[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

     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
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu

[[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.

                          ____________________