual
appropriations are needed of a modest capital contribution
and to reimburse schools for loans cancelled when borrowers
go into public service jobs. Schools partly match the capital
contribution and when Perkins Loans are repaid, the funds are
re-lent to other students who need to borrow, making this a
highly efficient way to finance students' higher education.
America's students need your support. Please vote for the
Spector-Harkin and Kennedy-Menendez Amendments to expand
funding for education as part of the Congressional Budget
Resolution.
Sincerely,
Alisa Abadinsky,
President.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this budget commits a tremendous amount of
resources to education, as has this President. A few weeks ago, we
voted for an additional $9 billion for student assistance for students
who are going to college. This budget adds in an extra $1.5 billion. In
addition, it sets up a reserve fund with $6 billion for the American
competitiveness proposal. It fully funds vocational technical
education.
So the commitment is strong in this budget, as it has been for many
years under the leadership of this President, with dramatic increases
in education.
This amendment would significantly raise the caps by $6.3 billion and
in turn would raise taxes by $6.3 billion. It is a classic tax-and-
spend amendment.
I hope Members will vote against it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 39 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Wyden

NAYS--50

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
The amendment (No. 3028) was rejected.
Mr. McCONNELL. 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.

Amendment No. 3014

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided prior to
the vote on the Chafee amendment.

[[Page S2094]]

The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. GREGG. I ask that the yeas and nays be vitiated on this amendment
and we do a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Mr. KENNEDY. Reserving the right to object, does that mean the
outcome is determined? Do we have to accept the voice vote? Do we still
preserve our own Senate rules so we can ask for yeas and nays after a
voice vote if we are not satisfied?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nothing would preclude the Senator from asking
for the yeas and nays after the voice vote but before the result is
announced.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I call this amendment the Property Tax
Relief Amendment of 2006. This amendment moves funding of IDEA to 20
percent of the cost of a municipality, only 20 percent of the promised
40-percent goal set in 1975.
Schools account for the majority of property taxes and special
education costs are rising much faster than inflation. If we fund this
to 20 percent, it will go right down to the property tax payer. We all
know the property tax is one of the most difficult taxes of all we pay.
I urge passage of this amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator's intention to
plus up IDEA. The problem is the pay-for here is section 920. There is
no money in 920. What will happen is other domestic accounts will be
cut. There is no new money here. The appropriators will get $873
billion without this amendment; they will get $873 billion with this
amendment. There is no new money here, just so my colleagues understand
that before the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Does the Senator from Rhode Island still have time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. He has 23 seconds.
The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator
Warner and Senator Santorum as cosponsors of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAFEE. I also add that of all the talk about tax relief in this
Chamber, we do not get enough talk about property tax relief.
I urge your support for this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3014) was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. 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.

Amendment No. 2999

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we now turn to Senator Burns, I believe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We now have 2 minutes equally divided on the
amendment.
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I assume this is my amendment. Everybody is
looking toward me, so I will make that assumption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the Burns amendment.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, this amendment is a responsible method of
addressing the essential needs of veterans health care. The amendment
is cosponsored by Senators Chafee, Hutchison, and Vitter. Also, Senator
Hagel and Senator Sessions are on this amendment.
It proposes, we cannot live with a copay and then the additional cost
as far as prescription drugs. I realize there is a litmus test that is
trying to be imposed into our VA care. I would say that anybody who
qualifies for veterans health care has already passed his litmus test;
they served. So we should not ask of them who have given so much for
this Nation to offer up a copay or any other fees that might come with
VA.
I urge your support of this amendment. It is fully paid for.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me indicate, once again, this funding,
which is absolutely meritorious, is paid for out of section 920. There
is no money in 920. In fact, 920 is $500 million underwater already.
What this will result in is an across-the-board cut in all
discretionary accounts. So in voting for this amendment, you are voting
to reduce homeland security, you are voting to reduce defense, you are
voting to reduce law enforcement, you are voting to reduce all of the
other domestic accounts, because there is no money in 920.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I have a letter in support of my amendment
from the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I ask unanimous consent that the
letter in support of this amendment be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Veterans of Foreign Wars

of the United States,

Washington, DC, March 14, 2006.
Hon. Conrad Burns,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Burns: On behalf of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States, we are writing in support of your
amendment which would eliminate the need to raise co-payments
and charge enrollment fees by providing increased funding for
Veterans Administration (VA) health care programs.
We firmly believe that asking veterans to pay for part of
the benefits a grateful nation provides for them is
fundamentally contrary to the spirit and principles
underlying the provision of benefits to veterans. No
requirement that veterans be burdened with co-payments is
justified, especially in a time of war.
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of our nation's sick
and disabled veterans.
Sincerely,
Dennis Cullinan,
Director, National Legislative Service.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I want my colleagues to know that this
amendment fails to raise the top line of VA funding and would not fully
fund mental health. I will tell you, we are going to have an
opportunity, in a moment, to do better with our Akaka-Murray amendment.
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 40 Leg.]

YEAS--100

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
The amendment (No. 2999) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on
the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3007

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally
divided prior to a vote on the Akaka amendment. Who yields time?
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators
Baucus, Byrd, Lieberman, and Landrieu as cosponsors to my amendment No.
3007.

[[Page S2095]]

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, our amendment would add $1.5 billion, real
money, by closing tax loopholes. We said last year that more attention
should be given to mental health and prosthetics. The opposition
prevailed. It took months and two budgets to get to the right number.
We must reject the administration's new fees, and we must shore up the
system for returning veterans who will need all kinds of health care.
VA's estimates for returning service members who will come for care are
already off by 35,000 at least. I urge support for the Akaka-Murray
amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, we have just passed the Burns amendment.
The Burns amendment is a 12.2-percent increase for veterans, the
largest increase in the history of this Government for veterans. All
incoming veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are paid for. All veterans
of current service needs, both disability and service related, are paid
for. This is a doubling of the veterans budget every 5 years on the
amendment we just voted for.
There is a fundamental question to be asked: How much is enough? This
Congress, this Senate just now was generous, and appropriately so, to
America's veterans. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Akaka amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to
amendment No. 3007. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 41 Leg.]

YEAS--46

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

NAYS--54

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
The amendment (No. 3007) was rejected.
Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3039

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 2 minutes equally
divided for debate before a vote on the Bingaman amendment.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this will be the last vote, I suspect,
tonight.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, could we ask Members, we are getting a
feedback through the system of somebody's BlackBerry. If Members can
make sure to check their electronics before they come on the floor.
Will the Chair inform us what the order is?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 2 minutes equally divided
prior to voting on the Bingaman amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is
recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that
Senator Durbin of Illinois be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, last year 74 of us voted to pass the
Energy Policy Act of 2005. The amendment I have offered is to provide
the funds to implement that act. If Members want to be able to tell
their constituents that they actually were serious about those
provisions and wish to see them implemented before 2012, they need to
support this amendment.
The budget resolution before us through 2011 does not provide the
funding that was called for in that legislation either for clean energy
production or for energy conservation and energy efficiency. If my
colleagues want to be able to say that we are taking serious action in
Washington to provide secure and affordable and clean energy for this
country in the future, support this amendment. This amendment provides
the actual funds. This is the beef, if you are interested in where the
beef is in this energy debate.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Who yields time? The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think my colleague knows it is with
reluctance that I must stand and oppose his amendment. We wrote the
bill he is talking about. The President chose to fund provisions in the
Energy Policy Act amounting to $1.2 billion. He didn't fund everything.
My colleague intends to add items that were not funded.
We will have an opportunity in the appropriations process to move the
money around and do some of what he seeks rather than some of those the
President seeks. But the issue here is that to do what he wants, we
have to add more than $3.5 billion. We add that to the bottom line
which we have to pay for. The Senator pays for it by assuming that we
will reauthorize the Superfund tax. That is how he pays for it. That
has not been reauthorized for years. If it was, it shouldn't be used
for this purpose.
So essentially, we should not adopt this amendment because it breaks
the budget.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1
minute to propound a unanimous consent request.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after we
conclude the vote on the Bingaman amendment, the next amendment in
order will be the Specter-Harkin amendment for half an hour, followed
by the Stabenow amendment for half an hour. We are working on a
unanimous consent request to line up a whole series of amendments,
which unanimous consent request we hopefully will be able to offer at
the end of this amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the Bingaman amendment No. 3039. The
yeas and nays were previously ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 42 Leg.]

YEAS--46

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Wyden

NAYS--54

[[Page S2096]]

Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
The amendment (No. 3039) was rejected.
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.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Kyl
as a cosponsor to Senator Burns' amendment No. 2999.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now proceed
to the consideration of the following amendments in the order listed
and the times for debate equally divided for today and into the
evening:
Senator Specter relative to Labor-HHS, 30 minutes; Senator Stabenow
relative to interoperable, 30 minutes; Senator Frist, or his designee,
relative to Menendez subject matter, \1/2\ hour; Senator Menendez
relative to port security, \1/2\ hour; Senator Byrd on mining, \1/2\
hour; Senator Chambliss and Senator Dayton, Byrne grants, 30 minutes;
and Senator Murray on CDBG, 30 minutes.
Beginning on Wednesday at 9 a.m., the following will be considered:
Senator Kyl on immigration, 15 minutes; Senator Grassley on Medicare,
30 minutes; Senator Nelson on Medicare, 30 minutes; and Senator
Santorum on CDBG, 30 minutes.
I further ask unanimous consent that following the debate or yielding
back of time on these amendments the Senate proceed to a vote in
relationship to the amendments with no second degrees in order to
amendments prior to the vote; further, that the time used during the
votes count equally against the resolution. I further ask unanimous
consent that the votes occur in the order listed above with the
exception of the Santorum vote which will occur immediately following
the Murray amendment; provided that prior to each vote there will be 2
minutes equally divided for debate, and that in each stacked series all
votes after the first be limited to 10 minutes each.
For clarification, tomorrow morning after the debate on the Santorum
amendment, we will begin a series of votes. We have some scheduling
issues and, therefore, we will pause that sequence at some point and
resume around 1 p.m. We have a joint meeting beginning at 2 p.m., and
therefore we will then begin the next series of votes at 3 or 3:15.
I further ask unanimous consent that no other amendments or motions
be in order other than those listed during the pendency of this
request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, could the
chairman of the committee clarify when he intends to bring the so-
called Specter-Harkin amendment to a vote?
Mr. GREGG. That will be the first amendment voted on, beginning
probably around 11, maybe a little earlier, tomorrow morning.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am advised there will be two Senators
absent at that time who are in favor of this amendment. If I may have
the indulgence of the chairman for one moment to find out when they
will be here, may I inquire of the chairman when the last vote is
scheduled in his unanimous consent request.
Mr. GREGG. We presume it would occur at some time around 3:35 or 4
o'clock.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, may I inquire of the chairman if the vote
on the Specter-Harkin amendment could be scheduled at the end of the
sequence.
Mr. GREGG. I will amend the unanimous consent request so that the
amendment on Specter-Harkin will be the last amendment to be voted on
in the series.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me say that Senator Harkin is telling
us they do not know yet whether they will be back at that hour. So
maybe we can leave that, have the debate tonight, and schedule that
vote tomorrow as we know better the information that is of interest to
the two Senators.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I think that is an excellent idea. I
thought we would be in the safe range, but if there is some possibility
that 3:30 will not be a time when those two Senators will be present, I
ask that the suggestion by the Senator from North Dakota be agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. Why don't we amend the unanimous consent request to say
that the Specter-Harkin amendment will be voted on when the managers of
the bill reach an agreement as to a time certain.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, may I add that with the concurrence of
Senator Harkin and myself.
Mr. GREGG. That is asking for a lot, it seems to me. But I guess it
will be all right.
Mr. SPECTER. It is not asking for a lot in my short tenure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to again say to our colleagues that
I thank all of our colleagues who have worked very hard to put these
agreements together today and ask for additional cooperation through
the evening as we work to put a list together for tomorrow. If we want
to get the Senate's business completed, including dealing with the debt
limit, it is going to take very serious cooperation from Members.
I repeat that we have 100 amendments pending. We could be voting
right through Friday. We could be voting into Saturday if Members don't
cooperate. The vast majority have. We have a number of colleagues who
have been somewhat reluctant to make commitments to us about time
agreements, and about the staging of their amendments. That makes it
extremely difficult to reach a conclusion.
I hope some people have an epiphany here overnight and realize that
if we don't find a way to cooperate and work together, we will be here
until Saturday.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have one more unanimous consent request
which is that during the time we are in joint session with the House
and hear the message from the President of Liberia, for which I guess
we would be in recess, that time be counted against the bill equally
divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, there is no objection to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.

Amendment No. 3048

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am sending an amendment to the desk on
behalf of Senators Harkin, Smith, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Murray, Lincoln,
Lieberman, Kerry, Clinton, Bingaman, Akaka, Obama, Cantwell, Kohl,
Dodd, Mikulski, Dayton, Durbin, Collins, Landrieu and myself, and ask
for its consideration in terms of the unanimous consent agreement
already reached.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for himself
and Mr. Harkin, Mr. Smith, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs.
Murray, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Clinton,
Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Obama, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Kohl,
Mr. Dodd, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Collins
and Ms. Landrieu, proposes an amendment numbered 3048.

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: To increase the advance appropriations allowance in order to
fund health, education and training, and low-income programs)

On page 44, line 13, strike ``$23,158,000,000'' and insert
``$30,158,000,000''.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, before proceeding into the details of
this amendment, let me state that it is an amendment which seeks to
offer $7 billion to increase the cap on advanced appropriations under
section 401 of this resolution. The budget resolution has increased the
President's mark by some $3 billion so that if accepted this amendment
for $7 billion will constitute an increase over the President's mark of
some $10 billion.

[[Page S2097]]

Let me say at the outset that notwithstanding the sizable figure
involved here, the funding for the subcommittee, which I chair and
where Senator Harkin is the ranking member, we will still be more than
$5 billion short of where we would have been had the budget for fiscal
year 2006 been frozen with an inflation increase, and then the budget
for 2007 again frozen accommodating an inflation increase. That has
come about. The figures are complicated and technical, but I think it
is important to understand where we are coming from on this amendment.
For fiscal year 2005 the budget enacted was $143.4 billion. The
budget enacted was $141.5 billion for fiscal year 2006, almost $2
billion less. The inflation factor was $4.8 billion. If we take the
$1.9 billion reduction and the $4.8 billion, our budget for the fiscal
year 2006 was $6.7 billion under a freeze.
The budget for fiscal year 2007 has come in at $137.5 billion. What
we have is a President's budget which is $5 billion under the enacted
budget for fiscal year 2006. If we add an inflation factor of $5
billion, the budget for fiscal year 2007 should be $153.2 billion,
which means that under the current figures we are $15.7 billion short.
Now, that is on a freeze. There has been a lot of rhetoric about
maintaining fiscal responsibility, which I subscribe to. That is
something we should be doing. We should be, as a nation, living within
our budget. It is unfortunate we did not pass a constitutional
amendment for a balanced budget, which would have compelled us to live
within our means, as every citizen must do so and the States and the
cities and other governmental units, but we did not pass that.
But what I call fiscal restraint is if you have a freeze; that is,
you do not increase the spending. But when you have had this sequence
where the budget has been cut, plus the failure to have an allowance
for an inflation factor, we have done more than cut out the fat, we
have done more than cut through the muscle, we have done more than cut
through the bone; we have cut into the marrow. It is that serious as to
what has happened.
In the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services and Education,
we are dealing with our two major capital assets--health and education.
Without health, individuals obviously cannot function. And without
education, individuals cannot reach their potential. And the Department
of Labor--workforce, job training, worker safety--again, very vital
functions.
In an earlier vote today, I voted against the amendment offered by
Senator Kennedy for $6.3 billion which would have increased Pell grants
by $1.8 billion, would have increased funding for other higher
education programs by $2.4 billion, would have increased funding for
Perkins vocational education by $1.3 billion and other revenues by $750
million. Much as I would have liked to have voted for the Kennedy
amendment, I voted against it because it seemed to me an impossibility
for Senator Kennedy's amendment to be agreed to and to have the
Specter-Harkin amendment agreed to.
I tried to persuade my distinguished colleague, Senator Harkin, to
vote against the Kennedy amendment and join me on that. He told me
about some of the practical facts of life on his side of the aisle. I
relented, notwithstanding our general partnership agreement, and
released him from his obligations. So Senator Harkin voted for the
Kennedy amendment, which I would have liked to have done, and I voted
against it, although it was a very painful vote.
Now we come to the addition of $7 billion. Let me explain briefly,
before yielding to Senator Harkin, what this amendment does. In the
Department of Labor, the fiscal year 2007 budget proposes to eliminate
$49 million for reintegration of youthful offenders. This will be
reinstated, but this is what the resolution calls for. Would reinstate
the $7 billion as added, $49 million for the reintegration of youthful
offenders, obviously, a very important program. The budget eliminates
$79 million for training migrant and seasonal farmworkers and
dislocated worker assistance by $232 million, cut adult training by
$152 million, and cut the Job Corps by $62 million. This amendment will
restore those indispensable items.
This amendment restores $637 million for the Community Service Block
Grant Program. This amendment also provides funding for low-income
energy assistance. This amendment restores funding for the National
Institutes of Health. The current budget resolution recommends $29.350
billion, which is $1 billion over the fiscal year 2006 appropriation
and the President's request. This amendment provides NIH with a $2
billion increase over the President's budget. Even with this increase,
the amount is below what has been provided in the 2005 budget, adjusted
for inflation.

Just a word or two about the National Institutes of Health. The
subcommittee has taken the lead in the past several years of more than
doubling funding for the National Institutes of Health from $12 billion
to more than $29 billion. What has happened in the last 2 years, has
eventuated in a reduction in the number of grants which may be offered.
In this field, there is panic among the applicants for NIH funding.
Dr. John Glick, noted oncologist, Philadelphian--happens to be my
oncologist; I am unfortunate to need one, but he is a superb
oncologist--has confirmed what I have heard reported around the country
about how the National Institutes of Health are not able to perform
their function. They are dealing with rock-bed American health. They
are dealing with the potential cures for heart disease, cancer,
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes. When we have the hearing in a few
weeks, we will be bringing in 21 experts of these various disciplines
to testify what the impact has been.
The Department of Education has had the President's budget proposal
to reduce it by more than $2.1 billion. This budget resolution assumes
an increase of $1.5 billion over the President's budget request but
would still result in cuts below the fiscal year 2006 level. We detail
what we are doing for education. We will be providing the kind of
funding, in large measure, which the Kennedy amendment was looking for
which, as I say, I had voted against.
The managers of this budget resolution have done an outstanding job
of dealing with a very difficult situation. What we are doing is simply
not looking at reality on discretionary spending. There is a great deal
of spending which is being undertaken by the Federal Government at the
present time. Entitlements are precisely what they say. They are
established. We have tremendous expenses with the hurricanes. We have
tremendous expenses with Afghanistan. We have tremendous expenses with
Iraq.
I am not going to direct any comments on any of those directions as
to whether we are doing the right thing in what we are spending. I do
know, when it comes to health, education, worker training, worker
safety, we cannot move below a freeze on fiscal year 2005 and have
anything but chaos. I have detailed why we are now $15.7 billion below
what we should have been in 2005 had there been a freeze without the
cuts and allowing for inflation.
When you talk about fiscal responsibility, I do not think anyone,
including our so-called base, would expect us to do more than freeze--
not to cut education, not to cut health care, not to cut job training,
not to cut worker safety but to hold the line, tighten our belts, and
have a freeze. So when we end up with $3 billion added by the committee
and $7 billion if this amendment passes, we are still far short of
where we need to be.
As I have advised the leadership, I have grave doubts about
supporting the budget resolution, even with the adoption of this
amendment. The budget resolution does not end the day. There has to be
a conference. There have to be allocations in the Committee on
Appropriations. I put the Republican leadership and the Democratic
leadership and the House and the White House and the Presiding Officer,
everyone on notice that I will want to see some real assurances that we
are dealing with hard money, not with confederate dollars, not with
something on a printout but something which will eventuate in having an
appropriation for our subcommittee which will enable us to do a decent
job--not an adequate job, not the proper job but at least a decent
minimal job on these important functions.
I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be printed in the
Record.

[[Page S2098]]

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Statement of Senator Arlen Specter

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to offer a
$7 billion amendment to increase the cap on advance
appropriations under section 401 of this resolution. By
increasing allowable advance funding, this amendment would
add to the amounts already included in the resolution for the
National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and other public health service
activities; education and job training; and anti-poverty
programs, including Low-Income Home Energy Assistance. By
increasing advance funding, this amendment does not raise the
overall discretionary spending limit.
The Harkin/Specter amendment adds $7 billion to the $3
billion increase over the President's request assumed in the
resolution reported by the Budget Committee and thereby
allowing a $10 billion to partially restore funding for
programs within the jurisdiction of the Labor-HHS-Education
Appropriations Subcommittee. This is a modest amendment when
you take into account inflationary costs and that fact that
last year's appropriation was reduced by $1.9 billion below
the previous year's funding level.
The amendment restores the President's proposed cuts in
workforce investment programs, including dislocated worker
assistance and the Job Corps. It will also prevent the
termination of 6 Labor Department programs the Administration
has proposed to eliminate, including Reintegration of
Youthful Offenders, and Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers.
With the shortage of skilled workers in many fields,
including health care occupations such as nursing, we should
not be cutting back on training programs for the unemployed.
This amendment will restore 124,000 training opportunities
for youth and adults. It will also provide services to an
additional 1.2 million workers through job placement at our
nation's One Stop Career Centers.
My amendment would restore the $637 million for the
Community Services Block Grant Program that the budget
proposed to eliminate. This block grant program provides
services and activities to reduce poverty. The strength of
the program is in its ability to tailor itself to best
enhance local community programs and address their individual
needs. Dollars are used for food programs, administration of
LIHEAP services, employment issues, or for a variety of other
issues that are vital to healthy communities. These funds
leverage $20 for every $1 provided through state, local and
private contributions.
LIHEAP helps states assist low-income households to meet
the cost of home heating and cooling. This winter, we saw
drastic increases in home heating fuel costs. To respond to
the need for immediate relief, the Senate has passed
legislation shifting $1 billion appropriated for fiscal year
2007 for use in 2006; the House Appropriations Committee has
taken similar action. Once completed, this shift will require
at least a $1 billion restoration of fiscal year 2007 funds.

department of education

My amendment also intends to ensure that discretionary
funding for the Department of Education is not cut below the
amount provided by Congress last year. The resolution
currently assumes a cut of $600 million below the FY'06
appropriation. My amendment would provide additional
resources to help schools raise achievement levels for all of
their students and to ensure that they are prepared for
postsecondary education and work.
Many members have pointed out that the budget for the
Department of Education has been increased significantly over
the past several years. In fact, discretionary funding has
been raised from $24.7 billion in FY'95 to $56 billion in
FY'05, an increase of 129%. My subcommittee has taken the
lead in raising funding for Title I grants for Disadvantaged
Students, Special Education and Pell Grants. The spending
limit established in the FY'06 budget resolution forced my
subcommittee to reduce investments in education for the first
time in a decade. The FY'06 Labor-HHS-Education bill,
including the 1 percent across the board reduction, provided
$624 million less for the Department of Education than the
agency had in FY'05. The progress that was achieved over
the past decade in specific areas was halted, and in some
cases, reversed. For example, the federal contribution for
special education has increased from 7.3 percent in FY'96
to 18.5 percent in FY'05, almost halfway to the 40 percent
goal. However, under the President's budget request the
federal contribution will drop to 17 percent.
In the area of Title I--grants for disadvantaged students,
the foundation of federal support for elementary and
secondary education, significant increases have been made
since the No Child Left Behind Act was passed in 2000.
However, with more than 9,000 schools nationwide identified
as in need of improvement, this is the time to ensure that
struggling students get the extra help they need to
demonstrate that they have the knowledge and skills to
proceed to the next grade.
In the area of postsecondary education, the President's
budget proposes a $4,050 maximum grant under the Pell
program, which, if adopted, would mean the fifth straight
year that the maximum award was at that level. The budget
also proposes to eliminate LEAP and the Perkins Loans
program. More than 1 million additional students are
receiving Pell Grants than they were five years ago. However,
last year, the average tuition and fees increased by more
than 7 percent, decreasing the purchasing power for low- and
middle-income Pell grant recipients.
The budget also proposes to eliminate the $303 million GEAR
UP program, which the Administration itself has acknowledged
is performing adequately and successfully prepare students
for college enrollment. The $1.1 billion Perkins Vocational
and Technical Education programs, which the Senate voted 99-0
to reauthorize last year is also proposed for elimination.
Additional resources provided by this amendment will ensure
that these investments can be made without reductions to
other education initiatives.

national institutes of health

The budget resolution currently recommends $29,350,000,000
for the NIH in FY'07, which is $1 billion over the FY'06
appropriation and the President's request. This amendment
would provide NIH with a $2 billion increase over the
President's budget. Even with this increase, the amount is
below the amount provided in FY'05 when adjusted for
inflation.
As Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for Labor,
Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, I
have said many times that the National Institutes of Health
is the crown jewel of the Federal Government--perhaps the
only jewel of the Federal Government. When I came to the
Senate in 1981, NIH spending totaled $3.6 billion. The FY
2003 omnibus appropriations bill contained $27.2 billion for
the NIH which completed the doubling begun in FY 1998. The
successes realized by this investment in NIH have spawned
revolutionary advances in our knowledge and treatment for
diseases such as cancer, HIV-AIDS, Alzheimer's disease,
Parkinson's disease, mental illnesses, diabetes,
osteoporosis, heart disease, ALS and many others. It is clear
that Congress' commitment to the NIH is paying off. Now it is
crucial that increased funding be continued in order to
translate these advances into additional treatments and
cures. Our investment has resulted in new generations of AIDS
drugs which are reducing the presence of the AIDS virus in
HIV infected persons to nearly undetectable levels. Death
rates from cancer have begun a steady decline. With the
sequencing of the human genome, we will begin, over the next
few years, to reap the benefits in many fields of research.
And if scientists are correct, stem cell research could
result in a veritable fountain of youth by replacing diseased
or damaged cells. I anxiously await the results of all of
these avenues of remarkable research. This is the time to
seize the scientific opportunities that lie before us.
On May 21, 1997, the Senate passed a Sense of the Senate
resolution stating that funding for the NIH should be doubled
over five years. Regrettably, even though the resolution was
passed by an overwhelming vote of 98 to nothing, the Budget
Resolution contained a $100 million reduction for health
programs. That prompted Senator Harkin and myself to offer an
amendment to the budget resolution to add $1.1 billion to
carry out the expressed sense of the Senate to increase NIH
funding. Unfortunately, our amendment was tabled by a vote of
63-37. We were extremely disappointed that, while the Senate
had expressed its druthers on a resolution, it was simply
unwilling to put up actual dollars to accomplish this vital
goal.
The following year, Senator Harkin and I again introduced
an amendment to the Budget Resolution which called for a $2
billion increase for the NIH. While we gained more support on
this vote than in the previous year, our amendment was again
tabled by a vote of 57-41. Not to be deterred, Senator Harkin
and I again went to work with our Subcommittee and we were
able to add an additional $2 billion to the NIH account for
fiscal year 1999.
In fiscal year 2000, Senator Harkin and I offered another
amendment to the Budget Resolution to add $1.4 billion to the
health accounts, over and above the $600 million increase
which had already been provided by the Budget Committee.
Despite this amendment's defeat by a vote of 47-52, we were
able to provide a $2.3 billion increase for NIH in the fiscal
year 2000 appropriations bill.
In fiscal year 2001, Senator Harkin and I again offered an
amendment to the Budget Resolution to increase funding for
health programs by $1.6 billion. This amendment passed by a
vote of 55-45. This victory brought the NIH increase to $2.7
billion for fiscal year 2001. However, after late night
conference negotiations with the House, the funding for NIH
was cut by $200 million below that amount.
In fiscal year 2002, the budget resolution once again fell
short of the amount necessary to achieve the NIH doubling.
Senator Harkin and I, along with nine other Senators offered
an amendment to add an additional $700 million to the
resolution to achieve our goal. The vote was 96-4. The Senate
Labor-HHS Subcommittee reported a bill recommending $23.7
billion, an increase of $3.4 billion over the previous year's
funding. But during conference negotiations with the House,
we once again fell short by $410 million. That meant that in
order to stay on a path to double NIH, we would need to
provide an increase of $3.7 billion in the fiscal year 2003.
The fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill contained
the additional

[[Page S2099]]

$3.7 billion, which achieved the doubling effort. In FY'04, I
and Senator Harkin offered an amendment to add an additional
$2.8 billion to the budget resolution to ensure that the
momentum achieved by the doubling could be maintained and
translated into cures. The vote was 96-1. Unfortunately, the
amendment was dropped in conference. We worked hard to find
enough funding for a $1 billion increase in FY'04. We fought
long and hard to make the doubling of funding a reality, but
until treatments and cures are found for the many maladies
that continue to plague our society, we must continue our
fight.
In FY'05, once again, Senators Harkin, Collins and I
offered an amendment to add $2 billion to discretionary
health spending, including NIH. The amendment passed 72-24.
However, the Subcommittee's allocation did not reflect this
increase. The final conference agreement contained an
increase of $800 million over the FY'04 funding level.
In FY'06, the Senate voted 63-37 to accept my budget
resolution amendment to add $1.5 billion for NIH and $500
million for education, but again, the funding was dropped in
conference with the House. With overall funding for the
Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee cut $1.9 billion below the
FY'05 enacted level, NIH did not receive an increase for the
current fiscal year.
I, like millions of Americans, have benefited tremendously
from the investment we have made in the National Institutes
of Health and the amendment that we offer today will continue
to carry forward the important research work of the world's
premier medical research facility.
In summary, this amendment permits greater use of advance
funding for existing health, education and job training
programs, in order to free up resources to restore proposed
cutbacks and increase high-priority activities. Currently,
the cap on advance funding is $23.1 billion, which this
amendment would raise to $30.1 billion. The portion of
advances in the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee would
increase from $18.8 billion to $25.8 billion. The $7 billion
freed up in fiscal year 2007 budget authority would be used
as I have described.
Mr. President, I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am delighted to yield to my
distinguished colleague from Iowa for some forceful rhetoric on this
important subject.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for up to 1 minute.
Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have 45 seconds.
Mr. HARKIN. I don't seem to understand why this situation has
developed where the Senator from Iowa has 45 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 30 minutes on the amendment equally
divided.
Mr. SPECTER. How long did I speak?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. We have 30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty minutes equally divided.
Mr. GREGG. How much time does the Senator need?
Mr. HARKIN. Less than 10--7 minutes.
Mr. SPECTER. Did we not have 1 hour?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We had 30 minutes equally divided between the
opponent and proponents.
Mr. SPECTER. I express my regrets to the Senator from Iowa, I thought
it was an hour.
Mr. HARKIN. So did this Senator.
Mr. SPECTER. I took one half of what I expected our allocation to be.
Mr. GREGG. I can help this situation. I am claiming the time in
opposition and I will yield to the Senator from Iowa 8 minutes off of
my 15 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that.
Mr. GREGG. So there are 8 minutes and 45 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Specter-Harkin amendment would add
back $7 billion to the President's proposed budget, allowing us to fund
the 2007 Labor, HHS appropriations bill at the level of 2005.
I am proud to join my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania in
offering this amendment. I thank Senator Specter for his great
leadership in all the areas of health, education, human services,
medical research. He has been a tireless leader in all these areas.
Once again, he has stepped to the forefront to basically say that we
are not going to keep cutting back to the bone and the marrow, which he
said earlier today.
This is not a radical proposal. In fact, it is almost an
embarrassingly modest proposal. But it is important. It is an important
first step. At least we are saying it is enough, no more; it is time to
reorder our priorities. Year after year we have been cutting the
programs that support working families, people with disabilities,
students struggling to afford college, elderly trying to heat their
homes, put food on the table, people with cancer and other diseases
desperate for a cure.
As my friend, Senator Specter, said this morning we are beyond
cutting the fat and beyond cutting bone. We are now into the marrow. I
add, when you start cutting into the marrow, you are endangering the
very lifeblood of an organism--in this case, our American society.
Something is seriously wrong in terms of our priorities and our
values when we are presented with a budget that slashes funding for the
National Cancer Institute, jeopardizing critical lifesaving research.
That is just one of the many critical program areas threatened by the
proposed budget. President Bush, in his budget, proposed to slash the
Labor-Health-Education budget by $4.2 billion for this year. Meanwhile,
in Iraq, he is spending nearly $5 billion a month. These are not the
priorities of the American people.
I believe this amendment is the single most important amendment that
we will consider on this budget resolution. I want to emphasize to my
colleagues, this is very likely our last, best chance to restore
funding for critical health, education, and social services programs.
Last year, we saw what happens when Congress passes a bad budget
resolution. The reason why we had a bad Labor-HHS bill last year and
could not get it done is because we were boxed in by the budget
resolution. Exactly the same thing will happen this year. It will be
worse. It will be worse since it is an election year, unless we pass
the Specter amendment, which he just offered, putting back this $7
billion.
So I say to my colleagues, this is the decisive vote. This is sort of
the showdown. This is our best, maybe last real opportunity to change
our budget priorities. If we fail to act, then we will indeed be
cutting into the bone and marrow of our most important programs.
Let me be somewhat specific.
This budget would cut funding for the Centers for Disease Control,
despite the fact we are facing the twin threats of bioterrorism and a
possible avian flu pandemic.
This budget would cut funding for 18 of the 19 institutes at NIH. It
would cut the Social Services block grant by $500 million, completely
eliminate the Community Services block grant--two of the biggest
discretionary programs for the poor.
The number of children served by Head Start would be reduced. Even
Meals on Wheels would be cut.
At the Labor Department, the Disability Employment Office would be
cut by 26 percent, on top of a 41-percent cut last year. Funding for
the Workforce Investment Act would be cut. Even the program we have had
for several years now to combat child labor and child slavery would be
cut.
In education, the President's budget proposes the largest cut to
Federal education funding in the 26-year history of the Department of
Education.
And I speak to the occupant of the Chair, who is a distinguished
former Secretary of Education, and who has a deep and abiding interest
and support for education.
The No Child Left Behind Act would be underfunded by a whopping $15.4
billion from what we were planning to spend when we passed it.
Title I would be frozen. Twenty-nine States would get less title I
funding next year. How are we ever going to expect poor kids to meet
the demands of No Child Left Behind if we are cutting title I funding,
which President Bush himself said was the cornerstone of No Child Left
Behind?
In special education--this is something the chairman of the Budget
Committee has talked about and has been supportive of for a long time--
we are going backwards. We promised years ago--30 years ago--that the
Federal Government would pick up 40 percent of the additional costs of
funding for special education.

[[Page S2100]]

Two years ago, which was a high watermark, we were at 19 percent.
Last year, we went to 18 percent. This budget will take us to 17
percent. We are supposed to be at 40 percent. So we are going in the
wrong direction. What that translates into is more property taxes for
our beleaguered property tax owners in our school districts.
And need I talk about Pell grants? They are frozen at $4,050 for the
fifth year in a row. I asked Secretary Spellings, when she was before
our committee, name me one college in the country where tuition is the
same today as it was 5 years ago. Meanwhile, the Perkins Loan Program
would be completely eliminated. And the two TRIO programs--Upward Bound
and Educational Talent Search--were eliminated in the President's
budget.
So again, I think these are misplaced priorities. That is why we are
offering this amendment. That is why Senator Specter and I have worked
together to try to get us at least back on the road. As I said, this is
a modest proposal. It only takes us back to 2005.
The amendment offered, I repeat, by the Senator from Pennsylvania
simply takes us back to where we were before all of the cuts and the
across-the-board cut of 2006. It puts us right back where we were in
2005. I do not think that is radical. I think it is very modest.
Again, I say to my friends, fellow Senators, I believe this is the
decisive vote on priorities on this budget, and I urge my colleagues to
support Senator Specter's amendment.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for giving me
the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment,
although I yielded time off my time in support of the amendment to
Senator Harkin. I was happy to do that, obviously.
First, on the substance, Senator Harkin was speaking to the
President's budget, not to this budget. I can understand, he probably
has a lot of things going on and maybe has not had the time to take a
look at this budget. But we actually--assuming we had any force of law
in allocation, which I pointed out a number of times is not the case--
took $3 billion and moved it from Defense over to the Labor-HHS bill--
$3 billion; $1.5 billion for education, $1.5 billion for health care.
In fact, we address some of the concerns specifically. We upped NIH
by $1 billion. We put enough money in so the GEAR UP and TRIO and voc
ed was fully funded. We increased funding for bioterrorism. So we
adjusted.
Furthermore, we put in a reserve fund of $6 billion to address the
American Competitiveness Initiative, which is the initiative of the
Senator and the Presiding Officer. And that is a big number.
We have made a strong commitment toward education, and we have
basically relieved the pressure that was put there by the President's
budget--which would have actually cut, by going to levels slightly
above a freeze--with our budget. So I think a lot of what the Senator
from Iowa said may have been directed to the President's budget, but it
is not accurately directed at this budget.
Secondly, I have a problem with the way this is paid for. This is an
advance appropriation. What is an advance appropriation? Well,
basically, it is borrowing from next year to fund things this year,
which creates a hole in the next year, which then has to be filled.
So as a practical matter, what you are doing is adding to debt, but,
more importantly, you are adding to the base and you are basically
creating a problem for the next budget, as well as creating significant
increases in spending in this budget.
This advanced appropriation in this amendment is, I think, about $8
billion, or something in that range. The practical effect of it would
be that advanced appropriations--which have grown over the years,
unfortunately, and are now up to about $23 billion--would jump to about
$30 billion--$30.1 billion, $30.2 billion. That is a big number because
that number gets carried forward every year. It is not good budgeting
to do that type of action, where you borrow from a future year to fund
this year and represent that you are basically doing sound budgeting.
That is not sound budgeting.
Advanced appropriations are a thin ice of budgeting to step on. We
should not be moving in that direction. We should not be expanding the
advanced appropriations. We have carried the $23 billion advanced
appropriation number in this bill. That has, over the years, been built
up. But I do not want to have to, next year, have a $30 billion
advanced appropriation, which is what this amendment would create if we
were to approve it.
So I must, regrettably, oppose this amendment. I understand the
position the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for
Labor-HHS find themselves in. But I think there are other ways to solve
this problem. I hope we would not do it in this manner. Plus, I do
think we did make a genuine attempt within this budget to try to
address these concerns by moving $3 billion into these accounts.
With that said, I believe we are on to the amendment by the Senator
from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. Stabenow. Mr. President, I actually have two amendments.

Amendment No. 3055

Mr. President, the first one I will send to the desk. I want to
indicate what this is, and I appreciate the fact that I understand my
leadership on the Budget Committee is willing to accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow], for herself, Ms.
Snowe, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kohl, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Reed, and Mr.
Graham, proposes an amendment numbered 3055.

Mr. GREGG. 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 ensure appropriate funding for the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Program of the Department of Commerce.)

On page 15, line 21, increase the number by $60,000,000.
On page 15, line 22, increase the number by $10,000,000.
On page 16, line 1, increase the number by $29,000,000.
On page 16, line 5, increase the number by $14,000,000.
On page 16, line 9, increase the number by $6,000,000.
On page 16, line 13, increase the number by $1,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the number by $60,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the number by $10,000,000.
On page 28, line 2, decrease the number by $29,000,000.
On page 28, line 5, decrease the number by $14,000,000.
On page 28, line 8, decrease the number by $6,000,000.
On page 28, line 11, decrease the number by $1,000,000.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3055) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to indicate that this amendment
is a bipartisan amendment that is cosponsored by Senators Snowe, Reed,
Lieberman, Kohl, DeWine, and Graham. It is an amendment that restores
the critical funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
Program, which has helped over 150,000 small- and medium-sized
manufacturers in this country.
It is based on the cooperative extension model with Agriculture in
that it is set up to provide best management practices, efficiencies,
and support for our manufacturers as they compete in a global economy.
It has helped them to maintain and increase jobs and be able to
increase sales by----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend, please.
Who yields time?
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I was simply explaining the amendment
that was adopted.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, there is 30 minutes on her amendment,
equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator send her amendment to the
desk.
Ms. STABENOW. Actually, Mr. President, I think the confusion is that
I am

[[Page S2101]]

speaking for a moment about what was just accepted and wanted to say
thank you to the chairman and the ranking member for accepting our
restoration of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program funding.
There was a 60-percent cut proposed by the President. This, in fact,
restored it. And I want to say thank you, and then also indicate that
the chairman of the committee, while there are not always amendments or
policies or approaches we agree on, has been extraordinary as a leader
of the Budget Committee. I want to say thank you to him and to our
ranking member, Senator Conrad, who have worked so well together.

Amendment No. 3056

With that, Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, that time will be taken
from the resolution.
Ms. STABENOW. Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow] proposes an
amendment numbered 3056.

Ms. Stabenow. 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 $5 billion for our emergency responders so that
they can field effective and reliable interoperable communications
equipment to respond to natural disasters, terrorist attacks and the
public safety needs of America's communities and fully offset this by
closing tax loopholes and collecting more from the tax gap)

On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $3,700,000,000.
On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $3,100,000,000.
On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $2,200,000,000.
On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $3,700,000,000.
On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $3,100,000,000.
On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $2,200,000,000.
On page 4, line 13 increase the amount by $5,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $1,850,000,000.
On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $1,100,000,000.
On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $1,850,000,000.
On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
On page 5, line 25, increase the amount by $1,100,000,000.
On page 6, line 8, decrease the amount by $500,000,000.
On page 6, line 10, decrease the amount by $2,350,000,000.
On page 6, line 12, decrease the amount by $3,900,000,000.
On page 6, line 14, decrease the amount by $5,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 16, decrease the amount by $5,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 22, decrease the amount by $500,000,000.
On page 6, line 24, decrease the amount by $2,350,000,000.
On page 7, line 2, decrease the amount by $3,900,000,000.
On page 7, line 4, decrease the amount by $5,000,000,000.
On page 7, line 6, decrease the amount by $5,000,000,000.
On page 17, line 22, increase the amount by $5,000,000,000.
On page 17, line 23, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
On page 18, line 3, increase the amount by $1,850,000,000.
On page 18, line 7, increase the amount by $1,550,000,000.
On page 18, line 11, increase the amount by $1,100,000,000.
On page 53, line 1, increase the amount by $5,000,000,000.
On page 53, line 2, increase the amount by $500,000,000.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to
this budget resolution that would provide $5 billion for our first
responders so they can effectively and reliably communicate with each
other with equipment that can speak to each other: interoperable
communications equipment.
I regret to say this administration has been dangerously incompetent
in providing homeland security funding, and particularly when we talk
about what is happening for our first responders in their ability to
communicate, whether it is a terrorist attack, whether it is in the
gulf and what has happened with our natural disasters, or any other
kind of emergency in our communities.
We have seen a dangerously incompetent situation that has put our
families and our communities at risk. We have known for a long time
that too many of our police and fire and emergency medical workers and
transportation officials cannot communicate with each other or they are
not able to link up with State or Federal agencies.
The September 11 attacks highlighted this problem, when New York
police and fire personnel were on different radio systems, couldn't
communicate, people running into buildings when they should have been
running out. The 9/11 Commission found that the inability to
communicate was a critical element at the World Trade Center, at the
Pentagon, and in Somerset County, PA, where multiple agencies and
multiple jurisdictions responded.
Last December, the 9/11 Commission gave Congress a failing grade--an
F--because it had not set a date for the transfer of analog spectrum to
first responders for their interoperable communications needs.
A June 2004 U.S. Conference of Mayors survey found that 98 percent of
cities do not have interoperable communications. In other words, the
police department can't talk to the fire department or can't talk to
emergency medical personnel, or they can't talk to folks at the county
or the city or the township or the State. And 60 percent of the cities
do not have the ability to talk with their State emergency operations
centers. This is not acceptable. I believe this shows a dangerously
incompetent situation. Almost half of the cities that responded to the
survey said that a lack of interoperable communications had made a
response to an incident within the last year difficult.
The most startling finding was that 80 percent of the cities don't
have interoperable communications with the Department of Homeland
Security or the Department of Justice--80 percent of our cities not
wired to be able to talk to Homeland Security or the Justice
Department. This is a dangerously incompetent situation. Despite these
warnings, the Federal Government still has not taken decisive action to
solve the problem, and we saw the devastating cost of this with
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In New Orleans, the police departments and
three nearby parishes were on different radio systems. Police officers
were calling Senator Landrieu's office here in DC because they couldn't
reach the commanders on the ground in New Orleans. That is
unacceptable. We can do better than this, and we must.
During my visit to the region with the Senate leadership, I had the
opportunity to speak to many men and women who were working very hard
in those initial days. Sitting in front of the New Orleans Convention
Center talking to someone from the Michigan Army National Guard and the
Michigan Coast Guard, which were both there working very hard, I asked
them if they had radios, and they said yes. I asked if the radios could
talk to each other, and they said no.
I said: What happens when you are out in a boat? What happens when
you are trying to communicate?
One gentleman said: We use hand signals.
In the United States of America, in 2006, that is a dangerously
incompetent situation.
We know this is an ongoing problem, not only because police and
firefighters tell us that it is, but high-ranking Government officials
concede this is a problem. In November of 2003, the White House Office
of Management and Budget testified before a House committee that there
was insufficient funding in place to solve the Nation's communications
interoperability problem. It would cost over $15 billion to begin to
fix the problem. Yet again we have been dangerously incompetent in
addressing this critical threat.
The Federal Government must make a substantial financial commitment
to solve this problem. At this time, our State and local governments
are stretched too thin and have too many urgent and competing
priorities to effectively and completely solve this on

[[Page S2102]]

their own. In fact, we have an obligation. As we talk about security,
as we talk about making sure we are safe, how in the world can we do
that if we in 2006 have not figured out how to have the radios
connected to each other so folks can talk to each other in an
emergency? The Federal Government has not made the necessary
commitment. My amendment begins to do that. It takes a major step in
the right direction.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, from 9/11 through
2005, the Federal Government has spent only $280 million directly on
interoperable communications. But none of those funds has been provided
to help State and local emergency responders purchase equipment they
need to talk to each other. I know our esteemed leader on the Budget
Committee will argue that Congress has provided Homeland Security
grants to our State and local emergency responders and that
interoperable communications are an eligible expense. Saying that radio
equipment is an eligible expense for funding and actually providing the
funding are two different things.
The problem is, these Homeland Security grants have also been
subjected to repeated cuts, including in this year's budget. Our first
responders are being given less overall support in funding to try to
meet a growing list of homeland security needs that includes radio
communications. That is not a real solution. We can do better, and we
must.
We need direct funding to solve this problem. That is what my
amendment does. God forbid there is another terrorist attack or a
natural disaster. Are we going to tell the American people that we
didn't provide direct funding to fix a failed communications system
because it was eligible under another underfunded grant program? This
is a dangerously incompetent response to a critical threat to our
families' safety.

I understand fixing our first responders' interoperability crisis is
not only a funding problem but also a problem of allocating necessary
spectrum. I know this is a difficult issue to solve. I believe we need
to eliminate these barriers as quickly as possible.
I also agree that nationwide standards must be set to ensure that any
money spent is spent wisely. I am a cosponsor of legislation introduced
by Senator Lieberman and approved by the Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs. The Assure Emergency and
Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act not only begins
to provide the resources necessary to solve this problem but ensures
that the Federal Government takes a strong role in leading our State,
local, and Federal assets toward true communications interoperability.
I have offered several amendments since 9/11 to provide our first
responders with the equipment they need to keep our communities safe.
Last year, I offered this same amendment to the Department of Homeland
Security appropriations bill and the Science-State-Justice-Commerce
appropriations bill. While I have not yet been successful, I assure
you, I will continue to fight until the men and women in Michigan and
all across our country and their families, the people on the front
lines of our homeland security, have the equipment they need and the
ability to communicate effectively and reliably when we have an
emergency. This is one of the most fundamental issues for us in making
sure our families are safe. I am hopeful that my colleagues will
support this amendment.
May I ask how much time remains on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 20 seconds
remaining.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, is that the time on my side or the time
in total?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time on the side of the sponsor.
Ms. STABENOW. I will take the remaining 4 minutes and then turn it
over to the chairman.
This evening, there will be an amendment offered by Senators Dayton,
Chambliss, and myself to address what is another important part of
homeland security or law enforcement funding that the Federal
Government provides, and that is through the Byrne/JAG grant program.
This was proposed for complete elimination in the administration's
budget. It provides critical support as it relates to addressing drug
crimes, helping with juvenile delinquency, addressing community
policing, other important items that help keep our communities safe. I
am very pleased to be a sponsor. It is a bipartisan amendment. I am
hopeful that it will pass.
In my State, we have 1,543 fewer police officers on the street since
9/11/01. Those are shocking numbers. The Byrne program is critically
important in supporting our law enforcement officials. For example, in
2004 alone, Michigan drug task forces rescued 423 children from drug
houses and arrested 659 major drug traffickers. They have been able to
deal with the meth problem and assist victims of domestic violence. The
list goes on and on. The Byrne program is an incredibly important part
of supporting law enforcement. My colleagues and I will be offering
this later this evening. I am hopeful we will receive support for it.
We are seeing too many cases where law enforcement is losing the
resources they need to be effective. I am hopeful that the Byrne grant
program will be reinstated and that we will join in a bold, effective
approach for interoperability communications so that we know, whether
it is natural disasters, a terrorist attack, or just keeping us safe in
our communities, that, in fact, our local responders will be connected,
not only to each other but to State and Federal agencies. It is
critical that we get this done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I greatly respect the Senator from
Michigan. I especially respect and appreciate her dedication to trying
to make sure we straighten out this issue of interoperability because
she clearly has identified it as a critical issue in the area of first
responders. And we know it is. We know it has to be addressed. I don't,
however, agree with the approach she is taking, which is essentially to
put significantly more dollars into the pipeline. Why? Basically for
this reason: In the last budget process, the Commerce-State-Justice
committee put $2 billion of additional money into the interoperability
pipeline. Then in the deficit reduction bill, which no Democrats voted
for, but this was not the big item that caused that to happen--
actually, I am sorry, I think two Democrats voted for it--we put an
additional billion dollars into interoperability. And really a large
part of that was in response to some of the points that have been made
by the Senator from Michigan. So she has done a pretty good job of
energizing money flowing into these accounts--in fact, so much so that
when you tie that in with the first responder funds which are already
in the pipeline, $5 billion of which have not been drawn down yet,
which funds will go disproportionately, I suspect, toward
interoperability issues, easily being a plurality the way the funds
will be spent, if not a majority of the way the funds will be spent,
you literally have a huge amount of money in the pipeline headed out to
the States, to communities for the purposes of addressing the issue of
interoperability.
The problem isn't dollars right now. The problem is the technical
ability of different agencies to agree on an interoperable standard.
Every State sees it. You certainly see it across State lines where
State police organizations have trouble communicating with local police
organizations and fire departments have a different system than the
other police in the community. And then the Federal agencies on top of
that--Customs, Immigration, FBI, ATF--have problems communicating with
the State people. The county people have problems communicating with
the State people. They have all, over the years, bought different
systems. There is already in place a massive amount of communications
equipment out there, and you can't just replace it all. We could never
afford to do that. You have to create an atmosphere where, as they
either upgrade or they change or they basically agree to try to work
together, there is a system to accomplish that.
The problem we have today is that those systems are not in place.
Most of the State plans we have received that involve interoperability
as an element--every State plan has interoperability as one of its
priorities--have not been executed because of the fact

[[Page S2103]]

that they can't figure out how to do interoperability. Literally, they
have been negotiating now for 5 or 6 years on a regime, an
understanding, a protocol for general interoperability, and they can't
reach agreement.
What is happening is--and the Senator from Michigan makes this point,
too. I don't know if she did in her statement; I regrettably had to
leave the Chamber--there is a lot of inventiveness out there. We have
turned loose the creative juices of America on this because there is a
lot of money in the pipeline, and a lot of people want to participate
in it. There are a lot of good ideas coming up quickly as to how to do
interoperability without having to do massive hardware changes, and how
you can get different systems built by different contractors to
communicate with each other. They are not in place yet, but the dollars
are there to buy them. A lot of money is there to buy them. We do not
need this money at this time.
At some point in the future, we are going to need the money--when the
house starts to get in order and there is a sugaring off of what the
proper technology is and maybe there is an agreement on a national
standard or something, then we will need some more money. We will put
more money in at that time. To put more money in at this time is
unnecessary, to be very honest. I am afraid we will simply overwhelm
the system with dollars and end up with a lot of blue lights and
cruisers being purchased and not a lot of good, standardized,
interoperable communications systems. That is one reason I oppose it.
The other reason I oppose the amendment is it would raise the caps. I
don't think we should be raising the caps in this budget. I made that
case about 15 times in the last 2 days, so I won't state that case. It
is a pretty valid case. We are opposed to this amendment. I appreciate
the energy of the Senator from Michigan on this issue. I think she has
had an impact already, and I believe it is reflected in the fact that
there is so much money presently in the pipeline. But it has not been
spent. Until there is a better plan to spend it, I don't think we need
additional funds.
I yield back our time on this amendment. I think the Senator's time
has expired; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 24 seconds.
Mr. GREGG. I yield back our time.
Ms. STABENOW. I yield back our time.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are ready to go to the next amendment. I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 3054

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3054 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], for himself,
Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Nelson of Florida,
Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Schumer,
proposes an amendment numbered 3054.

Mr. MENENDEZ. 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 an additional $965 million to make our ports more
secure by increasing port security grants, increasing inspections,
improving existing programs, and increasing research and development,
and to fully offset this additional funding by closing tax loopholes)

On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $704,000,000.
On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $517,000,000.
On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $445,000,000.
On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $264,000,000.
On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $704,000,000.
On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $517,000,000.
On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $445,000,000.
On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $264,000,000.
On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $965,000,000.
On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $352,000,000.
On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $259,000,000.
On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $223,000,000.
On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $132,000,000.
On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $352,000,000.
On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $258,000,000.
On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $222,000,000.
On page 5, line 25, increase the amount by $132,000,000.
On page 6, line 8, decrease the amount by $352,000,000.
On page 6, line 10, decrease the amount by $610,000,000.
On page 6, line 12, decrease the amount by $832,000,000.
On page 6, line 14, decrease the amount by $964,000,000.
On page 6, line 16, decrease the amount by $964,000,000.
On page 6, line 22, decrease the amount by $352,000,000.
On page 6, line 24, decrease the amount by $610,000,000.
On page 7, line 2, decrease the amount by $832,000,000.
On page 7, line 4, decrease the amount by $964,000,000.
On page 7, line 6, decrease the amount by $964,000,000.
On page 17, line 22, increase the amount by $600,000,000.
On page 17, line 23, increase the amount by $60,000,000.
On page 18, line 3, increase the amount by $222,000,000.
On page 18, line 7, increase the amount by $186,000,000.
On page 18, line 11, increase the amount by $132,000,000.
On page 24, line 24, increase the amount by $365,000,000.
On page 24, line 25, increase the amount by $292,000,000.
On page 25, line 4, increase the amount by $37,000,000.
On page 25, line 8, increase the amount by $37,000,000.
On page 53, line 1, increase the amount by $965,000,000.
On page 53, line 2, increase the amount by $352,000,000.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of not
only myself but Senators Clinton, Durbin, Lautenberg, Boxer, Nelson of
Florida, and Lieberman. I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator
Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Schumer as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, the 9/11 Commission told us that to
prevent a terrorist attack, we had to think outside the box. If an
ordinary envelope could be turned into a biological weapon and a
passenger plane into a weapon of mass destruction, then it takes little
imagination to see how a container could be used to transport a nuclear
weapon to the port of New York and New Jersey, or any other seaport,
causing tens of thousands of casualties.
The 9/11 Commission told us to think outside the box, but when it
comes to port security, I believe we must think inside the container.
The bottom line is, we don't know what is inside the vast majority of
containers entering this country because despite repeated warnings from
security experts from both within and without our Government, only 1 of
every 20 containers that passes through our ports is inspected--
inspected. That is very important. Not screened but inspected. Ninety-
five percent of the cargo received no inspection other than a cursory
glance at the cargo manifest.
Now, let me point out what the Government Accounting Office said when
it stated that the manifest information, the listing of what goes into
these containers ``may be unreliable and incomplete. There is no method
to routinely verify whether the manifest data accurately reflects the
contents within the cargo container.''
That is why I am offering this amendment with our colleagues, which
will put us on the road to 100 percent container scanning.
As port security experts Stephen Flynn and James Loy point out--James
Loy was the former Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security and the
Commandant of the Coast Guard, and Stephen Flynn is well known in this
field. They said:

To ensure port security, we must construct a comprehensive
global container inspection system that scans the contents of
every single container destined for America's waterfront
before it leaves a port.

[[Page S2104]]

We need to take advantage of existing technologies that can scan the
inside of a container and create a downloadable image of what is
inside. That image can be viewed in real time back here in the United
States so we know what exactly is in these containers. When this
technology is combined with scans for radioactive materials, we can
find dangerous materials before it is too late.
That is why our amendment provides $105 million for this dual
technology in the United States. It provides $50 million to help
developing countries which may not have the funds to buy this new
technology. In fact, these ports could be the weakest link in our
international port security chain. We must be sure they do not become
easy targets for terrorists looking for lax security practices. And it
provides $10 million to make sure the United States can integrate these
new technologies into our existing scanning and inspection system.
While we are waiting for this new international scanning system to
become fully operational, we must make sure we increase inspections
through our existing programs and improve on-the-ground security at our
ports. That is why this amendment provides $100 million for at least
400 additional inspectors, both here and abroad. I would note the
funding in my amendment is specifically for staff at ports, both here
and abroad. I believe we need to make this increase in port security
and staffing explicit in our budget.
I would also note that the Government Accounting Office--in a report
on the container security initiative, which is supposedly this
administration's focus on how we do the best we can as it relates to
port security, and which is designed to target and inspect high-risk
cargo before it leaves the ports, pointed out that staffing problems--
the GAO specifically noted that:

Staffing imbalances are one of the factors which limit the
Custom and Border Patrol's ability to successfully target
containers to determine if they are high-risk.

The Government Accounting Office went on to say:

As a result of staffing shortages abroad, 35 percent of
U.S.-bound shipments from these CSI ports were not targeted
and were not subject to inspection overseas . . .

The essence, the key goal of the CSI program, they said it wasn't
accomplished.
In the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, the C-TPAT
Program, staffing was also a problem. Specifically, the GAO report
points out that the Customs and Border Patrol is not able to validate
the self-reported information of C-TPAT members because of ``staffing
constraints.'' This means companies which receive less scrutiny and
inspection under the C-TPAT Program receive these benefits before
``they undergo the validation process, which is the Custom and Border
Patrol's method to verify that members' characterization of their
security measures are accurate and that the security measures have been
implemented.''
We also provide $600 million for the Port Security Grant Program,
more than tripling last year's budget. As this budget reflects no
changes over the President's request, we can only assume there is no
specific money going to port security grants. The American Association
of Port Authorities notes that their recommendation to double the funds
is only ``a modest investment.'' In fact, they point out that doubling
these funds would represent ``36 percent of the Coast Guard's projected
cost of the facility improvements.'' I believe that falls short of the
mark.

Security experts tell us that we could more than triple the
funding for these grants, and we still wouldn't meet the
requirements to implement security measures at our Nation's
ports.
Finally, we must make sure that we have cutting edge technology to
safeguard our ports. This amendment provides $100 million for research
and development. Up to now, we have not focused enough on creating
second generation technologies for nonintrusive inspections, which the
private sector is unlikely to develop. It is time for that to change.
Strengthening security at our ports will not be cheap, and given the
budgetary challenges our Nation faces, every dollar is hard to come by.
But the status quo is unacceptable. An attack on one of our ports would
not just cause a tremendous loss of life that has no monetary
equivalent, but would also shut down a port and all of the economic
activity it generates at a cost of billions of dollars to our economy.
If we could roll back the clock 10 years and spend a few billion
dollars to raise the levees in New Orleans to be able to withstand a
category 5 hurricane, we could have saved hundreds of lives, as well as
the billions of dollars it will take to rebuild the city. I don't want
this country to look back in hindsight a few years from now with the
realization that had we spent the necessary dollars to improve the
security at our ports now, we could have prevented a major terrorist
attack.
Who among us would be satisfied in the aftermath of an attack that we
did not take the steps that could have prevented it because we were
unwilling to dedicate the necessary resources? That is the choice the
Congress faces, and for the security of our country it is essential
that we make the right one.
This amendment is also fully paid for by closing corporate tax
loopholes that this body has supported before. I urge all of our
colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. I reserve the
remainder of my time.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment, as the Senator from New
Jersey mentioned at the end, raises taxes. It raises the cap, so it
spends a lot more money. And in the context of overall port security,
although it makes a statement, it is not necessarily going to do a
whole lot more than what we are doing already.
There is, of course, because of the Dubai Ports World situation, a
human cry for more port security. We have attempted over the last few
years to try to address port security, and there is still a lot more to
do. But there has been a very large commitment to port security, and
there has been a lot done. Over $10 billion has been committed to port
security since 9/11. By next year, 2007, 85 percent of all cargo coming
into the United States will be screened. We have in place at the 42
largest shipping ports that ship to the United States significant
infrastructure which actually checks the cargo that is going on those
ships.
What has happened here is that there has been a decision made, and it
is the right decision, that the best way to protect ourselves is not to
wait for the cargo, the container to end up on a shipping dock in
Newark or a shipping dock in Long Beach, but to have that container
checked before it gets on the boat that is going to bring it across the
ocean to Long Beach or to Newark.
So a huge amount of infrastructure commitment, people and personnel
and technology, is being put into that goal. Of course, it doesn't get
scored as port grants, which is what this amendment is offering up, a
port grant. Rather, it actually does what the port grant money can't
do: it gives us offshore protection of cargo coming into the United
States.
As I said, by 2007, as a result of this initiative, 85 percent of all
cargo will be screened. In addition, the Coast Guard has been tooled up
so that it can actually physically go out and stop a container vessel
or a tanker on the open ocean if it is concerned that the vessel is
coming from a port that doesn't have adequate security relative to the
loading of the ship, or if it has some other concern, such as
information that the ship might have some threatening cargo. We have
put in place an outer curtain, which the Coast Guard is pursuing. So a
lot has been done.
Not only has a lot been done, but we are still doing more. In the
last budget from Homeland Security, we dramatically increased port
security funding for this type of a grant program that the Senator from
New Jersey has proposed. In this budget, we propose $2 billion of new
spending for border security, which can be used for port security in
the underlying budget over what the President asked for, and then we
proposed another $2 billion of border security which can be used for
port issues in the supplemental budget, which runs parallel to this
basic budget.
So that is $4 billion of new funds which are going to flow into
border security, of which a fair amount will go into the ports. So the
commitment has been significant and continues to be

[[Page S2105]]

significant, and it is hard to claim that we aren't actually starting
to get results from what we are buying.
A lot of this port grant money, on the other hand, which goes to the
port that is in place, that goes to the facility on American soil, is
ending up, unfortunately--maybe not so much going to--it is going to
security needs, but it is going to security needs which traditionally
would have been paid for by the managers of these ports. Basically what
they are doing is they are taking the Federal grant money, and instead
of building a fence, which they should have built anyway and they
needed anyway, or instead of building major lighting which they needed
and should have put in place anyway out of their own funds, they are
replacing those funds with Federal dollars and using Federal dollars to
do what they should have done anyway. So there is an issue there as to
whether we are getting the most bang for the buck through the Port
Security Grant Program.
But, in any event, independent of that, to represent that this has
not been a very robust effort in the area of port security is wrong. Is
there a way to go? Of course there is a way to go.
The Senator from New Jersey is suggesting that we should physically
inspect every cargo container coming into the United States. We don't
physically inspect every car that comes across our border. We don't
physically inspect every individual who comes across our border, or
every piece of luggage that comes across our border. And there is a
reason for that. It is called: You can't do it and still have an
economy that is going to function.
What we do, however, is set up a very aggressive regime at these
various ports around the world that are shipping to us, especially the
major ports where we check for what we think is the most threatening
potential cargo, which we all know what it is. And we are expanding
that regime out beyond those shipping ports to the actual place where
the containers are filled and putting in place certification programs
which are reviewed and which have on-the-ground inspection capability.
Is there more to do? Yes, there is more to do, no question about it.
But the point is, this budget assumes there is more to do and puts the
money in it to do more, significantly more. However, this is the cause
du jour--I recognize that--and the relevance of what is actually being
done isn't considered. The relevance of the money that is in the
pipeline isn't considered. It simply becomes an issue of throw more
money at it and therefore claim that we are resolving the problem
faster.
As a practical matter, the $4 billion that we have allocated towards
border security in this bill is a huge increase, and it significantly
increases accounts. The $10 billion that we have already put into this
effort is showing results, and we are on the path to a very organized
approach toward how we deal with our ports. We intend to do more, and
we believe we have funded that adequately in this bill.
However, I know there are going to be additional amendments. I think
the leader has an amendment on this point which is at least paid for
directly. The biggest problem with this amendment is it is not only a
large number, especially in the context of the $4 billion that is
already there on top of that, but it is a number that is paid for with
a tax increase. I do not believe increasing taxes is the right way to
go, nor do I believe breaking the cap is the right way to go.
Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sponsor has 5 minutes 45 seconds, and the
manager has 6 minutes 30 seconds.
Mr. GREGG. I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
Democratic whip.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this is an interesting amendment. I am
happy to cosponsor it with Senator Menendez, Senator Schumer, and
Senator Clinton.
Consider this: When you went to the airport this week and you wanted
to get on an airplane, they asked you to take your shoes off, right?
That is what we do every week around here. That is what we do in
America to make sure we are safe on an airplane.
Now comes the Senator from New Jersey with a request and a suggestion
that, in the scheme of things, is much more valuable to our security.
Millions of containers come into the United States every year. The
General Accounting Office took a look at the containers we inspect and
found that fully one out of three of the most risky containers are not
even being looked at. We are not inspecting them. So the next time you
take your shoes off at the airport, you might ask yourself: Is this
keeping America safe? Or would it be keeping America safe to have our
containers inspected, as Senator Menendez is suggesting with his
amendment?
The Senator from New Hampshire says it is a lot of money. It is a lot
of money. It is $900 million for new technology, for new inspectors,
for better approaches to looking at these containers. But when you talk
about the security of America and the expense we are going through and
the lives that are at risk across this Nation and overseas in keeping
America safe, can we do anything less? I think the Senator from New
Jersey has an excellent suggestion to make America safer.
Improving port security is an important part of homeland security
because the U.S. maritime system includes more than 300 sea and river
ports. The system also has more than 3,700 cargo and passenger
terminals and more than 1,000 harbor channels spread along thousands of
miles of coastline.
Port security is a multi-layered system of defenses that includes
monitoring the people, cargo and vessels entering our ports from the
time they leave a foreign port to the time they arrive in the United
States. Additional port security funding is needed to improve dockside
and perimeter security, provide important security upgrades such as
surveillance equipment, access controls to restricted areas,
communications equipment, and the construction of new command and
control facilities.
This funding is crucial because our Nation's ports were identified by
GAO as the remaining ``vulnerability'' in our transportation system and
that efforts to secure our Nation's ports ``lacked clear goals and
measures that track progress.'' GAO has also stated that, as a result
of staffing imbalances, 35 percent of high-risk containers were not
inspected.
In addition, GAO reported that the security checks performed by
Customs and the Border Patrol are not rigorous enough and that staffing
problems have kept Customs from validating participant's security
information.
In Illinois, the Chicago Port is the 36th largest port in the Nation
and the largest on the Great Lakes. Chicago is also the largest inland
general cargo port in America, and the city as a whole is the
commercial transportation crossroads of the Nation. Illinois and the
Port of Chicago link waterborne commerce, foreign and domestic, via our
vast rail and highway systems for distribution throughout all of North
America, Canada, Mexico, and the world. Global cargo movement through
the Chicago area in containers, barges, vessels, trucks, airplanes, and
railcars totals hundreds of millions of tons annually. Chicago ranks
seventh in the Nation among the United States Census Bureau 2004
statistics of the ``Top Twenty-Five Customs Districts. Chicago's total
dollar value of goods imported and exported is about $94 billion.
The City of Chicago and the Chicago police department provide local
security and the Coast Guard patrols the waterways but additional
funding is needed for patrol vessels, security enhancements and
cameras, and inspection equipment.
The Coast Guard estimates that over $7 billion is needed through 2012
for ports to comply with Federal security standards and to date, only
13 percent of that amount has been provided.
In 2006, $175 million was provided for port security which is not
nearly enough to secure all of the Nation's ports.
In 2006, $138 million was provided for the Container Security
Initiative--CSI--which is not enough to examine high-risk containers at
every foreign port with vessels destined for the U.S.
I am concerned that 6 percent of the 9 million containers arriving at
U.S. ports are scanned or inspected each year due to a billion dollar
funding

[[Page S2106]]

shortage for critical port security needs. Until the administration is
willing to work with Congress to fund, equip and hire the needed
personnel to protect our ports from being used by terrorists, it will
not matter if a U.S. or a foreign company is in charge of our ports. In
that regard, our Nation's ports and infrastructure are so important to
the security of our homeland that the approval process for foreign
companies that want to manage U.S. infrastructure should include
greater Congressional oversight and involvement.
The President's budget folds port security in with all other
transportation and critical infrastructure needs, eliminating the port
security grant program in favor of a Targeted Infrastructure Protection
Grant.
The budget also forces ports to compete for limited resources with
mass transit, rail, and other critical infrastructure sectors.
The President's budget requests $139 million for CSI whereby
containers deemed to be high risk are opened and inspected. The
President's budget also requests $76 million for the Customs Trade
Partnership Against Terrorism--C-TPAT--program which screens shipping
companies and the companies that provide them with any services. More
money is needed than is provided in the President's budget for the CSI
and C-TPAT programs to inspect containers at foreign ports and validate
security information.
The Menendez-Clinton-Durbin Port Security Amendment moves the U. S.
toward the goal of 100 percent scanning of containers. Currently,
Customs screens all cargo coming into the U.S. using a combination of
intelligence information and data provided on shipping manifests. The
amendment provides an additional $600 million for port security grants,
$100 million for at least 400 new staff to increase inspections and
identify high-risk containers as part of CSI and C-TPAT, and $105
million for radiation portal monitors and gamma/x-ray imaging
technology.
Specifically, the amendment triples the current amount of funding for
the Port Security Grant Program to $600 million. These funds are highly
sought by local port authorities such as the Port of Chicago.
The amendment provides $100 million to increase the number of
inspectors at foreign ports and improve the process for validating
security information.
The amendment also provides $100 million in funding for more finely
tuned technologies that can locate contraband material in shipping
containers.
The amendment provides $105 million for U.S. ports to install cargo
imaging and radiation portal monitors to detect radiation and identify
high density shielding used to block radiation emissions.
In addition, the amendment provides $10 million for U.S. ports to
update technology so that officials can receive and integrate
downloadable images of containers at foreign ports into our existing
scanning and inspection system.
Finally, the amendment provides $50 million to help developing
countries purchase equipment to scan and inspect containers.
I ask all my colleagues to stop and reflect for a moment. This is
about more than Dubai and who is going to manage our ports. It is about
the safety of America. God forbid something happens, let's be on the
right side of history. Let's support the Menendez amendment and make
sure these containers are inspected.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. It is my understanding the Senator from New York and the
Senator from New Jersey wish to speak, and the junior Senator from New
Jersey only has 2 minutes remaining or something like that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 3 minutes 39 seconds remaining to the
Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. GREGG. My understanding was the Senator from New York wanted 2
minutes and the Senator from New Jersey wanted 2 minutes. Does the
junior Senator from New Jersey desire more time?
Mr. MENENDEZ. One minute.
Mr. GREGG. I will yield 2 minutes off my time, even though I disagree
vociferously with their position, but out of the kindness of my heart,
I yield a minute to the Senator from New York, the senior Senator from
New York, so they can make their case, which is only worth about 2
minutes, anyway.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, first I thank my colleague from New
Hampshire. He is a tough old New Englander, but he has a heart of gold,
even when he is wrong on the merits.
Mr. President, I salute my colleague from New Jersey for offering
this amendment. It says one thing loudly and clearly. Even though, as
we hope and believe, the Dubai Ports World deal is now scuttled as far
as American ports, we have miles and miles to go on port security. This
is not new to this Chamber. I have introduced amendment after
amendment. I know my colleague from Washington, Patty Murray, and the
Senator from Maine, Susan Collins, and others have all tried to do more
for port security. This amendment does much of the job. We have to
inspect more than 5 percent of the containers. We need a crash research
project so we can develop devices that can scan for nuclear or
biological or chemical weapons. We need our ports to have employees who
cannot forge documents and get a job for bad purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed the 1 minute given to
him by the Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I yield the Senator 1 additional minute.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we need to make sure, for those who
operate the ports, when they are checked for security that it is a real
check and they can't forge documents or sneak in.
There are so many things to do on port security. Even if every port
were owned by an American company that had the best of intentions, we
would not be doing close to enough.
So I urge my colleagues to support the amendment of my colleague from
New Jersey because we have such a long way to go on port security. It
is a neglected stepchild of our homeland security project, and you
cannot do it, you cannot do it without the dollars the Senator from New
Jersey has suggested.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to make sure more
cargo is scanned, to have better screening equipment, tighter security
among employees, and the other many good things this amendment does.
I yield my remaining time back to my colleague from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, can you tell me how much time there is
on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 2 minutes 25
seconds. The Senator from New Hampshire has 4 minutes 3 seconds.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the senior Senator
from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, when you look over at this section of
the Chamber, you see three Senators who were front and close to what
results from an act of terrorism. We saw it in the World Trade Center.
We lost over 700 people from the State of New Jersey, and the
combination was almost 3,000 people. We know what you have to do to
prevent anything like that from ever happening.
We are going to spend up to $500 billion before this year is over on
our security interests in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we have an
obligation to do as much as we can for people we serve in an area that
has been subjected to terrorism and is classified as the worst 2 miles
in the country for terrorist attack. Much of that will come as a result
of the activity in our harbors and our ports.
I salute my colleague, new to this body but leaderly in his actions
that we have seen thus far, and particularly with this, stepping up, as
we say in the vernacular, to the plate to say: OK, Mr. President, you
want to protect our people? The leadership here in the Senate certainly
says they want to protect our people. Then, by golly, spend the money.
We are looking for $900 million for the additional port security funds.
Let's do it.
We survey 5 percent of the cargo that comes in, in containers, to the
country.

[[Page S2107]]

That is nothing, on a relative basis. We ought to spend the money and
say to the people in those neighborhoods, the people across the country
who would be affected by a terrorist attack: We are going to do what we
can to protect you. We say it all the time. Now we have to put up or,
as they say, be quiet.
I yield my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the sponsor has expired.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield a minute to the junior Senator from
New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for
1 minute.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include
Senator Murray as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, let me make three quick points.
No. 1, we don't raise taxes here. We fully pay for it by closing
corporate tax loopholes that the Senate has voted on before. That is
much more important to be done, closing those loopholes in favor of
security, than keeping them open.
Second, this is not about physically going into each container, but
it is about scanning each container so we can see its contents, because
only 5 percent get screened. Screened is not an inspection, physical or
otherwise. That means 95 percent of the cargo that comes into the
United States is really untouched.
Last, we cannot have it both ways. Either that $4 billion that the
distinguished Senator from New Hampshire talks about is about the
northern and southern border and border patrol and inspection and the
Iraq contingency funding, or it is about port security. But it cannot
be about both. If you want to protect the ports of the United States,
if you want to make sure the economic consequences of an attack do not
take place, if you want to make sure that we save lives, the only way
to do that is to adopt the Menendez amendment.
I urge our colleagues to do so. We believe in doing so we will have
come a significant way on securing the ports of the Nation and, most
importantly, securing the citizens of this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

Amendment No. 3061

Mr. McCONNELL. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself
and Senator Hutchison and Senator Frist.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for himself,
Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Frist, proposes an amendment numbered
3061.

Mr. McCONNELL. 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 funding for maritime security, including the
Container Security Initiative, improved data for targeted cargo
searches, and full background checks and security threat assessments of
personnel at our nation's seaports)

On page 16, line 21, increase the amount by $978,000,000.
On page 16, line 22, increase the amount by $782,400,000.
On page 17, line 1, increase the amount by $195,600,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $978,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $782,400,000.
On page 28, line 2, decrease the amount by $195,600,000.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this amendment will provide funding for
maritime security, including the container security initiative,
improved data for targeted cargo searches, and, most important for
purposes of this amendment, full background checks and security threat
assessments of personnel at our Nation's seaports. It makes no sense to
be obsessed with what is in the containers and ignore those in our own
ports who will handle the containers.
In the past few weeks, there has been a new focus on national
security concerns surrounding our seaports. We have had a lot of
discussion about that issue. Many have called for greater limitations
on foreign ownership as well as increased oversight and inspection of
cargo ships and loading facilities. This amendment says: Yes, fund port
and maritime security. But if this is truly a national security issue,
we should ensure that we have background checks and security threat
assessments of the personnel at our seaports.
So I repeat, unless we are certain of the individuals who are
handling this cargo at our own seaports here in the United States, we
clearly have not done the job. This amendment provides $978 million to
initiate an enhanced maritime security. Of that amount, $728 million is
provided as recommended by the Commerce Committee for maritime security
in S. 1052, the Transportation Security Act, and another $250 million
is provided to fund these background checks that I was just talking
about of the people in our ports who are handling the cargo, the
security of which and the contents of which we have all indicated we
are so concerned about. The cost of this amendment is offset within the
budget's overall discretionary allocation.
So if we really believe, as I know we all do, that our Nation's
seaports are a national security issue, we ought to enhance port
security, of course, but all that is completely meaningless unless we
are certain of the qualifications, the integrity of the individuals in
our ports here in the United States handling this cargo when it comes
in. When it comes to port security, you can check all the containers
you want, but it does no good unless you have also checked those who
handle the containers. We have seen numerous reports of false ID's,
criminal activity, and organized crime right here in our own country at
our seaports. We can't place Americans at risk because we turn a blind
eye to this risk.
Let me just sum it up before yielding the floor. What this is about
is making sure that these individuals at our ports here in America who
are handling this cargo we have all indicated we have enormous concern
about, coming from overseas into the United States, into our ports--
that the people handling this cargo in our ports meet the highest
standards of integrity because it does not make any difference in the
world if we have made sure that the container at its original port of
embarkation is OK, it doesn't make any difference if we have made sure
it is OK on the ship on the way over here. If we have the wrong people
handling the cargo here in the United States, America is at risk.
The amendment I have offered on behalf of Senator Hutchison and
Senator Frist would secure the funding for these background checks and
assessments of employees here in our own country handling the cargo in
our ports.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set side so I may offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.

Amendment No. 3062

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr.
Rockefeller, and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered
3062.

Mr. BYRD. 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 $184 million over five years for the Mine Safety
and Health Administration to hire additional mine safety inspectors,
paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes)

On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $35,000,000.
On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $37,000,000.
On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $35,000,000.
On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $37,000,000.

[[Page S2108]]

On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $37,000,000.
On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $37,000,000.
On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $38,000,000.
On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $35,000,000.
On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
On page 5, line 12, increase the amount by $37,000,000.
On page 19, line 24, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
On page 19, line 25, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
On page 20, line 3, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
On page 20, line 4, increase the amount by $35,000,000.
On page 20, line 7, increase the amount by $37,000,000.
On page 20, line 8, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
On page 20, line 11, increase the amount by $37,000,000.
On page 20, line 12, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
On page 20, line 15, increase the amount by $38,000,000.
On page 20, line 16, increase the amount by $37,000,000.
On page 53, line 1, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
On page 53, line 2, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
On page 53, line 4, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
On page 53, line 7, increase the amount by $37,000,000.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, historian and author Henry Adams wrote that
``practical politics consists in ignoring facts.''
Here is a fact.
Without offsets, we cannot afford to continue to cram hundreds of
billions of dollars of new tax cuts into the federal budget. To create
the illusion of affordability, this budget already excludes the costs
of the war in Iraq beyond next year. It excludes the costs of
protecting middle-income taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax
beyond next year. It excludes the costs of putting Social Security and
Medicare on sounder footings. It excludes a host of critical domestic
investments--everything from education funding to highway maintenance--
and continue to postpone them year after year. Even while it excludes
or hides all of these inevitable costs, this budget still projects that
our national debt will continue to rise to stratospheric levels.
Here is another fact.
Relying primarily on domestic discretionary funding cuts will never,
never seriously reduce the annual spending-spree deficits of this
administration. The part of the federal budget known as domestic
discretionary spending comprises only one-sixth of the total federal
budget. The squeeze on domestic discretionary spending these past few
years has already produced funding shortfalls that are not only
impractical, but also wholly irresponsible and damaging to our
country's future.
These cuts have real-world consequences. They are not just accounting
exercises. Look at what happened to FEMA's ability to respond to
natural disasters. Look at the shortfalls in the LIHEAP program
affecting so many needs of our citizens in our States. Look at the
costly reduction of federal mine safety inspectors, and at the spike in
mine fatalities this year.
Look at the paltry amount included in the budget to prepare and
respond to a possible Avian Flu Pandemic--one of the most dangerous
health threats confronting the United States today. Medical experts
warn that a global, cataclysmic pandemic is not a question of ``if,''
but ``when.'' Like any natural disaster, it could strike at anytime.
Avian flu could take the lives of tens of millions of people, and
deliver a devastating $675 billion blow to the U.S. economy. Yet, we
are failing to adequately safeguard the American people because of
political convenience and lust for cuts in domestic spending.
Look, for instance, at the shortfalls in veterans funding, with the
administration trying to backfill by raising copayments and fees for
veterans health care services, not to mention the submission of a
supplemental budget amendment last year to avoid emergency cuts in VA
medical care and services.
Witness the gaping holes in our border security, marked by federal
agents releasing or not even bothering to pursue illegal aliens because
of lack of detention space and personnel. We can only hope and pray
that those determined folks who daily circumvent our border security
are not al-Qaida operatives.
Congested roads, overcrowded schools, deteriorating rail and transit
systems, corroding and structurally deficient bridges, functionally
obsolete locks and dams, overflowing sewers and wastewater
mismanagement, energy bottlenecks causing higher prices and electricity
failures and power outages--these are the festering signs of a nation's
infrastructure being slowly starved. Meanwhile, our once strong and
proud manufacturing sector is buckling from intense foreign competition
by companies heavily subsidized by their governments. Health care and
education expenses are both rising to prohibitive levels for families
and their employers, and the United States of America is becoming more
and more addicted to foreign capital and immigrant labor to power our
economy.
For years we have been determinedly squeezing the wrong pieces of the
federal budget in order to fund other pieces, and believe me the
chickens are coming home to roost.
This week, the Congress will vote to raise the debt ceiling to $9
trillion--the fourth nasty increase in 5 years. President Reagan said a
$1 trillion debt ``can only be compared to the universe because it,
too, is incomprehensible in its dimensions.'' One way to put that
number in perspective is to imagine counting $1 trillion at the rate of
$1 per second. At that rate, it would take 32,000 years to count $1
trillion. Imagine, 32,000 years to count $1 trillion, and then, when
finished, counting it eight more times to reach the total debt of this
country. Such massive debt, and what have we to show for it?
An editorial in The Washington Post last year described the
situation: ``[We] have let the nation's plumbing rust, its wiring fray,
its floor joists warp and its walkways crumble . . . Sooner or later,
though, we're going to have to pony up . . . If you continue to ignore
that drip, drip, drip in the upstairs bedroom, pretty soon you're going
to be pricing a new roof.'' And don't forget, we will have to borrow to
pay for that roof.
This editorial appeared only weeks before Hurricane Katrina. The
investments we delayed and postponed for years in New Orleans are now
costing tens of billions of dollars in repairs and new building. It is
a painful lesson, and the government of this country does not seem to
learn very fast. We are foolishly ignoring the drip, drip, drip in the
upstairs bedroom, while the plaster weakens and costs for repairs
mount.
I sympathize with the plight of the chairman of the Budget Committee.
Chairman Gregg didn't craft the budget submitted by the administration,
but he has made the loyal decision to adopt and defend the president's
discretionary spending limits. I say to my colleagues that the Congress
cannot fund this great country's essential needs within those limits.
Too much of that money is eaten by fighting wars without allied
assistance, and by waste in the defense discretionary budget for
contracts that rip off the taxpayer and skimp on essential services for
our troops.
Within a few days, I will offer two amendments to accommodate the
critical investments that we must not continue to postpone. I will
propose amendments for mine safety, and Amtrak.
Today, I offer the first of those two amendments, which would add
$184 million to the budget for mine safety inspectors and rescue
technology.
West Virginia has lost 16 miners this year. Their emergency
communications and breathing equipment proved insufficient, and the
federal mine regulator, known as the Mine Safety and Health
Administration, MSHA, of the U.S. Department of Labor, is operating on
an insufficient budget.
There is no question that the federal coal enforcement budget has
been squeezed in recent years, and that the attrition of federal mine
safety inspectors has been ignored as part of an effort to carve out
more room in the budget for non-essential tax cuts. Those budget cuts
have resulted in gross deficiencies at the Department of Labor.

[[Page S2109]]

The miners trapped underground at the Sago and Alma mines had only a
one-hour oxygen supply to last through a 40-hour rescue. The miners
trapped underground could not communicate with the rescue effort on the
surface, and the rescue effort on the surface could not locate the
miners trapped underground. Meanwhile, the number of safety inspectors
charged with enforcing the Mine Act has dwindled since 2001, with 217
fewer inspectors today to ensure the safety of miners, and the vigorous
enforcement of the Mine Act.
These budget cuts have had real and deadly consequences for coal
miners. Ask the families about how that feels.
This amendment, which I offer with Senators Rockefeller and Kennedy,
would be sufficient to replace the 217 safety inspectors that have been
lost since 2001, and to help get emergency communications and breathing
equipment into the mines rapidly.
In the wake of 21 coal mining deaths this year, and the closure of
mines for emergency safety inspections, it is essential that the
Congress provide the Department of Labor with the funds it needs to
keep our nation's coal mines operating safely.
I am also hopeful that we will soon see legislation from the Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, Committee to address the other
mine safety initiatives that still have not been implemented by the
Department of Labor--emergency communications and tracking
requirements, increased and minimum penalties for habitual violators, a
suspension of belt-air ventilation for the working areas of mines.
These components are addressed by the West Virginia Delegation mine
safety authorization bill that still awaits action by the HELP
Committee and the Senate. I, and the miners and mining widows of my
state, continue to urge the HELP Committee to act quickly on this
essential legislation. We could have more deaths in the mines any day.
In the meantime, we have an opportunity today to address the mine
safe1y budget. It is a critical piece of our infrastructure that we
dare not continue to ignore. The fact is that cuts in domestic
discretionary spending are weakening mine safety efforts. Decency
demands that we not wait until more miners die before we do something
about it.
I urge Senators to support this amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the amendment of the Senator
from West Virginia. I understand the personal involvement and concern
he has for the mine safety in his State and the extraordinary tragedies
they have experienced. I hope there is a way we can work this amendment
out. In its present form it does raise taxes to pay for it, which I
will not be able to support, but I am hopeful we can work something
out.
I yield back the balance of our time in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by the
senior Senator from West Virginia and am pleased to cosponsor this
amendment. This amendment would add $184 million to the budget for mine
safety inspectors.
The need for this type of investment is clear. Twenty-four miners
have already died this year, 21 of them in coal mines, just one of the
total number of coal mine deaths for all of last year.
We know that coal plays a vital role in meeting the Nation's need for
energy. Over half of Americans get their electricity from coal. It is
essential for mines to remain productive. But safety can't yield to
production goals.
Protecting our miners is a moral obligation and a national priority.
We must do everything in our power to minimize the risk of injuries and
deaths.
This January, I joined Senator Isakson, Senator Enzi, and Senator
Rockefeller on a trip to the Sago Mine. We met with the families of the
fallen miners, and they shared their thoughts and memories in a way
that deeply touched us all, and made action by Congress all the more
essential.
We need strong mine safety enforcement and inspections. The Bush
administration has jeopardized the safety of our Nation's miners by
continuing to cut the number of positions from coal mine safety
enforcement. The administration's fiscal year 2007 budget continues
this trend by proposing a cut of 27 more positions, for a total of an
18 percent reduction in staff since fiscal year 2001. And there are now
217 fewer mine safety inspectors than we had in 2001.
NIOSH warns that our Nation's mine safety inspectors are aging.
Approximately 44 percent of the MSHA's underground coal mine inspectors
employed in 2003 will be eligible for retirement by 2008. MSHA has not
adequately prepared for their departure from the workforce.
This amendment will help us restore the critical funding needed to
provide more mine safety inspectors and ensure that our Nation's miners
are safe now and in the future, and I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting it.
Mr. GREGG. The next amendment in order, I believe, is the amendment
of the Senator from Georgia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The Senator from Georgia.

Amendment No. 3018

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 3018 be called
up at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss], for Mr. Dayton,
for himself and Mr. Chambliss, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Talent, Mr.
Obama, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Ms. Snowe, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Bingaman, Ms.
Mikulski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr.
Biden, and Mr. Durbin, propose an amendment numbered 3018.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. 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 restore funding for the Byrne/JAG grant program to the FY
2003 level of $900 million, offset with an across the board cut to
administrative expenses, travel, and consulting services)

On page 24, line 24, increase the amount by $900,000,000.
On page 24, line 25, increase the amount by $198,000,000.
On page 25, line 4, increase the amount by $270,000,000.
On page 25, line 8, increase the amount by $180,000,000.
On page 25, line 12, increase the amount by $135,000,000.
On page 25, line 16, increase the amount by $117,000,000.
On page 27, line 23, decrease the amount by $900,000,000.
On page 27, line 24, decrease the amount by $198,000,000.
On page 28, line 2, decrease the amount by $270,000,000.
On page 28, line 5, decrease the amount by $180,000,000.
On page 28, line 8, decrease the amount by $135,000,000.
On page 28, line 11 , decrease the amount by $117,000,000.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this amendment is offered by Senator
Dayton and myself, along with Senators Talent, Hagel, Ben Nelson,
Stabenow, Obama, Snowe, Mikulski, Levin, Kohl, Kerry, Bingaman, Salazar
and Baucus. It restores funding to Fiscal year 2003 funding levels for
the Byrne-JAG law-enforcement grant program. I have worked closely with
Senator Dayton on this issue for some time. Last year we succeeded in
amending the CJS Appropriations bill in the Senate to restore funding
to the 2003 level, only to see the funds thereafter again removed from
the final appropriations bill.
The increasingly sophisticated techniques employed by drug
traffickers requires a coordinated response by State, local and Federal
law-enforcement. Multijurisdictional cooperation is an essential
component of any national response.
The Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, have been an important part of
this essential coordinated response. Programs funded by Byrne/JAG
grants have shown dramatic results in reducing crime, particularly drug
and firearm trafficking, gangs, pharmaceutical diversion, and organized
crime. According to data compiled by the National Criminal Justice
Association from self-reported metrics submitted by individual State
Administering Agencies for the 2004 grant year, task forces funded in
part by Byrne-JAG were responsible for: 54,050 weapons seize, 5,646
methamphetamine labs seize, $250,000,000 in seized cash and personal

[[Page S2110]]

property, and massive quantities of narcotics removed from America's
streets, including: 2.7 million grams of amphetamines/methamphetamine,
1.8 million grams of powder cocaine, 278,200 grams of crack, 73,300
grams of heroin, 75 million cultivated and non-cultivated marijuana
plants, and 27 million kilograms of marijuana.
These are real results which have made America safer and contributed
greatly to a 30 year reduction in violent crime in America.
Our amendment restores funding to fiscal year 2003 levels, and
provides an offset from administrative expenditures. It is money well
spent to protect Americans from criminal activities.
I appreciate greatly the cooperation of the Senator from Minnesota
and his working together with me on this issue. He has been tireless in
his efforts to make sure this amendment has been passed in the budget
process and that we have it included in the appropriations process.
While we were successful last year in the budget and in appropriations,
in the end it lost this year. We will work harder together to make sure
the full spending for the Byrne/JAG grants is included.
I yield to the Senator from Minnesota for such time as he may consume
of the time remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague and
friend, the distinguished Senator from Georgia, for his leadership on
this amendment. It has been a privilege to work with him during the
last couple of years. I appreciate his deep commitment to this program.
It means a great deal because it demonstrates very clearly to our
colleagues that this is a bipartisan commitment, as demonstrated by the
cosponsors for our amendment.
I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Harkin, Rockefeller, Nelson
of Florida, Biden, and Durbin as cosponsors of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I am astonished that there is any
disagreement about the need for increased funding for the Byrne grants.
This is one of the critical programs we fund through the Congress. I am
amazed, as my colleague from Georgia said, that last year the amendment
we passed together, which the Senate passed unanimously, was then
basically gutted entirely in the conference committee at the insistence
of the House and the administration. And, in fact, the funding for the
Byrne grant program for this year is cut by one-fourth from what it was
the previous year.
I have heard suggestions from people that this money is not well
spent or that it is not needed in particular States. To them, I say,
please, please, send your money back. Send it to Minnesota, send it to
Georgia. I can assure Members the money in Minnesota is extremely well
used. It is absolutely necessary.
Let me quote, as evidence of that, Mr. Robert Bushman, president of
the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers:

Without the support of the Byrne Justice Assistance Program
funding, these drug task forces face reductions that will
decrease their abilities and effectiveness. Should this
occur, Minnesota's ability to fight the war on drugs would
undoubtedly be diminished, with potentially dangerous
consequences.

We talk of the need to protect this country from terrorists. I
support that as strongly as anyone. We have terrorists operating on the
streets of Minnesota and I suspect through this country every day. They
are drug-dealing terrorists.
The methamphetamine epidemic which is plaguing my State--small
communities, large cities, rural, urban, everywhere, drugs that I am
told are coming in from Mexico in increased numbers, concentrations,
and potency--is destroying the lives of children as young as 10 years
old and senior citizens who are in their eighties. It is an equal
opportunity destroyer.
These drug-dealing terrorists are operating with impunity because our
local law enforcement officers do not have the resources, do not have
the funds, do not have the numbers, do not have all the resources
necessary to combat it and defeat it. That is shameful. This is a
matter of priorities.
Again, I thank the Senator from Georgia. I commend the distinguished
chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget and the ranking member
for their support. I hope we can have this pass as a voice vote, one
that will demonstrate clearly to the House overwhelming support. I ask
they do their utmost to preserve our position in conference so we can
get this funding back up from its devastating cut last year to where it
needs to be.
I yield the floor.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I know I speak for the entire Senate when I
say we fully understand the importance of supporting our Nation's law
enforcement officers and that we all want to do everything possible to
make the safety of our communities one of our top budgetary priorities.
This is why I rise today to support the amendment offered by my
colleagues, Senators Dayton and Chambliss, to restore funding for the
Byrne Justice Assistance grants program.
Unfortunately, once again, the President's budget request for fiscal
year 2007 does not recognize this priority. In fact, it cuts the entire
program for the second year in a row.
During Senate debate on the fiscal year 2006 Department of Commerce,
Justice, Science and State Appropriations Act, I cosponsored a Byrne
grant amendment with Senators Dayton and Chambliss that would have
increased the funding for the JAG program to $900 million. That
amendment passed the Senate, but was stripped in conference.
I am disappointed that the President's fiscal year 2007 budget
request once again cuts this important law enforcement program, a
program that has suffered significant cuts in the last few years,
despite providing real results and benefits around the country. For
fiscal year 2005, the Byrne/JAG program was appropriated $634 million,
an overall cut of 12 percent for both programs from fiscal year 2004,
and a 30 percent cut from the fiscal year 2003 funding.
As for fiscal year 2006, the President's budget request proposed the
elimination of the Byrne/JAG program, but Congress refused. However,
the Byrne/JAG program still received a $218 million cut from fiscal
year 2005 level.
This year, the President's budget request once again eliminates the
Byrne/JAG program from the $416 million--a 34 percent cut from fiscal
year 2005 funding level--passed by Congress last year.
In Illinois, these cuts will have an immediate and direct effect on
the ability of law enforcement to use Byrne grant funds to fight one of
the gravest drug threats facing the nation today--methamphetamine.
In downstate Illinois, as in other rural communities around the
country, there has been a tremendous surge in the manufacture,
trafficking, and use of meth. Illinois State Police encountered 971
meth labs in Illinois in 2003, more than double the number uncovered in
2000. According to the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority,
the quantity of meth seized by the Illinois State Police increased
nearly tenfold between 1997 and 2003. This surge is placing enormous
burdens on smalltown police forces which are suddenly being confronted
with a large drug trade and the ancillary crimes that accompany that
trade.
These police departments rely on Byrne grant funding to participate
in meth task forces, such as the Metropolitan Enforcement Group or the
Southern Illinois Enforcement Group. These task forces allow police in
different communities to combine forces to battle a regional problem.
There are a total of seven meth taskforce zones in Illinois, and these
task forces have seen real results with Byrne grant funding.
In 2004, the Southern Illinois Enforcement Group accounted for more
than 27 percent of the State's reported meth lab seizures, and in that
same year alone, Byrne/JAG grants helped Illinois cops make over 1,200
meth-related arrests and seize nearly 350,000 grams of meth.
In towns like Granite City and Alton, cuts in Byrne grant funding
will force them to make difficult choices about how to allocate already
scarce police resources. Indeed, the chief of police in Granite City
told my staff last year that cuts in Byrne/JAG grant funding would
threaten the fundamental viability of his meth task force.

[[Page S2111]]

While meth use continues to grow, it is inconceivable to me that the
President would propose another cut to the resources needed by law
enforcement to fight crime and clean up the streets. To me, this is yet
another example of the misplaced priorities of this administration.
We all know that we are facing a real budget crisis in this Nation.
The deficit is growing, and we must enforce some fiscal discipline. But
I don't believe we should be balancing the budget on the backs of our
Nation's law enforcement officers who keep our families and communities
safe every day.
I am disappointed by the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request
and hope that the Senate will support my colleagues' amendment and find
the necessary funding that local law enforcement needs.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dayton amendment
that increases funding for the Byrne grant program by $900 million.
This is a straightforward amendment worthy of unanimous support.
As most of us know, the Byrne grant program is a law enforcement
funding program run by the Department of Justice. For 20 years, Byrne
grants have funded State and local drug task forces, community crime
prevention programs, substance abuse treatment programs, prosecution
initiatives, and many other local crime control programs.
Unfortunately, all of this funding is eliminated in the Senate budget
resolution which follows the administration's budget proposal.
This marks the second year in a row in which President Bush has tried
to kill the Byrne grant program. Given the Bush administration's attack
on law enforcement funding, this proposed cut should come as no
surprise. That said, the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program was
appropriated a little more than $416 million last year in formula
funds--despite the administration's desire to eliminate it. But this
amount is less than half of what the program received just a few short
years ago.
Quite simply, funding for local law enforcement has taken a nosedive
under this administration, and it is our local police chiefs and
sheriffs who are feeling the pain of these cuts. Consider this: since
President Bush has taken office, funding for local law enforcement in
Wisconsin via the Byrne grant program has been cut by more than two-
thirds. As recently as 2001, Wisconsin received more than $9.2 million
from the Byrne grant program. Thanks to this administration, Byrne
grant funding has been steadily declining ever since, with Wisconsin
receiving just a little under $3 million last year. Nonetheless,
President Bush wants to go even further and eliminate this funding
entirely. Of course, this would leave Wisconsin law enforcement nothing
from the Byrne program.
What do these cuts mean? It means law enforcement personnel are
getting laid off, and that translates to fewer cops patrolling the
beat, fewer assistant district attorneys prosecuting cases, and fewer
detectives working drug cases, to cite just a few examples. Talk to any
police chief, sheriff, or prosecutor back in your home State and they
will tell you that the Byrne program is the backbone of Federal Aid for
local law enforcement. Do we really want to walk away from a program
with twenty years of success supporting our local police chiefs,
sheriffs, and district attorneys? We can and must block the elimination
of the Byrne grant program. The Dayton amendment would achieve this by
boosting Byrne grant funds back to the fiscal year 2003 level of $900
million. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment which
supports our local law enforcement agencies.
Mr. GREGG. How much time remains on the measure?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The sponsor has 8 minutes 20 seconds and the
opposition has 15 minutes.
Mr. GREGG. I don't believe there is opposition. The Senator from
Missouri is ready to go and then we go to the Senator from Washington
for her amendment.
Mr. TALENT. I have no objection to the Senator from Washington going
ahead because she was here.
Mr. GREGG. I don't think she is speaking on this amendment.
Mrs. MURRAY. I am ready to go with my amendment which follows this.
Mr. GREGG. Complete your statement on this topic.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the
amendment offered by Senator Chambliss and Senator Dayton, to
congratulate them on their efforts in this important area to restore
funding for the justice assistance grants, which we have known in the
past as the Byrne grants, and the local law enforcement program to the
fiscal year 2003 level of $900 million. I am pleased to be a cosponsor
of the important amendment.
The amendment is almost identical to what was offered on the relevant
appropriations bill last fall. That amendment passed unanimously. It
raised the funding amount at that time to $900 million. Unfortunately,
as Senators have noted, the final appropriations more than stripped the
amendment. It cut Byrne/JAG grants by 34 percent from fiscal year 2005
which resulted in only $416 million for the program. It is even more
unacceptable that the administration has zero funded the program in its
2007 budget request.
Justice assistance grants fund a number of local drug education and
drug law enforcement programs. These include the crucial
multijurisdictional task forces which are especially important in
combating the rising rates of methamphetamine production and
distribution in communities across the country. Over the past 5 years,
funding for Byrne grants and the local law enforcement block grants,
which again are JAG predecessors, have been cut significantly despite
the fact that State and local law enforcement have not only been
saddled with the additional burden of homeland security but also with
fighting the methamphetamine scourge that has grown in rural and urban
communities across the Nation.
These grants are an essential component of statewide efforts to
address violent crime and drugs in my State of Missouri. They funded
vital projects in the State, including a multijurisdictional task force
program that worked to integrate Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies and prosecutors for the purpose of enhancing
interagency coordination and intelligence.
To cut this funding would severely damage law enforcement's ability
to address the methamphetamine crisis in Missouri and would place
communities at risk across the country. That is why major law
enforcement organizations, including the National Sheriffs Association,
the National Police and Peace Officers, and the National Narcotics
Coalition have all endorsed the amendment.

In short, the funding is crucial in fighting the Nation's war against
methamphetamine and other drugs and necessary for keeping America's
neighborhoods safe. So I congratulate Senator Dayton and Senator
Chambliss for offering this amendment and urge the Senate to approve
it.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I will claim the time in opposition and
yield it back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I think Senator Murray is next to be
recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Amendment No. 3063

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of myself, Senator Sarbanes, and Senator Leahy, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for herself, Mr.
Sarbanes, and Mr. Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 3063.

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

(Purpose: To restore funding for the Community Development Block Grant
Program to the fiscal 2004 level by closing tax loopholes previously
slated for elimination in Senate-passed legislation)

On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $26,000,000.

[[Page S2112]]

On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $416,000,000.
On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $546,000,000.
On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $182,000,000.
On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $65,000,000.
On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $26,000,000.
On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $416,000,000.
On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $546,000,000.
On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $182,000,000.
On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $65,000,000.
On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $26,000,000.
On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $416,000,000.
On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $546,000,000.
On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $182,000,000.
On page 5, line 12, increase the amount by $65,000,000.
On page 17, line 22, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
On page 17, line 23, increase the amount by $26,000,000.
On page 18, line 3, increase the amount by $416,000,000.
On page 18, line 7, increase the amount by $546,000,000.
On page 18, line 11, increase the amount by $182,000,000.
On page 18, line 15, increase the amount by $65,000,000.
On page 53, line 1, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
On page 53, line 2, increase the amount by $26,000,000.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as
cosponsors to the amendment Senators Reed, Kennedy, Lautenberg,
Stabenow, Schumer, Mikulski, Durbin, Rockefeller, and Akaka.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment I have sent to the desk
tonight, that we will vote on tomorrow, restores the $1 billion cut in
funding for Community Development Block Grant Programs that are assumed
in the budget resolution that is before the Senate this week.
For more than 30 years, the Community Development Block Grant
Program, known as the CDBG, has served as a tremendous catalyst for
change in communities across the Nation. It has brought hope and
opportunity to families and to residents and to communities everywhere
we look in this country. For both cities that are urban and rural, CDBG
has supported efforts to expand affordable housing. It invests in
neighborhoods, and it supports local economic development projects that
have literally revitalized communities.
But tonight, as we look at this budget resolution, that future, that
hope is really being diminished. The actual opportunity that so many
families have seen is threatened by the work that will not be done if
this budget resolution passes in its current form.
The budget resolution we are now considering assumes the President's
proposed cap on domestic discretionary spending. And that includes a $1
billion cut to the Community Development Block Grant Program. By the
way, that is on top of a $500 million cut that this program received
last year.
Now, every one of my colleagues knows how successful this CDBG
Program is. You can see its impact in every community back home. Over
the past 4 months, I have had the opportunity to talk with mayors and
housing authority officials and other local leaders to see how they are
using CDBG, and there are some great examples I want to share with the
Senate tonight.
The city of Spokane, WA, used $220,000 in CDBG funds and helped
remodel and expand the Native Health Clinic and Community Center. This
is a clinic in Spokane that provides medical care, substance abuse
treatment, mental health and counseling services to economically
disadvantaged children, youth, and adults. This money made a
difference.
In Vancouver, WA, in the other corner of my State, the Vancouver
Housing Authority used CDBG funds to help fund the Esther Short
Commons. This is a mixed-use, mixed-income building with 160 units of
affordable workforce housing. It is home to businesses in the Vancouver
Farmers Market. That building is a very important part of downtown
Vancouver's redevelopment. Those funds made a critical difference.
In Bremerton, in Kitsap County, Kitsap Community Resources is using
$950,000 in CDBG funding to help build a new facility that will serve
the needs of low-income people in Bremerton and Kitsap County. That
facility houses a WIC clinic and employment and education programs and
is a great addition to the city's efforts to revitalize its downtown.
It is a great investment of Federal dollars.
And in Seattle, the Delridge Neighborhoods Development Association
received $850,000 in CDBG and home funds from the city of Seattle and
developed the Croft Place Townhomes. That is a development that is now
providing good housing for 21 families at or below the 30- and 50-
percent of median income, including families who were previously
homeless.
These are just a few examples of how these Federal dollars leverage a
difference in our home States. I know every one of my Senate colleagues
has heard from their mayors and their communities about the importance
of the flexibility of this money and the critical difference it makes
in the lives of so many.
As I have said on this floor many times, if we want to be strong
abroad, we have to be strong at home. And investing in our
infrastructure, bringing new economic revitalization, making sure that
affordable housing is available for families, is an absolutely
essential part of making sure our country is strong at home.
Any one of us can tell you that if a family does not have a place to
call home, then they are not going to be strong, and they are not going
to feel their family has opportunity in the future. If you are a young
woman trying to raise a family alone, you know you need to have a place
to live or those kids are not going to do well in school and your
opportunity to send them to college is minimized.
Every one of us knows that a senior citizen who does not have a place
to call home that is convenient to services they need--whether it is
their doctor or physical activities--is not going to be able to have
the dignity they deserve at the end of their life.
And every one of us knows that for families who cannot afford housing
in many communities across our States--my State and across the Nation--
if they do not have a place to call home that is close to a job, they
are not going to be economically self-sufficient.
These CDBG funds have made an incredible difference in people having
the security of housing, a place to call home, and financial stability.
At the same time, they are bringing economic development, new jobs, new
businesses, new economic revitalization, to many of our communities.

Cutting these programs by $1 billion is a disservice to those
families, but it is a tragedy for this Nation because we cannot be
strong if our families are feeling insecure at home because of the lack
of housing. These dollars, we all know, make an incredible difference.
This program has changed lives and changed communities.
Now, tomorrow our colleagues on the other side are going to offer an
amendment they say will do the same thing. First of all, I thank them
for recognizing the budget resolution is not sufficient and does not do
the job when it comes to CDBG. But I will call them on how they are
going to fund it. Once again, we will see them funded with funny money,
saying: We are going to take it from section 920.
Well, already today, this Senate has gone on record taking $6.5
billion from the so-called 920 fund. And it is not there. Why do I know
this? Because last year, at this same exact time, Senators on the other
side offered an amendment to restore funding for CDBG, and come
October, November, and December, when we were doing appropriations
bills, this Senate cut half a billion dollars from CDBG. Why? Because
the money offered in the amendment on their side was not real.
The same thing is going to happen tomorrow. Senators will have an
opportunity to pass a phony amendment and to go home and say to their
constituents: Oh, I voted for CDBG. But the bill will come due in the
fall, when we do an appropriations bill and that money is not
available, and we will see CDBG cut dramatically.
As ranking member on the TTHUD Subcommittee that has the funding on

[[Page S2113]]

this, I know where this is going to go. I urge my colleagues, and I
will tell this country, if you vote for the Murray amendment, you are
asking for real dollars. You are telling your communities you are going
to be there to help families with affordable housing and communities
with redevelopment. If you vote for the amendment from the other side
offered by Senator Santorum, you are going to get a nice vote for the
day. All Senators will support it. But all it does is say, politically:
Yes, I think CDBG is good. It will not provide one single additional
dollar when we come to actually appropriating these funds.
So this is extremely critical. Everywhere I go in neighborhoods
across my State, I see the insecurity of so many families. They are
worried about their jobs. They are worried about whether their kids can
go to college. They are worried about whether their pension is going to
be there. They worry about whether transportation infrastructure is
going to be capable of getting them to their job or back home again.
Part of that insecurity, and the most basic part of that insecurity, is
housing.
That is what these CDBG funds do. Every Senator on this floor knows
it. When you invest in our infrastructure, whether it is housing or
transportation, especially through funds such as this, you are creating
new jobs, new economic development, and revitalizing communities in
ways that I have seen no other dollars do.
Mr. President, tomorrow, again, we will have an opportunity to do a
political move if we vote for the Santorum amendment and say we are
going to take money from this 920 fund that does not exist, or we can
raise the cap, and then, when we are here next fall, actually fund CDBG
at a promised level that this Senate will go on record on. It is a
critical amendment. I urge its adoption by my colleagues tomorrow.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 5 minutes 20
seconds.

Amendment No. 3054

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I will take one additional minute and
then yield back my time. But I did want to say, while I had the floor,
that I added myself as a cosponsor to the Menendez port security
amendment. This is a critical amendment. It is an issue I have been
working on since September 11. I have joined with Senator Collins to
introduce the GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act.
I think what we have all learned over the past week is that our ports
and our cargo containers are a huge hole in our Nation's security. We
cannot fix it with more rhetoric from this floor. We can fix it if we
fund it adequately. This Senate will have an opportunity to vote on
that tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to support that amendment when it
comes to the floor.
Thank you, Mr. President. I will yield back my time in order to move
to the next amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

Amendment No. 3063

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, in a second we are going to go to the
Senator from Ohio, who is going to speak relative to the resolution.
But I want to quickly respond.
The Senator from Washington has proposed an amendment which raises
the cap, and it raises taxes. There is a better way to do it. The
better way is Senator Santorum's amendment, which will come tomorrow,
which says we identify CDBG as a priority, and within the caps we find
the money for CDBG recognizing we may have to do an across-the-board
cut of other accounts. That is the right way to do this. It sets
priorities.
The Senator from Washington is the ranking member on the
appropriating committee which will have responsibility for this.
Historically that committee has always funded this account. They have
always found this to be a priority, and they have always found the
money to do it. I do not think that history is going to change this
year.
I do think Senator Santorum has the right way to do this. We should
not be passing a tax-and-spend amendment, which is what this amounts
to.
At this point, I will yield back the remainder of the time in
opposition to the Murray amendment and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak not only on the
fiscal year 2007 budget resolution that has been placed before this
body but also on the environment in which Chairman Gregg has had to
write the resolution.
First of all, I thank our chairman for his yeoman effort to bring
this budget to the floor. Chairman Gregg has produced a very strong
effort under difficult circumstances.
For once, I am excited to see the chairman's limitation on the use of
``emergency'' designations for the fiscal year 2007 budget. While
utilizing ``emergency'' spending may be necessary, Senator Gregg has
put in place a process to force us to reflect on what should be deemed
as an ``emergency'' and consequently sidestep the regular budgetary
process versus what should be moved as part of the regular
appropriations process. In other words, all of us feel that in terms of
our emergency spending, much of it should be actually in the regular
budget resolution rather than considered as emergency spending.
I also applaud the chairman's inclusion of a new point of order
against direct spending that would apply once it was determined that
the general fund would contribute more than 45 percent of total
Medicare outlays. This new point of order serves to highlight what all
of us know is decimating future budgets--the impending costs of
Medicare and other entitlements.
While I respect the efforts required in producing this budget, and
the effort to try to comply with the cap that the President issued, it
is the view of this Senator that the budget falls short of meeting the
current pressing needs of our country, and those sentiments are
reflected in some of the amendments that have and will later be offered
to the budget.
Each of us must be able to justify our actions on behalf of our
constituents. During my first biennial budget, as Governor of Ohio, I
had to go back to the budget four separate times to find additional
areas to cut. But after cutting program after program, I could not
justifiably say I provided for the public good by slashing more.
Indeed, I made the difficult choice to ask the legislature to increase
taxes at the margins. After keeping spending to its lowest growth in 30
years, we were able to reduce taxes my last 3 years in office. But we
did take care of the needs of the people of the State of Ohio.
I am not calling for raising revenues at this time. However, I am
calling attention to what I view as a lackadaisical attitude toward
what I believe is a freight train bearing down on our fiscal house. I
voted for tax cuts in 2001, 2002, and 2003. In 2001, we were projecting
surpluses beyond the horizon, I think a $5.4 trillion surplus in 10
years. We believed those surplus funds were better utilized in what I
called the three-legged stool of fiscal responsibility--pay down the
debt, spending restraint, and returning excess funds to households so
as not to be unwisely spent.
In 2002, I supported additional tax cuts to stimulate our economy in
the aftermath of September 11. And in 2003, our country was still
reeling from September 11, the war against terror, and corporate
accounting scandals. We needed additional stimulative medicine. I
fought to ensure that the amount we passed was the right amount. I said
that $350 billion in tax cuts would be enough to get the economy
moving, and I believe that it worked.
However, the world does not stand still, and we now face different
challenges. Since that time, the economy has grown. The Nation's GDP
grew by 4 percent in both 2003 and 2004 and 3.5 percent in 2005.
Unemployment has dropped since we enacted the tax cuts from 6.6 percent
to the current 4.8 percent. I wish it were as good in the State of Ohio
as that, but overall that is what it is. While the tax cut stimulation
worked, making these tax cuts permanent should be subject to pay-go. I
am sorry today that we didn't have the votes to do that.
While the economy has been renewed, our Nation has had to pay for the
extraordinary expenses of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as responding
to our concern for homeland security for

[[Page S2114]]

which, since 2001, we have tripled governmentwide spending related to
nondefense homeland security, and on top of that add in the expenses of
Hurricane Katrina. What I am saying is that with the 22 agencies we
brought together after 2001, 180,000 people, we have tripled the budget
of those agencies since 2001. While we are dealing with all these
expenses, we are ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room: the
impending tidal wave of entitlements coming due. In his State of the
Union Address, President Bush acknowledged that:

The retirement of the baby boom generation will put
unprecedented strains on the federal government. By 2030,
spending for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will be
almost 60 percent of the entire federal budget. And that will
present future Congresses with impossible choices--staggering
tax increases, immense deficits, or deep cuts in every
category of spending.

I am pleased that the President decided to focus on what some have
called the demographic tsunami coming our way and the necessity to
reform entitlement programs before it hits. The 77 million baby boomers
coming into Social Security and Medicare Programs will put the Federal
budget under unprecedented pressure. Chairman Gregg took the courageous
step to take on entitlement spending through the Deficit Reduction Act
of 2005, and I supported those efforts. However, this was just the tip
of the iceberg. I would support greater efforts to continue to debate
on entitlement reform so that we may make wise decisions and not
decisions stemming from unneeded dawdling and delay.
No matter which way you look at it, if we leave reform of entitlement
programs to future Congresses to handle as well as a mountain of
national debt to pay off, it will have devastating consequences on the
economy and our children.
We owe it to the American people to let them know the true condition
of our Federal budget. Currently, governmental expenditures absorb
about 20 percent of the GDP, while our tax receipts are only 17.5
percent of GDP. The debt has grown from about $5.5 trillion when I
first came into office in 1999 to a staggering $8.1 trillion today.
That is a 47-percent increase. The debt service alone threatens to
gobble up revenues in the near future.
According to the CBO, in fiscal year 2005, interest on the public
debt grew more rapidly than any other major spending category, rising
14 percent above the fiscal year 2004 level. Without major spending
cuts, tax increases, or both, the national debt will grow more than $3
trillion through 2010 to $11.2 trillion according to GAO--nearly
$38,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. The
interest alone will cost $561 billion in 2010, the same as today's
budget for the Pentagon. Think of that.
However, we all know that the real problem is our long-term debt. I
might mention in terms of our interest costs, if the central banks of
foreign countries that are investing in our debt decide to redo their
portfolios, we are really going to be in trouble because we will see
our interest costs spike dramatically.
By the General Accounting Office's own estimates, about 35 years from
now, when my grandchildren have their own children to care for,
balancing the budget will require actions as large as cutting total
Federal spending by 60 percent or raising taxes to 2\1/2\ times today's
levels. Think about that. And if we are going to be honest with the
American people about the shape of our fiscal house, we should be
honest on budgeting. Accrual accounting is what we require private
businesses to use in presenting their finances to give an honest
snapshot. On an accrual basis, our Federal deficit for fiscal year 2005
was $760 billion, representing an increase of $144 billion or 23
percent over the previous year's deficit of $616 billion. That is a
stark difference from the $319 billion deficit that was reported. That
is what we told the American people: It is $319 billion. Under this
convenient Government accounting, it made it look as if we had a
decrease in the deficit of $93 billion from the previous year's deficit
of $412 billion.
Frankly, if the Treasury Department already has the numbers, why
don't we use the accrual method of accounting for our budget? I want to
remind the American people again, as well as my colleagues in the
Senate, that the true deficit in 2005 was $760 billion--an increase of
$144 billion or 23 percent over the previous year's deficit.
I have also introduced a bill called the Truth in Budgeting Act,
cosponsored by Senator Conrad, which stops the Federal Government from
using surplus trust fund revenues to hide the true size of the
Government's deficit and highlighting the true size of the Federal debt
by forcing the Government to increase borrowing from the public to
cover general fund expenses. It is important to have an honest
accounting of where we are and where we are headed from a fiscal
perspective. We need to change the current Federal accounting and
reporting model and budgeting systems to better reflect the
Government's true financial condition. This will bring about greater
transparency and accountability in Government operations and really let
the American people know what is happening here in Congress.
Additionally, if we are to be honest about the budget, we should make
reasonable assumptions. The administration's budget assumes enactment
of more than a dozen user fees totaling $3.2 billion in 2007 to offset
discretionary spending increases. The user fee proposals in the budget
include an increase in airline passenger security fees, changing some
veterans' enrollment fees for medical care--which, by the way, was
rejected by the Senate today 100 to 0--increased TRICARE enrollment
fees and deductibles for military retirees under 65, regulatory fees
for explosives, and Food Safety and Inspection Service user fees. These
proposals have been rejected by Congress in the past and are unlikely
to materialize. What they will do is, because that money is not going
to come in, it is just going to squeeze other priorities.
Additionally, we are not being honest about the Medicare physician
fee schedules. Physicians are reimbursed for treatment of Medicare
patients through that fee schedule. Right now, physicians are facing
another 5 percent decrease in their Medicare payment on January 1,
2007. Reducing physician payments will have a direct negative impact on
seniors' access to quality health care. Last year, we responsibly
offset funding to avoid a scheduled 4-percent reduction. We included a
freeze in their payment rates in the deficit reduction bill. It has
become evident that we must face this annually, but never truly budget
for it. In other words, we know that we can't cut the reimbursement for
doctors in this country for Medicare patients, but we just assume that
we are going to do it, at least the administration does, knowing full
well that Congress is going to have to come in with that additional
money--in this case, $1.5 billion--and that means that there is just
going to be less money for other priorities that we have on our
domestic side of the budget.
The administration's budget also accounts for an extension of AMT
relief in 2006 but not for 2007 or the rest of the 5-year budget
window. The administration says that a permanent solution to the AMT
issue should be enacted as part of tax reform. However, the likelihood
of Congress passing tax reform this year, as much as I would like to
see it since I offered the legislation calling for the blue ribbon
panel on tax reform, is slim to none. I feel bad that the
administration has backed away from tax reform as a priority since
simplifying the Code to make it more simple, fair, and honest could, by
some estimates, save taxpayers $260 billion in costs associated with
preparing their taxes. That is across the country. Saving that cost
would be a real tax reduction and not cause the Treasury to lose one
dime of lost revenue.
The question we must ask ourselves is, If we don't have enough
revenue to pay our current bills, how in the world are we going to
prepare to cover much larger future promises? The simple fact is that
we can't have it all. We need to set priorities. We need to make
choices; otherwise, our children will end up paying for it.
Our forefathers recognized the inequity of passing on debt to future
generations. George Washington in his farewell address stated:

[likewise avoid] the accumulation of debt, not only by
shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in
time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars

[[Page S2115]]

may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity
the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.

In other words, throwing the cost of a war on to the next generation.
Frankly, if we are willing to be honest with ourselves and make the
hard decisions, the last thing we should be doing is talking about
making tax cuts permanent. If we are to be honest and forthright with
the American people, we should be asking them to pay for the
extraordinary cost of the war and improving our homeland security.
Because if we are not willing to do so, it will not be Members of this
body who are going to be paying the tab. We will be gone. Instead,
repayment of the debt will land squarely in the lap of our children and
grandchildren. I don't know any parents or grandparents who would think
it was a good idea to run up huge personal debts that their children
and grandchildren would have to pay at the time of their death, but
that is exactly what we are doing with our Federal budget--passing it
on to our children and grandchildren. The major reason I sought
reelection to this venerable body was to make sure that was not going
to be our legacy or the legacy I left my three children and seven
grandchildren and my fellow Americans.
According to the administration's fiscal year 2000 budget, mandatory
spending will take up 54 percent of the $2.8 trillion budget; net
interest we will have to pay on the debt will eat up 9 percent; 18
percent would be allocated for the defense discretionary budget,
leaving 19 percent for all the discretionary programs or about one-
fifth of the budget. And what we have been doing the last couple of
years is flat-funding discretionary spending, the real increases in
this budget. People say: You are spending money. The money is being
spent on the war and on homeland security. And in terms of
discretionary nondefense spending, we basically have flat-funded that.
As I quoted, by the administration's conservative estimate, the
programs on auto-pilot, such as Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid, will account for over 60 percent of the budget by 2030. That
does not leave much for all other governmental obligations we have. We
are putting the squeeze on just one-fifth of the budget while the rest
sees large increases.
We must make entitlement reform a priority, but in the meantime, we
should not pretend that by flat funding or cutting nondefense,
nonhomeland security needs or programs that work and serve a critical
governmental purpose will get the job done. Some of these programs
actually save the Government money by benefiting the economy or
avoiding further costs down the road.
The point is that in this global economy, we are confronted with the
most competitive environment our Nation has ever faced, at least in my
lifetime. Anyone who has read Tom Friedman's book ``The World is Flat''
or read the National Academy of Sciences report ``Rising Above the
Gathering Storm'' gets it. They get it.
In the big picture of where the United States stands, it is clear to
me that the economic framework of our Nation needs to be refurbished.
There are certain investments and responsibilities that this Senator
believes we can no longer ignore and must address. We should be
rebuilding an infrastructure of competitiveness so that future
generations can compete in that global marketplace and have at least
the same opportunity to enjoy our standard of living and quality of
life.
We cannot remain competitive without a workforce full of educated and
motivated young Americans. As a nation, we have to invest in our
children and enable them to fully develop their God-given talents in
order to compete in a knowledge-based global economy. This means we
have to place more emphasis on careers in science, engineering, and
math. And right now we are not getting the job done.
Globally, the United States ranks 17th in proportion to college aid
population earning science and engineering degrees, down from third
place several decades ago. In fact, the percentage of 24-year-olds with
science or engineering degrees is now higher in many industrialized
nations, including England, South Korea, Germany, Australia, Singapore,
Japan, and Canada. All produce a higher percentage of science and
engineering graduates than the United States.
The National Academy of Sciences released a report this fall that
recommends action that the Federal Government should take to enhance
our ability to compete in our global economy. The recommendations range
from those that will improve our Nation's math and science coursework
and establish a workforce of qualified teachers who will prepare our
students for futures in highly innovative careers, to the crucial need
for energy independence, and an investment in research.
I am encouraged the President recognized that America needs to wake
up and build a new infrastructure for competitiveness, and I applaud
his American competitiveness agenda.
Also, I have joined a number of my colleagues as an original
cosponsor of the Protecting America's Competitive Edge Act of 2006,
PACE. This legislation is aimed at improving our Nation's
competitiveness through advancements in and emphasis on math and
science education. Like the President's initiative, this legislation is
comprehensive in its aim to increase our Nation's research capacity,
emphasize strong science and math education, but it will require a
national commitment to reengage our Nation's youth in science and math,
similar to our response in the late 1950s to Russia's launch of Sputnik
and the ensuing space race.
In order to implement PACE, it is going to take $10 billion a year
for the next 10 years, including making the research and development
tax credit permanent. That money is not in this budget. That money is
not in this budget.
Funding for nuclear engineering programs truly showcases the
disconnect between our stated priorities and the budget. The
administration and numerous Members in this body are supportive of the
recommendations in the National Academy's report, which also
highlighted the importance of moving toward greater energy
independence. However, the administration's budget zeroes out funding
for the Department of Energy's University Nuclear Reactor
Infrastructure and Education Assistance Program from $27 million in
fiscal year 2006--it is a relatively innocuous amount within the
context of a $2.6 trillion budget. But with our renewed focus on our
Nation's competitiveness and the need to address our education and
energy policies, it doesn't make sense to eliminate this program. That
is what we see all the way through this budget.
Additionally, beyond our human capital infrastructure needs, our
physical infrastructure needs are facing a real dilemma as well. In
other words, we have to build that infrastructure of competitiveness.
We are not getting it done. We desperately need to provide increased
funding for the Army Corps of Engineers, including funding for levees
and additional civil engineers. This Nation has an aging national water
resources infrastructure. If we continue to ignore the upkeep, the
deterioration of locks, dams, flood control projects, and navigation
channels, we risk disruptions in waterborne commerce, decreased
protection against floods, as we saw in Katrina, and other
environmental damage.
I have been concerned about the backlog of unfunded Corps projects
since I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and
Infrastructure in 1999 and 2000 on the Environment and Public Works
Committee. When I arrived in the Senate in 1999, the operation and
maintenance deficit was about $250 million. Today it is $1.2 billion.
In 2001, there was $38 billion in active resources projects waiting to
be funded. Today there is $41 billion in active construction general
projects that need to be funded. This budget is only going to increase
this backlog.
This budget proposes a 33-percent cut in the Corps construction
budget and a 42-percent cut in the Corps investigations budget.
Currently, the Corps is able to function only at 50-percent capacity at
the rate of funding proposed by this budget. Listen to this: Currently
the Corps is able to function only at 50-percent capacity at the rate
of funding proposed by this budget.
Can you believe this, after the lesson we learned from Hurricane
Katrina? We had people testify before the Environment and Public Works
Committee who were a part of the American Civil

[[Page S2116]]

Engineers Society saying that if we had properly funded the levees in
New Orleans, they would have survived Katrina.

Let's talk about our highways. According to the Federal Highway
Administration 2002 Conditions and Performance Report, $106.9 billion
through 2020 is needed to maintain and improve our highways and
bridges. We are just not getting the job done.
Community development block grants, which was spoken to by Senator
Murray earlier, is another example. These grants support State and
local government-directed neighborhood revitalization, housing
rehabilitation, and economic development activities. I know in my time
being mayor of the city of Cleveland how important CDBG is in terms of
providing funds to local government officials so they can do housing
rehabilitation, neighborhood revitalization, and economic development.
I refer to it as the yeast that raises the dough. It is probably the
best leveraged Federal program we have for our cities in the United
States of America.
By the way, it is a program that was put in place by Richard Nixon
when he was President of the United States.
When we fail to recognize our country's needs, it is at the expense
of our seed corn programs that are essential to the future of our
country. We must not be pennywise and pound foolish while we consider
this budget. While cuts and reforms need to be made, it should not be
made at the expense of programs that our country relies on, such as
these.
It is too bad that we don't have to balance our budget. That would be
beautiful. The thing that drives me crazy about this place, after being
mayor for 10 years and doing 10 budgets, and being Governor and having
to do four budgets when we had to balance our budget, is that we are
irresponsible when it comes to budgeting.
I recall as Governor, as I mentioned earlier, we had to raise taxes
at the margin to balance the budget and respond to critical needs of
Ohio. It was through cuts in spending and making very difficult choices
that we balanced the budget and accumulated over $1 billion in our
rainy day fund. It was through these efforts--in other words, we tried
to do everything, and at the end, through what I call the strong-
management, good-economy bonus, we reduced our State income tax 3 years
in a row, including almost 10 percent in 1998.
It is difficult for this Senator to believe that we have the ability
to fund the war on terror, respond to homeland security needs, pay for
emergencies such as Hurricane Katrina, deal with explosions in
entitlement costs, guarantee our country will have the infrastructure
of competitiveness to battle the global marketplace, balance budgets,
pay down the debt by focusing our attention solely on the
discretionary, nondefense, nonhomeland security part of the budget--it
doesn't make sense, and it is not fair. It is not fair, and I think the
American people understand what I am talking about.
The problem is that Congress has not told the truth about what we can
and cannot afford. We want to have it all but don't want to pay for it.
America's families don't live like that, nor should we. I learned this
difficult lesson while serving as mayor of Cleveland for 10 years and
Governor of Ohio for 8 years. It is time that we in Congress learned
that lesson as well.
Yesterday, I sat in the Presiding Officer's chair listening to
Chairman Gregg and Senator Conrad debate. I was heartened to hear these
two budgeteers agree that we have to take on the debt on a bipartisan
basis, and sooner rather than later. I wish to be associated with those
sentiments, and I hope both sides of the aisle will promptly realize
the dilemma and heed the words of Senators Gregg and Conrad. We can get
the job done. We can be responsible, but we have to do it on a
bipartisan basis.
When I had my problems when I was Governor of Ohio, I had the
strongest leader we ever had, a Democrat, in the House of
Representatives. He had been there for 24 years. We named a building
after him while he was alive. In fact, I had to genuflect to his statue
every day when I went to my office at the State House. He was a very
powerful guy. We had problems. I went to him and said: Vern, we have to
do something about this. He said: Partner, OK, but you have to give a
little, we will have to give a little. We spent 3 weeks and came up
with a program to get the job done.
The President recognized this. One of the things I felt very bad
about last year is we spent all this time on dealing with Social
Security when I knew right from the beginning if it wasn't going to be
on a bipartisan basis, it would go nowhere, and it went nowhere. The
President wasted a lot of time--I give him credit for pointing out the
fact that we had a problem with Social Security, but it had to start
out on a bipartisan basis.
I was so delighted, I got up and clapped when the President said: We
have to put together a commission of the best and brightest to tackle
the problem of entitlements so we can move toward fiscal sanity.
We have to do that. The American people are looking at what we are
doing here and they are saying: Put aside your partisan differences;
come together for the benefit of our country, for our children, for our
grandchildren.
I am concerned about this budget, but I am more concerned about the
direction we are going. Our problem is that we are unwilling to pay for
things or do without them. Unless we wake up to that fact, we are in
very deep trouble.

____________________