[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 51 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3659-S3702]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                                  2008

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 21, which the clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 21) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for the 
     fiscal year 2008 and including the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 2007 and 2009 through 2012.

  Pending:

       Kyl/Thune amendment No. 583, to reform the death tax by 
     setting the exemption at $5 million per estate, indexed for 
     inflation, and the top death tax rate at no more than 35 
     percent beginning in 2010, to avoid subjecting an estimated 
     119,200 families, family businesses, and family farms to the 
     death tax each and every year, to promote continued economic 
     growth and job creation, and to make the enhanced teacher 
     deduction permanent.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be 30 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled between 
the chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first, I thank the Chaplain for the most 
excellent prayer that he offered today. I think it set the right tone 
for today's discussions. I hope very much that while we may disagree 
strenuously, we can do so in a civil way. I thank especially the 
ranking member, Senator Gregg, for the way he has conducted this debate 
on the other side throughout. As is always the case with him, it has 
been thoroughly professional. It has set an excellent tone. We have 
vigorous disagreements on policy from time to time, but there are many 
areas where we actually agree. With him in leadership, it has always 
been done in a professional way. We especially appreciate the 
cooperation from all of our colleagues and especially from the ranking 
member and his outstanding staff.
  The budget, as it stands at this moment, takes us in a new direction. 
It takes us back to fiscal responsibility. It takes us toward a 
balanced budget by 2012. Here is where the budget stands as of the 
latest numbers that we have after action last night. Every year of the 
5-year budget the deficits will be reduced until we are in balance in 
2012, albeit just barely.
  The next chart. The debt under the budget resolution, the gross debt 
of the United States as a percentage of GDP, will finally start to head 
down instead of increasing year after year after year.

[[Page S3660]]

Under this budget resolution, the gross debt of the United States as a 
share of GDP will start going down in 2009. We will see a slight 
reduction in 2010. It is somewhat improved, in terms of reduction, in 
2011 and 2012.
  Spending under this budget resolution is going down as a share of 
gross domestic product--from 20.5 percent in 2008 down to 18.8 percent 
in 2012. So we have spending going in the right direction.
  The budget resolution is only slightly above baseline for nondefense 
discretionary funding. The baseline is $438.8 billion. The spending in 
the 2008 budget resolution is $445 billion, a 1.4-percent difference. 
That is spending in dollar terms. I was talking about spending 
previously as a share of GDP. The previous chart showed spending as a 
share of GDP actually going down.

  We do have a number of very significant priorities addressed in this 
budget. First and foremost is children's health care. We have up to $50 
billion allocated over 5 years for children's health care to make 
possible the coverage for every child who would be eligible in the 
country. That is 25 times as much as in the President's budget for that 
same period.
  We have also improved on the President's education numbers by 2008. 
In 2008, the budget resolution provides $62.3 billion compared to the 
President's budget for education of $56.2 billion for that year.
  Another key priority is veterans health care. I am especially proud 
of what we have done. We have matched, or exceeded, the independent 
budget prepared by the Nation's veterans organizations. We have matched 
or exceeded it in every single category except construction, where the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee tells us they could not spend the amount of 
money in the independent budget because they simply could not let the 
contracts in time. In comparison to the President, we are at $43.1 
billion for veterans funded, compared to the President's number of 
$39.6 billion.
  On the alternative minimum tax, the old millionaires' tax that is 
rapidly becoming a middle-class tax trap, we prevent the number of 
people being swept up into the AMT from increasing from 3.8 million 
last year. If we didn't take action, that would increase to over 23 
million in 2007. We prevent that increase from 3.8 million to over 23 
million.
  Similarly, in 2008, we prevent an increase to over 25 million 
people--largely the middle class--and to the upper side of the middle 
class from being caught up in the alternative minimum tax. That, by the 
way, is completely offset. Key priorities are the child health and 
family tax relief amendment. There is $15 billion in the budget 
resolution itself for children's health care. There is up to $35 
billion in a deficit-neutral reserve fund. We also now in the 
resolution, after the Baucus amendment, extend middle-class tax relief.
  We fully provide for marriage penalty tax relief, child tax credit, 
and the 10-percent bracket. We also provide for estate tax reform. 
Members will recall that we have this anomalous situation where we are 
going to go from $3.5 million of exemption per person under the estate 
tax in 2009--in 2011 it goes back to a million. We prevent that from 
occurring. So under the budget resolution, a couple could shield $7 
million in assets without paying a penny of tax, and it is indexed for 
inflation.
  The revenues in this resolution now, compared to the President's, are 
depicted on this chart. The green line is our revenues; the red line is 
the President's revenues. There is a difference of 1.8 percent now.
  Seen in a different way, if you look back at what the President 
initially proposed for revenue, the President proposed $14.826 trillion 
of revenue. We have in this resolution almost the identical amount; we 
have $14.827 trillion.
  So let me make clear that there is almost no difference in the 
revenue in this proposal compared to what the President initially 
proposed. Where would we get that slight difference in revenue? In the 
first place, there is no tax increase. We don't propose any tax 
increase in this budget resolution at all. I read some of the stories 
saying we have all these tax increases. We do not.
  We do believe more revenue can be gained. The first place to go is 
the tax gap. That is the difference between what is owed and what is 
paid. In 2001 alone, the Internal Revenue Service tells us the tax gap 
was $345 billion.
  Also, offshore tax havens. I have shown this picture many times. 
There is a five-story building in the Cayman Islands that is the home 
to 12,748 companies. Mr. President, this is a tax dodge. There are not 
over 12,000 companies doing business out of this building. They are 
doing monkey business out of this building. They are engaged in a 
massive tax evasion. This is the kind of thing we ought to shut down.
  Another committee of Congress has told us that there is $100 billion 
a year--over $500 billion over 5 years--being lost to the U.S. Treasury 
to these offshore tax haven scams. We suggest cutting that off, 
stopping it, recovering that revenue. In fact, that would more than 
cover, by a substantial amount, the revenue difference between us and 
what is in the President's proposal.
  Here is another example. This is a picture of a sewer system in 
Europe. What does a sewer system in Europe have to do with the budget 
of the United States? Unfortunately, a lot because wealthy investors 
and companies bought this sewer system in Europe, depreciated it on the 
books in the United States to reduce their tax in America, and then 
they leased the sewer system back to the European city that built it in 
the first place.
  There are hundreds of billions of dollars involved in these tax 
scams. It is growing, and it is a cancer that has to be stopped.
  This budget resolution also makes a beginning at addressing our long-
term fiscal challenges. We have $15 billion in Medicare savings. We 
have major program initiatives to crack down on waste, fraud, and 
abuse. We have a requirement that tax cuts and new mandatory spending 
be paid for with a tough pay-go provision. We have a long-term deficit 
increase point of order. We have a ``save Social Security first'' point 
of order. We have a health information technology reserve fund. The 
Rand Corporation told us that alone could save $81 billion a year.
  Finally, we have a comparative effectiveness reserve fund so that we 
go out and look at what are the most effective technologies and 
treatments in the medical area that work in one part of the country but 
have not yet been applied elsewhere. Health experts tell us massive 
savings could come from that initiative.
  Let me end as I began. This budget resolution takes us in a new 
direction, a better direction. This is a budget resolution which 
restores fiscal discipline. It will balance the books by 2012; it will 
meet the high-priority needs of the United States; it fully funds the 
President's defense request and his request for war costs; it has major 
tax reductions for those in the middle class so that we assure that 
middle-class tax breaks continue. It also provides for estate tax 
reform and, at the same time, begins to address the long-term fiscal 
challenges facing our Nation.
  I don't assert that this is a perfect budget. If I had a totally free 
hand, I am certain it would be different. But at the end of the day, 
the test for us is, can we write a budget for our country? In 3 of the 
last 5 years, there has not been a budget for the United States of 
America. Let me repeat that. In 3 of the last 5 years, there has not 
been a budget for the United States. It is our obligation and our 
responsibility to put a budget in place to begin the difficult task of 
balancing the books while meeting the priority needs of our Nation.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I begin by returning the courtesies of the 
chairman and doing it with sincerity. The chairman and his staff have 
been gracious and fair with us and, obviously, they are always 
professional. It is a pleasure to work with him and his staff.
  We do, obviously, have philosophical differences, but hopefully it is 
a reflection of how this place should work, which is we do it 
professionally, we don't game each other, we don't yell at each other--
sometimes we yell at each other--we basically air our views, make our 
points, go to our votes, and allow everybody to get their 2 cents in. 
That is the way this place should work, and it works because the 
chairman is courteous enough to allow us to accomplish that. I thank 
him for that and his

[[Page S3661]]

staff. They have done a great job here, as well as mine.
  I do agree the country needs a budget. That is critical. But 
regrettably, the budget he has brought forward is not a good budget for 
this country. It is a budget that is inconsistent in many areas, but at 
its essence is the fact that it spends a lot more money, grows the size 
of the Government, increases taxes a great deal, increases the debt a 
great deal and, regrettably, does not address the most essential issue 
we face today, which is the fiscal meltdown this country is going to 
face when we put on our children the cost of the Government as we head 
into the retirement of the baby boom generation.
  This chart reflects that situation. It is a little outdated because 
it was done earlier, and we don't have a chart machine like the 
chairman, but it essentially captures the concept that this budget has 
$700 billion in tax increases. That is the one number which is wrong on 
this chart because of the Baucus amendment being adopted--$700 billion 
of tax increases. That is the largest tax increase in the history of 
the country. There is $144 billion minimum in nondefense discretionary 
spending, $2 trillion of new debt, and it does nothing in the 
entitlement area.
  The inconsistencies in this budget are palpable. In the tax area, for 
example, this budget, as I mentioned, will be the largest tax increase 
in the history of the country and will take us down the road toward 
what is essentially a European tax system where essentially we are 
going to be looking at a total tax burden on the American people that 
will head toward the tax burden of the nation of France. When this 
budget reaches its end, it will be about a 19-percent to 19.5-percent 
tax burden on the American people. Historically, the Federal Government 
tax burden has been about 18.2 percent. That is a huge increase.
  The chairman holds up these charts which show the lines are very 
close between the President's tax increases and his tax increases. But 
his tax increases, as he says, recalculated now are about 2 percent 
higher than the President. Two percent is real money when you are 
talking a base of $3 trillion. In fact, 2 percent represents 
approximately a little more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in new 
taxes above what the President would have suggested.
  Those are huge tax increases which the American people are going to 
have to bear. The concept that keeps being put out here, that these are 
not going to be tax increases, that they are going to be found behind a 
curtain somewhere, is simply not defensible. It doesn't pass what I 
call the duck test. It is ducking the issue, basically. But it doesn't 
pass the duck test; that is, if it looks like a duck, walks like a 
duck, and talks like a duck, it must be a duck. When you put $700 
billion of new taxes into a budget, you are talking about raising taxes 
dramatically, you are talking about increasing taxes on working 
Americans dramatically, and that is what this budget does.
  In the pay-go area, this budget is also totally inconsistent. It says 
we are for pay-go. In fact, pay-go has become a solemn oath of the 
other side of the aisle. I read a New York Times editorial the other 
day that says pay-go is wonderful. Somebody tell the New York Times 
that the Democratic leadership, under this budget, has exempted most of 
their favorite programs from pay-go. They have pay-go for programs that 
maybe the Republican side of the aisle would support, such as not 
allowing taxes to increase--yes, they apply pay-go to that issue. But 
when they have their programs they think are important, they don't 
apply pay-go to it. In fact, they specifically exempt it. For example, 
the agriculture language is exempted from pay-go. It looks as if SCHIP 
may be exempted from pay-go. The Baucus tax proposal which came to the 
floor was exempted from pay-go. The AMT amount in this bill is exempted 
from pay-go. The simple fact is, pay-go has become Swiss cheese-go 
under this bill. There is no relevance at all because it is an 
arbitrary effort to keep one side from doing what they philosophically 
agree with while the other side ignores it or basically overrules it 
for what they like to do.
  The argument is that they haven't increased spending that much. Well, 
$144 billion in nondefense discretionary spending is a lot of money 
when you put it on top of the base. That is a big number. At least in 
New Hampshire it is a big number. I mean, $144 billion would run the 
State of New Hampshire for probably 20 years. Yet they claim it is not 
a big number.
  Then there is no talk again of the inconsistency in this, there is no 
talk about the fact that there are over 27 reserve funds representing a 
$200 billion cost in new programs should they be instituted. That is a 
growth of the Government--which, I am sure, not all of those will be 
instituted, but the game plan is there to institute them--$200 billion 
of potential expansion in the size of the Government.
  They take the position that they have added other programs by using 
the 920 account. There was an interesting debate yesterday where the 
chairman of the committee said to the Senator from Minnesota: We can't 
use 920 to address the extension of renewable tax credits relative to 
wind energy and issues such as that because that would cut veterans and 
it would cut health care and education. But he failed to mention to the 
Senator from Minnesota that there was already about $38 billion of the 
920 account in here. Mr. President, 920 is a euphemism for, well, we 
really don't know how we are going to pay for this, so we are going to 
use the 920 account, and that is allegedly a cut across the board. So 
there is another $40 billion of spending in this bill that probably, in 
the end, is going to occur and not get paid for.
  There are huge expenditures, huge expansion in the size of the 
Government, tremendous growth in the size of the Government in this 
bill.
  Then we have entitlement accounts. The chairman of the committee 
continues to allege he has $15 billion in entitlement savings in this 
bill. That is an impossible statement to make unless you are only 
willing to look at one part of the bill because in the other section of 
the bill, they spend $50 billion in new entitlement programs. So you 
can't claim you are saving money when you are expanding entitlement 
programs and not net the two out. It is totally inconsistent.
  This bill expands entitlement spending. It does not restrict 
entitlement growth. Ironically, it does it in a way that makes those 
programs probably not subject to pay-go when they are expanded.
  This is the biggest failure of this bill. The spending is pretty bad 
and the taxes have improved a little, but basically this is the biggest 
failure of this bill, the failure to address what the chairman has 
talked about--I agree with his discussions, I agree with his hearings--
has talked about the most severe problem we face as a nation; that is, 
the fact that when this baby boom generation retires, this Government 
becomes unaffordable for our children. The cost of three major 
entitlement programs--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--will 
actually exceed the total Federal Government cost as a percentage of 
gross national product by 2025, and we will have nothing available to 
do anything else or, alternatively, will have to tax our children into 
oblivion so they cannot enjoy a quality lifestyle. Yet this bill does 
nothing on that.
  We offered a reasonable amendment on this subject. We suggested that 
people earning more than $80,000 as individuals and $160,000 jointly 
should not be subsidized in their drug benefit by people working in 
restaurants across this country or working at gas stations or working 
on assembly lines, and it was rejected by the other side of the aisle.
  We suggested that hospitals and provider groups that are getting an 
inflated payment under the COLA by about 1.2 percent should have that 
inflated COLA payment reduced by about half. They will still be getting 
an extra half a percent, six-tenths of a percent in benefits, and that 
was rejected.
  If either of those had been accepted, we would have moved toward some 
semblance of getting under control this outyear instability in our 
Medicare fund. Those two amendments would have done more to make 
Medicare solvent than anything else we could do around here and thus 
make it available to seniors when they retire and have our children 
able to afford it. But that was rejected. There was no action at all in 
that area.
  The tax issue--have to come back to this issue. The idea that there 
is not a

[[Page S3662]]

tax increase in this bill is so patently absurd on its face that the 
first amendment out of the box offered by the Democratic leadership was 
to extend the tax cuts for certain tax cuts they felt they didn't want 
to have go up, and the reverse of that, of course, is they are willing 
to let the other tax cuts go up. That is obvious. That is just A 
follows B or 1 and 1 makes 2. So there is no question they are taxing.
  This idea that there is a comparison between the President's numbers 
and their numbers in tax increases, again is a total inconsistency. 
They use OMB to score the President's numbers and they use CBO to score 
their numbers. But if we score it apples to apples and oranges to 
oranges, we see the difference is significant. This was calculated 
before the Baucus amendment was adjusted, so these would be adjusted 
down somewhat, but the differences are still significant, somewhere in 
the range of $250 billion of difference if we compare apples to apples 
and oranges to oranges.
  When we peel everything away from this bill--I understand we are 
going to start voting at 9:30--all these inconsistencies, the fact that 
they don't use pay-go for programs they like but they do apply to 
positions which the Republicans might take, the fact that the tax 
increase in this budget is the largest in history and yet they claim 
there is no tax increase, the fact that the spending goes up 
dramatically and they claim spending doesn't go up, the fact that there 
is virtually--there are no savings in entitlements on a net basis and 
there is actually significant aggravation of the cost of entitlements 
for our children in this bill as a result of new programs which they 
anticipate, this bill is going to do significant damage to our economy, 
and it is going to grow the Government and make us larger.
  It comes down to a very simple fact, really, when we take everything 
away: This bill essentially is a classic Democratic tax-and-spend bill. 
That is all it is. Bigger taxes, bigger spending, bigger debt, larger 
Government, and as a practical matter, it is not going to be a 
constructive event for us as a nation. So I hope my colleagues, when we 
get to final passage, will vote against it. We are going to have a lot 
of votes here, but in the end, what is going to pass, if this bill 
passes, is your classic tax-and-spend bill.

  Mr. President, I believe we are supposed to start voting at this 
time.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I say the Senator now has hurt my 
feelings. Would the Senator's staff put up the caveman chart? That now 
has hurt my feelings. I don't know how I am going to be able to get 
through the day after the caveman chart. I don't think that is even a 
good likeness of the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. GREGG. I think this is actually the likeness of somebody from 
Nevada.
  Mr. CONRAD. OK.
  Mr. President, I think we now need to establish the order of the 
votes, or at least the first several votes, and for that purpose, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. 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.


                           Amendment No. 622

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask 
that it be reported.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 622.

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

  (Purpose: Point of order against using reconciliation to create new 
   mandatory programs and 20% limitation on spending reconciliation)

     SEC.  . POINT OF ORDER--20% LIMIT ON NEW DIRECT SPENDING IN 
                   RECONCILIATION LEGISLATION.

       (a)(1) In the Senate, it shall not be in order to consider 
     any reconciliation bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment, 
     or any conference report on, or an amendment between the 
     Houses in relation to, a reconciliation bill pursuant to 
     section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that 
     produces an increase in outlays, if--
       (A) the effect of all the provisions in the jurisdiction of 
     any committee is to create gross new direct spending that 
     exceeds 20% of the total savings instruction to the 
     committee; or
       (B) the effect of the adoption of an amendment would result 
     in gross new direct spending that exceeds 20% of the total 
     savings instruction to the committee.
       (2)(A) A point of order under paragraph (1) may be raised 
     by a Senator as provided in section 313( e) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (B) Paragraph (1) may be waived or suspended only by an 
     affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen 
     and sworn. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members 
     of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to 
     sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of 
     order raised under paragraph (1).
       (C) If a point of order is sustained under paragraph (1) 
     against a conference report in the Senate, the report shall 
     be disposed of as provided in section 313(d) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be accepted.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will not object. This, frankly, is a 
complicated amendment. I am not sure I fully understand all the 
implications or ramifications of it, but the basic notion that we try 
to make certain that reconciliation is used for deficit reduction is 
one I embrace and, in fact, one that is in the budget resolution before 
us.
  We have a requirement in this budget resolution that reconciliation 
only be used for deficit reduction. The amendment of the Senator from 
New Hampshire is an attempt to send that signal even more clearly, if I 
understand it correctly, and the Senator can correct me if I 
misinterpret it. That is my interpretation, and on that basis I would 
accept the amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from North Dakota the 
purpose of this amendment is to make it absolutely clear we do not make 
reconciliation a stalking-horse to spend money. You have to use it to 
reduce the deficit.
  Mr. CONRAD. Maybe we should explain what the term means. 
Reconciliation is a special process here in the Senate that gets around 
the regular order. It creates a superhighway to pass something. 
Reconciliation was designed and implemented to permit a fast-track 
basis for reducing deficits. Unfortunately, it can be abused and it has 
been abused in the past and used to actually increase deficits. That 
was never the intention.
  We have prevented that from occurring in the budget resolution. So 
this is an attempt to prevent something that would have minimal deficit 
reduction from being used as a stalking-horse for a significant 
expansion of spending.
  On that basis, I accept the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
adopted.
  The amendment (No. 622) was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator from Arkansas has an 
amendment, but do we have an order that indicates on every amendment 
that there be 2 minutes evenly divided and that there be no second 
degrees?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The order provides that once voting 
begins, there is 2 minutes between each amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. And do we have an agreement that there be no second 
degrees, but that we would reserve the right, based on the managers' 
decision, to have side-by-sides in any case where that is required? Do 
we have that as an order?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The order is not for second 
degrees.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both those 
provisions be in order, that we have 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided on a vote, that there be no second degrees, that at the 
discretion of the managers there be the opportunity for side-by-sides, 
and that we order rollcall votes at this juncture on all those votes 
that are presented.

[[Page S3663]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 601

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I believe I am limited to 1 minute; is that 
correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is the Senator offering an 
amendment?
  Mr. PRYOR. Yes, I offer amendment No. 601.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], for himself, and Mr. 
     Nelson of Florida, proposes an amendment numbered 601.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To establish a reserve fund to provide additional training 
   for physicians and attract more physicians in States that face a 
                  shortage of physicians in training)

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. RESERVE FUND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TRAINING FOR 
                   PHYSICIANS AND ATTRACT MORE PHYSICIANS IN 
                   STATES THAT FACE A SHORTAGE OF PHYSICIANS IN 
                   TRAINING.

       The Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee may revise the 
     aggregates, allocations, and other appropriate levels in this 
     resolution for a bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, 
     or conference report that provides additional training for 
     physicians and attracts more physicians in States that face a 
     shortage of physicians in training, provided that the 
     legislation would not increase the deficit over the total of 
     fiscal years 2007 through 2012.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to offer amendment No. 601, 
and I encourage my colleagues to look at it and vote for it.
  The statistics are that by the year 2020 this country will be tens of 
thousands--tens of thousands--short on doctors providing the medical 
care we need around this country. What this amendment does is it 
creates a reserve fund that would provide additional training for 
physicians and help to attract more physicians in States that face a 
shortage of physicians for training. It does not impose a prescriptive 
solution but creates a deficit-neutral reserve fund the Finance 
Committee can use to find the best way to help ensure citizens and 
States will have the number of physicians they need over the long term.
  I thank Senator Bill Nelson for cosponsoring the amendment, and also 
the majority leader and the chairman of the Finance Committee for 
supporting this amendment. This goes back to the mid 1990s, where there 
were some caps imposed. This doesn't change that, but it allows the 
Finance Committee the room during this budget cycle to try to help 
resolve that.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who requests time?
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest we do this amendment on a voice 
vote, and I ask unanimous consent that be the case.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 601.
  The amendment (No. 601) was agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 581

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have an amendment to the bill that 
creates a BRAC-type process for the rest of Government. I think this is 
one where we have a lot of priorities that people are interested in, 
yet nobody is for wasteful spending. So here is a process where we can 
actually reduce Federal spending in low-performing areas and be able to 
get the resources to spend in places we want to. It would be a BRAC-
type system, which we are familiar with, and it would apply it to the 
rest of Government.
  The commission of reports gives us one vote, up or down, without 
amendment, limited timeframe. This is a way we can responsibly, both 
parties, look at ways we can fund priorities in the future without 
raising taxes, and I hope that is what we are all about.
  We are familiar with how that BRAC process works. A lot of people 
aren't particularly happy when the report comes out, but it has worked 
and eliminated some $50 billion worth of lower priority military base 
spending. I don't know anybody who runs for Federal office or public 
office anywhere who is for wasteful Government spending. Here is a way 
of getting at it. Because the system is built to spend, this would 
actually change that system to give us a process that can be fair to 
both sides of the aisle, and ongoing in its effort to be able to get 
this allocation on a more appropriate basis.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote for the 
amendment, and I call up amendment No. 581 and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 581.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide funds for a Commission on Budgetary Accountability 
                    and Review of Federal Agencies)

       On page 24, line 12, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 24, line 13, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 24, line 16, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 24, line 17, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 24, line 20, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 24, line 21, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 24, line 24, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 24, line 25, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 25, line 3, increase the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 25, line 4, increase the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 26, line 16, decrease the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 26, line 20, decrease the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 26, line 24, decrease the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 26, line 25, decrease the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 27, line 3, decrease the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 27, line 4, decrease the amount by $4,000,000.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I inquire of the Senator whether he 
will accept a voice vote?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote aye on the 
Brownback amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on amendment No. 
581.
  The amendment (No. 581) was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. 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.


                           Amendment No. 623

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for 
immediate consideration. This is a technical amendment, agreed to by 
both sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 623.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To clarify the treatment of certain provisions in conference 
                                reports)

       On page 36, line 15, strike beginning with ``If'' through 
     line 19 and insert ``When the Senate is considering a 
     conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in 
     relation to, a bill, upon a point of order being made by any 
     Senator pursuant to this section, and such point of order 
     being sustained, such material contained in such conference 
     report shall be deemed stricken, and the Senate shall proceed 
     to consider the question of whether the Senate shall recede 
     from its amendment and concur with a further amendment, or 
     concur in the House amendment with a further amendment, as 
     the case may be, which further amendment shall consist of 
     only that portion of the conference report or House 
     amendment, as the case may be, not so stricken. Any such 
     motion in the Senate shall be debatable. In any case in which 
     such point of order is sustained against a conference report 
     (or Senate amendment derived from such conference report by 
     operation of this subsection), no further amendment shall be 
     in order.''.

[[Page S3664]]

       On page 39, line 19, strike beginning with ``If'' through 
     line 23 and insert ``When the Senate is considering a 
     conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in 
     relation to, a bill, upon a point of order being made by any 
     Senator pursuant to this section, and such point of order 
     being sustained, such material contained in such conference 
     report shall be deemed stricken, and the Senate shall proceed 
     to consider the question of whether the Senate shall recede 
     from its amendment and concur with a further amendment, or 
     concur in the House amendment with a further amendment, as 
     the case may be, which further amendment shall consist of 
     only that portion of the conference report or House 
     amendment, as the case may be, not so stricken. Any such 
     motion in the Senate shall be debatable. In any case in which 
     such point of order is sustained against a conference report 
     (or Senate amendment derived from such conference report by 
     operation of this subsection), no further amendment shall be 
     in order.''

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is to safeguard minority rights on a 
conference report. It was suggested by Senator Gregg and his staff. It 
is very well taken. It should be adopted.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be adopted.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 623) was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. 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.


                           Amendment No. 513

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina is 
recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, may I inquire, is amendment No. 513 next?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DeMINT. I have a minute to speak?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is the Senator offering the 
amendment?
  Mr. DeMINT. Yes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 513.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To provide for true deficit reduction in appropriations 
                                 bills)

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEFICIT REDUCTION PROTECTION POINT OF ORDER.

       (a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to 
     consider any appropriations bill that does not include the 
     following provision:
       ``Sec. __.  For deposit of an additional amount into the 
     account established under section 3113(d) of title 31, United 
     States Code, to reduce the public debt $____.''.
       (b) Enforcement.--For purposes of enforcing allocations 
     pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, any amendment that transfers budget authority (and the 
     outlays flowing therefrom) into the debt reduction account 
     provided by subsection (a) shall be scored so that the budget 
     authority continues to count towards the section 302(b) 
     allocation (with the outlays scored at the same level as 
     scored in the original account).
       (c) Waiver and Appeal.--In the Senate, subsection (a) may 
     be waived or suspended only by an affirmative vote of three-
     fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative 
     vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly 
     chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of 
     the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under 
     subsection (a).

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina is 
recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, this amendment is called the Debt 
Reduction Appropriation Account. Currently, while all of us, on both 
sides, are talking about the need to cut wasteful spending and try to 
trim the size of Government, our appropriations process does not allow 
for cutting spending and using it for debt reduction. This amendment 
establishes a debt reduction account for every appropriations bill so 
if during the debate of that appropriations bill we cut something in 
it, it will not be put back in the pot to be spent on something else. 
This account will be used for debt reduction, so if all of us have a 
debate about an item that should not be in a bill, it will go to debt 
reduction. It is a very simple debt reduction account for every 
appropriations bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Might I inquire from the Senator how this works? Perhaps 
this is something we could accept, but I need to understand how it 
works. Could the Senator tell me, as I looked at the amendment, on the 
bottom of the first page there is a blank, at least in the copy I have. 
It says, ``For deposit of an additional amount into the account 
established under section 3113(d) of title 31, United States Code, to 
reduce the public debt''--and then there is a blank. Is that filled in 
on the amendment of the Senator?
  Mr. DeMINT. No, it is not. There is no dollar amount although there 
is a dollar sign here. I will have to inquire how that ended up there, 
but this is not a requirement to put anything in the account. This is 
an account, a designated account. If an amount of money is actually cut 
from an appropriations bill, then it will reduce the 302(b) amount. 
That amount will effectively be in that account which goes to debt 
reduction.
  Mr. CONRAD. I see.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am constrained to resist this amendment 
because, as I understand it, what it does is, if the Appropriations 
Committee would cut in a certain area they would then be prevented from 
using that money in some other perhaps higher priority area. If there 
were savings in one area of the budget and Homeland Security needed 
additional funding, they would not be able to transfer the money.
  On that basis I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator yield for a clarification? His 
explanation, I am afraid, is not the amendment. We can still do what we 
normally do here, which is take money from one account and put it in 
another. But if a Senator wishes to reduce the amount of spending in a 
given area and does not designate it, there is an opportunity for it to 
go into a debt reduction account. So if we want to take money from any 
account and shift it to military or Defense, there is no prohibition in 
this amendment, so we do not change what we are able to do now. What we 
are not able to do now is, if we cut something and want that money to 
go to debt reduction--this amendment would simply allow, in the future, 
for us to designate it to an account rather than to additional 
spending.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, that is not my reading of how this 
amendment would function. I wish I had more time to analyze it. This is 
the first time I have seen it so I am in a very awkward position here. 
That is my reading of the amendment, so I have no alternative but to 
ask my colleagues to oppose it.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. CONRAD. The yeas and nays have already been ordered. I ask the 
yeas and nays be ordered on all these amendments so we don't have to go 
through that every time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is not appropriate to order the 
yeas and nays by unanimous consent.
  Is there a sufficient second on the yeas and nays on the DeMint 
amendment?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 38, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 99 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Allard
     Bayh
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell

[[Page S3665]]


     Sessions
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--61

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 513) was rejected.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that succeeding 
votes be 10-minute votes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Gregg and I have now visited about 
the number of outstanding amendments. There are over 60 outstanding 
amendments. We can do three an hour. That means, unless some of our 
colleagues relent, we are going to be voting for 20 hours. That is the 
simple math.
  I ask my colleagues on both sides, please, if you can withhold on 
your amendment and wait for another vehicle, we urge you to do that. We 
simply cannot spend the next 20 hours voting.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from North Dakota. 
I would note, in our batting order, we have Senator Bunning on Social 
Security, Senator Dole on IRAs for soldiers, Senator Allard on 
mandatory spending, Senator Smith on SCHIP, Senator Thomas has one on 
extraneous items in the supplemental.
  Then we will have, potentially, Senator Grassley and--Senator 
Sessions on AMT first. Then Senator Hatch is going to get in here. We 
are going to get Senator Hatch taken care of. That is the lineup on our 
side so people have some type of idea.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky is 
recognized.


                           amendment no. 621

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 621 at the desk be called 
up for immediate consideration. I have sent a copy of the amendment to 
the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 621.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund for a repeal of 
    the 1993 increase in the income tax on Social Security Benefits)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC.   . DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REPEAL OF THE 1993 
                   INCREASE IN THE INCOME TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY 
                   BENEFITS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this 
     resolution by the amounts provided by a bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that 
     would repeal the 1993 increase in the income tax on Social 
     Security benefits, provided that such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit over the total of the period of fiscal 
     years 2007 through 2012.

  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, my amendment would repeal an unfair tax 
that affects 15 million seniors. I have brought this issue before the 
Chamber before, so it should be familiar to many of my colleagues.
  When the Social Security Program was created, benefits were not 
taxed. In 1983, Congress decided that 50 percent of the benefits to 
seniors should be subject to tax. In 1993, we raised the amount to 85 
percent of Social Security benefits. This tax affects supposedly 
wealthy seniors with incomes of $34,000 for single seniors and $44,000 
for a couple.
  My amendment is fairly simple. It creates a deficit-neutral reserve 
fund to allow Congress to drop the tax back to its pre-1993 levels. 
This means that 85 percent of the tax would be eliminated.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky has done us all 
a favor by the way he has modified his amendment. It is an amendment we 
can accept. I ask if the Senator could accept a voice vote.
  Mr. BUNNING. Absolutely.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, in my statement earlier, I failed to 
mention we have an agreement that Senator Kyl's vote will come before 
11 o'clock.
  Mr. CONRAD. Correct. We will need to insert that.
  I ask unanimous consent that we accept the Bunning amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment (No. 621) was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. We would like to proceed to Senator Dole for the purpose 
of offering her amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Carolina is 
recognized for 1 minute.


                           Amendment No. 553

  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mrs. Dole] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 553.

  Mrs. DOLE. 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 extend financial relief for our reservists and national 
guard deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq by allowing them to make penalty 
   free withdrawals of their retirement funds through the year 2012)

       On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 3, line 23, decrease the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, decrease the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $2,000,000.

  Mrs. DOLE. The amendment I offer today is critical to our National 
Guard and reservists serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. It 
fixes a problem in the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Section 827 of 
that act allows National Guardsmen and reservists called into active 
duty for at least 6 months to make penalty-free early withdrawals from 
their IRA, 401(k), or 403(b) retirement accounts. This provision 
expires at the end of 2007. My amendment, which is fully offset, 
corrects this by extending this important provision through 2012.
  Our National Guardsmen and reservists always stand ready to put their 
lives on hold and answer the call of duty. They are putting themselves 
into harm's way to protect our freedoms and security. They can face 
lengthy deployments that cause major financial strains for their 
families. These outstanding men and women should continue to have 
penalty-free access to their retirement savings if they find themselves 
in a deployment-related financial crunch.
  I urge passage of the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are prepared to accept the amendment of 
the Senator from North Carolina. We urge our colleagues to accept it.
  I ask unanimous consent to agree to the amendment offered by Senator 
Dole.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment (No. 553) was agreed to.

[[Page S3666]]

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, next up is Senator Feinstein. She has an 
amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.


                           Amendment No. 574

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill. I 
call up amendment No. 574.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself, 
     Mr. Kyl, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 574.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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 provide an additional $543,000,000 for the State Criminal 
                       Alien Assistance Program)

       On page 23, line 12, increase the amount by $543,000,000.
       On page 23, line 13, increase the amount by $119,000,000.
       On page 23, line 17, increase the amount by $163,000,000.
       On page 23, line 21, increase the amount by $109,000,000.
       On page 23, line 25, increase the amount by $81,000,000.
       On page 24, line 4, increase the amount by $71,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $543,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $119,000,000.
       On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $163,000,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $109,000,000.
       On page 26, line 25, decrease the amount by $81,000,000.
       On page 27, line 4, decrease the amount by $71,000,000.
       At the end, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN 
                   ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Control of illegal immigration is a Federal 
     responsibility.
       (2) The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (referred 
     to in this section as ``SCAAP'') carried out pursuant to 
     section 241(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1231(i)) provides critical funding to States and 
     localities for reimbursement of costs incurred as a result of 
     housing undocumented criminal aliens.
       (3) Congress appropriated $300,000,000 for SCAAP to 
     reimburse State and local governments for those costs in 
     fiscal year 2004.
       (4) Congress appropriated $305,000,000 for SCAAP to 
     reimburse State and local governments for those costs in 
     fiscal year 2005.
       (5) Congress appropriated $405,000,000 for SCAAP to 
     reimburse State and local governments for those costs in 
     fiscal year 2006.
       (6) Congress appropriated $399,000,000 for SCAAP to 
     reimburse State and local governments for those costs in 
     fiscal year 2007.
       (7) Congress has authorized to be appropriated $950,000,000 
     to carry out SCAAP for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 
     2011.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the budgetary totals in this resolution assume that 
     $950,000,000 should be made available for SCAAP for fiscal 
     year 2008.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Boxer as a 
cosponsor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by 
Senator Kyl.
  SCAAP is a vital program to the States and localities to reimburse 
them for the costs associated with housing undocumented criminal 
aliens. Funding for SCAAP is authorized in the amount of $950 million 
for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 2011, but we have never fully 
funded SCAAP.
  Instead we have paid only pennies on the dollar for these costs. In 
my home State of California, there are currently over 20,000 criminal 
alien inmates. It costs California approximately $715 million per year 
to house these aliens.
  In 2007, Congress appropriated $399 million for SCAAP. In this budget 
resolution, SCAAP is funded at $407 million.
  In 2005, a total of 758 applications from 50 different States and the 
U.S. territories were submitted for fiscal year 2005 SCAAP funds.
  The real problem here is that the problem of illegal immigration is a 
Federal responsibility. Yet the Federal Government consistently shifts 
the costs for enforcing immigration laws onto our States. This cost-
shifting is not fair to State governments.
  My amendment makes SCAAP funding whole by providing an additional 
$543 million to this program.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent to adopt the Feinstein amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment (No. 574) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 473

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, next we have Senator Sessions to offer an 
amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 473 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is the amendment at the desk?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Sessions], for himself and 
     Mr. DeMint, proposes an amendment numbered 473.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To save families from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) first 
   by permitting a deduction for personal exemptions for purposes of 
                           computing the AMT)

       On page 3, line 10, decrease the amount by $6,494,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $2,594,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $9,100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, decrease the amount by $59,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $51,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $31,100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, decrease the amount by $6,494,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $2,594,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $9,100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 22, decrease the amount by $59,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 23, decrease the amount by $51,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, decrease the amount by $31,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $106,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $255,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, decrease the amount by $12,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $1,174,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $3,822,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $5,934,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $106,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $255,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, decrease the amount by $12,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $1,174,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $3,822,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $5.934,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $6,600,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, decrease the amount by $2,339,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, decrease the amount by $9,112,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $60,774,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $54,822,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, increase the amount by $37,034,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $6,600,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $4,261,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $4,852,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $55.923,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by 
     $110,745,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by 
     $147,779,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, increase the amount by $6,600,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, increase the amount by $4,261,000,000.
       On page 5, line 16, decrease the amount by $4,852,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $55,923,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by 
     $110,754,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by 
     $147,779,000,000.
       On page 25, line 8, increase the amount by $106,000,000.
       On page 25, line 9, increase the amount by $106,000,000.
       On page 25, line 12, increase the amount by $255,000,000.
       On page 25, line 13, increase the amount by $255,000,000.

[[Page S3667]]

       On page 25, line 16, decrease the amount by $12,000,000.
       On page 25, line 17, decrease the amount by $12,000,000.
       On page 25, line 20, increase the amount by $1,174,000,000.
       On page 25, line 21, increase the amount by $1,174,000,000.
       On page 25, line 24, increase the amount by $3,822,000,000.
       On page 25, line 25, increase the amount by $3,822,000,000.
       On page 26, line 3, increase the amount by $5,934,000,000.
       On page 26, line 4, increase the amount by $5,934,000,000.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this is an important amendment. It is 
not related to partisan votes that we have been casting, but it is a 
technical amendment that amends the nature of the AMT patch.
  The AMT patch is a huge tax reduction. It does eliminate about three-
fourths of the people who would pay taxes under the AMT. My amendment 
is fairer. It would include 87 percent as many, but the way it would 
fix the AMT and give relief would be to allow families to utilize their 
personal exemptions and their children's exemptions under the AMT 
accounting. That is not done today. As a result, seven times as many 
families with children are caught by AMT as are single persons. It is 
definitely striking at children and families. I urge that this be 
adopted because it is fairer, and it would reduce costs and save $82 
billion.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Sessions amendment would increase 
taxes in fiscal year 2008 by $2.6 billion. It would increase taxes in 
fiscal year 2009, for a total in those 2 years of $11.7 billion of tax 
increases. In later years, the Sessions amendment would provide 
additional revenue loss of $148 billion over 5 years. That busts the 
budget and takes us back into deficit. It is sort of the worst of all 
worlds. It increases taxes in the front end and then blows a hole in 
the budget.
  I urge colleagues to vote against the Sessions amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 473.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Sessions amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 100 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 473) was rejected.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who requests time?
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, next is the Nelson amendment. I say to 
colleagues, on the Nelson amendment and the succeeding Kyl amendment, 
there will be 6 minutes evenly divided.
  Mr. President, I ask Senator Gregg to remind Senators of whom we have 
left in terms of what is the rest of the order.
  Mr. GREGG. Unfortunately, it is not whom we have left, but it is what 
the order is. I wish it was what we had left. Anyway, we go to Senator 
Nelson and Senator Kyl, which are under a prior agreement to have both 
those votes before 11 o'clock; then Senator Hatch, Senator Allard, 
Senator Smith, Senator Thomas, Senator Specter, and Senator Graham on 
our side. We are picking up other people as they come along and ask for 
time. That is the order now. All those will require votes potentially.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nebraska is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 626

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Nelson of Nebraska], for 
     himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Baucus, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. 
     Stabenow, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Nelson of Florida, and Mr. Pryor, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 626.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To reform the estate tax to avoid subjecting thousands of 
families, family businesses, and family farms and ranches to the estate 
    tax, and to promote continued economic growth and job creation)

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. ESTATE TAX REFORM INITIATIVE.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the aggregates, allocations, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for a bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion, or conference report that would provide 
     for estate tax reform legislation that addresses the current 
     flaws in the estate tax law by establishing an estate tax 
     exemption level of $5,000,000, an estate tax rate of 35 
     percent, and a 5 percent surcharge on the largest estates, 
     provided that such legislation does not increase the deficit 
     over the total of fiscal years 2007 through 2012.

  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. President, this amendment provides a fiscally 
sound alternative for estate tax reform. It represents a fiscally sound 
approach to protecting family farms, ranches, and small businesses from 
the onerous estate tax. It is cosponsored by Senators Lincoln, Baucus, 
Landrieu, Stabenow, Salazar, Bill Nelson, and Mark Pryor. 
  The amendment provides for an estate tax reform initiative; the 
necessary next step to improving the estate tax component of the Baucus 
amendment adopted by an overwhelming margin of 97 to 1. This amendment 
gets us to a $5 million exemption and a 35 percent rate.
  I hope the day will come when we can fully repeal the estate tax 
forever, but unfortunately today is not that day. Unfortunately, the 
fiscal realities we face do not at this time allow for a permanent 
solution. That is why we must adopt this amendment to provide peace of 
mind for thousands of families who are planning to pass their business, 
farm, or ranch on to the next generation.
  Like the Kyl amendment, our amendment will allow us to accommodate 
the Landrieu proposal of a $5 million and 35 percent with a surcharge 
for the largest estates. Unlike the, Kyl amendment, this amendment is 
fiscally responsible and deficit neutral.
  I look forward to working with the cosponsors of this amendment and 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to enact meaningful estate tax 
reform this session, and eventually finding a permanent solution.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and join me in 
following through on the promise made in this amendment to extend 
estate tax relief with an exemption of $5 million and a top rate of 35 
percent.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor to Senator Lincoln from Arkansas.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arkansas is 
recognized.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Nelson, as 
well as Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley, who have helped us 
in the direction of moving forward to something that is realistic in 
terms of estate tax reform. We will

[[Page S3668]]

have the opportunity in the Finance Committee to be able to craft 
something that makes sense. But without what Senator Nelson and I and 
others are doing here, we will not have the direction to do that.
  Many of us know we have outlived the boundaries of the current estate 
tax law. We know in 2010 it may go away, but the fact is in 2011 it 
comes back at an old and arcane number.
  What we do is take what Senator Baucus has already done in the first 
amendment we voted on and adopted, and we increase it to a realistic 
and balanced level of a $5 million exemption and a 35-percent rate, and 
we do it with a reserve fund that will allow us to make sure we pay for 
it in a fiscally sound way when it comes through the Finance Committee.
  I have worked diligently on this issue since I have come to the 
Senate, recognizing that for our small businesses, our family 
businesses, and our family farms this is an essential component for 
them to be able to be aware of how they can plan for their finances to 
keep those family businesses in working order.
  So we appreciate it. I urge our colleagues, this is a great 
opportunity to have the Senate on record as moving forward on this 
issue. I encourage all of my colleagues to take a look at it and 
support us because it gives us an opportunity to get moving on this 
issue.
  Mr. President, I yield to my colleague, the Senator from Louisiana, 
Ms. Landrieu.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana has 10 
seconds.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds, 
please, and to have the same amount of time added to the other side.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this is the right compromise on the 
estate tax at the right time. It is going to bring order to this tax 
that should be paid. It is about what Kent Conrad has done, by 
generating a budget that generates surpluses, enabling us to give tax 
relief, so we can give tax relief to small businesses and farms and 
people who have built their businesses. That is what this amendment 
does: a $5 million exemption, a 35-percent rate, and we will continue 
to take it down as the money comes forward to do so.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time in opposition?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I am glad we are having the debate about the 
death tax. I regret the amendment I proposed a couple days ago was 
voted down. There were some suggestions it was because of the capital 
gains and dividends provisions that were tied to it. So I brought an 
amendment back with Senator Thune that would eliminate the capital 
gains and dividends part of it and simply have us vote, along with one 
education tax credit, for real reform to the death tax.
  Now, I want my colleagues on the Democratic side to appreciate--and I 
have certainly appreciated working with all three of them.
  Mr. BUNNING. Can we have order, please.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky is 
correct. Please take conversations out of the Chamber.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. I prefer not to be raising my 
voice, but I cannot hear myself.
  Let's understand what voting for the Democrat ``cover'' amendment 
would do. First of all, when we had a $5 million exemption we were 
talking about last year, all of the groups came to us and said: You 
have to index it for inflation or pretty soon it will not mean 
anything. The Kyl-Thune amendment is indexed for inflation, the $5 
million exempted amount. The amendment that is being proposed on the 
Democratic side is not indexed for inflation, and you will hear from 
groups such as the Farm Bureau and the NFIB and other groups that 
understand it has to be indexed for inflation.
  Secondly, you say the rate is 35 percent, but there is a surcharge 
for ``large'' estates. How are they defined? They are not defined. A 
majority of Americans, according to surveys, say rates above 35 percent 
are confiscatory. So the 40-percent top rate in this Democratic 
proposal is going to be a big problem for a lot of Americans, both 
those who have to pay and those who do not have to pay.
  Finally, with respect to the idea this is paid for, appreciate the 
big expenses for estate tax are after the year 2011. So it is folly to 
say this is paid for. Yes, you will have raised taxes by about $60 
billion to ``pay'' for this for the 5 years covered by the budget, but 
the reality is, it is not going to be paid for in the future.
  Do you know what. All of us--the Senator from Arkansas, the Senator 
from Nebraska, the Senator from Louisiana, and other Senators on the 
Democratic side--have in the past appreciated the fact that when it 
comes to death tax reform, we should not raise taxes on some taxpayers 
to provide this relief for the people who have to pay the death tax.
  The reality is, we should not have to raise money from one group of 
taxpayers to pay for the relief granted to this group. The reality is 
probably it is going to be the same group of folks.

  So I say to my friends who would want to suggest this is a ``cover'' 
amendment, that they can be just fine on this issue of death tax if 
they will vote for the proposal that is before us right now. That is 
not the case. If you want the real cover, that is to say the 
appreciation of the American people, reserve your aye vote for the Kyl-
Thune amendment which will come next.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There 
appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 626.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 25, nays 74, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 101 Leg.]

                                YEAS--25

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Byrd
     Cardin
     Casey
     Collins
     Feingold
     Inouye
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Salazar
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                                NAYS--74

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Obama
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
      
  The amendment (No. 626) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 583

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate my colleagues not 
supporting this proposition. There are two main--
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator have an amendment 
at the desk?
  Mr. KYL. I am sorry, Mr. President. I thought my amendment was at the 
desk. It is pending.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. KYL. There are two main differences between the amendment that 
was just rejected and the one which I hope we will all support. The 
first difference was that the $5 million exempted amount for estates 
was not indexed

[[Page S3669]]

for inflation. In the Kyl-Thune amendment, it is indexed for inflation. 
I think if you will all check with your folks, you will find they want 
this indexed for inflation.
  This is a little like AMT. At first it didn't hit very many people, 
but after awhile, it begins to hit a lot of people, primarily because 
of inflation. The same thing will occur here. The whole point of an 
exemption is so people would not have to worry about spending all the 
money on insurance and lawyers and accountants, and so on, to plan 
against the estate tax. That is why you want an exempted amount such as 
the $5 million, but it is important it doesn't get eroded over time. 
Again, one of the key differences between the amendment that was just 
rejected and this amendment, which I hope you will support, is this 
amendment is indexed for inflation.
  Secondly, most Americans believe that a 40- or 45- or 50-percent rate 
is confiscatory.
  The other difference between the amendment that just failed and the 
one I hope you will now support is that the maximum rate under this is 
35 percent. I still think that is too high.
  The amendment just agreed to had a maximum rate of 40 percent. I 
think 35 percent is too high, if you look at the various polls that 
have been taken. In any event, that is the maximum rate under this 
amendment. It has been supported by a bipartisan group on both sides of 
the aisle, which is why we sit at 35 percent, because the reality is 
that in order to have the estate tax reform, we are going to need a 
bipartisan coalition.
  My concluding remarks are to reach out to my friends on the other 
side of the aisle. My final plea is that we can demonstrate in a 
bipartisan way by supporting this amendment, which has enough 
flexibility in it because it is a budget amendment rather than a 
specific proposal, to accommodate nuances that Members on both sides of 
the aisle would like to see in estate tax reform.
  The time for reform has come. Adopting this amendment will make that 
point in a general way. Then we can sit down and work together to try 
to work something out that we can get passed. I would appreciate our 
colleagues expressing support for death tax reform by voting aye on the 
Kyl amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The Senator from North Dakota 
is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, there have been a number of statements 
about the previous amendments that are factually wrong. The previous 
amendment had a $5 million exemption per person, plus a top effective 
rate of 35 percent. My colleagues on the other side have misread the 
previous amendment. It had a top effective rate of 35 percent. I wanted 
to state that for the Record.
  The fundamental difference between the two is that the previous 
amendment was paid for. This amendment, by Senator Kyl, whom I respect, 
is not paid for. I would say to my colleagues, if this is a priority, 
why not pay for it? The hard reality is that if this amendment before 
us now is adopted--the Kyl amendment--it blows a hole in the budget, 
puts us back into deficit, after we have worked so hard all these hours 
to get a balanced budget by 2012. This proposal would put us back into 
deficit by over $15 billion in 2012. It would add $35 billion to the 
deficit.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. In the previous Baucus 
amendment, we provided for all of the middle-class tax cuts and 
fundamental and significant estate tax reform. It was paid for. This 
amendment is not. It ought to be rejected.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 seconds.
  Mr. KYL. I would like to make sure my colleagues don't think I was 
misstating a fact. The top effective rate is 35 percent, but there is a 
5-percent surcharge on the largest estates. Am I wrong in that?
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator is wrong. I know why the Senator is reading 
it to conclude that. My tax experts tell me that the way the 
interactive effect occurs, the top effective rate is never more than 35 
percent. I know why the Senator is reaching that conclusion. I would be 
glad to have my tax counsel visit with him because they assure me that 
in the previous amendment, the top effective rate was 35 percent. I 
know the Senator agreed about the 5-percent surcharge. I think time has 
expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to make a point. I have talked to 
the chairman and this will be a 10-minute vote, not a 15-minute vote. 
From here on out, they will all be. Anybody who is not here, you are 
going to miss it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
583.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second. There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 102 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                                NAYS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 583) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time? The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Gregg has indicated repeatedly 
that the 10-minute votes are just not being abided by. The only way 
they can be abided by is, No. 1, if people stay in the Chamber or very 
close to the Chamber. We are not going to finish this resolution unless 
we change the way we are doing business. We still have dozens and 
dozens of amendments remaining. We are going to be here until 1 o'clock 
this morning unless we change the way we do business.
  I have to ask the leadership if they will support going to 10-minute 
votes.
  Mr. REID. With no 5 minutes. That is fine with me.
  Mr. CONRAD. Does the leadership support that request?
  Mr. McCONNELL. We have been doing it.
  Mr. CONRAD. No, we have gone over.
  Mr. REID. We have gone 15 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the leadership support us going to 10-minutes votes?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I certainly think that is a good idea.
  Mr. CONRAD. Then the word has to go out that we are going to 10-
minute votes.
  I have to try to make amends on a previous debate. Senator Kyl 
indicated on the Nelson amendment that it appeared to be higher than a 
35-percent rate. There was reason for him to believe that, looking at 
the amendment. I want to make clear that while we believe the Nelson 
amendment had a top effective rate of 35 percent, just looking at the 
amendment, one could easily conclude that is not the case. So I want to 
make that clear. In no way were we denigrating Senator Kyl's honor with 
respect to accurately and honestly depicting that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his remarks. I 
appreciate

[[Page S3670]]

it. Certainly, I knew there was no attempt to suggest that I was 
misrepresenting. I try to read things very closely. This is one of the 
situations where apparently it could have been read both ways.
  I appreciate the comments of the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the clerks have a difficult time going 
through these votes in 10 minutes. They can do it, but it would be a 
lot easier if people will stay here and when their name is called 
answer ``yea'' or ``nay.'' The way it is, they have to go back and 
forth so many times that it is like a jigsaw puzzle they have to work 
out every time.
  The votes will be 10 minutes. There will be a 1-minute grace period. 
That is the way it is going to be. That is what everybody should 
acknowledge will happen. It is approaching noontime. We have a lot to 
do. We can condense this quickly, but people have to cooperate.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, for the information of Members on our side, 
the amendments, as they are presently lined up, are Senator Hatch, 
Senator Allard, Senator Smith, Senator Thomas, Senator Specter, Senator 
Graham, Senator Grassley, Senator Lott, myself, Senator DeMint, and 
Senator Thune.


                           Amendment No. 508

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 508.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 508.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a reserve fund for protecting coverage choices, 
additional benefits, and lower cost-sharing for Medicare beneficiaries)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. RESERVE FUND FOR PROTECTING COVERAGE CHOICES, 
                   ADDITIONAL BENEFITS, AND LOWER COST-SHARING FOR 
                   MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES.

       If the Senate Committee on Finance--
       (1) reports a bill, or if an amendment is offered thereto, 
     or if a conference report is submitted thereon, that--
       (A) implements improvements to the Medicare or Medicaid 
     programs under titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security 
     Act, respectively, or the State Children's Health Insurance 
     program under title XXI of such Act; and
       (B) does not--
       (i) lead to fewer coverage choices for Medicare 
     beneficiaries, especially for those beneficiaries in rural 
     areas; or
       (ii) result in reduced benefits or increased cost-sharing 
     for Medicare beneficiaries who choose a Medicare Advantage 
     plan under part C of such title XVIII, especially for low-
     income beneficiaries who depend on their Medicare Advantage 
     plan for protection from high out-of-pocket cost-sharing; and
       (2) is within its allocation as provided under section 
     302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,

     the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may revise 
     allocations of new budget authority and outlays, the revenue 
     aggregates, and other appropriate measures to reflect such 
     legislation provided that such legislation would not increase 
     the deficit for fiscal year 2008, and for the period of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have offered amendment No. 508 to ensure 
that Congress continues to protect Medicare beneficiaries' coverage 
choices, especially for those living in rural areas and low-income 
Medicare beneficiaries.
  My amendment establishes a budget-neutral reserve fund so that if 
Congress implements improvements to Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP, it may 
not do so in a way that leads to fewer coverage choices for Medicare 
beneficiaries. It also may not reduce the benefits of those 
beneficiaries who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans.
  Medicare Advantage plans provide a range of benefits not available in 
traditional Medicare such as vision and dental care, physical exams, 
and hearing aids.
  Medicare Advantage plans also have chronic care management programs 
to help beneficiaries with chronic illnesses such as diabetes or 
congestive heart failure better manage their conditions and stay 
healthy.
  I conclude by urging my colleagues to keep in mind the following:
  Beneficiaries across the Nation--whether they live in a rural State 
such as Utah or urban area such as New York City--now have more 
coverage choices.
  These choices offer beneficiaries more benefits and lower out of 
pocket costs.
  Beneficiaries are satisfied.
  Let's not forget that it was through policy decisions supported by 
Members on both sides of the aisle that helped achieve those results.
  And those results, in my opinion, are worth protecting for 
beneficiaries' sake. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters from the NAACP and LULAC 
opposing cuts to the Medicare Advantage Program be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Washington Bureau, National Association for the 
           Advancement of Colored People,
                                   Washington, DC, March 23, 2007.
     Re NAACP support for the Medicare Advantage Program.
     Members,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Association 
     for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), our nation's 
     oldest, largest, and most widely recognized grassroots civil 
     rights organization, I would like to express our deep concern 
     about efforts to reduce funding for the Medicare Advantage 
     (MA) program.
       The NAACP has a long history of working to ensure that 
     African Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities have 
     access to high-quality, affordable health care. That is why 
     we strongly support maintaining adequate funding for the 
     Medicare Advantage program that serves as a ``critical link'' 
     for accessing health care services, particularly for low-
     income and minority Medicare beneficiaries.
       MA plans--private health plan options that provide coverage 
     to 8.3 million Medicare beneficiaries--disproportionately 
     provide coverage to low-income and racial and ethnic minority 
     beneficiaries. Specifically, 40 percent of African Americans 
     without Medicaid or employer coverage rely on comprehensive 
     health insurance coverage provided by MA plans. By providing 
     more comprehensive benefits and lower cost-sharing than 
     traditional Medicare, MA plans help racial and ethnic 
     minority populations gain access to health care services that 
     are critical to their long-term health and well-being.
       Moreover, minorities also benefit from the care and disease 
     management offered by MA plans. These programs help assure 
     that members with chronic conditions such as heart disease, 
     diabetes, and asthma receive high-quality care by encouraging 
     timely and regular check-ups, access to preventive services, 
     and chronic care management programs. Access to coordinated 
     care and disease management services are especially critical 
     to minorities who are more likely to suffer from common 
     chronic health conditions, such as diabetes, asthma, 
     respiratory disease, and certain forms of cancer.
       Reduced funding for the MA program would have a negative 
     impact on the health and health care of millions of Medicare 
     beneficiaries--particularly for low-income and minority 
     beneficiaries. A study by Emory University's Kenneth Thorpe, 
     Ph.D., found that without MA, 2 million Medicare 
     beneficiaries would lose all supplemental coverage. Racial 
     and ethnic minorities would be especially hard hit, with the 
     number of African-Americans without supplemental coverage 
     rising to 59 percent.
       As Congress continues to debate efforts to expand access to 
     high-quality, affordable care, we urge you not to backtrack 
     on these priorities by cutting funding for the MA program. 
     This program is vitally important to the health and well-
     being of racial and ethnic minorities who rely on MA to 
     provide them with the comprehensive, affordable, and 
     coordinated care they need.
       Thank you in advance for your attention to the NAACP 
     position on this matter. Should you have any questions or 
     comments, I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                Hilary O. Shelton,
     Director.
                                  ____

                                                  League of United


                                      Latin American Citizens,

                                   Washington, DC, March 14, 2007.
     Member of Congress,
     U.S. Senate and House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Member of Congress: I am writing on behalf of the 
     League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)--the oldest 
     and largest Hispanic membership organization in the United 
     States--to urge your opposition to efforts by some Members of 
     Congress to reduce funding for the Medicare Advantage (MA) 
     program.
       LULAC's mission is to advance the economic condition, 
     educational attainment, health and civil rights of Hispanic 
     Americans. Ensuring access to high quality, affordable health 
     care is one of our top priorities, and one that is especially 
     critical in the Hispanic community. We firmly believe 
     Medicare Advantage is helping meet this challenge for 
     Hispanic seniors.
       Medicare Advantage is vital to the well-being of Hispanic 
     Medicare beneficiaries. According to a 2005 study by Ken 
     Thorpe, Ph.D.,

[[Page S3671]]

     of Emory University, Hispanics rely disproportionately on the 
     Medicare Advantage program. According to this study, more 
     than half (53 percent) of Hispanic beneficiaries without 
     Medicaid or employer-based coverage are enrolled in an MA 
     plans where they are available.
       MA plans are important because they provide enhanced 
     benefits and lower cost-sharing than traditional Medicare. 
     According to CMS, MA enrollees save $86 per month when 
     compared to beneficiaries in traditional Medicare. We are 
     concerned that additional cuts in funding for Medicare 
     Advantage will threaten access to comprehensive benefits, 
     result in higher out-of-pocket health care costs, and create 
     financial barriers to care that will be particularly harmful 
     for Hispanic seniors.
       The coordinated care and disease management offered under 
     Medicare Advantage plans is especially critical for Hispanic 
     Medicare beneficiaries, who are more likely to suffer from 
     chronic conditions such as diabetes, asthma, and certain 
     forms of cancer. These programs help assure that members with 
     chronic conditions benefit from care management and 
     coordination initiatives, which promote appropriate treatment 
     and medication use, reduce the risk of adverse events, and 
     optimize therapeutic outcomes.
       LULAC calls upon your leadership to oppose these cuts and 
     fund MA programs to sustainable levels.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Rosa Rosales,
                                         LULAC National President.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on April 11, the Finance Committee is 
going to be holding a hearing on Medicare Advantage plans and other 
providers' plans that affect Medicare. We want to do this right. We 
want to do this in a very thoughtful, considerate way.
  There are Medicare Advantage plans that are doing a lot of good work. 
That is clear. Certainly, the Finance Committee, of which Senator Hatch 
is a member--and we have the April 11 hearing--is going to deal with 
this issue. I urge Members to do this the right way, and the right way 
is to figure out what to do generally with all Medicare providers, 
including managed care. Again, there are managed care companies that 
are very good and provide benefits for seniors. Dental has already been 
mentioned by the good Senator from Utah. The more thoughtful way is to 
not hamstring the committee by preventing the committee from making any 
changes to these programs. Rather, let's be thoughtful, flexible.
  I urge Members not to approve this amendment.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 508. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 103 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--50

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 508) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are making progress, but we are not 
making progress fast enough. If we stick to this current pace, and 
people insist on the number of amendments that are still outstanding, 
we are going to be here all night. Staff just informed me that is the 
reality.
  Please, if you can withhold and offer them on a separate vehicle, do 
that.
  Senator Allard is next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                           Amendment No. 521

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 521 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 521.

  Mr. ALLARD. 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 improve the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of 
  Federal programs and reduce the Federal debt by eliminating waste, 
                           fraud, and abuse)

       At the end of the resolution, insert the following:

                        TITLE IV--RECONCILIATION

     SEC. 401. SPENDING RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE 
                   ELIMINATION OF WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE IN 
                   MANDATORY PROGRAMS.

       (a) Spending Reconciliation Instructions.--In the Senate, 
     not later than June 29, 2007, the Senate committees named in 
     this section shall submit their recommendations to the Senate 
     Committee on the Budget. After receiving those 
     recommendations, the Senate Committee on the Budget shall 
     report to the Senate a reconciliation bill carrying out all 
     such recommendations without any substantive revision.
       (b) Special Scorekeeping Rule in the Senate.--
       (1) Report to senate budget committee.--If a reconciliation 
     bill is enacted under this section, the Congressional Budget 
     Office, pursuant to section 202 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974, shall send a report to the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget--
       (A) whether that measure contains provisions that decrease 
     budget authority or outlays from the elimination of waste, 
     fraud, and abuse; and
       (B) the amount of budget authority or outlays reduced each 
     year attributable to the elimination of waste, fraud, and 
     abuse in the bill, including the current year, the budget 
     year, and for each of the 10 years following the current 
     year.
       (2) Exclusion from pay-as-you-go scorecard.--Any budget 
     authority or outlays reduced from provisions eliminating 
     waste, fraud, and abuse (as detailed in the report required 
     by paragraph (1)) shall not count as offsets for purposes of 
     section 201 of this resolution.
       (c) Committees.--
       (1) Committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry.--The 
     Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the level of direct spending for that 
     committee by $686,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2008 and 
     $3,577,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2012.
       (2) Committee on banking, housing and urban affairs.--The 
     Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs shall 
     report changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to 
     reduce the level of direct spending for that committee by 
     $113,000,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year 2008 and 
     $529,000,000 in new budget authority for the period of fiscal 
     years 2008 through 2012.
       (3) Committee on commerce, science and transportation.--The 
     Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the level of direct spending for that 
     committee by $110,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2008 and 
     $545,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2012.
       (4) Committee on energy and natural resources.--The Senate 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     the level of direct spending for that committee by 
     $48,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2008 and $250,000,000 
     in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
       (5)  Committee on environment and public works.--The Senate 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works shall report 
     changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce 
     the level of direct spending for that committee by 
     $18,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2008 and $97,000,000 
     in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
       (6) Committee on finance.--The Senate Committee on Finance 
     shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the level of direct spending for that

[[Page S3672]]

     committee by $10,406,000,000 in budget authority for fiscal 
     year 2008 and $58,820,000,000 in outlays for the period of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
       (7) Committee on foreign relations.--The Senate Committee 
     on Foreign Relations shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $148,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2008 and $665,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
       (8) Committee on homeland security and governmental 
     affairs.--The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $1,063,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2008 and $5,784,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
       (9) Committee on the judiciary.--The Senate Committee on 
     the Judiciary shall report changes in laws within its 
     jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct 
     spending for that committee by $81,000,000 in outlays for 
     fiscal year 2008 and $406,000,000 in outlays for the period 
     of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
       (10) Committee on health, education, labor and pensions.--
     The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction 
     sufficient to reduce the level of direct spending for that 
     committee by $145,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2008 and 
     $778,000,000 in outlays for the period of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2012.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, this is an amendment that puts in 
reconciliation language a 1-percent reduction in spending in the 
mandatory programs that have been identified as having fraud, waste, 
and abuse. It excludes Armed Services, Veterans, and Social Security.
  The amendment comes about because of the 2004 budget resolution, 
where Congress directed the Comptroller General to submit a 
comprehensive report identifying instances in which the committees of 
jurisdiction may make legislative changes to improve the economy, 
efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal programs in their 
jurisdiction.
  In compliance with our request, the GAO submitted a 300-plus-page 
report full of specific examples of legislative changes with potential 
to yield budgetary savings. This will reduce the debt by $13 billion 
the first budget year and $71 billion over 5 years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this amendment, if it were adopted, would 
cut Medicare and Medicaid by $58.8 billion. It would cut the Homeland 
Security Committee by $5.8 billion. It would cut the Agriculture 
Committee by $3.6 billion.
  Beyond that, Mr. President, the pending amendment is not germane. 
Therefore, I raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 
305(b)2 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and I urge a ``no'' 
vote.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask that we waive the point of order, 
and I call for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 39, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 104 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 39, the nays are 
60. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment fails.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.


                     Amendment No. 510, as Modified

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the next amendment is the Smith amendment.
  Let me just say we have to get colleagues to cooperate a little more 
on reducing the number of amendments they are insisting on or we are 
going to be here late into the night. That is just what the reality is. 
Please, colleagues, withhold.
  Senator Smith is next.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 510 and ask that it 
be modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 510, as modified.

  Mr. SMITH. 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:

       At the end of section 301, add the following: ``Among the 
     policy changes that could be considered to achieve offsets to 
     the cost of reauthorizing the State Children's Health 
     Insurance Program and expanding coverage for children is an 
     increase in the tobacco products user fee rate with all 
     revenue generated by such increase dedicated to such 
     reauthorization and expansion.''.

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I also ask that Senator Kennedy, at his 
request, be added as an original cosponsor to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, since the beginning of this Congress, I 
have heard colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and 
Democrats, talk about their determination to reauthorize and fund SCHIP 
to keep its promise to America's children, especially those with low 
income. This amendment is the one amendment that proposes a real policy 
that will raise real dollars so we can take a meaningful step in 
keeping the promise of SCHIP. It proposes a reasonable increase in the 
tobacco tax that would provide up to $35 billion to help in this 
reauthorization, keeping this very important promise to millions of 
America's children.
  I believe this is a defining moment. Put politics aside and do 
something the American people can be proud of.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition? The Senator 
from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we would be pleased to accept this 
amendment on a voice vote.
  Mr. BUNNING. I object.
  Mr. CONRAD. If objection is heard--Senators can vote however they 
think is the right way. We certainly always have that right; Senators 
always have that right.
  On this side, I urge Senators to vote aye.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 510, as modified. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 105 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd

[[Page S3673]]


     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Nelson (NE)
     Reid
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 510), as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.


 Amendments Nos. 519, 499, 528, 546, 602, 619, 490, 616, 620, 615, and 
                              614, en bloc



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On Page S3673, March 23, 2007, there are several references to 
amendment No. 626.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: all references to 
amendment No. 626 have been changed to read amendment No. 620.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Gregg and I have worked through a 
number of amendments, and I will now send that package to the desk and 
ask that the amendments be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be 
laid on the table.
  The list of amendments includes: Lieberman-Collins No. 519; Burr No. 
499; Biden No. 528; Thune No. 546; Kennedy No. 602; Chambliss-Feinstein 
No. 619; Reid-Sanders No. 490; Kerry-Sanders No. 616; Webb-Warner No. 
620; Kerry No. 615; and Graham No. 614.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 519

   (Purpose: To increase funding for vital first responder homeland 
  security programs, including $400,000,000 to establish a dedicated 
     interoperability grant program and $331,000,000 for Emergency 
                     Management Performance Grants)

       On page 16, line 10, increase the amount by $731,000,000.
       On page 16, line 11, increase the amount by $156,000,000.
       On page 16, line 15, increase the amount by $232,000,000.
       On page 16, line 19, increase the amount by $181,000,000.
       On page 16, line 23, increase the amount by $133,000,000.
       On page 17, line 3, increase the amount by $28,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $731,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $156,000,000.
       On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $232,000,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $181,000,000.
       On page 26, line 25, decrease the amount by $133,000,000.
       On page 27, line 4, decrease the amount by $28,000,000.


                           amendment no. 499

   (Purpose: To develop biodefense medical countermeasures by fully 
  funding the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority 
               (BARDA) in a fiscally responsible manner)

       On page 18, line 12, increase the amount by $140,000,000.
       On page 18, line 13, increase the amount by $84,000,000.
       On page 18, line 17, increase the amount by $42,000,000.
       On page 18, line 21, increase the amount by $14,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $140,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $84,000,000.
       On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $42,000,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $14,000,000.


                           amendment no. 528

(Purpose: To increase funding by $100 million for the Violence Against 
Women Act (VAWA) programs administered by the Department of Justice and 
   the Department of Health and Human Services, with an offset of an 
  unallocated reduction to non-defense discretionary spending and/or 
                 reduction to administrative expenses)

       On page 18, line 12, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 18, line 13, increase the amount by $11,000,000.
       On page 18, line 17, increase the amount by $18,000,000.
       On page 18, line 21, increase the amount by $9,000,000.
       On page 23, line 12, increase the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 23, line 13, increase the amount by $13,000,000.
       On page 23, line 17, increase the amount by $18,000,000.
       On page 23, line 21, increase the amount by $12,000,000.
       On page 23, line 25, increase the amount by $9,000,000.
       On page 24, line 4, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $24,000,000.
       On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $36,000,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $21,000,000.
       On page 26, line 25, decrease the amount by $9,000,000.
       On page 27, line 4, decrease the amount by $8,000,000.


                           amendment no. 546

   (Purpose: To provide for a total of $99,000,000 in COPS Hot Spots 
             funding, as authorized in the Combat Meth Act)

       On page 23, line 12, increase the amount by $29,000,000.
       On page 23, line 13, increase the amount by $26,100,000.
       On page 23, line 17, increase the amount by $2,900,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $29,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $26,100,000.
       On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $2,900,000.


                           Amendment No. 602

(Purpose: To increase funding for drug safety oversight at the Food and 
        Drug Administration by $40,000,000 in fiscal year 2008)

       On page 18, line 12, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 18, line 13, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
       On page 18, line 17, increase the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount $36,000,000.
       On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $4,000,000.


                           amendment no. 619

  (Purpose: To provide Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant 
    Program finding as authorized in the Violence Against Women and 
           Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005)

       On page 23, line 12, increase the amount by $376,000,000.
       On page 23, line 13, increase the amount by $338,400,000.
       On page 23, line 17, increase the amount by $37,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $376,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $338,400,000.
       On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $37,000,000.


                           amendment no. 490

 (Purpose: To provide funding to eliminate the offset between military 
   retirement pay and disability compensation for America's veterans)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ELIMINATING 
                   MILITARY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY OFFSET.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this 
     resolution for a bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, 
     or conference report that would extend eligibility for 
     concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and veterans' 
     disability compensation or would expand eligibility for 
     Combat-Related Special Compensation to permit additional 
     disabled retirees to receive both disability compensation and 
     retired pay, by the amounts provided by such legislation for 
     that purpose, provided that the legislation would not 
     increase the deficit over the total of fiscal years 2007 
     through 2012.


                           amendment no. 616

(Purpose: To increase funding for small business programs at the Small 
 Business Administration such as microloans, Women's Business Centers, 
                and Small Business Development Centers)

       On page 14, line 9, increase the amount by $97,000,000.
       On page 14, line 10, increase the amount by $75,000,000.
       On page 14, line 14, increase the amount by $16,000,000.
       On page 14, line 18, increase the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 14, line 22, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $97,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $75,000,000.
       On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $16,000,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 26, line 25, decrease the amount by $1,000,000.


                           amendment no. 620

 (Purpose: To provide funding for NASA aeronautics at the fiscal year 
                              2007 levels)

       On page 15, line 9, increase the amount by $163,000,000.
       On page 15, line 10, increase the amount by $163,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $163,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $163,000,000.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On Page S3673, March 23, 2007, the following appears: Amendment 
No. 626 (Purpose: To reform the estate tax to avoid subjecting 
thousands of families, family businesses, and family farms and 
ranches to the estate tax, and to promote continued economic 
growth and job creation) At the end of title III, insert the 
following:
  
  The online version has also been corrected to read: (Purpose: To 
provide funding for NASA aeronautics at the fiscal year 2007 
levels)
  
  On Page 15, line 9, increase the amount by $163,000,000.
  
  On Page 15, line 10, increase the amount by $163,000,000.
  
  On Page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $163,000,000.
  
  On Page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $163,000,000.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


[[Page S3674]]

                           amendment no. 615

  (Purpose: To include in the veterans' reserve fund services for low-
                      vision and blinded veterans)

       On page 59, line 7, after ``erans,'' insert ``including 
     services for low-vision and blinded veterans,''.


                           amendment no. 614

   (Purpose: To increase the budgetary totals for the Department of 
  Commerce to provide additional trade enforcement capability and to 
                           provide an offset)

       On page 9, line 8, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 9, line 9, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 9, line 12, increase the amount by $______.
       On page 9, line 13, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 9, line 16, increase the amount by $______.
       On page 9, line 17, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 14, line 9, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 14, line 10, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 14, line 13, increase the amount by $______.
       On page 14, line 14, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 14, line 17, increase the amount by $______.
       On page 14, line 18, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 23, line 12, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 23, line 13, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 23, line 16, increase the amount by $______.
       On page 23, line 17, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 24, line 20, increase the amount by $______.
       On page 23, line 21, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 14, line 17, increase the amount by $______.
       On page 14, line 18, increase the amount by $______.
       On page 24, line 12, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 24, line 13, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 24, line 16, increase the amount by $______.
       On page 24, line 17, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 24, line 20, increase the amount by $______.
       On page 24, line 21, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 26, line 16, decrease the amount by $______.
       On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 26, line 20, decrease the amount by $______.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $4,000,000.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of an 
amendment to the budget resolution that Senator Chambliss and I have 
offered to increase FY2008 funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial 
Justice Assistance Grant program to $900 million.
  The need for this amendment is clear. This country is currently 
experiencing a violent crime surge unlike anything we have seen in more 
than a decade. Just a few weeks ago, the Police Executive Research 
Forum reported that their survey of 56 cities and sheriffs' departments 
showed that, from 2004 to 2006, homicides increased overall by 10 
percent, aggravated assaults with guns rose 10 percent, and robberies 
rose 12 percent. In just 2 years.
  Of course, these updated survey results mirror the FBI's own 
statistics, which showed that in 2005 violent crime rose in every 
region of the country, and by 2.5 percent overall--the largest reported 
increase in 15 years. For the first 6 months of 2006, the surge in 
violent crime was even worse--3.7 percent overall, according to the 
FBI.
  Let me put these numbers in human terms. The International 
Association of Chiefs of Police equates this 2.5 percent rise to 31,479 
more victims of violent crime in 2005. And a 3.7 percent increase for 
all of 2006, it says, equates to about 47,000 more Americans murdered, 
robbed, assaulted, raped, or subjected to violent crimes last year.
  Unfortunately, despite these disturbing numbers, the President's 
budget proposal for FY2008 continued to propose drastic cuts in the 
Federal assistance traditionally available to State and local law 
enforcement.
  Listen to the warning cry that the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police recently issued:

       [T]he cuts contained in the proposed FY 2008 budget have 
     the potential to cripple the capabilities of law enforcement 
     agencies nationwide and force many departments to take 
     officers off the streets, leading to more crime and violence 
     in our hometowns and, ultimately, less security for our 
     homeland.

  These are strong words, but they make sense in the wake of the 
drastic Federal cuts we have seen to State and local law enforcement, 
especially in the last few years.
  In FY2007, the total funding level for State, tribal and local law 
enforcement assistance was $2.316 billion. That was already more than 
$1.5 billion below the level given only 5 years earlier, when DOJ 
funded programs for state and local law enforcement totaled $3.831 
billion.
  Last year's $2.316 billion amount included not only Byrne/JAG, but 
also the COPS program and 17 other State and Local Law Enforcement 
Assistance grant programs, including the State Criminal Alien 
Assistance Program, SCAAP; Tribal Courts Initiative, and other programs 
to promote Drug Courts, Prescription Drug Monitoring, Cannabis 
Eradication, and State and Local Intelligence Capabilities.
  For FY2008, however, the President remarkably proposed to eliminate 
all 17 of these programs. In their place, it proposed only two 
consolidated programs, one of which would be called the Byrne Public 
Safety Program, or BPSP. Unfortunately, even when BPSP was combined 
with the President's other proposed programs, its total budgeted amount 
for FY2008 was only $582 million--a $1.7 billion cut from the already-
depleted FY2007 number.
  In other words, the President's budgeted $582 million represented an 
85 percent cut in these funds in just 6 years. And to make matters 
worse, the President's FY2008 budget also proposed more than $500 
million in cuts to the DHS grant programs traditionally available to 
State and local law enforcement.
  During the 1990s and earlier years in this decade, our Federal 
Government vigorously funded grants programs for State and local law 
enforcement. And we saw results--violent crime went down year after 
year. But with the recent cuts, violent crime rates have now turned 
back up. Literally tens of thousands of additional Americans each year 
have become victims of violent crime.
  It is time for the Senate to add substantial Byrne/JAG funding to 
this year's budget resolution--just as we have done in the past 2 
years. In FY2006 and again in FY2007, this Senate voted to increase 
Byrne/JAG to $900 million--even after President Bush and previous 
Budget Committees tried to ``zero out'' this program.
  I recognize and appreciate that Senator Conrad and his Budget 
Committee in the new Congress have taken a very different view of 
Byrne/JAG. I applaud their decision to reject the much smaller budget 
figure for Byrne/JAG that was contained in the President's Budget, as 
well as the decision to reject the President's proposal to consolidate 
Byrne/JAG with other grant programs and eliminate its formula funding. 
This is a major step forward.
  Unfortunately, however, it just is not enough. At a time when this 
country is seeing the biggest surge in violent crime it has experienced 
in more than a decade, using FY2007 levels that are $1.5 billion below 
FY2002 levels will not do the trick. The Senate must do more--just as 
we rose to the occasion and voted to do more in the past.
  After a Byrne/JAG amendment was offered on the budget resolution last 
year, we were confronted in June with the sharply higher 2005 violent 
crime numbers reported by the FBI. And in December, the FBI gave us 
even worse violent crime numbers for the first half of 2006. Given 
these disturbing trends, the Senate needs to restore these needed funds 
to the Byrne/JAG program.
  I understand that this budget is tight, and I appreciate the 
difficult tradeoffs involved. But at a time when

[[Page S3675]]

we are about to consider a Supplemental Appropriations bill that may 
add more than $100 billion so that we can try to secure the streets of 
Baghdad against violence, I do not think that it's asking too much for 
us to spend the funds we need to secure our own streets from the 
violence that the FBI says we are increasingly seeing.
  Homeland security is undoubtedly important, but so is home town 
security.
  The Byrne/JAG program, named after slain New York Police Officer 
Edward Byrne, is a time-tested program run by DOJ that has proven its 
effectiveness over the course of more than 20 years. It is a key source 
of funding for multi-jurisdictional task forces. And because 40 percent 
of a State's Byrne/JAG funds must be set aside for local governments, 
smaller and rural law enforcement agencies are often especially 
dependent on Byrne/JAG to meet their needs.
  Increased funding for Byrne/JAG has been endorsed by a wide array of 
law enforcement groups, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
important amendment.


                           Amendment No. 616

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for 
supporting the amendment Senator Snowe and I offered to provide an 
additional $97 million to the Small Business Administration. This 
amendment was necessary because the President's budget request of $464 
million was inadequate to fund the agency's core programs.
  This, unfortunately, is nothing new. Since the President took office 
in 2001, he has cut the SBA, the only Federal agency dedicated to the 
startup and growth of small businesses, more than any other agency. If 
we exclude disaster loan funding, the President has cut the SBA by more 
than 30 percent.
  As a result of the President's cuts, SBA's loans and venture capital 
are more expensive, shifting more than $100 million in fees to the 
small business community, businesses are getting less counseling, and 
they are losing out on opportunities to do business with the Federal 
Government, a very serious problem since the Federal Government spends 
about $370 billion on contracting for services and goods each year.
  Consequently, the baseline funding for the SBA is so low that it has 
made it very hard for Congress to reverse the President's cuts. 
Nevertheless, Senator Conrad and his Committee were able to increase by 
$635 million the account--referred to as function 370--that provides 
funding for the SBA and other agencies. I congratulate them, and thank 
them. They have demonstrated that it is possible to provide reasonable 
funding for effective initiatives and still put the country back on 
track to a balanced budget.
  Among the most disturbing proposed cuts to the SBA in fiscal year 
2008, the President has for the fourth year in a row eliminated all 
funding for the Microloan program and for Microloan Technical 
Assistance. This is very hard to justify given that the administration 
is willing to spend so much on micro-credit in other countries. In 
2005, the administration provided approximately $211 million for the 
development of foreign microenterprise programs through the Agency for 
International Development. In fiscal year 2006, we are told by 
Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, that the 
administration provided more than $54 million for microloans in Iraq. 
And for fiscal year 2007, the administration has requested supplemental 
funding for Iraq that includes at least $160 million for micro-credit 
programs.
  Our amendment restores the Microloan and Microloan technical 
assistance programs to the levels they were at in 2001--$3.2 million to 
leverage $30 million in loans and $20 million in technical assistance. 
Our amendment also restores the proposed cuts to the Women's Business 
Centers, the Small Business Development Centers, the Office of Veterans 
Business Development, and programs for the development of minority 
businesses and Native Americans. It restores $10 million in funding for 
the New Markets programs, which have never received support from this 
administration, in spite of claims about targeting areas of high 
unemployment.
  My one big regret is that this amendment does not provide funding for 
the 7(a) Loan Guaranty Program. My original budget amendment, No. 515, 
did include $79 million in order to reduce fees on borrowers and 
lenders, which could have gone a long way to making these loans more 
affordable. Right now, on the largest loans, borrowers are paying 
around $50,000 in fees when a conventional loan would only cost around 
$20,000 in fees. We need to get that cost down. I am very disappointed 
that the Republican leadership would not allow any funding for the 7(a) 
loans to be included in our amendment. I am hopeful that Senator Snowe 
and I, with our colleagues in the House, can continue to work on this 
and get funding for fee relief during the appropriations process.
  Aside from that one disappointment, I am very pleased with our 
amendment. It is reasonable and realistic. By restoring $97 million to 
the SBA, we bring its funding for fiscal year 2008 to $561 million. 
This is still $125 million--or 18 percent--less than SBA's funding in 
fiscal year 2001, and it is a fraction of the $2.9 trillion budget 
President Bush proposed for fiscal year 2008, but it will go a long way 
to fostering small business growth and sparking innovation.
  I thank Senator Snowe and our colleagues Senators Lieberman, Enzi, 
Cantwell, and Pryor for joining in this bipartisan effort.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee 
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise to draw attention to 
funding for our Nation's small businesses, which has systematically 
declined over the last 6 years and is inadequate in both the 
President's budget and this budget resolution before us. I first 
commend my colleage, Senator Kerry, for working with me on this 
bipartisan amendment to restore this critical funding for small 
businesses.
  This amendment would restore $97 million in funding to the Small 
Business Administration, an agency that contributes substantially to 
our economic growth. Since 2001 the SBA's overall budget has declined 
by an unacceptable 31 percent. Especially when one considers that small 
businesses are the backbone of our economy, breathing life into areas 
once devastated by manufacturing closures, disasters, and economic 
recessions, it is frankly beyond me why we continue to shrink the 
resources that actually help our Nation's job creators grow.
  Just last month, I heard firsthand from over 90 Maine small business 
manufacturers about the barriers that hinder their success and the 
programs that have helped manufacturers grow and expand their business 
like the SBA's 504, 7(a), SBDC and HUBZone programs. However, this 
budget falls short of providing the very programs that have helped 
revitalize Maine's and our Nation's communities devastated by over 
20,700 manufacturing job losses since 2000.
  This amendment is about the 25.8 million small businesses and small 
manufacturers across the country, which are vital to the economic 
growth and job creation in each of our States. In every State, small 
businesses are the engine that drives our economy. Small businesses use 
SBA loans to expand and hire new workers; they receive vital advice 
from Women's Business Centers, Small Business Development Centers, and 
Veterans Business Development Centers; and they survive and thrive by 
obtaining contracts with the Federal Government. These are the people 
and the businesses my amendment assists. So why does this budget 
handcuff the very programs that have allowed our businesses and economy 
to expand?

  The SBA has helped create and retain over 5.3 million jobs since 
1999. It is clear that our economic future depends on the success of 
small firms, which constitute over 98 percent of our Nation's 
manufacturing enterprises, create nearly three-quarters of new jobs, 
and produce 50 percent of the gross domestic product. However, we 
cannot, on the one hand, state how much we value small businesses, and 
on the other hand, neglect to provide the assistance that small 
businesses so desperately need to compete.
  This bipartisan amendment provides funds for the SBA's Microloan 
Program, which provides loans of up to $35,000 and technical assistance 
to new and growing small businesses. The administration proposes to 
eliminate the

[[Page S3676]]

subsidy for microloans and transfer the technical assistance duties to 
the entrepreneurial development programs. However, this relatively 
inexpensive program is critical to our next generation of 
entrepreneurs. In fact, in my own State of Maine, the Microloan Program 
has made 94 loans over the last 2 years, for a total of $1.7 million. 
The elimination of this subsidy will increase interest rates for our 
Nation's microlenders and micro-entrepreneurs located in rural and 
underserved communities that have no other resource for financing.
  Additionally, this amendment provides the critical funding for Small 
Business Development Centers, SCORE and Women's Business Centers, which 
served over 1.2 million clients in 2006. Not only has funding for these 
programs decreased over the last 5 years but the SBA proposes to 
increase their responsibility to take on microloan technical 
assistance. These critical programs need and, quite frankly, deserve 
the resources to reach and assist more small businesses.

  Moreover, this amendment provides the resources necessary for our 
small businesses to access prime contracting and subcontracting 
opportunities. The SBA has failed to fix regulatory loopholes 
identified by the GAO that allows large contractors to keep small 
business set-asides. To address a contracting market that has increased 
to nearly $400 billion a year, the SBA budget needs to increase its 
resources and provide proper oversight.
  I would like to point out the irony that the administration's budget 
supports and funds microloans and assistance for foreign 
microenterprises, but eliminates, yes, eliminates, all funding for 
domestic microloans and assistance for American microenterprises. While 
I fully support aid and assistance to foreign microenterprises, what 
are we saying with this imbalance? Is this fair? Is this the message we 
want to send to our Nation's small businesses?
  How can we justify repeated cuts in funding for loans and assistance 
here at home? Is this our priority? I think it is not, and this 
amendment reflects our priorities and our commitment to American small 
businesses. The $97 million provided for here would make a significant 
difference to our job-creating small firms and helps them grow, 
flourish and thrive.
  My amendment is absolutely necessary for America's small businesses 
and is an investment in the entrepreneurship and future of this 
country. I urge my colleagues to support it for the SBA and our small 
business job creators. If we fail to provide sufficient support to 
SBA's core lending and business development programs, we threaten to 
reduce small businesses' ability to compete. The American economy needs 
a strong and vibrant Small Business Administration.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the amendment the majority leader and I 
are offering today is the first step in our effort this Congress to 
undo a fundamental unfairness that affects over 300,000 disabled 
veterans in this country who also happen to be military retirees. In 
short, this amendment creates a reserve fund that will allow this 
Congress to once and for all eliminate the offset that exists between 
military retiree pay and VA disability benefits.
  At a time when we have men and women in harm's way in Iraq, 
Afghanistan and in other locations around the globe, it is appropriate 
that the budget resolution we pass out of the United States Senate 
acknowledge and seriously address the unmet needs of our Nation's 
veterans.
  It is wrong that our veterans are enduring long waiting lines to 
receive health care from the VA due to inadequate funding. It is wrong 
that the Bush administration slammed the doors of the VA health care 
system on hundreds of thousands of so-called ``higher income'' 
veterans--veterans who in reality make as little as $28,000 a year. And 
it is wrong for this administration to try to impose higher copayments 
and enrollment fees on our veterans. As someone who sits on both the 
Budget Committee and the Veterans Affairs Committee, I am incredibly 
proud that on all these issues, this budget resolution is on the side 
of veterans and rejects administration proposals that short-change and 
nickel and dime those who have served.
  The scandal at Walter Reed has highlighted that even here in 
Washington, only a short distance from this chamber, some of our 
servicemembers were living in sub-standard conditions with moldy walls, 
rodents, and holes in the ceilings. Thankfully, this budget resolution 
also addresses this outrage.
  In addition, this budget resolution also provides for substantial, 
new investments in mental health services for our veterans to help us 
treat the thousands of veterans returning from the Iraq War with Post 
Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD. Also this budget resolution recognizes 
that we need to significantly increase funding to treat the large 
number of servicemembers returning with traumatic brain injury.
  Finally, this budget resolution includes an amendment I added in 
committee that will allow us to make other important improvements to 
veterans' programs later this year. In short, the budget resolution we 
are considering is a huge step in the right direction when it comes to 
veterans' health care and benefits. Chairman Conrad and his staff 
deserve tremendous credit for recognizing the very serious needs of our 
veterans and moving boldly to address them. I also want to commend 
Chairman Akaka of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and his staff for 
their work and support throughout this budget process.
  Even with the tremendous strides forward we have made for veterans in 
this budget resolution there is one additional issue that needs to be 
addressed. Today, Senator Reid and I are offering this amendment to 
take care of that very important issue. Before getting into the details 
first let me start off by saying that I am honored to be working with 
the majority leader on this issue. I know that, year after year, he has 
been the leading voice in the Senate to eliminate the Disabled Veterans 
Tax. And today, he continues that leadership with this amendment.
  This amendment would create a reserve fund to allow for the 
elimination of the remaining offset between military retiree pay and VA 
disability payments. In my view, this is an issue of basic fairness. 
Military retirees earned their retiree pay based on their long-term 
service to the Nation. They earn their VA disability benefits based on 
the disability they acquire or aggravate in the service of their 
country.
  The current offset between these separately-earned benefits 
originates from a 19th century law that required a dollar-for-dollar 
offset of military retired pay for VA disability compensation. In my 
view and the view of millions of veterans across the country, it is 
clear that veterans deserve to receive both their military retirement 
which they receive for their service and their VA disability payments 
as additional compensation for the injuries and lost earning power due 
to their service-connected disabilities.
  Let me provide just a bit of background on some of the progress 
Congress has made on this issue in recent years, thanks in large part 
to the work of Senator Reid. In the fiscal year 2003 Department of 
Defense Authorization, Congress created a special benefit called 
``combat-related special compensation'' or CRSC. It expanded it in the 
fiscal year 2004 DoD Authorization. CRSC gives certain combat disabled 
veterans a cash benefit equivalent to what they would receive if full 
concurrent receipt were allowed.
  In the fiscal year 2004 DoD Authorization bill, Congress approved 
phasing-in concurrent receipt for military retirees rated as at least 
50 percent disabled. The fiscal year 2005 DoD Authorization ended the 
phase in for 100 percent disabled veterans.
  So, today we find ourselves in a situation where retirees who are 
less than 50 percent disabled are getting no relief from the Disabled 
Veterans Tax and veterans at least 50 percent disabled but less than 
100 percent disabled are in the middle of the phase period that will 
not be complete until 2014. Frankly, if Congress has made the 
determination that the ban on concurrent receipt of military retiree 
pay and VA disability compensation is wrong--and I think the 
legislation passed so far demonstrates that Congress has made that 
determination--there is no excuse for making veterans wait for the 
benefits that we have acknowledged they are due. Now is the time--once 
and for all--we need to eliminate the disabled veterans tax.
  The Reid-Sanders amendment is just one important step we need to take 
to

[[Page S3677]]

keep faith to the promises we made to our veterans. I look forward to 
working with the majority leader on this issue as it moves through the 
legislative process and I would ask that my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, next we go to the Thomas amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I note on this amendment, when we get into 
the rollcall, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye wish to be deemed as 
paired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, did the desk get that?
  On this next amendment, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye are 
paired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The desk got that.
  The Senator from Wyoming.


                           Amendment No. 515

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

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] proposes amendment 
     No. 515.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask 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 prevent the adding of extraneous earmarks to an emergency 
                           war supplemental)

       On page 34, line 9, after the period insert ``In a 
     nonregular appropriations bill designated to supplement 
     funding for ongoing combat operations, the authority to 
     designate under this subsection shall only apply to war-
     related items that meet the criteria provided in subsection 
     (f).''

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, very quickly, this is a very simple vote, 
actually. What it has to do with is limiting the amount of additions 
that can be put on supplementals that are designed for Defense 
spending. The amendment I am offering would attempt to bring some 
discipline back into the emergency spending process.
  It simply holds to a supplemental those things that a supplemental 
was designed for. The very nature of emergency spending is above and 
beyond the approved budget. If we want to control spending and control 
the deficit, then we need to control what we put on these kinds of 
supplemental bills we are seeing worked out right as we speak.
  However, too often the emergency supplementals are larded with all 
kinds of pet projects and spending that Members cannot pass in the 
regular process or others put it in there to get theirs passed.
  It is an abuse of the process. We are going to end up holding our 
troops hostage because of extraneous spending. I ask that Members 
support the amendment, that we hold spending in the supplemental to the 
military for which it is designed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this amendment, while well intended, would 
create a serious problem for the body. This amendment prevents the 
Appropriations Committee from reporting a bill with more than one type 
of emergency designation. Let me give my colleagues a concrete example. 
Last year Congress enacted an appropriations bill that included funding 
for the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as disaster relief 
for the gulf coast. This amendment would prevent that kind of 
legislation. That would reduce the effectiveness and efficiency of this 
Chamber already noted for lacking efficiency. I urge my colleagues to 
vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is agreeing to amendment No. 515.
  Mr. THOMAS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 59, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 106 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--59

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Johnson
     Lott
       
  The amendment (No. 515) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, was the last vote announced?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. GREGG. Then I believe we are going to Senator Specter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                     Amendment No. 613, as Modified

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 613, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 613, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 63, after line 24, insert the following:

     SEC. 326. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FOR ASBESTOS REFORM 
                   LEGISLATION.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the aggregates, allocations, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for a bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion, or conference report regarding asbestos 
     reform, that (i) either provides monetary compensation to 
     impaired victims of mesothelioma or provides monetary 
     compensaton to impaired victims of asbestos-related disease 
     who can establish that asbestos exposure is a substanial 
     contributing factor in causing their condition, (ii) does not 
     provide monetary compensation to unimpaired claimants or 
     those suffering from a disease who cannot establish that 
     asbestos exposure was a substantial contributing factor in 
     causing their condition, and (iii) is estimated to remain 
     funded from nontaxpayer sources for the life of the fund, by 
     the amounts provided in such legislation for that purpose, 
     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over the total of the period of fiscal years 2007 through 
     2057.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, after very considerable negotiation, it 
is my understanding this amendment is acceptable. I thank Senator 
Conrad, Senator Gregg, Senator Reid, and Senator Ensign for their 
cooperation.
  What this amendment does is eliminate a highly technical point of 
order that might have been available on asbestos reform legislation, to 
give the discretion to the chairman of the Budget Committee to approve 
a reserve fund. The bill will have to be revenue neutral. There are 
other points of order which could lie, but I think we will be able to 
establish revenue neutrality when we produce the bill.
  It has been necessary because some $30 billion to $40 billion have 
been lost on bankruptcy proceedings to retool the reform bill to cover 
mesothelioma and other deadly illnesses. We are in the process of 
working it out.
  I also thank my colleagues Senators Leahy, Feinstein, and Carper for 
their work on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

[[Page S3678]]

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for 
the alterations he has made to this amendment. It is acceptable on this 
side.
  I ask unanimous consent we agree to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COBURN. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator has reserved the right to 
object.
  Mr. GREGG. Maybe we should move on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has objected.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is agreeable with me to move on 
briefly.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment 
be set aside and that we move to the amendment from Senator Graham, who 
would be next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 478

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 478 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant journal clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Graham] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 478.

  Mr. GRAHAM. 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 extend the 35, 33, 28, and 25 percent income tax rate 
   structure and protect nearly 28,000,000 families and individuals, 
 including small business owners, from having their tax rates increase 
                    to 39.6, 36, 31, or 28 percent)

       On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $46,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $66,900,000,000.
       On page 3, line 23, decrease the amount by $46,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, decrease the amount by $66,900,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $1,081,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $3,785,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $1,081,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $3,785,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $47,081,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, increase the amount by $70,685,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $47,081,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by 
     $117,766,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $47,081,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by 
     $117,766,000,000.
       On page 25, line 24, increase the amount by $1,081,000,000.
       On page 25, line 25, increase the amount by $1,081,000,000.
       On page 26, line 3, increase the amount by $3,785,000,000.
       On page 26, line 4, increase the amount by $3,785,000,000.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment extends the marginal tax 
rate relief first passed in 2001. We lowered taxes in 2001. Simply put, 
if you vote against this amendment, the tax rates will revert back to 
the 2001 levels. You would be voting to increase taxes on 28 million 
families and small businesses. You would be voting to increase taxes on 
small businesses, on an average, by more than $3,600 per year. Mr. 
President, 78 percent of the benefit of this amendment goes to small 
business owners. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. Tax 
policy in this country is about being globally competitive. We need to 
keep our tax rates down to keep our jobs in America. I urge everybody 
to vote for this amendment to make us competitive globally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the fact is, none of those rates change 
until 2010, No. 1. No. 2, the Senator's amendment also would not have 
the effect described by the Senator. The effect the amendment would 
have is to reduce revenue by $117 billion. It would put us back into 
deficit in 2012 by $71 billion. This amendment is a budget buster.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the Graham amendment No. 478.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 107 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                                NAYS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Johnson
     Lott
       
  The amendment (No. 478) was rejected.
  Mr. REID. 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.


                     Amendment No. 490, as Modified

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
490 previously agreed to be modified with the changes that are at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 490), as modified, is as follows:

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ELIMINATING 
                   MILITARY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY OFFSET.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this 
     resolution for a bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, 
     or conference report that would expand eligibility for 
     Combat-Related Special Compensation to permit additional 
     disabled retirees to receive both disability compensation and 
     retired pay, by the amounts provided by such legislation for 
     that purpose, provided that the legislation would not 
     increase the deficit over the total of fiscal years 2007 
     through 2012.


                           Amendment No. 613

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we agree to 
the Specter amendment No. 613 and the Thune amendment No. 465.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. I want to be sure, regarding amendment No. 613, as 
modified, that the Senator from Oklahoma has withdrawn his objection 
that it be included in the amendment package.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let's make certain we have the modified 
version of the Specter amendment. So before we approve that, let me 
have a chance--it has gone through a number of modifications. Let's 
make sure the version at the desk is the version we have been advised 
is at the desk.
  Mr. GREGG. That is correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. OK. That is fine.
  Mr. GREGG. I renew the request, Mr. President.

[[Page S3679]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Specter amendment, as 
modified, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 613), as modified, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 465

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notes that amendment No. 465 has not 
yet been proposed.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask that amendment No. 465 be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 465.

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

 (Purpose: To provide for a budget point of order against legislation 
 that increases income tax rates on small businesses, family farms, or 
                            family ranches)

       At the end of title II, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT RAISES 
                   INCOME TAX RATES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, FAMILY 
                   FARMS, OR FAMILY RANCHES.

       (a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to 
     consider any bill, resolution, amendment, amendment between 
     Houses, motion, or conference report that includes a Federal 
     income tax rate increase on incomes generated by small 
     businesses (within the meaning of section 474(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986) or family farms or family 
     ranches (within the meaning of section 2032A of such Code) 
     (regardless of the manner by which such businesses, farms and 
     ranches are organized). In this subsection, the term 
     ``Federal income tax rate increase'' means any amendment to 
     subsection (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of section 1, or to 
     section 11(b) or 55(b), of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 
     that imposes a new percentage as a rate of tax and thereby 
     increases the amount of tax imposed by any such section.
       (b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--
       (1) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be 
     required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of 
     the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 465) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. I believe Senator Grassley has the next amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Do I have to wait for my amendment to be reported?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may use his time and then call up 
the amendment.


                           Amendment No. 471

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my amendment repeals the AMT. Except for 
the telephone tax, the alternative minimum tax is the phoniest tax we 
have ever passed. The AMT, in 1969, was meant to hit 155 taxpayers who 
used legal means to avoid taxation, under the theory that everybody 
ought to pay some income tax.
  This very year, more than 2,000 people who are very wealthy are not 
paying any income tax or alternative minimum income tax. So it is not 
even working and hitting the people it is supposed to hit. Right now, 
this year, 2007, the year we are in, there are 23 million families that 
are going to be hit by this tax. It is a phony revenue machine, over 5 
years, $467 billion dollars. We are going to have to have a point of 
order this year to keep these 23 million taxpayers from paying this 
tax. We might as well do away with it right now, once and for all, and 
be honest about it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 471.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend the budget resolution for fiscal year 2008 in order 
     to accommodate the full repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax 
 preventing 23 million families and individuals from being subject to 
the AMT in 2007, and millions of families and individuals in subsequent 
                                 years)

       On page 3 line 10, decrease the amount by $30,700,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, decrease the amount by $82,500,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, decrease the amount by $96,300,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, decrease the amount by 
     $112,200,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $93,900,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $51,400,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, decrease the amount by $30,700,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, decrease the amount by $82,500,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, decrease the amount by $96,300,000,000.
       On page 3, line 22, decrease the amount by 
     $112,200,000,000.
       On page 3, line 23, decrease the amount by $93,900,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, decrease the amount by $51,400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $3,450,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $7,727,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $12,984,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $18,436,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $22,732,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $3,450,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $7,727,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $12,984,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $18,436,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $22,732,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $31,200,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $85,950,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by 
     $104,027,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $125,184,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $112,336,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, increase the amount by $74,132,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $31,200,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $117,151,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $221,178,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $346,362,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by 
     $458,698,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by 
     $532,830,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, increase the amount by $31,200,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, increase the amount by 
     $117,151,000,000.
       On page 5, line 16, decrease the amount by 
     $221,178,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by 
     $346,362,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by 
     $458,698,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by 
     $532,830,000,000.
       On page 25, line 8, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 25, line 9, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 25, line 12, increase the amount by $3,450,000,000.
       On page 25, line 13, increase the amount by $3,450,000,000.
       On page 25, line 16, increase the amount by $7,727,000,000.
       On page 25, line 17, increase the amount by $7,727,000,000.
       On page 25, line 20, increase the amount by 
     $12,984,000,000.
       On page 25, line 21, increase the amount by 
     $12,984,000,000.
       On page 25, line 24, increase the amount by 
     $18,436,000,000.
       On page 25, line 25, increase the amount by 
     $18,436,000,000.
       On page 26, line 3, increase the amount by $22,732,000,000.
       On page 26, line 4, increase the amount by $22,732,000,000.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the reality of the budget resolution is 
this may not have anything to do with eliminating the alternative 
minimum tax. The one thing it will do is reduce the revenue of the 
Government over the next 5 years by $533 billion, plunging us right 
back into deficit. Look, we can deal with the AMT. We have dealt with 
it in the underlying budget resolution for the next 2 years. There will 
be no increase in the number of people affected by the AMT for the next 
2 years under the budget resolution, and that is paid for. 
Unfortunately, this amendment is not paid for. It would plunge us back 
into deficit. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

[[Page S3680]]

  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. 
Sessions).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. McCaskill). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 108 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                                NAYS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Johnson
     Lott
     Sessions
  The amendment (No. 471) was rejected.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, next, we are going to go to a Bingaman 
amendment. He will discuss it briefly, and we will have a colloquy.
  I yield to Senator Bingaman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.


                      Amendment No. 587, withdrawn

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 587.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself, 
     Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Menendez, Mr. 
     Sanders, Mr. Tester, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
     Durbin, and Ms. Klobuchar, proposes an amendment numbered 
     587.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 prohibit the scoring of any amount realized from the sale 
  or lease of land or interests in land that are part of the National 
   Park System, the National Forest System, or the National Wildlife 
                             Refuge System)

       On page 48, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. 210. PROHIBITION ON SCORING OF AMOUNTS FROM SALES OR 
                   LEASES OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND.

       Any amount realized from the sale or lease of land or 
     interests in land (other than a sale or lease authorized by 
     statute, as of the date of adoption of this concurrent 
     resolution by both Houses) that are part of the National Park 
     System, the National Forest System, or the National Wildlife 
     Refuge System shall not be scored with respect to the level 
     of budget authority, outlays, or revenues.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, the purpose of this amendment is to 
take away any incentive to sell off our National Park System, or 
forests or wildlife system, by ensuring that we not count revenues from 
those sales in order to get a balanced budget. That is the idea behind 
it.
  I am informed by the chairman of the Budget Committee that he would 
have to oppose the amendment in this form but he is not necessarily in 
disagreement about the purpose I am trying to accomplish. So I ask him 
his views on it before taking any further action.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I would have to resist this amendment in 
its current form because it requires directed scoring. It requires the 
Congressional Budget Office to score something in a way mandated by 
Congress. I think that is a slippery slope. I don't think that is the 
way we want to go. We don't want to start requiring CBO to score things 
in a certain way. That would impede the impartiality of the CBO.
  We are happy to work with the Senator to try to find other ways to 
address the concerns he has expressed in this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I am pleased that the amendment is going 
to be withdrawn. I will be happy to work with the chairman on this 
issue. I understand their concern. We should not be selling off our 
public land treasures for the purpose of balancing the budget. At the 
same time, if you sell a surplus vacant piece of property, should it 
not go in and be counted as revenue of our Government if it was once an 
asset? I think the answer is yes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this amendment would preclude the sale 
of National Park, National Wildlife Refuge and National Forest lands as 
a means of paying ongoing operating expenses of the Federal Government. 
The amendment would have reinstated the budget treatment of these land 
sales as it existed prior to 1995 and would preclude the sell-off of 
our national heritage to balance the budget.
  On too many occasions over the past several Congresses, controversial 
land sales and leasing proposals have been advanced within the context 
of the Federal budget process. These provisions have complicated the 
consideration of the budget and have frustrated the efforts of the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee to ensure responsible 
stewardship of our Federal lands.
  I understand that the chairman of the Budget Committee has concerns 
about changing the scoring rules in the context of this budget 
resolution. I have agreed to withdraw my amendment, with the 
understanding that the chairman of the Budget Committee will work with 
me and with the leadership of the Congressional Budget Office to 
address this important issue during the course of this year. It is my 
hope and expectation that this serious problem can be addressed prior 
to consideration of the next budget resolution. I ask unanimous consent 
that several letters in support of the amendment be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Berkley Conservation 
           Institute, Izaak Walton League of America, National 
           Wildlife Federation, Orion--The Hunters Institute, 
           Trout Unlimited,
                                                   March 21, 2007.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the undersigned organizations 
     and the millions of hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts 
     we represent, we urge you to support an amendment that 
     Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) will offer to the Senate 
     Budget Resolution this week to prohibit the scoring for 
     budget purposes of revenues associated with the sale of 
     public lands.
       In recent years the budget and reconciliation process has 
     been abused to promote the sale of public lands and interests 
     in public lands under the guise of deficit reduction. Last 
     Congress, the House passed a reconciliation bill that 
     included a mining law measure which would have resulted in a 
     fire sale of millions of acres of our public lands. A draft 
     of the same bill included a provision to sell off units of 
     the National Park System such as Theodore Roosevelt Island. 
     The President's budget proposals in Fiscal Years 2007 and 
     2008 included the sale of nearly $1 billion of lands managed 
     by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. 
     These controversial measures require a fair and open debate 
     and are not appropriate to be considered in the budget 
     process.
       Millions of Americans enjoy hunting, fishing and the many 
     other recreational opportunities that our magnificent public 
     lands provide. It is irresponsible to sell our cherished 
     public lands and interests in lands to balance the federal 
     budget. Our public lands are a legacy for future generations 
     that must be conserved. Unfortunately current budget rules 
     provide an incentive to sell public lands for short-term 
     revenues.
       Budget reconciliation procedures are inappropriate for 
     legislation regarding public lands sales and leasing. Senator 
     Bingaman's amendment would reinstate the rule on the sale of 
     assets as it applied to federal lands from 1987 through 1995. 
     We respectfully urge you to stand for our public lands by 
     supporting Senator Bingaman's amendment to the Budget 
     Resolution.
           Sincerely,
     Jim Lyon,
       Senior Vice President for Conservation, National Wildlife 
     Federation.

[[Page S3681]]

     Chris Wood,
       Vice President for Conservation, Trout Unlimited.
     Jim Posewitz,
       Executive Director, Orion--The Hunters Institute.
     Steven K. Klein,
       Associate Conservation Director, Izaak Walton League of 
     America.
     Jim Martin,
       Conservation Director, Berkley Conservation Institute.
     Mike Beagle,
       Chairman, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.
                                  ____

         Alaska Wilderness League, American Lands Alliance, 
           Defenders of Wildlife, Earth 
           justice, Earthworks, League of conservation Voters, 
           National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense 
           Council, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society,
                                                   March 21, 2007.
       Dear Senator: We write today to urge your support for 
     Senator Bingaman's amendment to the FY2008 Budget Resolution 
     to protect important land resources administered by the 
     National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
     Forest Service.
       Senator Bingaman's amendment would reinstate the rule on 
     the sale of assets as it applied to these lands from 1987 
     through 1995, and in so doing, would prohibit the scoring of 
     revenues from the sale or lease of certain Federal lands or 
     interests in lands. It is our hope that this change will 
     bring an end to what has become an all-too-frequent push to 
     parcel off and dispose of the nation's priceless natural 
     resources and use the projected revenues as an offset during 
     the budget debate.
       The budget and reconciliation process has been used to 
     promote the sale of public lands and interests in public 
     lands under the guise of deficit reduction. For example, oil 
     and gas leasing on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has 
     been proposed as part of the budget reconciliation process, 
     as have the sales of National Park System units and so-called 
     mining law ``reforms'' to sell off vast tracts of public 
     lands. In addition, the Administration has--for two years 
     running--pressed proposals to sell huge acreages of public 
     lands as part of its yearly budget package.
       The outcry generated by these proposals could not have been 
     clearer: The American public values its land heritage and 
     expects members of Congress to act as stewards of these 
     irreplaceable resources. We believe that most Americans would 
     consider it irresponsible to sell off their homes and 
     investments to cover household operating expenses, but the 
     current budget scoring rules encourage Congress to do just 
     that. Senator Bingaman's amendment would remove that 
     incentive and move the consideration of important public land 
     management policies out of the budget venue and back to the 
     committees of jurisdiction.
       Thanks to the foresight of preservation pioneers such as 
     Teddy Roosevelt and a continuing tradition of conservation, 
     this generation has inherited a rich natural heritage. We 
     urge you to stand up for that heritage and to join Senator 
     Bingaman with a vote to protect public lands.
                                  ____

                                                   March 21, 2007.
       Dear Senator: During consideration of the Budget Resolution 
     on the Senate floor this week, Senator Bingaman plans to 
     offer an amendment to prohibit scoring of revenue from the 
     sale or lease of federal lands which are part of the National 
     Park System, National Forest system or the U.S. Fish and 
     Wildlife Service refuge system. We urge you to support 
     Senator Bingaman's amendment.
       Over the past several years, various ideas about gaining 
     revenue by selling federal land have surfaced in the budget 
     and reconciliation process. Thankfully, these proposals have 
     generally met with stiff opposition from Members of Congress 
     on both sides of the aisle. Clearly, selling off public 
     assets to obtain a one-time credit toward reducing the 
     deficit is bad public policy; but the possibility of 
     addressing the deficit by selling pieces of the National Park 
     System--places set aside by Congress as the most important 
     examples of our natural and cultural heritage, and the part 
     of the federal government most highly valued by the American 
     people--is simply indefensible.
       As unlikely as it might appear, there have been such poorly 
     conceived proposals to sell off some of our most precious 
     national treasures for budget purposes as recently as in the 
     109th Congress. In light of these attempts to pursue such 
     ill-advised and untenable approaches to deficit reduction, it 
     is imperative that Congress makes clear such options are 
     foreclosed. By returning to the rule followed under previous 
     budget resolutions, that is what Senator Bingaman's amendment 
     will do.
       Again, we urge you to support Senator Bingaman's amendment. 
     NPCA considers this a significant vote to protect America's 
     priceless heritage found in our national parks, and may use 
     it in our biennial ``Friend of the National Parks'' scorecard 
     for the 110th Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                Thomas C. Kiernan,
                           President, National Parks Conservation.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, in light of the position of the 
chairman of the Budget Committee, I will withdraw the amendment and 
work with him in the coming months to see if we can get this issue 
addressed in another way so we don't have this incentive--not for the 
sale of all lands, of course, but for the sale of these particular 
lands to which we give a special designation.
  With that, I withdraw amendment No. 587.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, Senator DeMint is next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 578

  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 578.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint], for himself, 
     and Mr. Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 578.

  The amendment is as follows:

                   (Purpose: To repeal the death tax)

       On page 3, line 11, decrease the amount by $2,100,000,000.
       On page 3 line 12, decrease the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, decrease the amount by $2,900,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $35,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $31,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, decrease the amount by $2,100,000,000.
       On page 3 line 21, decrease the amount by $1,400,000,000.
       On page 3, line 22, decrease the amount by $2,900,000,000.
       On page 3, line 23, decrease the amount by $35,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, decrease the amount by $31,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $133,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $240,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $1,142,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $2,747,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $113,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $240,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $1,142,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $2,747,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $2,150,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by $1,533,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $3,140,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $36,142,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, increase the amount by $33,747,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $2,150,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $3,683,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $6,823,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $42,966,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $76,713,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, increase the amount by $2,150,000,000.
       On page 5, line 16, increase the amount by $3,683,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $6,823,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $42,966,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $76,713,000,000.
       On page 25, line 12, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 25, line 13, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 25, line 16, increase the amount by $133,000,000.
       On page 25, line 17, increase the amount by $133,000,000.
       On page 25, line 20, increase the amount by $240,000,000.
       On page 25, line 21, increase the amount by $240,000,000.
       On page 25, line 24, increase the amount by $1,142,000,000.
       On page 25, line 25, increase the amount by $1,142,000,000.
       On page 26, line 3, increase the amount by $2,747,000,000.
       On page 26, line 4, increase the amount by $2,747,000,000.

  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, we have had several votes regarding the 
death tax today. Some have reduced it a little bit. We have gotten into 
a lot of details about who would win and who would lose.

[[Page S3682]]

  My amendment would eliminate the death tax, would continue what we 
will achieve in 2010. This Congress voted to phase out the death tax. 
In 2010, it will be gone. My amendment will keep it that way throughout 
the budget process.
  I believe, as many do, this is the most immoral and un-American tax 
we can possibly have in this country. Yesterday, I was distressed to 
hear colleagues on the other side were concerned that some children 
might inherit wealth from a family farm or business they didn't earn. 
Yet we say the Government earned it even though these businesses have 
already paid taxes on their profit, payroll, sales taxes, and property 
taxes throughout the person's life.
  We need to eliminate this death tax. It is un-American. This is our 
opportunity to vote for it today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I urge colleagues to resist this 
amendment. If we want to blow a hole in the budget, this is the way to 
do it. We have already addressed dramatic, important estate tax reform. 
This completely eliminates the estate tax and blows a total hole in the 
budget.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 109 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter

                                NAYS--55

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 578) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                           Amendment No. 529

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I send amendment No. 529 to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 529.

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

(Purpose: To increase funding for the COPS Program to $1.15 billion for 
   FY 2008 to provide state and local law enforcement with critical 
resources necessary to prevent and respond to violent crime and acts of 
  terrorism and is offset by an unallocated reduction to non-defense 
  discretionary spending and/or reduction to administrative expenses)

       On page 23, line 12, increase the amount by $598,000,000.
       On page 23, line 13, increase the amount by $72,000,000.
       On page 23, line 17, increase the amount by $167,000,000.
       On page 23, line 21, increase the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 23, line 25, increase the amount by $120,000,000.
       On page 24, line 4, increase the amount by $90,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $598,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $72,000,000.
       On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $167,000,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 26, line 25, decrease the amount by $120,000,000.
       On page 27, line 4, decrease the amount by $90,000,000.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this amendment reinstates the COPS Program. 
I remind everyone, when the COPS Program was functioning, violent crime 
in America reduced 8.5 percent a year for 7 years in a row.
  Mr. President, throughout the 1990s, we funded the COPS Program at 
roughly $1.2 billion, and it drove down crime. Now crime is rising 
again. In every one of our States it is up. Violent crime is up across 
the board. The Police Investigative Research Forum released a report 
which found that murders were up 10.6 percent in 2004.
  The COPS Program in the crime bill worked, and the Government 
Accounting Office found a statistical link between the COPS grants and 
a reduction in crime. The Brookings Institution reported the COPS 
Program is one of the most cost-effective programs we have ever had in 
this country. Local officials urgently need this support.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be 
added as cosponsors: Lieberman, Clinton, Salazar, Obama, Kohl, Harkin, 
Boxer, Kerry, Whitehouse, Dorgan, Dodd, Schumer, and all Democrats on 
this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the COPS Program has some history here. It 
was started by President Clinton. His position was, and he asked for, 
100,000 police officers. He said that when we got to 100,000, the 
program would stop. We got to 110,000 police officers and the program 
continues on and on and on.
  This program should have ended 5 years ago or 6 years ago, but it 
continues. It is similar to so many Federal programs that get 
constituencies that go on well past what their original purpose was. It 
may be well intentioned, but we cannot afford it and we shouldn't 
continue it. It was never thought it would be continued this long.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 33, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 110 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--33

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici

[[Page S3683]]


     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Warner
     Webb

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Johnson
     McCain
       
  The amendment (No. 529) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 530

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, at this time, I believe we can agree by 
unanimous consent to the DeMint amendment, as modified, amendment No. 
530, which deals with Social Security.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, that amendment is acceptable on this side.
  Mr. GREGG. Do you have the modification at the desk?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, they are now telling us we may not have 
seen the modification.
  Mr. DeMINT. The amendment has not been modified.
  Mr. CONRAD. It has not been modified.
  Mr. DeMINT. It is the same amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. So let's just be clear. It is not modified. It is the 
amendment that was previously at the desk.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 530.

  Mr. CONRAD. 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 clarify the point of order to save Social Security first, 
                      not discretionary spending)

       On page 47, line 25, strike ``direct spending'' and all 
     that follows through ``or revenue'' on page 48, line 1.

  Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that we agree to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 530) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 534

  Mr. GREGG. Senator DeMint has another amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina,
  Mr. DeMINT. I call up amendment No. 534, hoping I have the number 
right this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an 
     amendment No. 534.

  Mr. DeMINT. 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 prevent the adding of earmarks for spinach producers to an 
            emergency war supplemental appropriations bill)

       On page 34, line 9, before the period at the end, insert 
     the following: ``, except that the authority to designate 
     shall not apply to funding for spinach producers on a 
     supplemental appropriations bill pursuant to subsection 
     (f)(1) that is designated to supplement funding for ongoing 
     combat operations''.

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, this amendment really is symbolic of a lot 
of the things we are trying to work on. What it does is it focuses on 
extraneous funding that is directed toward supplemental spending bills, 
supplemental funding for combat operation spending, which we expect to 
be coming over from the House.
  There are dozens and dozens of nondefense-related earmarks on this 
bill. We had a number of amendments which we have agreed not to vote 
on, but just to vote on this one to make the point. We should not be 
adding $20 billion of extra spending on an emergency bill for our 
combat operations. We certainly should not be adding $25 million for 
spinach growers. This amendment would eliminate, as part of our budget 
process, the accepting of spending for spinach in relation to emergency 
supplemental spending for combat operations.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask that we just accept this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 534) was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 594, as Modified

  Mr. GREGG. We are now to Senator Bunning.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I send a modification of amendment No. 
594 to the desk. I add as cosponsors Senator Grassley and Senator 
McConnell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], for himself, Mr. 
     Grassley and Mr. McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 
     594, as modified.

  Mr. BUNNING. 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 a deficit-neutral reserve fund for protecting 
                     State flexibility in Medicaid)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR PROTECTING STATE 
                   FLEXIBILITY IN MEDICAID.

       If the Committee on Finance reports a bill or joint 
     resolution, if an amendment is offered thereto, or if a 
     conference report is submitted thereon, that implements 
     improvements to Medicare, Medicaid, or the State Children's 
     Health Insurance Program, but that does not reduce the 
     ability of States to provide coverage to Medicaid recipients 
     through flexible benefit options that provide greater 
     opportunities to provide health benefits coverage for 
     Medicaid recipients, or alter the guarantee in section 1937 
     of the Social Security Act of coverage of early and periodic 
     screening, diagnostic, and treatment services for children, 
     then, provided that the Committee is within its allocation as 
     provided under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise allocations of new budget authority and outlays, the 
     revenue aggregates, and other appropriate measures to reflect 
     such legislation, provided that such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit for fiscal year 2008 and the period of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

  Mr. BUNNING. My amendment is very simple. It gives Members a chance 
to go on record about supporting States' flexibility in Medicaid which 
Congress provided under the Deficit Reduction Act. My State and several 
others have already used this flexibility to improve their Medicaid 
programs. A vote for my amendment supports allowing States to designate 
benefits that fit the specific needs of their State and population. A 
vote against it is support of a one-size-fits-all model for Medicaid.
  Some people have tried to say this amendment tries to undercut the 
mandatory child care benefits under Medicaid. That is not true and 
could not be further from the truth. In fact, the amendment we are 
voting on clarifies that legislation could not alter Medicaid's 
mandatory coverage benefits for children.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to lend my support to the Bunning 
amendment No. 594.
  In the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, we gave the States the ability 
to create flexible benefit plans. Section 6044 of the Deficit Reduction 
Act established a new section 1937 in title XIX, which allows States 
the option to provide a benefit package that meets a benchmark standard 
or benchmark equivalent standard of coverage for certain Medicaid 
beneficiaries. Under this section, States are required to provide Early 
and Periodic Screening Diagnostic and Treatment, EPSDT, services to 
children enrolled in benchmark coverage or benchmark equivalent 
coverage.
  Specifically, section 1937(a)(1)(A) contained two related provisions. 
First, section 1937(a)(1)(A)(i), provides that States choosing to 
provide coverage under this section must provide benchmark coverage or 
benchmark equivalent coverage in the case of beneficiaries for whom a 
benchmark is an option. Second, section 1937(a)(1)(A)(ii), provides 
that in the case of children under age 19 receiving benchmark coverage 
or benchmark equivalent coverage, States must cover ``wraparound'' 
benefits to the benchmark

[[Page S3684]]

coverage or benchmark equivalent coverage consisting of EPSDT services 
and benefits specified in section 1905(r). In other words, an EPSDT 
``wraparound'' consisting of all benefits and services enumerated in 
section 1905(r) is a requirement for States electing the benchmark 
option or benchmark equivalent coverage. The use of the term 
``wraparound'' in this section should not be confused with the optional 
``wraparound'' flexibility afforded states under section 1937(a)(1)(C). 
This section allows States to offer one or more ``wraparound'' benefits 
to enrollees, who otherwise would be limited to benchmark or benchmark 
equivalent coverage. EPSDT is not made optional but remains a required 
benefit.
  On March 31, 2006, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 
CMS, issued guidance to states in a Dear State Medicaid Director letter 
on the implementation of the benchmark coverage. The CMS letter stated 
the following:

       Individuals under age 19 who are covered under the State 
     plan under section 1902(a)(10)(A) of the Act must receive 
     wrap-around benefits to the benchmark, or benchmark-
     equivalent plan, consisting of early and periodic screening, 
     diagnostic, and treatment (EPSDT) services defined in section 
     1905(r). Wrap-around benefits must be sufficient so that, in 
     combination with the benchmark or benchmark-equivalent 
     benefits package, these individuals receive the full EPSDT 
     benefit. The State plan must include a description of how 
     wrap-around benefits or additional services will be provided 
     to ensure that these beneficiaries receive full EPSDT 
     services.

  It is my belief that the requirement of the provision of ESPDT to all 
children receiving benefits through a benchmark benefit package is a 
settled issue, both as a matter of law and of implementation of the 
law.
  Giving States the ability to design benefit packages that are 
appropriate to the people receiving the benefits is key to Medicaid's 
future. The purpose of this important provision is to free States from 
a one-size-fits-all approach to Medicaid. Several States, including 
Kentucky, West Virginia, Idaho and Kansas, are taking the lead with 
these innovative plans to cover Medicaid recipients. We should resist 
any effort to limit the ability of the States to develop and implement 
these flexible, benchmark benefit plans. This flexibility will 
strengthen the long-term viability of the Medicaid Program and thereby 
protects coverage for low income children, pregnant women and families.
  A vote against the Bunning amendment is a vote against the tools that 
States desperately need to manage their Medicaid Program. To me, the 
vote here is obvious. Vote to protect the Medicaid Program and state 
flexibility in Medicaid. Vote to protect the EPSDT benefit for 
children. Vote for the Bunning amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment does undermine the basis of 
Medicaid today, which is ``medically necessary services.'' The effect 
of this amendment is to allow States to lower health care coverage for 
low-income kids. That is the effect of this amendment. Why do States 
want more flexibility, especially with respect to this program? So 
basically they can lower benefits. They can save money. There has been 
a longstanding principle under Medicaid that Medicaid should provide 
medically necessary services, such as immunizations or checkups, to 
low-income kids, and that is the basis. We have to keep it. The effect 
of this amendment is to undermine that. If we stand for anything here, 
it is making sure low-income kids do not have less health care 
benefits, at least. They should have more. This amendment would 
undermine that and allow States to have lower benefits for kids, and 
for that reason it should be rejected.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, do we have any time on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 111 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--55

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 594) as modified, was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 536

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

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 536.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask 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 a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the 
   reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program 
(SCHIP) that eliminates enhanced Federal matching payments for coverage 
 of nonpregnant adults and permits States to offer supplemental dental 
       and mental health benefits for children enrolled in SCHIP)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REAUTHORIZATION OF 
                   THE STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM 
                   (SCHIP).

       If the Committee on Finance reports a bill or joint 
     resolution, if an amendment is offered thereto, or if a 
     conference report is submitted thereon, that provides for 
     reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance 
     Program (SCHIP), eliminates enhanced Federal matching 
     payments for health benefits coverage under SCHIP of 
     nonpregnant adults, and permits States to offer supplemental 
     dental and mental health benefits for children enrolled in 
     SCHIP, then, provided that the Committee is within its 
     allocation as provided under section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget may revise allocations of new budget 
     authority and outlays, the revenue aggregates, and other 
     appropriate measures to reflect such legislation, provided 
     that such legislation would not increase the deficit for 
     fiscal year 2008 and the period of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2012.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this is an amendment that relates to 
the SCHIP program we enacted 10 years ago that is designed to cover 
uninsured children.
  Today there are 12 States that cover nonpregnant adults with SCHIP 
funding. CBO has estimated that eliminating the differential match on 
nonpregnant adults saves $400 million over 5 years, and $900 million 
over 10 years. This is a program for children, not adults.
  I yield the rest of my time to the Senator from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, this is budget neutral and kid friendly. 
It allows children to have access to health care and dentistry, and 
health care and mental health. It is a positive move at

[[Page S3685]]

the expense of no one and for the benefit of children.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the underlying budget resolution expands 
SCHIP coverage. This amendment goes the other direction; it restricts 
coverage. It creates a false choice saying we will take away here, we 
will give there. The net effect of it is it restricts coverage for 
kids.
  It is similar to--it is not exactly the same as, but it is similar to 
the Cornyn amendment on SCHIP, which we defeated with a vote of 38 to 
59.
  The long and short of it is, this does restrict SCHIP benefits. I 
urge us not to go in the direction of restricting SCHIP coverage. I 
want to actually go in the other direction and expand. I urge that we 
not adopt this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficent second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 536.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 112 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--55

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 536) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 522

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the next amendment is the Coleman 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 522.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Coleman] offers an 
     amendment numbered 522.

       The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To extend a provision allowing veterans to qualify for low 
                      interest mortgage programs)

       On page 3, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, decrease the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, decrease the amount by $14,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $22,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $30,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, decrease the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, decrease the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 3, line 22, decrease the amount by $14,000,000.
       On page 3, line 23, decrease the amount by $22,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, decrease the amount by $30,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $15,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $24,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, increase the amount by $33,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $7,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $22,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $78,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 5, line 16, increase the amount by $7,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $22,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $78,000,000.
       On page 25, line 20, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 25, line 21, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 25, line 24, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 25, line 25, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 26, line 3, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 26, line 4, increase the amount by $3,000,000.

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, this amendment deals with veterans. Many 
States have first-time home-buy programs. They have tax-exempt programs 
that allow people of low income to get access to mortgages at low 
interest rates. By the wisdom of the Congress in 2006, the Tax Relief 
and Health Care Act of 2006 allowed veterans to participate, even if 
they are not first-time home buyers. It is a benefit that expires 
January 1, 2008. It allows veterans to participate in first-time home 
buyer mortgage programs, even if they are not a first-time home buyer. 
This is not the time to cut benefits for our returning heroes. I hope 
my colleagues agree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to accept the 
Coleman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 522) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 606

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. The next amendment is the Lott amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 606.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] proposes an 
     amendment number 606.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To repeal section 13203 of the Onmibus Budget Reconciliation 
  Act of 1993 by restoring the Alternative Minimum Tax rates that had 
                     been in effect prior thereto)

       On page 3, line 10, delcrease the amount by 
     $13,800,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, decrease the amount by $36,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, decrease the amount by $41,700,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, decrease the amount by $46,900,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $39,300,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $23,900,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, decrease the amount by $13,800,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, decrease the amount by $36,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, decrease the amount by $41,700,000,000.
       On page 3, line 22, decrease the amount by $46,900,000,000.
       On page 3, line 23, decrease the amount by $39,300,000,000.
       On page 3, line 24, decrease the amount by $23,900,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $225,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $1,539,000,000.

[[Page S3686]]

       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $3,413,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $5,653,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $7,944,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $9,809,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $225,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by $1,539,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $3,413,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $5,653,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $7,944,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $9,809,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $14,025,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $38,139,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by $45,113,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $52,553,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $47,244,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, increase the amount by $33,709,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, increase the amount by $14,025,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, increase the amount by $52,164,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, increase the amount by $97,278,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $149,831,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by 
     $197,075,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by 
     $230,784,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, increase the amount by $14,025,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, increase the amount by $52,164,000,000.
       On page 5, line 16, increase the amount by $97,278,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by 
     $149,831,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by 
     $197,075,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by 
     $230,784,000,000.
       On page 25, line 8, increase the amount by $225,000,000.
       On page 25, line 9, increase the amount by $225,000,000.
       On page 25, line 12, increase the amount by $1,539,000,000.
       On page 25, line 13, increase the amount by $1,539,000,000.
       On page 25, line 16, increase the amount by $3,413,000,000.
       On page 25, line 17, increase the amount by $3,413,000,000.
       On page 25, line 20, increase the amount by $5,653,000,000.
       On page 25, line 21, increase the amount by $5,653,000,000.
       On page 25, line 24, increase the amount by $7,944,000,000.
       On page 25, line 25, increase the amount by $7,944,000,000.
       On page 26, line 3, increase the amount by $9,809,000,000.
       On page 26, line 4, increase the amount by $9,809,000,000.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this amendment would repeal the 1993 AMT tax 
increase that generally increased the AMT rates from 24 percent to a 
two-tiered 26 and 28 percent. This is one last opportunity on this 
resolution to correct the mistake we made in 1993, which began in 1969 
with the so-called alternative minimum tax. This was the guarantee that 
the wealthy paid their fair share, ostensibly, but it has morphed into 
a terrible tax on the middle class. This is not a full repeal like the 
earlier amendment. This is the one that actually addresses the problem 
we created in 1993, the creeping rate increase that went from 24 to 26 
percent. I urge colleagues to take this action to effectively deal with 
the AMT problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me alert colleagues, if this amendment 
is adopted, we will be here until 2 o'clock this morning. I hope that 
sobers everybody's consideration on this matter.
  On a serious note, the Lott amendment blows a hole in the budget 
because it is not paid for. It is not offset, $231 billion not paid 
for. I urge colleagues to vote no. Let's not give up the gains we have 
made in these hours of work to balance the budget by 2012. Please, 
reject the Lott amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 606.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 113 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                                NAYS--50

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The amendment (No. 606) was rejected.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have another package of cleared 
amendments that Senator Gregg and I have agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 638

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Gregg-
Conrad amendment No. 638 be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 638) was agreed to, as follows:

   (Purpose: To create a point of order against increasing mandatory 
                    spending in appropriation bills)

       At the end of Title II insert the following:

     SEC.__POINT OF ORDER AGAINST PROVISIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS 
                   LEGISLATION THAT CONSTITUTES CHANGES IN 
                   MANDATORY PROGRAMS WITH NET COSTS.

       (a) In General.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to 
     consider any appropriations legislation, including any 
     amendment thereto, motion in relation thereto, or conference 
     report thereon, which includes one or more provisions that 
     would have been estimated as affecting direct spending or 
     receipts under section 252 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as in effect prior to 
     September 30, 2002) were they included in legislation other 
     than appropriations legislation, if such provision has a net 
     cost over the total of the period of the current year, the 
     budget year, and all fiscal years covered under the most 
     recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.
       (b) Determination.--For purposes of this section, the 
     determination of whether a provision violates paragraph (a) 
     shall be made by the Committee on the Budget of the Senate.
       (c) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be 
     waived or suspended only by an affirmative vote of three-
     fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative 
     vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly 
     chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of 
     the ruling of the chair on a point of order raised under this 
     section.
       (d) General Point of Order.--It shall be in order for a 
     Senator to raise a single point of order that several 
     provisions of a bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or 
     conference report violate this section. The Presiding Officer 
     may sustain the point of order as to

[[Page S3687]]

     some or all of the provisions against which the Senator 
     raised the point of order. If the Presiding Officer so 
     sustains the point of order as to some of the provisions 
     (including provisions of an amendment, motion, or conference 
     report) against which the Senator raised the point of order, 
     then only those provisions (including provision of an 
     amendment, motion, or conference report) against which the 
     Presiding Officer sustains the point of order shall be deemed 
     stricken pursuant to this section. Before the Presiding 
     Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator may move 
     to waive such a point of order as it applies to some or all 
     of the provisions against which the point of order was 
     raised. Such a motion to waive is amendable in accordance 
     with rules and precedents of the Senate. After the Presiding 
     Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator may 
     appeal the ruling of the Presiding Officer on such a point of 
     order as it applies to some or all of the provisions on which 
     the Presiding Officer ruled.
       (e) Form of the Point of Order.--When the Senate is 
     considering a conference report on, or an amendment between 
     the Houses in relation to, a bill, upon a point of order 
     being made by any Senator pursuant to this section, and such 
     point of order being sustained, such material contained in 
     such conference report or amendment shall be deemed stricken, 
     and the Senate shall proceed to consider the question of 
     whether the Senate shall recede from its amendment and concur 
     with a further amendment, or concur in the House amendment 
     with a further amendment, as the case may be, which further 
     amendment shall consist of only that portion of the 
     conference report or House amendment, as the case may be, not 
     so stricken. Any such motion shall be debatable. In any case 
     in which such point of order is sustained against a 
     conference report (or Senate amendment derived from such 
     conference report by operation of this subsection), no 
     further amendment shall be in order.


                           Amendment No. 518

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Smith 
amendment No. 518 be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 518) was agreed to, as follows:

   (Purpose: To fund the State Department, USAID, and other foreign 
   affairs agencies and their programs at the level requested by the 
                               President)

       On page 9, line 8, increase the amount by $2,200,000,000.
       On page 9, line 9, increase the amount by $1,049,400,000.
       On page 9, line 13, increase the amount by $567,600,000.
       On page 9, line 17, increase the amount by $224,400,000.
       On page 9, line 21, increase the amount by $149,600,000.
       On page 9, line 25, increase the amount by $121,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $2,200,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $1,049,400,000.
       On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $567,600,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $224,400,000.
       On page 26, line 25, decrease the amount by $149,600,000.
       On page 27, line 4, decrease the amount by $121,000,000.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to explain why I 
offered an amendment with Senator Smith to increase the international 
affairs budget. Prior to the Budget Committee's consideration of the 
2008 international affairs budget, Senator Smith and I, along with many 
of our colleagues on both side of the aisle, circulated a letter to the 
Budget Committee asking for a significant increase in the international 
affairs budget.
  I feel very strongly that given the myriad challenges facing the 
United States around the world, the international affairs budget needs 
be more robustly funded.
  As my colleagues know, this budget supports the people and programs 
devoted to strengthening alliances, promoting peaceful relationships 
among nations, boosting economic development, eliminating poverty, and 
explaining and representing U.S. policy abroad.
  As my colleagues also know, the international affairs budget 
constitutes just over 1 percent of Federal spending, yet it funds some 
of the most essential components of America's foreign policy, including 
our diplomatic service, foreign aid, international health programs, and 
emergency relief operations among others.
  The international affairs budget provides the funding for the most 
important tools we have to implement our foreign policy. Robust funding 
is necessary to implement these critical programs and policies to fund 
American diplomacy and global development, so that we can continue to 
expand our leadership in the fight for freedom, prosperity and peace 
throughout the world.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to vote for this budget 
resolution today. I believe this blueprint for the government's 
spending and revenues will help put us back on a fiscally responsible 
path.
  Before I turn to the merits of this resolution, I want to address the 
fact that my amendment to establish a deficit neutral reserve fund to 
promote American manufacturing has been included in this resolution. I 
thank Senators Conrad and Gregg for accepting this amendment, and I 
look forward to working with them and other Members to carry out its 
intent.
  I believe that we must take strong and dramatic actions in this 
Congress to revitalize and support our domestic manufacturing sector. 
We need to enhance our research and development programs, provide tax 
incentives to encourage and sustain domestic manufacturing, and level 
the playing field for our domestic manufacturers in the global 
marketplace. My amendment will be helpful as we fight in this Congress 
to take these important steps.
  We need to stop the hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs from the 
United States. Our economy and well-being are directly linked to the 
health of our manufacturing sector, yet we continue to lose 
manufacturing jobs in this country. Since 2001, we have lost 3 million 
manufacturing jobs nationwide--including more than 200,000 in my home 
State of Michigan.
  Millions more manufacturing jobs hang in the balance. Our companies 
face enormous pressure in competing in the global marketplace without 
sufficient support from the U.S. government. Our companies are not 
competing against other companies overseas--they are competing against 
other governments that strongly support their manufacturing sectors.
  We need to provide significant federal support for technology 
initiatives and advances that will help keep our companies on the 
cutting edge of technology development and competitive in the global 
marketplace. All of this requires a bold and comprehensive effort 
across many segments of our federal government. It will involve many 
committees and many federal agencies, but I believe it is critical to 
stem the tide of the domestic manufacturing crisis occurring in this 
country.
  My amendment points us in the direction we need to take. It will 
support legislation that would revitalize our domestic manufacturing 
sector in four critical ways--by increasing Federal research and 
development; by expanding the scope and effectiveness of manufacturing 
programs across the Federal Government; basing support for development 
of alternative fuels and leap-ahead automotive and energy technologies; 
and by establishing tax incentives to encourage the continued 
production in the U.S. of advanced technologies and the infrastructure 
to support them.
  There are many other parts of this resolution to be pleased with as 
well. For too long now we have been digging deeper and deeper into a 
ditch of debt. President Bush's budget submitted to Congress in 
February would continue that trend by increasing the gross Federal debt 
by nearly $3 trillion to $11.5 trillion by 2012. That's $38,000 per 
person. The budget resolution we are considering today should start to 
reverse that trend.
  First, this resolution reestablishes a strong pay-go rule, which 
would require any new spending or tax cuts to be paid for elsewhere in 
the budget or receive a supermajority of at least 60 votes in the 
Senate. This concept is common sense for most families, who work to 
live within their means by balancing what goes out with what comes in. 
I heartily welcome its return.
  This budget also takes the positive steps of establishing a new 
budget point of order against long-term deficit increases and allowing 
the Senate's unique budget reconciliation process, which was abused in 
recent years by the Republican majority, to be used for deficit 
reduction only, not to increase the deficit with measures which 
otherwise could not pass the Senate.
  This budget also sets a blueprint for going after our country's 
massive $350 billion tax gap, which is the difference between the 
amount of taxes owed by

[[Page S3688]]

taxpayers and the amount collected. One of the primary tax gap areas I 
hope Congress will focus on this year is the offshore tax haven and tax 
shelter abuses that are undermining the integrity of our tax system. 
There are many ways Congress can go about tackling these problems, and 
I commend Chairman Conrad and the Budget Committee for their 
willingness to take on and push Congress to address these complicated 
areas. Cracking down on these abuses which shift the tax burden onto 
ordinary taxpayers is a critical step toward achieving fairness in our 
tax system.
  Additionally, I am pleased that this budget assumes an extension of 
alternative minimum tax, AMT, relief for 2 years. This is relief we 
know is needed to avoid imposing this unintended tax increase on 
millions of middle income families. This time frame gives the Finance 
Committee time to work out a fix that is appropriate and, I hope, paid 
for.
  The two AMT amendments offered to this resolution which we considered 
today were not paid for. The amendment offered by Senator Lott would 
add $231 billion to the debt over the next 5 years, and Senator 
Grassley's amendment would have cost $533 billion over that same time. 
We must not only fix AMT, we must fix it responsibly.
  Furthermore, I am pleased that this budget resolution supports our 
men and women in uniform by providing all the funding requested by the 
President for national defense, for both the underlying national 
defense program and the additional costs of operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. I believe our policy in Iraq must change, but I do not 
support attempts to cut off funds for our troops in the field. This 
resolution fully funds our forces at home and overseas, at the levels I 
and Senator McCain, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, 
requested in our letter to the Budget Committee.
  I also believe funding for these ongoing operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan should be accounted for in our budget, and that it was past 
time the President and Congress stop treating these costs as if they 
were unanticipated ``emergency'' expenditures. I am pleased that this 
resolution supports the request Senator McCain and I made to build 
these costs into the budget.
  This has two beneficial effects. First, it makes this budget more 
honest about the cost of this war and the impact it has on our federal 
deficit. Second, putting this spending into the regular budget process 
helps ensure that funding requested for operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan will receive greater congressional oversight. I commend 
Senator Conrad for his continuing leadership on fiscal responsibility 
and accountability.
  On the issue of funding for our Nation's veterans, I am pleased that 
this resolution includes the resources needed to ensure that our 
veterans get the health care they deserve. In total, the resolution 
provides more than $43 billion for the Veterans Affairs healthcare 
system--$3.5 billion more than President Bush's budget. Again, this 
year, the Senate has rejected President Bush's proposal to raise 
copayments and to impose new fees and higher copayments on certain 
veterans.
  I am also pleased that this budget affirms the Senate's commitment to 
authorize at an appropriate level the Children's Health Insurance 
Program, SCHIP, before it expires in September 2007. Making sure 
children have adequate health care should be one of our nation's top 
priorities. However, President Bush's budget would lead to the loss of 
critical coverage in many states. It is imperative that we reject that 
inadequate proposal, and this budget resolution does that.
  This budget also represents a significant improvement over the 
President's budget for education. There are more funds for Pell grants, 
IDEA, and No Child Left Behind Act than the President requested. It 
would be shameful to fail in our responsibility to our children to 
adopt a spending blueprint that does not provide our schools the 
resources they need.
  I am also pleased that this budget rejects the broad array of cuts to 
environmental protection programs that were included in the President's 
budget. This budget resolution fully funds the Environmental Protection 
Agency's programs to support clean and safe drinking water, and 
increases funding for the Superfund program by $211 million over the 
level in the President's budget. The budget also provides about $900 
million more for the EPA than the President's budget. This bill also 
protects Federal lands by rejecting President Bush's proposal to assume 
revenues from proposals to sell Federal lands.
  I am also heartened that the budget rejects the President's proposal 
to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR.
  Further, I also support the Senate's adoption of an amendment to fund 
the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, at $3.2 billion, 
which will ensure that more households can be served by this very 
important program. Unfortunately, this program has been woefully 
underfunded by President Bush's budget, as well as in past years.
  I also want to talk a bit about a couple more of the amendments we 
voted on today. I support extending tax cuts for low- and middle-income 
taxpayers. However, I opposed Senator Graham's amendment because it 
would have extended the excessive tax cuts for those in the highest 
income bracket which I have opposed from the first time we voted on it 
in 2001, and which we simply can't afford.
  I also opposed an estate tax amendment offered by Senator Ben Nelson. 
I would support legislation to prevent a return to the 2001 exemption 
level, which is too low and no longer appropriate. The current law 
estate tax exemption level for 2009 of $3.5 million, $7 million for 
couples, is appropriate and results in only one-third of one percent of 
estates owing any estate tax. I also had concerns about the Nelson 
amendment because it proposed a reduction of the rate to 35 percent, 
which would be a huge loss to the treasury and the amendment does not 
specify how the revenue needed to keep these changes from increasing 
the deficit would be raised.
  It is a welcome change to be voting for a budget resolution that I 
believe can change the failed fiscal policies and irresponsible tax 
cuts pushed by this administration. This resolution paves the way for 
important investments in America's future to put our country back on 
track and to begin the long process of climbing out of the ditch of 
debt.
  Mr. President, during this budget debate there have been different 
views expressed regarding the amount of revenue that would result if 
Congress will go after the offshore tax haven and tax shelter abuses 
that are undermining the integrity of our tax system. There are many 
ways Congress can go about tackling these problems, and I commend 
Chairman Conrad and the Budget Committee for their willingness to take 
on and push Congress to address these complicated areas. Cracking down 
on these abuses is a critical step toward achieving fairness in our tax 
system.
  If Congress addresses these inequities, it would also bring in 
billions of dollars needed to pay for many important national 
priorities. These priorities are recognized in this budget resolution 
itself, such as education, children's health care, veterans medical 
care, community development block grants, and law enforcement. We can 
go a long way toward paying for these critical programs by stopping 
these tax dodges that rob the Treasury of up to $100 billion a year, 
and shift the tax burden from high-income persons and companies who are 
principal users of offshore tax havens onto the backs of middle-income 
families who pay their taxes.
  For many years, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, of 
which I am chairman, has been looking at the problem of offshore 
corporate, bank, and tax secrecy laws and practices that help taxpayers 
dodge their U.S. tax obligations by preventing U.S. tax authorities 
from gaining access to key financial and beneficial ownership 
information.
  The subcommittee has also spent years looking at abusive tax 
shelters, which are complicated transactions promoted to provide tax 
benefits unintended by the Tax Code. They are very different from 
legitimate tax shelters, such as deducting the interest paid on home 
mortgages or congressionally approved tax deductions for building 
affordable housing. Some abusive tax

[[Page S3689]]

shelters involve complicated domestic transactions; others make use of 
offshore shenanigans. All abusive tax shelters are marked by one 
characteristic: no real economic or business rationale other than tax 
avoidance.
  I would like to talk briefly about what we found during those 
investigations. I think the specifics help make clear that if we have 
the political will, these are areas ripe with abuses that we can put an 
end to.
  Offshore Investigation. During its year long investigation into 
offshore tax haven abuses, the subcommittee issued more than 70 
subpoenas, conducted more than 80 interviews, and reviewed more than 2 
million pages of documents. In the resulting hearing held in August 
2006, the subcommittee showed through case studies that offshore tax 
haven countries have, in effect, declared economic war on honest U.S. 
taxpayers by giving tax dodgers a way to avoid their U.S. tax bills and 
leave them for others to pay. Offshore tax havens attract these tax 
dodgers by shrouding their financial transactions in a ``black box'' of 
secrecy that is extremely difficult to penetrate. They sell secrecy to 
attract customers and reward them with low or no taxes.
  This legal black box allows tax dodgers to hide assets, mask who 
controls them, and obscure how their assets are used. An army of 
``offshore service providers'' lawyers, bankers, brokers, and others 
then joins forces to exploit the impenetrable curtain of secrecy and 
help clients skirt U.S. tax, securities, and antimoney laundering laws. 
Many of the firms concocting or facilitating these schemes are 
respected names here in the United States.
  These schemes require the secrecy of tax havens because they can't 
stand the light of day. Our investigation laid out six case studies 
that illustrated the scope and seriousness of the problem. In one case, 
two U.S. citizens moved about $190 million in untaxed stock option 
compensation offshore to a complex array of 58 offshore trusts and 
corporations and utilized a wide range of offshore mechanisms to 
exercise direction over these assets and hundreds of millions of 
dollars in investment gains. These untaxed earnings were then used to 
finance business ventures, acquire real estate, provide loans, and buy 
art, furnishings and jewelry for the personal use of the family 
members.
  Much of this elaborate scheme involved an offshore bank and an 
administrative services firm for offshore entities, both housed in a 
building in the Cayman Islands that we have shown a few times on the 
Senate floor during this budget debate, the Ugland House. Believe it or 
not, the building is the official address of 12,748 companies. Just 
having a post office box in the building enables these shell companies 
to shift profits that otherwise should be reported as taxable income in 
the country where it is actually earned.
  In another case study, two offshore shell corporations engaged in 
fake stock transactions, seeming to trade stock back and forth as if it 
were fantasy baseball to create the illusion of economic activity. The 
shell corporations pretended to run up hundreds of millions of dollars 
in fake stock losses and then used these phantom losses to offset about 
$2 billion in real capital gains of the promoters' U.S. clients. The 
result was $300 million in lost tax revenues to the Treasury. This 
offshore scheme would be comical because of its complexity but for the 
sobering fact that these tax haven abuses are eating away at the fabric 
of the U.S. tax system and undermining U.S. laws intended to safeguard 
our capital markets and financial systems from financial crime.
  Our investigation shone a needed spotlight into the black box of 
offshore tax havens. It revealed a system that is corrupt and 
corrupting. Honest Americans are footing the bill for tax haven abuses, 
and it is long past time for Congress to shut those abuses down.
  Abusive Tax Shelters. In addition to offshore shenanigans, there are 
plenty of homegrown tax shelters being used to dodge taxes. For 5 
years, our subcommittee has also been conducting investigations into 
the design, sale, and implementation of these complex transactions that 
have no economic or business rationale other than to avoid tax. Our 
first hearing on this topic in recent years was held in January 2002, 
when the subcommittee examined an abusive tax shelter purchased by 
Enron. In November 2003, the subcommittee held 2 days of hearings and 
released a staff report that pulled back the curtain on how even some 
respected accounting firms, banks, investment advisors, and law firms 
had become engines pushing the design and sale of abusive tax shelters 
to corporations and individuals across this country. In February 2005, 
the subcommittee issued a bipartisan report that provided further 
details on the role these professional firms played in the 
proliferation of these abusive shelters. Our subcommittee report was 
endorsed by the full Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs in April 2005. Most recently, a 2006 subcommittee staff report 
entitled, ``Tax Haven Abuses: The Enablers, the Tools, and Secrecy,'' 
disclosed how financial and legal professionals designed and sold yet 
another abusive tax shelter known as the POINT Strategy, which depended 
on secrecy laws and practices in the Isle of Man to conceal the phantom 
nature of securities trades that lay at the center of that tax shelter 
transaction.

  The subcommittee investigations have found that many abusive tax 
shelters are not dreamed up by the taxpayers who use them. Instead, 
most are devised by tax professionals, such as accountants, bankers, 
investment advisors, and lawyers, who then sell the tax shelter to 
clients for a fee. In fact, as our 2003 investigation widened, we found 
a large number of tax advisors cooking up one complex scheme after 
another, packaging them up as generic ``tax products'' with boiler-
plate legal and tax opinion letters, and then undertaking elaborate 
marketing schemes to peddle these products to literally thousands of 
persons across the country. In return, these tax shelter promoters were 
getting hundreds of millions of dollars in fees, while diverting 
billions of dollars in tax revenues from the U.S. Treasury each year.
  For example, one shelter investigated by the subcommittee and 
featured in the 2003 hearings has since become part of an IRS effort to 
settle cases involving a set of abusive tax shelters known as ``Son of 
Boss.'' Following our hearing, more than 1,200 taxpayers have admitted 
wrongdoing and agreed to pay back taxes, interest, and penalties 
totaling more than $3.7 billion. That is billions of dollars the IRS 
has collected on just one type of tax shelter, demonstrating both the 
depth of the problem and the potential for progress. The POINT shelter 
featured in our 2006 hearing involved another $300 million in taxes 
lost to the Treasury on transactions conducted by just six taxpayers.
  Tax Levies on Federal Contractors Who Don't Pay Their Taxes. That is 
not all. For the last 4 years, our subcommittee has been focusing 
attention on another sector of the tax gap involving Federal 
contractors who don't pay their taxes. These contractors are stuffing 
their pockets with taxpayer dollars, while stiffing Uncle Sam by not 
paying their taxes.
  Past subcommittee hearings have exposed the fact that there are about 
27,000 defense contractors with $3 billion in unpaid taxes; 33,000 
contractors with other Federal agencies who owe $3.3 billion in unpaid 
tax debt; and 3,800 GSA contractors with $1.4 billion in unpaid tax 
debt. Earlier this week, another subcommittee hearing put the spotlight 
on 21,000 Medicare physicians and related medical suppliers with $1.3 
billion in unpaid tax debt. These mind-boggling numbers represent tens 
of thousands of companies putting their hand in the taxpayers' wallet, 
while dodging billions of dollars in tax obligations.
  A key program designed to stop this type of abuse is the Federal 
Payment Levy Program. This program was enacted about 10 years ago to 
enable the Federal Government to identify Federal payments being made 
to tax deadbeats, and to withhold a portion of those taxpayer dollars 
to pay off a portion of the person's tax debt. For the last 4 years, 
our subcommittee has conducted an intensive effort to strengthen the 
tax levy program for Federal contractors who don't pay their taxes. As 
a result, over the past 3 years, tax levy collections as a whole have 
more than doubled, increasing from about $136 million in 2004 to nearly 
$340 million in 2006. Of these totals, tax levy collections from 
Federal contractors in particular have also more than doubled, 
increasing from about $28 million

[[Page S3690]]

to $62 million. But $62 million is only a fraction of the billions of 
uncollected taxes owed by Federal contractors getting paid hundreds of 
billions in taxpayer dollars. Much more can and should be done to 
reduce the Federal tax gap by increasing tax levy collections.
  The first step would be to require the Center for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services to move as quickly as possible to make all $450 
billion Medicare and Medicaid payments each year subject to the tax 
levy program, so that all of these taxpayer dollars are screened for 
repayment of tax debt. The next step would be to strengthen the tax 
levy program as a whole. In 2006, for example, the Federal Government 
identified a total of about $122 billion in assessed tax debt that 
could be collected, in part, through the tax levy program. At the same 
time, it determined that only about 45 percent of that uncollected tax 
debt was actually matched against the Federal payments being made that 
year. In other words, in 2006, some $67 billion in tax debt was never 
``turned on'' for actual collection under the tax levy program.
  Simple reforms could ensure that a lot more of that $67 billion is 
set up for collection under the tax levy program. One key barrier right 
now, for example, is an elaborate series of tax levy notices, mandated 
by law, that currently have to be issued by the IRS before tax debt can 
be collected through the tax levy program. While the tax levy notices 
make sense if the Federal Government is targeting payments being 
provided by a third party, such as an employer, they make a lot less 
sense when the levy is targeting taxpayer dollars going to the very 
people who owe the tax debt. For that reason, Senator Coleman and I 
plan to introduce legislation to reform the tax levy notice process for 
Federal payments. We also plan to strengthen other aspects of the tax 
levy program to start narrowing that multibillion-dollar tax gap.
  IRS Enforcement Efforts to Reduce the Tax Gap. In our efforts to 
reducing the tax gap, it will be critical that we give the IRS the 
funds it needs to go after tax dodgers. For every dollar invested in 
the IRS's budget, the service yields more than $4 in enforcement 
revenue. Beyond the additional revenues collected, increased IRS 
enforcement deters those who might otherwise have dodged their tax 
obligations and reassures honest taxpayers that compliance with the law 
is broadly achieved.
  I am pleased that this budget resolution fully funds the President's 
budget request for the IRS, and includes an additional $399 million 
available for IRS enforcement activities. I can't think of many better 
investments to recover revenues wrongfully lost to the U.S. Treasury 
and to build respect for the law and respect for the honest Americans 
who play by the rules and meet their tax obligations.
  Scope of Problem. The abusive tax shelters and offshore case studies 
that the subcommittee has delved into are merely a handful of examples 
that can be used to better understand the details behind these 
widespread problems.

  Because secrecy is such a key component of offshore abuses, it is 
incredibly difficult to estimate just how much income is sheltered 
offshore. Recent estimates from tax experts, Joe Guttentag and Reuven 
Avi-Yonah, estimate that offshore tax haven abuses by individuals cost 
the U.S. Treasury between $40 billion and $70 billion a year in taxes 
that are owed but not collected.
  Corporations are also using tax havens to avoid payment of U.S. 
taxes. Preliminary results from a study to be released soon by Kimberly 
Clausing of Wellesley College show that $50 billion in U.S. revenue was 
lost in 2002 from profit-shifting by corporations to low-tax countries. 
A GAO report Senator Dorgan and I released in 2004 found that nearly 
two-thirds of the top 100 companies doing business with the U.S. 
Government had one or more subsidiaries in a tax haven. One company, 
Tyco International, had 115. Enron, in its heyday, had over 400 Cayman 
subsidiaries.
  Data released by the Commerce Department further demonstrates the 
extent of U.S. corporate use of tax havens, indicating that, as of 
2001, almost half of all foreign profits of U.S. corporations were in 
tax havens. A study released by the journal, ``Tax Notes'' in September 
2004 found that American companies were able to shift $149 billion of 
profits to 18 tax haven countries in 2002, up 68 percent from $88 
billion in 1999.
  A 2004 study by Professor John Zdanowicz found that transfer pricing 
abuses by corporations cost the U.S. Treasury $53 billion a year. Last 
year the IRS settled a transfer pricing dispute with one company alone, 
drug giant Glaxo SmithKline, for $3.4 billion. The size of this 
settlement with just one company indicates that it is worth looking to 
see if there are ways to improve the relevant portions of the Tax Code. 
Treasury has proposed regulations in this area, and I urge the 
administration to finalize those rules in as strong a form as possible. 
I also urge the Finance Committee and others to make it a priority to 
stop these transfer pricing abuses that are hurting average taxpayers 
as well as disadvantaging U.S. companies that play by the rules.
  How to Address the Problem. One of the big questions that surrounds 
all of this is how to start addressing these problems. I have a bill 
that would be a huge step in the right direction. We can't let the 
offshore tax havens hide $100 billion in U.S. tax revenues which are 
needed to protect our troops, fund health care and education, and meet 
the other needs of American families. We cannot tolerate high-priced 
accountants, lawyers, and banks concocting ways for tax cheats to 
offload their unpaid taxes onto the backs of honest taxpayers. That is 
why earlier this year I introduced the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act, along 
with Senators Coleman and Obama. This bill provides a powerful set of 
new tools to clamp down on offshore tax and tax shelter abuses.
  Among other measures, our bill would:
  Establish Presumptions to Combat Offshore Secrecy by allowing U.S. 
tax and securities law enforcement to presume that nonpublicly traded, 
offshore corporations and trusts are controlled by the U.S. taxpayers 
who formed them or sent them assets, and to presume that money moving 
between U.S. taxpayers and offshore entities is taxable income, unless 
the taxpayer proves otherwise;
  Impose Tougher Requirements on U.S. Taxpayers Using Offshore Secrecy 
Jurisdictions by listing 34 jurisdictions which have already been named 
in IRS court filings as probable locations for U.S. tax evasion;
  Authorize Special Measures to Stop Offshore Tax Abuses by giving 
Treasury authority to take special measures against foreign 
jurisdictions and financial institutions that impede U.S. tax 
enforcement;
  Strengthen Detection of Offshore Activities by requiring U.S. 
financial institutions that open accounts for foreign entities 
controlled by U.S. clients, open accounts in offshore secrecy 
jurisdictions for U.S. clients, or establish entities in offshore 
secrecy jurisdictions for U.S. clients, to report such actions to the 
IRS;
  Close Offshore Trust Loopholes by taxing offshore trust income used 
to buy real estate, artwork and jewelry for U.S. persons, and treating 
as trust beneficiaries those persons who actually receive offshore 
trust assets;
  Strengthen Penalties on tax shelter promoters by increasing the 
maximum fine to 150 percent of their ill-gotten gains, and on corporate 
insiders who hide offshore stock holdings by increasing the maximum 
fine on them to $1 million per violation of U.S. securities laws;
  Stop Tax Shelter Patents by prohibiting the U.S. Patent and Trademark 
Office from issuing patents for ``inventions designed to minimize, 
avoid, defer, or otherwise affect liability for Federal, State, local, 
or foreign tax''.
  This is only a partial list of a host of innovative measures we have 
included in our bill to strengthen the ability of Federal regulators to 
combat offshore tax haven and tax shelter abuses. We believe these new 
tools merit congressional attention and enactment this year if we are 
going to begin to make a serious dent in the $100 billion in annual 
lost tax revenue from offshore tax abuses that forces honest taxpayers 
to shoulder a greater tax burden than they would otherwise have to 
bear.
  Tax cheats make it harder to maintain our highways, protect our 
borders, advance medical research, and inspect our food. They make it 
difficult to give needed tax relief to small businesses

[[Page S3691]]

and middle-income victims of the alternative minimum tax. They also 
deepen the deficit ditch that threatens the economic well-being of our 
children and grandchildren. The assumptions made in this budget 
resolution that we can raise ample revenues by shutting them down are 
not only reasonable, they are crucial to maintaining the integrity of 
our tax system. I applaud Chairman Conrad and the Budget Committee, as 
well as the Finance Committee and Chairman Baucus, for their hard 
fought efforts on this front, and I look forward to working with them 
and other allies on this issue as we address these problems later this 
year.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I support this budget resolution. For the 
last few years, I have not been able to support the budget resolution 
because it focused on the wrong priorities. I would like to commend 
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Conrad for crafting a budget 
resolution that focuses on the right priorities.
  Today, we have before us a resolution that restores fiscal sanity to 
the budget process. It recognizes the realities of our current and 
future financial situation. This resolution eliminates the deficit by 
2012 and unlike the Bush administration's budget it does not leave out 
important costs like the funding of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 
and addressing the individual alternative minimum tax, AMT.
  This budget resolution returns discipline to the budget process. It 
restores the pay-as-you-go-rule which was essential to reducing the 
deficit in the 1990s. It includes a provision which requires the 
reconciliation process to be used for deficit reduction. The 
reconciliation process was designed to set-up a procedure to expedite 
the passage of legislation. It was used successfully to reduce the 
deficit, but in recent years it was used to pass debt-financed tax 
cuts. Today, we are restoring the reconciliation process to its 
original purpose--deficit reduction.
  The priority of the Administration's budget is to make permanent the 
2001 and 2003 tax cuts--at the expense of hard working families. This 
budget puts families first; it puts education first; it puts health 
care first. It is a resolution we can and should be proud of, 
particularly because we will be reauthorizing the Higher Education Act 
and No Child Left Behind this year. Now we know we will have enough 
money to make a difference with our legislation.
  This resolution specifically and substantially addresses one of my 
legislative priorities--providing health insurance to children. In 
2005, 361,000 children under the age of 18 were added to the rolls of 
the uninsured, the first time in almost a decade that the number of 
children without insurance in this country increased. This brings the 
total number of uninsured children under the age of 21 to a staggering 
11 million. Thankfully, this budget begins to put kids first.
  Under the resolution, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, 
S-CHIP, will be funded with an additional $50 billion over the next 
five years. This will maintain coverage for all currently enrolled 
children and enable coverage to be expanded to the estimated six 
million children that are eligible for, but not enrolled in, public 
health insurance programs. I will continue to work on this issue to 
ensure that every child in America gets the health care coverage they 
deserve: Their health and our future depend upon it.
  This budget resolution includes many deficit-neutral reserve funds 
which will allow us to address our priorities in a fiscally responsible 
manner, including a fund for small business health care. Recently, 
Senator Snowe and I held a hearing on this issue in the Committee on 
Small Business and Entrepreneurship. This hearing provided a blueprint 
for how we can move forward to provide small business owners the relief 
they need from rising premium costs while also ensuring that more 
employees of small firms have access to affordable, meaningful health 
care coverage.
  I have introduced legislation that would provide small businesses 
with refundable tax credits to help with the cost of providing their 
employees with coverage. I am also working on reinsurance legislation 
that would help small businesses with catastrophic costs. Small 
business health care needs to be addressed this year. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues on this issue.
  This budget makes veterans a priority. Our veterans have admirably 
served their country and should receive the best health care that we 
can provide them. To follow through on this promise this budget 
resolution includes a deficit-neutral reserve fund to make sure that 
veterans receive necessary treatments and services.
  I offered an amendment which ensures that this reserve fund addresses 
the needs of low-vision and blinded veterans. More and more of our 
brave soldiers returning from Iraq are coming home with serious eye 
injuries, mainly caused by traumatic brain injury. We must do our best 
to provide vision rehabilitation and screening services to try and save 
the sight of these veterans. The statistics are staggering: from March 
2003 to April 2005, 16 percent of all causalities from Iraq had direct 
eye injuries. Between Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval Hospital they have 
performed over 1,200 emergency eye surgeries. I am pleased that my 
amendment passed so that low-vision and blinded veterans will get the 
services they deserve.
  I am pleased that this budget resolution puts an end to the myth that 
tax cuts pay for themselves. During the debate on this budget 
resolution, many of my colleagues argued that this resolution 
represents a tax increase. That is wrong. This budget provides a 
deficit-neutral reserve fund for tax relief. This will give the Finance 
Committee the opportunity to evaluate the tax cuts and extend them in a 
revenue neutral manner.
  This budget addresses the individual AMT for 2007 and 2008. The 
Administration's budget only addresses this AMT for 2007. The 
resolution will prevent new taxpayers from being impacted by the AMT 
for the next 2 years and gives us time to work on a fiscally 
responsible solution. We need to address the AMT so it no longer 
punishes families with children that live in high tax States. Without 
addressing the AMT, there will be a hidden tax increase on the middle 
class.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this fiscally responsible budget 
resolution that puts families first.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as the Senate concludes debate on the fiscal 
year 2008 budget resolution, I would like to thank Chairman Conrad and 
Senator Gregg for all of their hard work at the mark-up last week. We 
had a constructive debate, and while I did not vote for the product, I 
respect the process and way he ran the committee mark-up. I know that 
crafting an annual budget is a difficult task. I also want to 
acknowledge the importance of writing and passing a budget resolution. 
This document is a vital part of the operation of Congress. It sets a 
fiscal blueprint that Congress will follow for the year, and 
establishes procedural hurdles when these guidelines are not adhered 
to.
  As an accountant, I think it is a valuable exercise to review our 
Nation's overall priorities. I was disappointed to learn that the 
committee-reported resolution, adopted on a party-line vote, doesn't do 
more to promote economic growth and limit overall government spending. 
This is a tax-and-spend, big-government budget. It assumes that the tax 
cuts will expire as scheduled under current law, resulting in $900 
billion in tax increases for Americans. The Democratic budget also far 
outspends the President's discretionary budget request. The committee-
reported resolution allows for $949 billion in regular, nonemergency 
budget authority to the appropriations committee, $18 billion more than 
the President's requested level of $933 billion.
  It also does nothing, on net, to reduce mandatory spending. Our 
Nation's mandatory health programs are growing each year by more than 6 
percent--an unsustainable level--and last week the Budget Committee 
rejected, on party-line votes, two amendments that would have included 
reconciliation instructions to the Finance Committee to contain this 
spending.
  I have a legislative track record of fiscal responsibility and 
meaningful deficit reduction. In 2005, under the Deficit Reduction Act, 
the Republican Congress was able to produce nearly $40 billion in 
spending cuts. I am proud that under my chairmanship, the HELP 
Committee led the entire Congress in deficit reduction, and produced

[[Page S3692]]

$15.5 billion in savings--that is 40 percent of the entire law.
  But that was then. Let me restate that now, the budget resolution we 
are debating on the floor of the Senate does nothing to reduce net 
mandatory spending. It's not right to overspend now--and pass the bill 
on to our children and grandchildren to pay later. I challenge the 
Senate to work across party lines and do more to shore up our 
economic future. If one-half of the Senate authorizing committees equal 
the level of deficit reduction this year that the HELP Committee 
achieved in 2005, the deficit would be reduced by an additional $100 
billion. But this week, similar to the mark-up last week, the Senate 
rejected multiple amendments to reform our Nation's largest entitlement 
programs and slow the growth in mandatory spending.

  In my role as lead Republican on the HELP Committee, I will continue 
to use the reauthorization process to stretch Federal dollars the 
farthest--ensuring that programs are cost effective and not 
duplicative, so that precious Federal funds touch as many people as 
possible.
  I will also look for an avenue this year to address health care 
access and affordability. As my colleagues know, last year Senator Ben 
Nelson and I introduced legislation that would allow business and trade 
associations to band their members together in small business health 
plans, and offer group health coverage on a national or statewide 
basis. This legislation, The Health Insurance Marketplace and 
Modernization and Affordability Act, was a direct response to the 
runaway costs that are driving Americans and small businesses away from 
the health insurance marketplace.
  The HELP Committee has a role to play in making employer-sponsored 
health care more accessible and affordable. Employer-provided health 
insurance is voluntary--and it is in critical condition. Sixty percent 
of the country's employers offer insurance today, down 9 percent from 
just 5 years ago. And the cost of health insurance for companies has 
nearly doubled in that same period--with employers expected to pay an 
average of $8,167 per employee family, versus $4,248 5 years ago.
  Progress on this critical issue is moving forward, and bipartisan 
discussions are promising. Last year we built a very solid foundation, 
which continues to grow.
  We are continuing to move forward on this issue and to deal with 
outstanding concerns. I am actively engaged in negotiations with other 
members of this body on how best to craft that proposal.
  Rather, the best way to achieve real small business health care 
reform is to proceed forcefully to build on the significant progress we 
made last year. Development of small business health legislation is a 
process that is well along, and I believe success is in sight. We are 
on a promising track, and we should stick with it. America's small 
businesses deserve no less than our sincere commitment to make this 
effort a success.
  I also want to mention progress on another HELP-related bill, mental 
health parity legislation. In February, the HELP Committee favorably 
reported the Domenici-Kennedy-Enzi compromise parity bill on a 
bipartisan vote of 18-3. It is the product of more than 2 years of 
bipartisan negotiations and supported by more than 60 organizations. I 
am pleased that Senator Domenici authored a deficit-neutral reserve 
fund for mental health parity legislation at the mark-up last week. 
This reserve fund will serve as a placeholder in the budget for our 
compromise legislation, which focuses on a benefit, not a mandate.
  Lastly, I would like to call attention to an amendment that I offered 
at the Budget mark-up last week, and reoffered on the floor. The 
amendment is very simple: it establishes a 60-vote threshold for 
legislation that imposes unfunded mandates on the private sector, in 
excess of the $131 million threshold for fiscal year 2007 established 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, UMRA.
  A 60-vote point of order currently applies to legislation that 
imposes unfunded mandates on State and local governments. I think the 
Senate should have a new 60-vote point of order that applies to 
legislation that creates unfunded private sector mandates. We here in 
Washington must stop thinking that we have a monopoly on good ideas. 
This is a commonsense proposal, and should have been approved.
  I also want to take this opportunity to mention a few programs that 
are important to Wyoming.
  As our Nation's most abundant energy source, coal must play a central 
role in electrical generation for years to come. In order for that to 
happen, we need to continue finding ways to make coal generation 
cleaner. Programs like the Clean Coal Power Initiative will play a 
major role in making that happen and so I support increased funding of 
this program.
  We also need to see proper funding of the Federal loan guarantee 
program. Federal loan guarantees can play an important role in 
developing new energy projects. It is my hope that we can provide 
enough funding to get some of these projects off the drawing board, and 
most specifically, I hope that we provide funding to the Department of 
Energy to move forward with loan guarantees for coal-to-liquids 
projects. Coal-to-liquids technology has the potential to help reduce 
our Nation's dependence on foreign energy barons and should be 
explored.
  In addition, funding for rural air service and maintenance is 
essential for states like Wyoming. Without Federal support through 
essential air service and airport improvement programs, many rural 
communities would have no commercial air service and extremely limited 
general aviation. I hope this issue will be part of the debate on the 
reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration this year. I 
encourage my colleagues to recognize the importance of this funding, 
not only as a matter of dependability, but also as a public safety 
issue.

  I want to mention two additional issues of great importance to 
Wyoming and other rural States; housing and homelessness. The McKinney 
Vento Homelessness Assistance Act is the primary law through which 
Congress funds homelessness programs in the United States. 
Unfortunately, rural States have historically received very little of 
this money. Yet rural States must confront homelessness too, and the 
geographic size of our States further complicates our efforts. In 
response to this, Congress authorized the Rural Homelessness Grant 
Program in 1992 under the McKinney-Vento Act. This program provides 
funding for transitional housing and education services in rural 
States, as well as rental or down-payment assistance. The intent of 
this program is to level the playing field between rural and urban 
States. Unfortunately, this program has never been appropriated funds 
since its creation, so the purpose of this program has never been 
fulfilled, and rural states continue to suffer. This can be a valuable 
program for rural States like Wyoming.
  I would like to briefly call attention to the Small Business 
Administration. I serve on the Small Business Committee and enjoy using 
my small business experience to help make a difference in the lives of 
many people in Wyoming and throughout the country. We are working in 
Wyoming to stabilize and steadily grow our small businesses through the 
utilization of the Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, program. 
The risk and expense of conducting serious research and development 
efforts are often beyond the means of many small businesses, especially 
rural small businesses. By reserving a specific percentage of Federal 
R&D funds for small business, SBIR enables small businesses to compete 
on the same level as larger businesses and stimulate high-tech 
innovation in their rural States.
  The FAST and Rural Outreach programs are congressionally authorized 
programs that provide technical assistance that helps Wyoming's small 
businesses utilize the SBIR program.
  Finally, the Agriculture Committee has a big task in reauthorizing 
the farm bill this year. Writing a tight budget that will help us reach 
our long-term fiscal goals is a priority for me. However, we also need 
to provide adequate funding in the budget for the farm bill. Though you 
cannot tell by the name, the farm bill affects the lives of many 
unsuspecting Americans. Policies and projects for distance learning, 
conservation, food assistance, renewable fuels, and our forests are

[[Page S3693]]

provided for in the farm bill, in addition to the well-known commodity 
programs.
  The Senate should reject this tax and spend budget. It increases 
taxes on working families by $900 billion, creates a spending spree on 
the Government's credit card and does nothing to contain runaway 
entitlement spending.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to support the fiscal 
year 2008 budget resolution and our Budget chairman, Senator Conrad, 
who has done an extraordinary job in developing such a thoughtful 
resolution.
  This budget resolution helps to get our country back on the right 
fiscal track, and it highlights many priorities for American families 
that were neglected or ignored over the last few years. For example, 
this resolution increases discretionary education funding by about $9 
billion so that we can invest in title 1, IDEA and improving Pell 
grants and student aid.
  Another important change is the investment in our veterans by 
providing $3.5 billion more for the VA. This resolution approximately 
matches the funding request of the veteran's organizations, known as 
the independent budget. It is a travesty that VA has been underfunded 
in the past as veterans are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. In 
West Virginia, I host confidential roundtables to listen in private to 
our returning veterans. I want to hear from them personally about their 
experience in combat, and their care and treatment after they come 
home. I am deeply disturbed by stories of hassles to get medical 
appointment and lengthy delays in processing claims for benefits. Every 
veteran who has bravely served our Nation deserves timely and quality 
care and benefits. Because of the violence and intense combat, many of 
our returning veterans want and need mental health care. We have a 
moral obligation to care for our veterans, both those coming home today 
and the aging veterans of WWII, Korea and Vietnam. This budget 
resolution is a meaningful downpayment to fulfill our obligations. It 
will let us investment in mental health care, and begin to improve our 
VA benefits system so that wounded soldiers do not have to wait 
ridiculous amounts of time to get their benefit claims resolved.
  One part of this resolution that is deeply important to me is the 
investment of $50 billion for reauthorization of the Children's Health 
Insurance Program, CHIP. In 1997, I fought hard to create this program, 
and I am enormously proud of the success of CHIP in providing insurance 
coverage to children. In my own State of West Virginia, there are 
nearly 40,000 children covered through CHIP each year. This budget 
resolution will allow us to move CHIP forward in two important ways: 
first, to maintain coverage for children currently enrolled in the 
program today and, second, to expand coverage to children who are 
eligible but not yet enrolled in the program. This provision is a 
strong signal of the new priorities of the leadership in the 110th 
Congress. I would like to particularly thank Senator Conrad and his 
staff for the commitment this resolution makes to CHIP. I know this 
budget wasn't easy. I know that there are many competing priorities for 
limited Federal resources and an ever escalating demand. But, I am so 
proud that Democrats are taking a stand for children and making CHIP 
reauthorization the top health care priority this year.
  This budget resolution is responsible. It restores pay-as-you-go 
rules. But it also includes deficit-neutral reserve funds so that 
Congress can move forward on important areas like reauthorization of 
the Higher Education Act, competitiveness and other domestic priorities 
that have been ignored for too long. I have been proud to support this 
budget resolution throughout a long day of votes, and I want to thank 
and commend our chairman, Senator Conrad, for a job well done.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for 
the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution.
  This budget resolution provides Congress with a $2.9 trillion 
spending blueprint for the upcoming year. It establishes a process and 
guidelines by which Congress will determine the revenues and spending 
for the Federal Government.
  I support this resolution. It puts our Nation on the road back to 
fiscal responsibility. Nevertheless, I am deeply concerned about our 
Nation's fiscal health.
  We have moved a long way from where we were 6 years ago. When 
President Clinton left office, he left with a projected 10-year surplus 
of $5.6 trillion. That surplus could have allowed Congress to eliminate 
the Nation's debt by 2010.
  But today, the Nation faces a $248 billion deficit and the debt has 
grown to $8.9 trillion. This translates to roughly $30,000 owed by each 
and every United States citizen.
  It took almost 200 years for every President from George Washington 
to George H.W. Bush to amass $2.6 trillion in debt. President Bush 
matched their $2.6 trillion in debt in just 5 years.
  And, over the next 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office projects 
the interest payments on the debt will be more than $3 trillion. That 
is $3 trillion that cannot be spent on priorities like healthcare, 
education or homeland security.
  This should be a major concern to the American people.
  Our Nation is in this situation because of the misplaced policies of 
the Bush administration and the Republican Congress.
  The President's tax cuts have cost this Nation over $1 trillion. Over 
the next 10 years, these tax cuts will cost over $3 trillion more.
  The vast majority of these tax cuts have gone to benefit the very 
wealthy.
  Additionally, the War in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost $510 billion 
to date. And there is no end in sight.
  This has squeezed the budget and made it difficult to fund all those 
programs that deserve funding.
  Let me tell you what this means.
  When the President submitted his budget proposal to Congress on 
February 5, it was deeply flawed.
  It cut or eliminated 141 programs, programs that are of great 
importance to the American people.
  My home State of California was especially hard hit.
  The President's budget proposed cutting Community Development Block 
Grants by 21 percent. This would have meant that California's CDBG 
funding would be cut by almost $140 million from its 2006 funding 
level.
  This would be devastating.
  In the City of Victorville, CDBG funds have helped revitalize areas 
of the city 3000 residents call home.
  In Los Angeles, these funds have allowed 8,500 housing units to be 
rehabilitated. CDBG funds have preserved over 2,000 jobs and removed 
over 41 million square feet of graffiti.
  Yet the President's budget did not support this important program.
  The President's budget also short-changed the law enforcement 
programs that Americans rely on for their continued safety.
  The Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, program was 
eliminated under the President's budget, as was the State Criminal 
Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP. As a border State, these programs are 
essential to California.
  Additionally, under the President's budget, the State Children's 
Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, was given only half of the funding 
that is necessary to continue to serve the children already enrolled in 
this program.
  The good news is the budget before us today restores many of the 
President's cuts. For instance:
  It funds CDBG at 2007 levels, plus an adjustment for inflation. 
California State and local governments can continue to work for housing 
and community development in low-income areas.
  The budget also restores funding to the COPS program. It allocates 
$522 million for COPS, a program that has put over 100,000 police 
officers on the streets in communities across the country. And we have 
adopted an amendment by my colleague Senator Biden to increase COPS 
funding to its authorized level of $1.5 billion. I was proud to support 
this increase.
  This budget also restores $407 million for SCAAP. And through an 
amendment I offered and the Senate has adopted, will increase the 
funding for SCAAP to its authorized level of $950 million. California 
has the highest number of undocumented aliens in the country. And 
California prisons house over 20,000 criminal aliens, incurring 
tremendous costs. Last year alone, California spent over $715 million 
keeping criminal aliens off the streets.

[[Page S3694]]

  This budget increases spending on SCHIP from $2 billion in the 
President's budget to $50 billion. The $48 billion increase will allow 
for continued coverage of all currently enrolled children in SCHIP. 
This budget then goes one step further. It expands SCHIP, insuring an 
additional six million children who are currently eligible for this 
program but are not enrolled. Young Americans should not suffer as a 
result of the President's misplaced priorities.
  Additionally, this budget provides critically needed funding for 
vital Veterans' care programs. Specifically, it provides over $43 
billion for Veterans, $3.5 billion more than the proposal offered by 
President Bush. This money will allow our brave troops to obtain the 
medical care they deserve.
  After the alarming revelations at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and 
other Veterans' facilities around the country, it is clear that we need 
to ensure that VA facilities provide the highest level of care. This 
proposal funds medical and prosthetic research and information 
technology; and it ensures that baseline operating expenses are met.
  In addition, the proposal provides middle-income taxpayers relief 
from the alternative minimum tax.
  Absent congressional action, nearly 20 million more Americans will be 
forced to pay the AMT next year. This proposal adds 2 years of relief 
from the AMT, where the President could only find room for 1.
  Congress faced many restrictions and tough choices in crafting this 
budget. And lawmakers' hands were tied due to years of fiscal 
mismanagement.
  The budget resolution is far from perfect. It fails to provide 
permanent relief from the AMT for middle-class families and, while it 
restores much needed funds in critical areas, it does not fully fund 
critical programs. But it refocuses our priorities. And it takes 
important steps to restore fiscal responsibility.
  Unlike the President's budget proposal, this budget will create a 
surplus in 2012 and is nearly balanced a year before that.
  Change will take time. And there is no cure-all for the years of 
fiscal irresponsibility and misguided policies that we have seen.
  As I said before, this budget is far from perfect. However, it 
initiates much needed change and I believe will put us back on the path 
from which the President and Republican Congress strayed.
  Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to act in the best interest of Americans who have entrusted us with a 
great responsibility. I hope that they will join me today in meeting 
this responsibility by voting for the fiscal year 2008 budget 
resolution.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I wish to speak today as a member of the 
Senate Budget Committee.
  I had hoped that the budget that was presented before the Committee 
last week was going to be fiscally responsible. Chairman Conrad had 
said earlier this year that he was prepared to get savings out of long-
term entitlement programs. He had made similar statements in the past. 
So I had some hope that this budget would take a serious look at what 
we could do to address the issue of out-of-control entitlement growth.
  Unfortunately, I was not able to support this budget in Committee and 
I will not be able to support it here on the Senate floor.
  This budget does not take seriously the out-of-control entitlement 
spending looming on the horizon. This budget resolution fails to show 
that Congress is willing to make the difficult choices necessary to 
ensure that the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs will 
continue into the future.
  This country faces $67 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next 
75 years. Thirty two trillion dollars of that is in the Medicare 
program, $20 trillion is in the Medicaid program and the remaining $15 
trillion is in the Social Security program and other liabilities.
  As Senator Gregg pointed out yesterday, $67 trillion represents more 
than the entire amount of revenues received by the Federal Government 
since the beginning of the republic.
  How are our children supposed to pay for that?
  We don't have to wait 75 years for the problem to blow up in our 
faces. In about 2032--almost 25 years from now--the cost of just 
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, if left unchecked, will exceed 
the 18.2 percent of GDP that is the historic level of our Federal 
revenues. So every single penny of what should be received by the 
Federal Government in revenue will be spent on just three programs.
  Where is the money for defense to come from? Where is money for 
education to come from? LIHEAP? NASA? Worker training? Border 
enforcement? Name any program that you support and tell me just where 
the money is to come from? This is the future we face.
  And yet this budget resolution doesn't move a toe toward fixing it. 
It includes not one penny in net entitlement reform.
  President Bush presented Congress with a budget that makes strides in 
this direction by attempting to slow the rate of growth in these 
programs. I'm not talking about wholesale reform here--although I feel 
that such reform is needed. Just implementing incremental changes can 
make a huge difference simply because of the enormous amounts of money 
that we are dealing with here.
  For example, in Medicare the President proposed reducing the growth 
in the program from 6.5 percent to 5.6 percent over 5 years. This 
change, just a 1 percent reduction from how Medicare would otherwise 
grow over the same time period, is estimated to reduce Medicare's 75-
year unfunded liability by 25 percent--or $8 trillion. For Medicaid, 
the President proposed reducing the growth rate from 7.3 percent to 7.1 
percent.
  Keep in mind that this means we will still have spending increases in 
these programs--pretty substantial increases in fact. However, these 
increases just won't be as big as originally projected.
  The President's budget calls for some commonsense reforms to both 
Medicare and Medicaid to reduce spending. In Medicare, for example, the 
President's budget makes several suggestions to ensure that the program 
is adequately paying providers for the cost of care without overpaying.
  In Medicaid, the President has proposed ensuring Medicaid 
prescription drugs are reimbursed fairly and by improving the financial 
integrity of the program.
  As a member of the Finance Committee, I would obviously need to take 
a close look at these reforms before any are implemented. However, it 
is vitally important that the American taxpayer does Not overpay for 
health care services or products.
  The President's budget also requires wealthy seniors to pay more for 
Medicare by reducing the Federal subsidy for Medicare Part D premiums 
for these seniors. This means that seniors who have incomes over 
$80,000 for an individual or $160,000 for a couple would be required to 
pay more for their Medicare drug benefit.
  To me, this just makes sense. Today's working middle-class American 
taxpayers should not be subsidizing the health care of Bill Gates' 
father. Also, we already do this for Medicare Part B. Such a change 
would only affect about 5 percent of seniors.

  These are the types of changes that we need to be making. Yet this 
budget resolution before us today makes no net changes to entitlement 
programs. This, despite the fact that the Big 3 entitlement programs 
currently account for over 41 percent of the Federal budget, and that 
number will grow to almost 57 percent in 10 years.
  A budget that does not seriously address entitlement spending is not 
responsible. This budget is not responsible.
  Again, I am not asking for wholesale reforms here. I am very 
supportive of looking at comprehensive reforms and I support the 
efforts of Chairman Conrad and Senator Gregg to set up a bipartisan 
group to take a look at recommending them.
  But that is not what I am asking for in this budget before us today. 
We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Maybe we don't 
have a perfect way to fix our entitlement challenge right now. But we 
could have made a good start this year and started on some incremental 
changes. However, the authors of this budget chose not to do that.
  We face a demographic tidal wave in this country. As the baby-boom 
generation grows older, the number of people

[[Page S3695]]

in the United States ages 65 and over is expected to roughly double by 
2030. But instead of saving for a rainy day, we continue to spend, 
spend, spend.
  Hard choices have to be made. Spending has to be controlled. 
Entitlements have to be reigned in.
  We are saddling our children and grandchildren with an unfair burden.
  The President's budget started us in the right direction. 
Unfortunately, the Democratic budget has dropped the ball, and pushed 
off the inevitable hard decisions until another day.
  I am profoundly disappointed with the budget I see before us today, 
and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. Con. Res. 21, the 
budget resolution currently before this body. This budget restores 
fiscal discipline on both the spending and revenue sides of the ledger, 
reinstates the pay-as-you-go rules that were so successful during the 
late 1990s in helping us achieve budget surpluses, and provides a 
responsible framework for meeting our Nation's most important 
priorities. With these accomplishments, it represents a major 
improvement over the budgets of recent years and the budget submitted 
by the President last month. It puts our country in a much better 
position to address the major long-term fiscal challenges looming just 
around the corner.
  We as Americans are fortunate to be a part of the world's largest and 
most prosperous economy. America is, by many measures, doing well but I 
defy anyone to say we that we cannot do better. We must ensure our 
national security and restore our moral authority in the world. We must 
address growing middle class insecurity, reflected in falling incomes 
coupled with rising costs and record low personal savings coupled with 
record high household debt. We must stem the backward slide of rising 
poverty of recent years.
  As a Nation, we must take this opportunity to lay a strong foundation 
for the future: to constructively respond to the accelerating pace of 
globalization, to secure clean and renewable sources of energy, and to 
rein in the skyrocketing health care costs that threaten to overwhelm 
the budgets of households, businesses, and the Government.
  Our ability to effectively address any of these challenges, Mr. 
President, depends on properly managing our fiscal resources. This 
budget takes an important step towards restoring fiscal responsibility, 
reversing the profligate trend of the last several years. Since the 
current President took office, fiscal discipline has been thrown to the 
wind. Since 2000, we have seen our nation go from a $236 billion budget 
surplus to a projected $244 billion deficit, from a National debt of 
$5.6 trillion to $8.8 trillion today, with the share of that debt held 
by foreign lenders doubling. Critical investments in education and 
infrastructure have been shortchanged, and middle-class tax cuts have 
been passed over in favor of more lavish, budget-busting tax breaks for 
the wealthiest Americans who needed them least.
  Instead of continuing these irresponsible policies and passing the 
costs on to our children and grandchildren, the budget now before us 
would restore fiscal discipline and renew investments in our nation's 
critical priorities. First and foremost, it reinstates common-sense 
pay-as-you-go rules that require any new spending or tax cuts to be 
paid for up front, rather than added to the debt. And because of this 
commitment to pay-as-you-go, it balances the federal budget within 5 
years and reduces the debt as a share of the economy. It requires 
honest budgeting for the cost of ongoing military operations. The 
resolution also imposes discipline on both spending and revenue, 
lowering spending every year as a share of the economy and cracking 
down on abusive tax shelters that cost American taxpayers an average of 
$2,000 apiece every year, according to the Internal Revenue Service's 
National Taxpayer Advocate.
  Within the context of fiscal responsibility, this budget also 
allocates our resources to our Nation's most important priorities.
  Mr. President, few priorities are more important than investing in 
our Nation's children. The budget before us recognizes this commitment 
by rejecting the President's proposed cuts to education. Instead, it 
provides a funding increase of $9.2 billion above the president's 
request for education and training, from birth through post-secondary 
education, including Head Start, the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act (IDEA), programs authorized under the No Child Left 
Behind Act, and Pell Grants. The increased investment will ensure that 
more preschool children from disadvantaged backgrounds will be ready 
for school. It will help elementary schools, middle schools, and high 
schools close achievement gaps; increase graduation rates; and reduce 
the need for remedial education at a later time. It will ensure that 
schools can attract, train, and retain high-quality teachers. It will 
keep our commitment to educate students with disabilities. And it will 
make college more affordable so that eligible students can gain the 
skills and experience they need to compete in the global marketplace. 
Simply put, this budget gives more Americans the tools they need to 
fulfill their potential, including their college dreams. Mr. President, 
we can be confident of one thing: the investment we make here will be 
returned to us, many times over.
  In addition to investing in our human capital, this budget also makes 
important investments in our physical capital. Specifically, it honors 
the funding levels for highways and transit that were authorized for 
fiscal year 2008 in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 
Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA), funding that will help States and 
communities conduct critical maintenance and make needed improvements 
in their transportation infrastructure. It more than doubles funding 
for transit security an important start, although more still needs to 
be done and rejects the Bush administration's continued attempts to 
zero out funding for Amtrak, which serves so many people in Connecticut 
and across the country.
  With the number of Americans without health insurance on the rise, 
this budget provides up to $50 billion to help cover uninsured children 
through the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, which 
is up for reauthorization this year. We also know that this 
administration has failed to meet its commitments to the health of our 
veterans, as revealed by the recent reports on the disgraceful 
conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. As an answer to this 
major shortfall, the budget before us provides more than $3.5 billion 
for veterans above the level proposed by the administration. And where 
previous budgets have cut funding for first responders, this budget 
restores the administration's proposed cuts to Firefighter Grants, the 
COPS program, and Local Law Enforcement and Terrorism Prevention 
Grants. Finally, this budget also rejects the administration's proposed 
cuts to low-income heating assistance and to the Community Development 
Block Grants an absolutely vital source of federal grant assistance for 
economic development in our local communities.
  Mr. President, I would also add and I have already spoken on this 
matter--that I am pleased that the Senate voted to adopt the Smith-Dodd 
amendment to add $2.2 billion to Function 150 for the International 
Affairs budget, which will provide important funds for international 
aid, poverty reduction, and other critical foreign policy priorities.
  Mr. President, the priorities in this budget set a positive course 
for our Nation. In its lists of numbers we read a statement of our 
values. We can all speak in unlimited praise of responsibility and 
education and opportunity in the abstract but for the first time in 
several years, I'm proud to say we have a budget in front of us that 
puts flesh on our words. It restores discipline. It confronts the 
challenges of a struggling middle class and an aging population, 
promoting opportunity, prosperity, and security across the board. And 
it puts the American people's money towards the wisest priority of all: 
investing in the years to come. In sum, I think we have a budget that 
reflects the best values of the American people, and I am proud to give 
it my support.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment 
with this year's budget resolution. This budget is putting us on a very 
dangerous path in terms of our economy. A huge tax hike is not the 
right direction for our country.

[[Page S3696]]

  The Republican progrowth tax policies that have been implemented over 
the past few years have had a tremendous impact on our economy. Since 
August 2003, more than 7.5 million jobs have been created. Our 
unemployment rate remains low at 4.5 percent--which is well below the 
5.1 percent average rate for 2005 and below the average of each of the 
past four decades. Thanks to our strong economic growth, tax revenues 
continue to pour in. Tax receipts were up about 12 percent in 2006, on 
top of 2005's 14.6 percent increase. Receipts have grown another 8 
percent so far in fiscal year 2007.
  But instead of building on this success, this budget takes us in a 
completely different direction. The resolution would raise taxes by 
$900 billion--the largest tax hike in history. This tax increase will 
have real consequences on American families. An Oregon family of four 
with $50,000 in earnings will see their taxes go up 132 percent to 
$3,675 in 2011 if the Republican tax relief is not made permanent, and 
15 million seniors would see their taxes increase if current tax policy 
is not extended.
  We are heading in the wrong direction with this budget. Therefore, I 
will be voting against the budget resolution.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, after many long years of flawed budget 
policies that have eroded our Nation's infrastructure and recklessly 
taken from the health and safety of American working families, the 
Senate finally has an opportunity to change course.
  The President has submitted a grossly inadequate budget request for 
the fiscal year 2008, built around the erroneous premise that tax cuts 
are sacrosanct. I reject that argument. I hope that my colleagues will 
reject that argument.
  The President's budget includes $2 trillion of new tax cuts, many of 
which will benefit those who least need them. In order to fund those 
tax breaks, the President cuts the programs that working Americans rely 
on the most. The President proposes to cut the Medicare and Medicaid 
Programs, which provide health care to seniors and children. He 
proposes to cut funding for housing for the elderly in rural America. 
He proposes to cut funding for first responder programs, jeopardizing 
the safety of our firefighters and law enforcement officers, and those 
of us whom they protect. He proposes to cut funding for our children 
and schools, for health care research and rural hospitals, and for our 
communities and economic development.
  The President is proposing to take an awful lot from working American 
families in order to pay for his tax breaks. His budget cuts are not 
funding the troops overseas, or being used to pay down the national 
debt. The president's own budget tables show that the gross federal 
debt will continue to increase to record levels, $12 trillion in the 
next five years, even if his spending cuts are enacted into law.
  I reject the argument that seniors must give up their health care, 
and that children must give up funding for their schools, in order to 
fund tax breaks for the wealthiest of the wealthy in America.
  The President's budget continues the dangerous practice of chipping 
away at domestic priorities, and trying to get away with spending as 
little as possible on critical infrastructure. There are consequences--
sometimes significant consequences, and sometimes deadly consequences--
when the administration tries to hide the impact of its budget cuts in 
order to fund more tax cuts.
  H.G. Wells wrote that human history is a race between education and 
catastrophe.
  The Congress must get into the race to avert the next catastrophe. 
The squeeze on domestic discretionary spending these past years has 
done a lot of damage to the infrastructure of our Nation. It has 
resulted in budgetary shortfalls that are wholly irresponsible, and 
they must be addressed.
  Look at FEMA's inability to respond to natural disasters. Look at the 
shortfalls in the Low-Income Home Energy Assistant Program, LIHEAP, 
affecting so many of our States. Look at the shortfalls in our homeland 
security, where glaring vulnerabilities along the border are left to 
linger year after year after year. Look at the shortfalls in the 
funding for our veterans. The problems at Walter Reed did not happen 
because our military is not committed to caring for its wounded. It 
happened because we have an administration that is trying to cut 
corners in order to pay for its tax breaks for wealthy Americans.
  Look at the Department of Labor, where the administration chipped 
away at the mine safety budget for 6 years until it had lost 217 
inspectors, undermined the enforcement of the Mine Act, and left coal 
miners underground with inadequate safety equipment. It is no 
coincidence that mining deaths increased to record numbers last year, 
while the administration cut the coal enforcement budget, reduced the 
number of safety inspectors, and reduced the severity of enforcement 
actions against habitual violators.
  Gas and energy prices are on the rise again, and, still, the 
President's budget does not adequately address our Nation's congested 
roads, our overcrowded transit and rail systems, or the energy 
bottlenecks causing higher prices and electricity failures and power 
outages. These are the festering signs of our Nation's infrastructure 
slowly being starved.
  When the catastrophes come, they are Hurricanes that brutalize our 
cities and people, or scandals that surface at our Nation's veterans 
facilities, or tragedies that take the lives of our coal miners 
underground due to lack of sufficient Federal inspections.
  I reject the administration's tactics of cutting funds and hiding the 
consequences until a catastrophe hits. I reject that kind of Russian 
roulette. I reject the notion that the health and safety of the 
American people is less important than extending a tax cut. Today, the 
Congress has an opportunity to reject that approach, and I hope that it 
does reject it.
  We must have a budget that sets realistic spending levels. That is 
the only way to real budget enforcement and discipline. The last 
Congresses pinned their expectations to pie-in-the-sky, fantasy 
spending levels that were totally disconnected from reality. When those 
budgets proved inadequate and the appropriations process stalled, the 
Congress was forced to consider massive off-budget supplementals and 
end-of-the-year continuing resolutions and omnibus spending bills that 
exempted hundreds of billions of dollars of spending from the oversight 
of the regular appropriations process. The result was always higher 
deficits, and less accountability to the American people.
  The budget before the Senate today rejects that approach. It sets 
realistic spending levels that would allow the Congress to consider the 
annual appropriations bills in a timely manner, and subject those bills 
to debate and amendments in the Senate. That is the best kind of 
enforcement mechanism--full and open debate and amendments. This budget 
sets a discretionary spending level of $949 billion in the fiscal year 
2008, $16 billion above the President's request, and above the 
President's requested freeze at fiscal year 2007 levels for domestic 
programs. The Congress must address the unacceptable cuts in health 
care, veterans programs, and other critical priorities that have been 
proposed by the President.
  This budget is practical, and it is tough. This is not a budget 
lacking in enforcement mechanisms, and they would apply equally and 
fairly to all pieces of the budget revenues, mandatory entitlements, 
and discretionary spending. This budget caps discretionary spending in 
the fiscal year 2008, subject to a 60-vote point of order. It caps 
advance appropriations in the fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and it 
creates a 60-vote point of order against both emergency defense and 
nondefense spending, to limit the kind of budget gimmickry that has 
been used in the past to circumvent the discretionary spending caps. On 
the revenue and mandatory entitlement side of the ledger, this budget 
restores pay-go budget enforcement, subjecting new mandatory spending 
and tax cuts that are not offset to a 60-vote point of order. It also 
creates a 60-vote point of order against reconciliation legislation 
that worsens the deficit, causes a deficit, or reduces a surplus by 
decreasing revenues or increasing spending. Here, more than anywhere 
else, is where the budget process has been abused the most. Budget 
reconciliation has been used to shield controversial tax cuts from 
debate and amendments in the

[[Page S3697]]

Senate, which have added trillions of dollars to the national debt. 
This budget will stop such egregious practices from continuing.
  This budget gives the Congress the flexibility it needs to address 
the gross deficiencies in the president's request, and it demands 
savings from every piece of the budget--revenues, discretionary, and 
mandatory--in order to do it. This budget is evenhanded and fair, and 
its spending levels can be enforced.
  I commend the chairman of the Budget Committee for writing a budget 
that sets a new course. I hope that the Senate follows the lead of our 
chairman. He is trying to address the next catastrophe before it 
happens. He is trying to set enforceable spending limits to rein in 
this administration's budget deficits. He is doing the right thing with 
this budget. It deserves the support of the Senate.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the great untold story of the post-9/11 
period is the recovery of America's will to move on, despite new 
threats, and build an even stronger economy, an even stronger America 
than before. We gave the American people the tools they needed to help 
themselves and then we got out of the way.
  We eliminated the marriage penalty and doubled the child tax credit. 
We created a tuition tax deduction. We increased the deduction on 
charitable gifts and put the death tax on the road to extinction. We 
slashed the tax on capital gains and dividends.
  The American people took care of the rest. They took all these things 
and unleashed a flood of economic activity that is still lifting the 
tide for tens of millions of working families and retirees. We look out 
at the American economy today with amazement. Despite 
9/11, despite a recession, despite Katrina, despite a war, we see: 4.5 
percent unemployment--lower than the average of the last four decades. 
An economy that is grown at 3.4 percent over the last four quarters. 
More than 7.2 million new jobs since August '03
  That is more jobs over the last 4 years than the European Union and 
Japan--combined.
  China may have the world's fastest growing economy. But its entire 
GDP is less than the amount that ours has grown in the last 5\1/2\ 
years.
  New jobs create new revenue, and it's been pouring into the U.S. 
Treasury at a staggering clip. Since we cut taxes on capital gains, tax 
revenues exceeded government estimates by more than two-thirds.
  President Bush looked out over this economic landscape too, and he 
gave us a budget that builds on it, that advocates discipline and 
anticipates continued strong revenues by keeping tax cuts in place.
  That is the formula for continuing to shrink the deficit and leading 
us to a surplus. And we had reason to think the Democrats would embrace 
it, even on taxes, when my good friend the senior Senator from Nevada 
said back in November that raising taxes would be, ``Unacceptable.''
  Well, we should have known better. Budget week is like an annual 
debutante ball for the Democrats. They step out so everybody can take a 
good look at them, but their budgets never look good in the lights.
  The budget they proposed this week was a disaster. It restored the 
marriage tax, cut the child credit in half, lowered deductions on 
everything from charitable gifts to college tuition, and raised taxes 
on capital gains and dividends. It wasn't just a tax increase. It was 
the mother of all tax increases. Nearly four times bigger than the 
previous record.
  It reversed every tax cut we passed, and its passage would have 
resulted in a tax increase on every single taxpayer in America.
  A family of four with two kids and an annual income of $56,300 would 
pay an extra $2,000
  Nearly 50 million married couples would pay an extra $2,700 each year 
in taxes.
  More than 10 million single mothers would see their tax bill go up by 
more than $1,000.
  Seventeen million seniors would see their taxes go up by more than 
$2,000.
  Spending wasn't any better.

  Here too, we thought the Democrats might be coming around. The day 
before the President's budget was released, my good friend, the Senior 
Senator from North Dakota, said:

       We need to be tough on spending. The week after that, he 
     went even farther, saying we should sharply inhibit the 
     growth of spending.

  But then the curtain fell, and we saw the reality. The Democrats 
proposed to increase nonessential spending over the President's budget 
by nearly $150 billion.
  And as if that wasn't enough, in addition to the tax hikes we could 
see, they set up 20 new accounts that they planned to fill up with 
money they had raised from a raft of new taxes they didn't even 
specify. Most of these funds are for worthy purposes. But let's be 
honest with the American people and pay for these programs by trimming 
waste, fraud, and abuse instead of open-ended tax hikes down the road.
  Republicans opened this Congress with a pledge to work with 
Democrats. We gave them a soaring economy and an offer to take 
advantage of divided government to do big things, as divided 
governments have in the past. One of the big things we proposed was 
entitlement reform. Every Member of this Chamber knows Social Security 
is unsustainable in its current form. Yet the budget writers ignored 
the problem altogether. They proposed to raise $916 billion in new 
taxes--and to spend it. Budget week is when the rhetoric meets reality: 
and one of the sad realities this budget revealed was that Democrats 
weren't serious about reform this week.

  Oh they will deny it. Just like they have tried to deny that the tax 
hikes in this budget are tax hikes.
  After I and my colleagues pointed out the new taxes in this budget, 
the senior Senator from North Dakota rose to say that we were letting 
our imaginations get the better of us. He said the Democratic budget 
contained ``no proposed tax increase.''
  But then, one day after rising on the floor to insist that there were 
no new taxes in this budget, he and his Democratic colleagues admitted 
as much. They voted for an amendment that would reduce some of the more 
unsavory tax increases in their budget.
  Well, you don't need to be Einstein to know that you can't lower a 
tax increase that doesn't exist.
  The upshot of that amendment is that the budget we are now being 
asked to vote on no longer represents a tax hike four times larger than 
the previous record.
  We are being asked to vote on a tax hike nearly three times bigger 
than the previous record--and, in the process, to get in the way of an 
economic expansion, increase nonessential spending by tens of billions 
of dollars, and do absolutely nothing about a pending entitlement 
crisis.
  Republicans wouldn't do any one of those things, let alone all four. 
And we urge our colleagues on other side to reconsider the damage they 
plan to inflict on Americans who have worked hard to rebuild and 
reenergize this country over the last 5 years.
  Their current budget would squeeze three-quarters of a trillion 
dollars out of the American taxpayer without shaving so much as a dime 
from a single government program. This is the very definition of tax 
and spend. It represents a tremendous missed opportunity. And it is a 
terrible disappointment.
  When Republicans proposed to accomplish big things, this isn't what 
we had in mind.
  This budget is a big mistake. Republicans can't support it.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me say for the colleagues who are 
waiting, we are working on a final package of amendments to be adopted 
by unanimous consent. That package has many amendments by many 
colleagues. It has to go through a vetting process. It is not quite 
complete. As soon as it is, we will move to that and then to final 
passage.
  I thank my colleagues for their extraordinary cooperation. So many 
colleagues have agreed to withhold amendments. It has been very 
helpful. We have to have this final process complete before we can go 
to final passage.
  While we are awaiting that package, I would like to take this 
opportunity to thank the staffs who have made truly an extraordinary 
effort. Mary Naylor, my staff director; John Righter, my deputy staff 
director; the counsel, Lisa Konwinski; Kobye Noel, who is the one who 
does all of our charts. I know my colleagues enjoy them; Joel Friedman, 
my other deputy staff director; Steve Bailey, who does the tax

[[Page S3698]]

work; and Jamie Morin, who does defense. I thank all of the others on 
my staff who have done such an extraordinary job working nights and 
weekends for weeks--Steve Posner, Stu Nagurka, David Vandivier, Mike 
Jones, Jim Esquea, Sarah Kuehl, Jim Miller, Joan Huffer, Cliff 
Isenberg, Brodi Fontenot, Robyn Hiestand, Susan Reeves, Jim Klumpner, 
Anne Page, Ben Soskin, and Josh Ryan. I thank each and every one of my 
staff.
  I also wish to recognize the extraordinary professionalism of Senator 
Gregg's staff. They are absolutely first rate and absolutely 
dependable--people whose word you can count on. Of course, no one is 
better than the ranking member, Senator Gregg. He has demonstrated over 
and over his willingness to cooperate; more than that, his 
professionalism and also his extraordinary knowledge of the budget. I 
wish to thank all of those who have participated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to join Senator Conrad in thanking 
both our staffs. They are exceptional. They are incredibly talented 
people. They work extraordinary hours: Mary Naylor and her team on that 
side. Scott Gudes, Denzel McGuire on our side, including Allison 
Parent, Jim Hearn, Cheri Reidy, Dan Brandt, Dave Fisher, Conwell Smith, 
Jay Kholsa, Richie Weiblinger, Seems Mittal, Vanessa Green, Winnie 
Cheung, Betsy Holahan, Jeff Turcotte, David Myers, Jason Delisk, Dave 
Pappone, Jennifer Pollum, Mike Lofgren, Kevin Bargo, Matt Giroux, Liz 
Wroe, and Lynne Seymour, our team that works so well over here. They 
are special people who put in an extraordinary amount of effort on 
behalf of the American people. We thank them for it. This is a complex 
bill. It involves many nights of work and takes a lot of time to work 
it up into a final package. As you can see from the amount of paper 
that is being run around right now, it is extraordinary that we are 
able to keep it straight, and it is because of their extraordinary 
ability.
  I also wish to thank the staff on the dais, the Senate staff. This is 
probably the most difficult bill the Senate deals with because there 
are so many votes that come so quickly in such rapid succession and 
they always do an exceptional job and I very much appreciate it.
  Finally, I wish to thank the chairman, Senator Conrad, who treats us 
with dignity, respect and fairness and runs an extremely professional 
shop as chairman of the Budget Committee and who is committed to making 
sure the integrity of the Senate and the process of the Senate remains 
professional. We thank him for that, and we thank him for his 
assistance.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I so appreciate the two managers of this 
bill. A year ago the roles were reversed. Senator Judd was the 
chairman. Senator Conrad was the ranking member. Mr. President, the way 
they operate it doesn't matter. They truly set an example of how the 
Senate should operate. I say--and I say this without any reservation or 
qualification--these two fine Senators deserve a hand.
  Mr. GREGG. Actually, last year Senator Gregg was in charge. This 
year, Senator Judd is in charge.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, 
following morning business, the Senate proceed to the consideration of 
H.R. 1591.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this being the case, there will be no votes 
on Monday. We have done such a great job here, and we are moving to the 
supplemental on Monday. There will be no votes Monday. We will have a 
tough week on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday perhaps, but we 
made great progress, and I think the Senate should feel good about the 
work we have accomplished.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me add my word of thanks to Chairman Conrad and 
Senator Gregg. They have done a spectacular job on this budget, and I 
wish to thank my Senators on this side of the aisle for cooperating in 
such a way that we are going to finish this bill at midafternoon on 
Friday, one of the earliest completion times we have had.
  Finally, with regard to next week, it is the view of the Republican 
side of the aisle that we need to finish that bill next week. The 
troops need the money. There is a veto threat out against the bill 
potentially if it is not fixed on the floor of the Senate. So we need 
to wrap up that bill up next week, and we will be working cooperatively 
on this side of the aisle to achieve that goal.
  I yield the floor.


 Amendments Nos. 580; 599; 632; 617; 540; 611, as Modified; 544; 524; 
596; 600; 537; 627; 639; 589; 470, as Modified; 572; 551, as Modified; 
          629, as Modified; 636; 633; 635; 506; 548; and 640.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
managers' amendments be considered en bloc, that they be agreed to en 
bloc, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table: Senator 
Nelson, No. 580; Senator Obama, No. 599; Senator Levin, No. 632; 
Senator Casey, No. 617; Senator Carper, No. 540; Senator Pryor, No. 
611, with a modification; Senator Dorgan, No. 544; Senator Obama, No. 
524; Reed-Collins, No. 596; Bingaman-Domenici, No. 600; Webb, No. 537; 
Pryor, No. 627; 639; Baucus-Grassley amendment, which is at the desk; 
Dorgan-Snowe, No. 589, with Senator Stabenow; Senator Voinovich, No. 
470, with a modification; Senator Coleman, No. 572; Senator Murkowski, 
No. 551, with a modification; Snowe, No. 629, with a modification; 
Senator Grassley, No. 636; Senator Dole, No. 633; Senator Enzi, No. 
635; Senator Specter, No. 506; Senator Grassley, No. 548; and the Dole 
amendment 640, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to as follows:


                           amendment no. 580

(Purpose: To make funds available to ensure that Survivor Benefit Plan 
  annuities are not reduced by the amount of veterans' dependency and 
         indemnity compensation received by military families)

       On page 49, line 17, insert after ``disabled military 
     personnel'' the following: ``or veterans (including the 
     elimination of the offset between Survivor Benefit Plan 
     annuities and veterans' dependency and indemnity 
     compensation)''.


                           amendment no. 599

    (Purpose: To add $200 million for Function 270 (Energy) for the 
   demonstration and monitoring of carbon capture and sequestration 
                technology by the Department of Energy)

       On page 11, line 9, increase the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 11, line 10, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 11, line 14, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 11, line 18, increase the amount by $50,000.000.
       On page 11, line 22, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 12, line 1, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 26, line 25, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 27, line 4, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.


                           amendment no. 632

      (Purpose: To provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund for 
                       manufacturing initiatives)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MANUFACTURING 
                   INITIATIVES.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint 
     resolutions, amendments, motions, or conference reports, 
     including tax legislation, that would revitalize the United 
     States domestic manufacturing sector by increasing Federal 
     research and development, by expanding the scope and 
     effectiveness of manufacturing programs across the Federal 
     government, by increasing support for development of 
     alternative fuels and leap-ahead automotive and energy 
     technologies, and by establishing tax incentives to encourage 
     the continued production in the United States of advanced 
     technologies and the infrastructure to support such 
     technologies, by the amounts provided in that legislation for 
     those purposes, provided that such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit over the total of the period of fiscal 
     years 2007 through 2012.


                           amendment no. 617

  (Purpose: To establish a deficit neutral reserve fund for extending 
                  preschool opportunities to children)

       After section 322, insert the following:

[[Page S3699]]

     SEC. 322A. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR PRESCHOOL 
                   OPPORTUNITIES.

       If the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
     of the Senate, reports a bill or a joint resolution, or an 
     amendment is offered in the Senate to such a bill or joint 
     resolution, or a conference report is submitted to the Senate 
     on a such a bill or joint resolution, that augments or 
     establishes a Federal program that provides assistance to 
     States that offer or expand preschool to children of low-
     income families, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     of the Senate may revisit the aggregates, allocations, and 
     other appropriate levels in this resolution by amounts 
     provided in such measure for that purpose, provided that such 
     legislation would not increase the deficit for the total of 
     the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012.


                           amendment no. 540

   (Purpose: To reduce the deficit through he use of recovery audits)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-REDUCTION RESERVE FUND FOR INCREASED USE OF 
                   RECOVERY AUDITS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the aggregates, allocations, functional totals, and 
     other appropriate levels and limits in this resolution upon 
     enactment of legislation that achieves savings by requiring 
     that agencies increase their use of the recovery audits 
     authorized by the Erroneous Payments Recovery Act of 2001 
     (section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     FY2002) and uses such savings to reduce the deficit, provided 
     that the legislation would not increase the deficit over the 
     total of fiscal years 2007 through 2012.

                     Amendment No. 611, as Modified

      (Purpose: To increase the budgeting totals for the National 
Nanotechnology Initiative for environmental, health and safety research 
          and development for fiscal years 2008 through 2012)

       On page 10, line 9, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 10, line 10, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 10, line 13, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 10, line 14, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 10, line 17, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 10, line 18, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 10, line 21, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 10, line 22, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 10, line 25, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 11, line 1, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 26, line 16, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 26, line 20, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 26, line 24, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 26, line 25, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 27, line 3, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 27, line 4, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.


                           amendment no. 544

 (Purpose: To provide for the use of the deficit-neutral reserve fund 
    for tax relief for enhancing charitable giving from individual 
                          retirement accounts)

       On page 50, line 8, insert ``, such as enhanced charitable 
     giving from individual retirement accounts,'' before ``and''.


                           amendment no. 524

(Purpose: To provide $100 million for the Summer Term Education Program 
supporting summer learning opportunities for low-income students in the 
     early grades. Program will lessen summer learning losses that 
contribute to the achievement gaps separating low-income students from 
                       their middle-class peers)

       On page 17, line 12, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 17, line 13, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 17, line 17, increase the amount by $58,000,000.
       On page 17, line 21, increase the amount by $30,000,000.
       On page 17, line 25, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $58,000,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $30,000,000.
       On page 26, line 25, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.


                           amendment no. 596

(Purpose: To increase LIHEAP spending by $703 million in FY 2008 for a 
  total LIHEAP level of $3.2 billion, divided between the regular and 
               contingency grant funds at FY2006 levels)

       On page 20, line 12, increase the amount by $703,000,000.
       On page 20, line 13, increase the amount by $527,000,000.
       On page 20, line 17, increase the amount by $162,000,000.
       On page 20, line 21, increase the amount by $14,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $703,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $527,000,000.
       On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $162,000,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $14,000,000.


                           amendment no. 600

(Purpose: To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide for a 
delay in the implementation of a proposed rule relating to the Federal-
         State financial partnerships under Medicaid and SCHIP)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR A DELAY IN THE 
                   IMPLEMENTATION OF A PROPOSED RULE RELATING TO 
                   THE FEDERAL-STATE FINANCIAL PARTNERSHIPS UNDER 
                   MEDICAID AND SCHIP.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate 
     levels in this resolution for a bill, joint resolution, 
     amendment, motion, or conference report that provides for a 
     delay in the implementation of the proposed rule published on 
     January 18, 2007, on pages 2236 through 2248 of volume 72, 
     Federal Register (relating to parts 433, 447, and 457 of 
     title 42, Code of Federal Regulations) or any other rule that 
     would affect the Medicaid program and SCHIP in a similar 
     manner, by the amounts provided in that legislation for that 
     purpose, provided that such legislation would not increase 
     the deficit over the total of the period of fiscal years 2007 
     through 2012.


                           amendment no. 537

 (Purpose: To include in the veterans' reserve fund a provision for GI 
                         educational benefits)

       On page 59, line 7, after ``erans'' insert ``, including GI 
     educational benefits''.


                           amendment no. 627

(Purpose: To provide additional funding for the Consumer Product Safety 
    Commission to enhance its mission of protecting the public from 
 unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from consumer products)

       On page 18, line 12, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 18, line 13, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 18, line 16, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 18, line 17, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 18, line 20, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 18, line 21, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 18, line 24, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 18, line 25, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 19, line 3, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 19, line 4, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 26, line 16, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 26, line 20, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 26, line 24, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 26, line 25, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 27, line 3, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 27, line 4, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 639

   (Purpose: To establish a reserve fund to improve the health care 
                                system)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. __. RESERVE FUND TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.

       If the Senate Committee on Finance--
       (1) reports a bill, or if an amendment is offered thereto, 
     or if a conference report is submitted thereon, that--
       (A) creates a framework and parameters for the use of 
     Medicare data for the purpose of conducting research, public 
     reporting, and other activities to evaluate health care 
     safety, effectiveness, efficiency, quality, and resource 
     utilization in Federal programs and the private health care 
     system; and
       (B) includes provisions to protect beneficiary privacy and 
     to prevent disclosure of proprietary or trade secret 
     information with respect to the transfer and use of such 
     data; and
       (2) is within its allocation as provided under section 
     302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
     the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may revise 
     allocations of new budget authority and outlays, the revenue 
     aggregates, and other appropriate measures

[[Page S3700]]

     to reflect such legislation provided that such legislation 
     would not increase the deficit for fiscal year 2008, and for 
     the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 589

 (Purpose: To establish a reserve fund for the safe importation of FDA-
                      approved prescription drugs)

       On page 62, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 322A. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE SAFE 
                   IMPORTATION OF FDA-APPROVED PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the aggregates, allocations, and other levels in this 
     resolution for a bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment, 
     or conference report that permits the safe importation of 
     prescription drugs approved by the Food and Drug 
     Administration from a specified list of countries, by the 
     amounts provided in such legislation for that purpose, 
     provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit 
     over the total of the period of fiscal years 2007 through 
     2012.


                     AMENDMENT NO. 470, AS MODIFIED

       At the end of title II, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST COSTS.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate 
     to consider any direct spending or revenue legislation that 
     is required to contain the statement described in section 
     308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, unless such 
     statement contains a projection by the Congressional Budget 
     Office of the cost of the debt servicing that would be caused 
     by such legislation for such fiscal year (or fiscal years) 
     and each of the 4 ensuing fiscal years.
       (b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--
       (1) Waiver.--In the Senate, subsection (a) may be waived or 
     suspended only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (2) Appeal.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be 
     required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 
     point of order raised under subsection (a).


                           AMENDMENT NO. 572

   (Purpose: To increase funds for the implementation of the forest 
 management plans developed for the States of Minnesota, Michigan, and 
                       Wisconsin, with an offset)

       On page 12, line 9, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 12, line 10, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 12, line 14, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.


                     amendment no. 551, as modified

       On page 11, line 9, increase the amount by $125,000,000.
       On page 11, line 10, increase the amount by $56,000,000.
       On page 11, line 14, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 11, line 18, increase the amount by $13,000,000.
       On page 11, line 22, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $125,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $56,000,000.
       On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $13,000,000.
       On page 26, line 25, decrease the amount by $6,000,000.


                     AMENDMENT NO. 629, AS MODIFIED

       On page 50, line 8, insert ``and including the 
     reauthorization of the new markets tax credit under section 
     45D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for an additional 5 
     years'' after ``refundable tax relief''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 636

 (Purpose: To establish a reserve fund to improve payment accuracy for 
                 hospitals under the Medicare program)

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. RESERVE FUND TO IMPROVE MEDICARE HOSPITAL PAYMENT 
                   ACCURACY.

       If the Senate Committee on Finance--
       (1) reports a bill, or if an amendment is offered thereto, 
     or if a conference report is submitted thereon, that--
       (A) addresses the wide and inequitable disparity in the 
     reimbursement of hospitals under the Medicare program;
       (B) includes provisions to reform the area wage index used 
     to adjust payments to hospitals under the Medicare hospital 
     inpatient prospective payment system under section 1886(d) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)); and
       (C) includes a transition to the reform described in 
     subparagraph (B); and
       (2) is within its allocation as provided under section 
     302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
     the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may revise 
     allocations of new budget authority and outlays, the revenue 
     aggregates, and other appropriate measures to reflect such 
     legislation provided that such legislation would not increase 
     the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 633

 (Purpose: To provide the Secretary of Agriculture with the necessary 
funding to effectively address the critical water and waste water needs 
               of rural communities in the United States)

       On page 16, line 10, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 16, line 11, increase the amount by $7,500,000.
       On page 16, line 14, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 16, line 15, increase the amount by $15,000,000.
       On page 16, line 18, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 16, line 19, increase the amount by $30,000,000.
       On page 16, line 22, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 16, line 23, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 17, line 2, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 17, line 3, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $7,500,000.
       On page 26, line 16, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $15,000,000.
       On page 26, line 20, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $30,000,000.
       On page 26, line 24, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 26, line 25, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 27, line 3, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 27, line 4, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.


                           amendment no. 635

  (Purpose: To provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund to improve 
                           health insurance)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO IMPROVE HEALTH 
                   INSURANCE.

       If a Senate committee reports a bill or joint resolution, 
     or if an amendment is offered thereto, or if a conference 
     report is submitted thereon, that, with appropriate 
     protections for consumers, reduces growth in the number of 
     uninsured Americans, improves access to affordable and 
     meaningful health insurance coverage, improves health care 
     quality, or reduces growth in the cost of private health 
     insurance by facilitating market-based pooling, including 
     across State lines, and a bill or joint resolution, or if an 
     amendment is offered thereto, or if a conference report is 
     submitted thereon, that, with appropriate protections for 
     consumers, provides funding for State high risk pools or 
     financial assistance, whether directly, or through grants to 
     States to enhance the effectiveness of such pooling or to 
     provide other assistance to small businesses or individuals, 
     including financial assistance, for the purchase of private 
     insurance coverage, the Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may make appropriate adjustments in allocations and 
     aggregates for fiscal year 2007 and for the period of fiscal 
     years 2008 through 2012, provided that such legislation would 
     not increase the deficit over the total of the period of 
     fiscal years 2007 through 2012.


                           amendment no. 506

 (Purpose: To increase funding for the National Institutes of Health, 
    the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the health 
                              professions)

       On page 18, line 12, increase the amount by $2,200,000,000.
       On page 18, line 13, increase the amount by $2,200,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $2,200,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $2,200,000,000.


                           amendment no. 548

   (Purpose: To ensure that Medicare payments to physicians include 
 incentives to improve the quality and efficiency of care furnished to 
                        Medicare beneficiaries)

       On page 53, line 22, insert ``and that includes financial 
     incentives for physicians to improve the quality and 
     efficiency of items and services furnished to Medicare 
     beneficiaries through the use of consensus-based quality 
     measures'' after ``Act''.


                           amendment no. 640

 (Purpose: To provide the Secretary of Agriculture with the necessary 
   funding to implement a pilot program authorized by the Richard B. 
   Russell National School Lunch Act to study the elimination of the 
               reduced-price category for school lunches)

       On page 20, line 12, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 20, line 13, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 20, line 16, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 20, line 17, increase the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 20, line 20, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 20, line 21, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 26, line 16, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.

[[Page S3701]]

       On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $10,000,000.
       On page 26, line 20, decrease the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $3,000,000.


                           Amendment No. 596

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Chairman of the 
Budget Committee for his efforts to include my bipartisan amendment to 
increase the allocation for LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program, to $3.2 billion in the budget resolution. As the 
chairman knows, this is the level that was recommended in a bipartisan 
letter signed by 35 governors and is the minimum level of funding 
needed to allow States to provide the same level of assistance as in 
fiscal year 2006.
  The rise in energy prices has led to an increase in the number of 
families seeking and receiving assistance. In fiscal year 2006, with an 
additional $1 billion, over 500,000 additional households were served 
by LIHEAP, increasing the total to 5.6 million. However, that 
represents less than 15 percent of the eligible households.
  LIHEAP is not only a heating program, it is also a cooling program. 
The number of households receiving cooling assistance increased to 
540,000 in fiscal year 2006, up from 315,000 in 2005.
  LIHEAP provides a vital safety net for our Nation's low-income 
households by helping them remain healthy and secure during bitterly 
cold winters in the North and hot summers in the South. For many low-
income families, disabled individuals, and senior citizens living on 
fixed incomes, home energy costs are unaffordable. Low-income families 
pay close to 18 percent of their income on energy. The average family 
only pays 4 percent.
  According to a recent survey conducted by the National Energy 
Assistance Directors Association, NEADA, families who receive LIHEAP 
are very poor and have few choices but to cut back on food, medicine, 
and other essentials in order to pay their home energy costs when 
funding is inadequate to meet the need. Sixty-four percent of those 
surveyed said that without LIHEAP, they would have had to keep their 
home at an unsafe or unhealthy temperature. Fifty-four percent said 
that they would have had their electric or gas service disconnected if 
LIHEAP benefits had not been available.
  Increasing funding for this vital and valuable program remains a top 
priority for me. I am grateful that the Senate has accepted this 
bipartisan amendment.
  I also want to reiterate my comments from yesterday about this budget 
resolution. Chairman Conrad has worked tirelessly to ensure that this 
resolution meets the pressing needs of the American people and restores 
the fiscal discipline that has been lacking for several years.
  We have been charting an unsustainable fiscal policy course over the 
last 6 years. Instead of a $505 billion surplus in 2006, Republican 
fiscal policies left us with a deficit of $248 billion. Reversing this 
course and restoring balance is essential to our economic well-being. 
This budget takes the necessary steps toward equilibrium by achieving a 
balanced budget by 2012 and providing funding for essential programs 
that improve the lives of hardworking Americans who have been 
struggling during this sluggish economic recovery.
  It includes necessary funding for the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program, SCHIP; a program that provides a vital safety net to 
millions of families who do not earn enough to buy health insurance for 
their children.
  The budget also includes language that allows for the establishment 
of an affordable housing fund financed by government-sponsored 
enterprises. This affordable housing fund will provide grants for the 
production, preservation, and rehabilitation of affordable housing for 
very low-income families.
  The budget resolution reinforces our commitment to America's veterans 
by including $43.1 billion for discretionary veterans' programs and 
rejecting the President's proposed increases in fees on veterans 
enrolled in the VA health care system.
  I was also pleased to see that this budget rejects the President's 
proposed cuts in funding for education and training programs and 
instead appropriately invests in these necessary endeavors, in part by 
including significant increases in funding for the Department of 
Education--$6.1 billion above the President's request and $4 billion 
above the FY07 inflation-adjusted level.
  I thank Chairman Conrad and his staff for their hard work in 
producing this budget, which is both supportive of the needs of the 
American people and fiscally sound. I will support this resolution and 
urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, last year on March 20, the President signed 
S. 2320, which augmented funding for the Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance program. In light of the historically high energy costs, it 
was prudent to shift funding to accommodate for the reduced purchasing 
power of the vital program. As many of us know, disaster was narrowly 
averted last winter and the summer of 2006.
  With heating oil at $2.45 a gallon in Maine, we must recognize that 
energy prices will continue to burden the citizens who are most 
susceptible to heat and cold in the coming fiscal year. As we know in 
each of our states, energy is a necessity of life during extreme 
weather. In fact, it has been found that 73 percent of households have 
been forced to cut back on, and even go without other necessities such 
as food, prescription drugs and mortgage and rent payments. The LIHEAP 
program is, for many low-income families and our Nation's elderly, is 
the only barrier from nature's elements.
  This program is a national program. In fiscal year 2006 LIHEAP 
assisted 5,710,000 households in the United States, including 48,000 
households in Maine. In Fiscal Year 2006, the nearly 6 million 
households that received funding only represented 25 percent of the 
households eligible for assistance. Unfortunately, that figure 
illustrates that with the exponential rise in energy prices, this 
program has become an even more vital program.
  This is also reflected in level of support from our Nation's 
governors. On February 15th, a bipartisan group of 35 governors wrote 
the leadership of the House and Senate stating that ``In 2006, we were 
grateful that Congress made a significant investment in LIHEAP, 
recognizing that soaring energy prices required additional funding for 
the program.'' The letter further reads that, ``We urge you to use the 
2006 funding level of $3.2 billion as a base to build from in the 
future--not a one time emergency investment in energy assistance.'' The 
letter was signed by governors with diverse political views and from a 
distinct regions including Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, North Carolina, 
Oklahoma, and South Dakota. This is a national program and, 
accordingly, it has national support.
  It is incumbent on us to prepare the Nation's budget in light of the 
year's perceivable threats facing the United States and with our 
citizens in mind. Current energy prices present an impending crisis for 
the United State's most vulnerable. The LIHEAP program does not stem 
the effects of winter, but it quells the effects of energy prices and 
allays the fears of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens.
  I believe that our Nation's budget should prioritize the Low Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program, and believe that an increase of an 
additional $703 million represents a responsible and vital investment. 
I urge my colleagues to support this program.


                           amendment no. 635

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by Senators Ben Nelson, 
Baucus, Grassley, Kennedy, and Salazar, to offer a bipartisan amendment 
which creates a deficit neutral reserve fund that recognizes the 
significance of market-based pooling as a tool in addressing rising 
health insurance costs, and health care quality.
  Market-based pooling is especially important for small businesses, 
which now have virtually no ability to use strength in numbers across 
State lines to negotiate better and more affordable coverage for their 
workers.
  America faces an ever-widening gap between health care ``haves'' and 
``have nots.'' Without effective market pooling power, ever-growing 
numbers of small businesses and uninsured and underinsured Americans 
are slipping into the ``have not'' column. This is a tragic gap we can 
and must close.
  Senator Nelson and I are actively discussing with our colleagues 
possible

[[Page S3702]]

bipartisan approaches. As the wide bipartisan support for today's 
amendment shows, we are on a promising track, and we intend to stick 
with it. Market-based pooling must be a part of any comprehensive 
health reform solution.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on the adoption of the concurrent resolution, as 
amended.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 114 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 21), as amended, was agreed 
to.
  (The resolution will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. CONRAD. 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. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have now taken the next step on the 
journey to having a budget resolution in place for the Nation. It 
passed the committee and has now passed the Senate. This is an 
important turning point for the Congress, certainly for the Senate. 
Three of the last five years, our country has not had a budget. It is 
important--critically important--for the Congress of the United States 
to agree on a budget. I would be the first one to say this is an 
imperfect budget, but it does advance the cause of having the 
discipline of a budget for our country.
  I thank all of our colleagues who have worked to this end, even those 
who voted against it but who cooperated in the process. I especially 
thank Senator Gregg again and his outstanding professional staff. I see 
his staff director, Scott Gudes, who has been a true professional.
  I very much appreciate having the chance to work with people of that 
caliber. And again, to my own staff director, Mary Naylor, who has 
worked such extraordinary hours, weekend after weekend, night after 
night until 10, 11, sometimes 2 in the morning, this has truly been an 
extraordinary effort, and I thank her, and I thank all of my staff. To 
many of them who are here, I say thank you. You have done this 
institution proud, and I appreciate it deeply.
  Mr. President, 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________