[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 28479-28485]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 3:30 
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will resume consideration of the House 
message accompanying S. 1932. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1932) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to 
     section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95).

  Pending:

       DeWine motion to instruct conferees to insist that any 
     conference report shall not include the provisions contained 
     in section 8701 of the House amendment relating to the repeal 
     of section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
       Kohl motion to instruct conferees to insist that any 
     conference report shall not include any of the provisions in 
     the House amendment that reduce funding for the child support 
     program established under part D of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651 et seq.), and to insist that the 
     conference report shall not include any restrictions on the 
     ability of States to use Federal child support incentive 
     payments for child support program expenditures that are 
     eligible for Federal matching payments.
       Kennedy motion to instruct conferees to insist that the 
     Senate provisions increasing need-based financial aid in the 
     bill, S. 1932,

[[Page 28480]]

     which were fully offset by savings in the bill, S. 1932, be 
     included in the final conference report and that the House 
     provisions in the bill, H.R. 4241, that impose new fees and 
     costs on students in school and in repayment be rejected in 
     the final conference report.
       Reed motion to instruct conferees to insist on a provision 
     that makes available $2,920,000,000 for the Low-Income Home 
     Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 et seq.), in 
     addition to the $2,183,000,000 made available for such act in 
     the Departments of Labor, Health, and Human Services, and 
     Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be deemed 
that the yeas and nays have been ordered on the next four items which 
are set for votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is in order to request 
the yeas and nays en bloc.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays en bloc.
  Mr. DeWINE. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. What is the request?
  Mr. GREGG. The point of the request is to allow the yeas and nays on 
each item and that they be voted on seriatim.
  Mr. DeWINE. I withdraw my reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered en bloc.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the 
first vote, the subsequent votes be 10 minutes in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Motion to Instruct Conferees

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the first motion? The 
Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this 
motion to instruct the conferees to support something that 72 Senators 
have already supported in letters they have signed in the past, 72 
Members of this body, and I have the list for anyone who would like to 
see it when they come to the Chamber.
  This is to support a bill that is currently law, the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act. It is a bill that has helped companies 
in 48 States across this country. More importantly, it has helped 
workers in 48 States across this country. It has helped employers who 
create additional jobs. The idea is to compensate companies that have 
been victimized by illegal foreign dumping in this country. Instead of 
giving money to the Treasury, it goes to these companies, and these 
companies have the right then to reinvest and create jobs.
  Some people have argued this is some sort of special interest. I ask 
Members of the Senate, when in the world did it become a special 
interest to protect American jobs?
  This is a proven way to fight back against illegal trade. It is a 
proven way to protect American jobs. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to join my Republican colleagues, 
Senator DeWine, Senator Specter, and Senator Craig, all of whom have 
already spoken so eloquently in support of a motion introduced by 
Senator DeWine yesterday to instruct conferees on the budget bill to 
strike an ill-conceived House provision that would repeal the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, also known as CDSOA.
  To repeal or abandon this trade law would be a travesty. The 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act was enacted to save American 
manufacturing and our agricultural producers from wave after wave of 
unfairly dumped foreign imports.
  CDSOA remains one of the most successful trade programs ever enacted. 
It maintains America's corporate competitiveness; it enables small and 
medium-sized businesses--and family-owned businesses--to invest in 
their futures. It keeps American workers employed, so they can receive 
health and pension benefits. This law is about American jobs. As 
Senator DeWine said yesterday, this law is not about rewarding special 
interests: It is about keeping American jobs.
  Five years ago, a bipartisan majority of the Senate approved our 
amendment to give U.S. companies injured by unfair trade the ability to 
invest in their factories and workers with funds collected by the 
Customs Service from unfairly traded imports. I particularly appreciate 
the continued strong support that Senator DeWine and many of our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to express in 
support of this law. In fact, three-fourths of the Senate has publicly 
pledged support for the law.
  Before this law was enacted, the Customs Service imposed antidumping 
and countervailing duties on dumped and unfairly subsidized imports--to 
make foreign exporters stop dumping and charge a fair price. Despite 
Customs' efforts, unfair foreign traders refused to trade fairly. 
Instead, they continued to dump--year after year. And the prices of the 
dumped foreign imports from China, Canada, the European Union, Japan, 
and other countries continued to unfairly undercut the prices of 
American-made products sold here in the United States.
  Faced with eroding U.S. market share, American producers struggled to 
stay afloat, unable to invest in new plants or equipment or to meet 
their payrolls. This was particularly true for small businesses and 
many of our Nation's family farmers, ranchers, and aquacultural 
producers. Even today, valiant producers of shrimp and crawfish 
continue to suffer from having endured a double whammy: unending unfair 
trade and Hurricane Katrina.
  CDSOA was enacted to restore conditions of fair trade, so that jobs 
that should stay in the United States are not sent overseas or 
``outsourced'' as the result of unfair competition. Under the law, each 
year, Customs distributes duties collected from unfair imports to those 
American companies and workers who can prove that they have been 
materially injured by unfair trade.
  While the amounts distributed under the program are not large from a 
budget perspective---approximately $226 million for fiscal year 2005--
the law is critically important to American companies and workers who 
continue to work hard to stay in business, even when foreign producers 
refuse to stop dumping. American companies that rightfully receive 
distributions under the law include producers of crawfish, garlic, 
furniture, honey, lumber, wheat, shrimp, catfish, semiconductor chips, 
bearings, mushrooms, crawfish, pasta, steel, raspberries, cement, and a 
long list of others--all of which deserve to be reimbursed under the 
law for having suffered the negative effects of bringing successful 
trade cases against illegally traded imports year after year after 
year.
  There was a claim on the Senate floor earlier this week that CDSOA 
claims may be fraudulent. That shows a basic misunderstanding of the 
law. To receive reimbursement under the law, companies must certify, in 
writing, that they have made qualifying expenditures in their workers 
and facilities. CDSOA reimburses them for those expenditures. And 
Customs may verify any claim submitted to make certain that a request 
for reimbursement is valid. So there are very careful safeguards in 
place under the law to be certain that funds are distributed fairly, 
honestly, and legally.
  Critics of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act also argue 
that the WTO has ruled against the law, so we should abandon it. But 
the WTO was wrong in opposing it. The WTO was overzealous in ruling 
against the law; it overreached. The WTO decision against this trade 
authority was technically beyond the scope of the WTO' legal mandate. 
The WTO incorrectly read into international agreements a prohibition 
against our law that was never agreed to by any U.S. trade negotiator. 
The WTO has no legal basis to request that the United States repeal 
this law.
  Nearly 800 American companies and workers in nearly every State of 
the Nation receive distributions under its provisions. It is critical 
to family-owned businesses, like Warwood Tools in Wheeling, WV, and to 
Wheeling-

[[Page 28481]]

Pittsburgh Steel, and to Mittal Steel's facilities in Weirton, WV. It 
is equally important to the thousands of steelworkers in Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, and elsewhere across the Nation. They, and all hard-
working Americans, deserve to continue to receive these funds so long 
as foreign traders keep dumping. If our trading partners don't like 
this trade law, I have only two words for them: stop dumping.
  In the fiscal year 2004 and 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Acts--
and, now, in the fiscal year 2006 Commerce, Justice, Science, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act--both Houses of Congress included 
language that directs the administration to negotiate a solution to the 
WTO dispute concerning this law. In fact, the conference report on the 
CJS bill that contains this language was approved by the Senate on 
November 16 by an overwhelming vote of 94 to 5.
  Pursuant to these congressional directives, the administration last 
year put this trade law on the table in the Doha Round of trade 
negotiations, and the USTR even told our trading partners that it 
agrees it is ``beyond question that countries have the sovereign right 
to distribute duties as they deem appropriate.''
  Even if the WTO disagrees with the law, any retaliation by other 
countries against us is negligible--equal to only a few hours of trade 
among a few of our trading partners.
  Currently, the United States and other nations are seeking to 
complete negotiations in the Doha Round of international trade talks by 
the end of 2006. Now is not the time to weaken the hand of our trade 
negotiators by attempting to repeal one of our Nation's most prominent 
and effective trade laws.
  In fact, now is the time to do more to hold foreign unfair traders 
accountable, not less.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in support of this 
motion to instruct the conferees to strike from the budget 
reconciliation bill any provision that would repeal this critical trade 
law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this proposal is a motion to instruct which 
has no binding effect and, thus, I assume Members are just going to 
vote the way they feel like voting.
  I will point out this: No. 1, the effect of this motion, if it had a 
binding effect, would be to take $3 billion away from the Federal 
Treasury and give it to specific companies in violation of a WTO 
ruling. It may have made sense at one time, but since the WTO ruling, 
it makes no sense. Because of that ruling, other companies are now 
being penalized inappropriately because we continue to assess this 
fine.
  No. 2, it is very hard for me to understand why, in a bill that is 
supposed to be reducing the deficit, we would want to increase the 
deficit by passing this type of instruction. Therefore, I oppose the 
motion to instruct.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The Legislative Clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from South Carolina 
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Vitter).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Santorum) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Washington 
(Ms. Cantwell), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
California (Mrs. Boxer), would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 20, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 354 Leg.]

                                YEAS--71

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Carper
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Martinez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--20

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bond
     Brownback
     Chafee
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sununu
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Biden
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Dodd
     Graham
     Isakson
     Santorum
     Vitter
  The motion was agreed to.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 354, I voted ``yea.'' It 
was my intention to vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 
that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the 
outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
 Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask that the Record show that I 
would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 354, the DeWine motion to 
instruct conferees on S. 1932. I continue to support the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, and I agree that its repeal should not 
be included in the conference report.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I regret that I was unable to vote this 
afternoon on the DeWine motion to instruct conferees with respect to S. 
1932, the deficit reduction bill.
  The DeWine motion to instruct conferees was crafted with the goal of 
preventing Senate conferees to S. 1932 from agreeing with the House 
provision that repeals the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 
2000 (CDSOA) during conference deliberations. Despite widespread 
support for this provision of law, the House companion bill repeals 
CDSOA. I have been a supporter of CDSOA since it was first crafted by 
Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio.
  Mr. President, I ask that the Record reflect that, had I been here, I 
would have voted in favor of Senator DeWine's motion to instruct 
conferees to not repeal CDSOA during conference deliberations on S. 
1932.
  I ask unanimous consent that my letter of November 29, 2005, to the 
Honorable Charles Grassley, Chairman, Committee on Finance, on the need 
to maintain CDSOA, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Dear Chairman Grassley: I write today concerning a 
     provision contained in H.R. 4241, the House-passed savings 
     reconciliation bill, that repeals the Continued Dumping and 
     Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 [P.L. 106-387]. The Senate 
     companion bill, S. 1932, does not include this repeal. I am 
     optimistic that the Senate will not concur with the House 
     action during conference deliberations on this bill. Please 
     know that I was a cosponsor of the free-standing bill 
     introduced by Senator Mike DeWine that was the blueprint for 
     this amendment.
       Over two years ago, the World Trade Organization (WTO) 
     ruled that the Byrd Amendment is inconsistent with the United 
     States' WTO obligations. The WTO has since authorized eight 
     WTO members to retaliate against the United States. Canada, 
     the European Union, Japan and Mexico have imposed about $115 
     million in retaliation on U.S. exports after the United 
     States failed to meet a December 2003 WTO deadline for 
     repealing the act.
       However, in H.R. 2673, the Fiscal Year 2004 Consolidated 
     Appropriations Act, Congress included a provision that 
     directs the Bush Administration to immediately initiate WTO 
     negotiations to recognize the ability of WTO members to 
     distribute monies collected from

[[Page 28482]]

     antidumping and countervailing duties, and to provide regular 
     reports on such negotiations.
       Earlier this year, 25 Republican Senators wrote to Majority 
     Leader Frist urging that the Senate not agree to any 
     provisions that would repeal CDSOA. Prior to that letter, 
     over 70 Senators wrote to President Bush expressing the view 
     that U.S. negotiators needed to re-engage WTO members and to 
     continue to push for maintaining CDSOA. It was the view of 
     these Members that U.S. trade laws are designed to insure a 
     level playing field for U.S. industries and their workers 
     that are being harmed by unfair trade.
       As you may recall, the Bush administration stated in its 
     November 2002 appeal ``[T]he Panel in this case has created 
     obligations that do not exist in the WTO Agreements cited. 
     The errors committed are serious and many about a statute 
     which, in the end, creates a payment program that is not 
     challenged as a subsidy.''
       With this in mind, I urge you to oppose efforts to repeal 
     CDSOA during House-Senate conference negotiations on H.R. 
     4241 and S. 1932, the spending reconciliation bills.
       Thank you for your kind consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Rick Santorum,
                                             United States Senate.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      Motion to Instruct Conferees

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). There is 2 minutes evenly 
divided.
  Mr. GREGG. Is that on the Kohl proposal?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I call up my motion, which is at the desk, 
to reject the $16 billion cut to the child support program which is in 
the House bill but which is not in the Senate bill. The House position 
will result in $24 billion in child support payments going uncollected, 
and would impact families in every single State. The child support 
program is a proven success and it has won high praise in the 
President's 2006 budget for providing a $4 return on every dollar 
invested in the program.
  The House conference report is opposed by a wide range of interests, 
including the National Governors' Association and the National 
Conference of State Legislatures. I strongly urge my colleagues to join 
me in sending a message to the conferees that the Senate will not 
support cutting benefits for over 17 million children.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. The motion of the Senator from Wisconsin is not binding so 
I am sure they will vote as they please. It is well-intentioned and I 
agree with the concept. However, there are issues within the child 
support questions which should be subject to conference and which, if 
you read the motion literally and which if it had any binding effect, 
would undermine our capacity to have flexibility in conference.
  Specifically, for example, under the law today, you can use Federal 
money and make the State match, so what is happening is States are 
taking Federal money, and instead of using their State dollars to 
match, they are using Federal money to get more Federal money. That 
makes no sense at all.
  The House has corrected this program. This language would undermine 
that. I hope we do not support the motion to instruct. The conference 
will do a good job on this. It does not need this instruction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from South Carolina 
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Vitter).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Washington 
(Ms. Cantwell), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
California (Mrs. Boxer) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 16, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 355 Leg.]

                                YEAS--75

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Burns
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--16

     Allard
     Allen
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cochran
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Lott
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Sununu

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Biden
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Dodd
     Graham
     Isakson
     Santorum
     Vitter
  The motion was agreed to.


                      Motion to Instruct conferees

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes equally divided prior 
to a vote in relation to the motion to instruct offered by Senator 
Kennedy.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just take 30 seconds because the 
other 30 seconds will be taken by the chairman of the HELP Committee. 
All this motion does is insist that the student aid program--which 
provides $8 billion more for Pell eligible students--that passed out of 
our committee, virtually unanimously, will be affirmed in the 
conference. Effectively, we are taking what was the bipartisan 
agreement in our committee under the leadership of Senator Enzi and 
instructing the conferees to support that position.
  Many of our colleagues have voiced their public support for this 
motion, including Senators Durbin, Harkin, Dodd, Reid, Lieberman, 
Kerry, Reed, Corzine, Clinton, and Lautenberg.
  If you are for American competitiveness in the global economy, you 
will vote for this motion.
  If you are for a strong national security, you will vote for this 
motion.
  If you are for opportunity for every American, you will vote for this 
motion.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in doing what is right for American 
families, especially at Christmas, and send a strong message that 
students need our help now.
  I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I concur with what the Senator from 
Massachusetts just said. As the body will remember, the Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee had the heaviest lifting in 
the savings bill, and we met that requirement. We met that requirement 
while we provided for some grants for both low-income and people who 
would major in math and science and some special languages.
  I would appreciate the support of this body on this instruction. I 
have been negotiating with the House for 5 full days, and this is one 
of the issues that is still up. This instruction would help us in that 
negotiation. I would appreciate the support.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support Senator Kennedy's motion to instruct conferees. The motion 
instructs Senate conferees to insist on preserving the Senate 
provisions that increase need-based financial aid in S. 1932. Forty 
years ago, President Johnson sought to increase accessibility to 
education by

[[Page 28483]]

signing into law the Higher Education Act of 1965. In President 
Johnson's words, ``To thousands of young men and women, this [Act] 
means the path of knowledge is open to all that have the determination 
to walk it . . . a high school senior anywhere in this great land of 
ours can apply to any college or any university in any of the 50 States 
and not be turned away because his family is poor.''
  Access to higher education has long been and remains a great American 
goal. The good news is that the number of students enrolling in 
institutions of higher education has nearly doubled over the past 35 
years--from 8.5 million in 1970 to approximately 16 million in 2005. 
The bad news is that, despite the importance of a college education in 
the 21st century, so many millions of young adults never make it to 
college. Sadly, many fail to make it to college due to financial 
constraints.
  Never has higher education played such a critical role in closing the 
gap between the haves and the have-nots. Over the course of their 
lifetime, college graduates earn over $1 million more than those 
without college degrees. Today, 6 out of every 10 jobs require some 
postsecondary education and training. By 2010, the number of jobs 
requiring advanced skills will grow at twice the rate of those 
requiring only basic skills.
  In addition to the individual benefits of earning a college degree, 
investing in and producing more college-educated Americans is vital to 
our Nation's growth. Economists estimate that the increases in the 
education level of the U.S. labor force between 1915 and 1999 directly 
resulted in at least 23 percent of the overall growth in U.S. 
productivity.
  Unfortunately, the cost of a college education is far out of reach 
for many American students and is hitting poor families the hardest--
not just those from poverty-stricken areas but those who come from 
family farms and those who may be new immigrants. According to the 
College Board, the inflation-adjusted, real increase in tuition, fees, 
and room and board at public colleges over the last 5 years has been 2 
percent. At 4-year private schools, the same costs have increased by 17 
percent.
  Federal financial assistance is simply not keeping pace with rising 
college costs. In the 1970s, the maximum Pell grant for low-income and 
working class families covered about 40 percent of the average cost of 
attending a 4-year college. Now it only covers about 15 percent. Smart, 
hardworking kids from low-income backgrounds deserve a chance to go as 
far as their talents will take them. According to Postsecondary 
Education Opportunity, a higher education research group, the 
percentage of the Nation's poorest students who earned a bachelor's 
degree by age 24 increased only from 7.1 percent in 1975 to 8.6 percent 
2003. The students left behind represent a huge untapped resource for 
our country.
  Recently, many reports have sounded the alarm that America is losing 
its edge as the world's technological innovator to countries such as 
China and India. These countries are moving from being the world's 
supplier of low-wage, high-labor work to becoming the world's 
technological leaders by investing in their talent pool. In recent 
years, Americans have felt the effects of the impact of education as 
newly educated workers from China and India compete for prime jobs once 
held in the United States. According to the National Academies, in 
2004, China graduated 600,000 engineers and India 350,000, while the 
United States produced only 70,000 engineers. To keep America's edge, 
we must recognize the value of investing in higher education and 
provide our young adults with the assistance they need so that they can 
compete in the global economy.
  The Senate provisions included in S. 1932 that increase need-based 
financial aid--Pell grants and new need-based aid programs such as 
ProGap and SMART grants--will help many deserving students reach their 
educational potential. In contrast, the House fails to seize an 
opportunity to expand Pell grants and other need-based aid. Instead, 
the House bill includes provisions that would make college more 
expensive for families. These provisions include: No. 1, a temporary 
increase in origination fees for direct loan borrowers; No. 2, repeal 
of a scheduled reduction in the maximum student loan interest rate--
from 8.25 percent to 6.8 percent for students and from 9 percent to 7.9 
percent for parents; No. 3, imposing a new 1 percent borrower 
origination fee that will make it more expensive to consolidate loans; 
and No. 4, requiring lenders to charge student and parent borrowers a 1 
percent insurance fee on student loans.
  By insisting on the Senate provisions, we will boost need-based aid 
and in turn help the United States maintain its competitive edge. But 
most importantly, we will be a step closer to living up to the promise 
that President Johnson made to America's youth 40 years ago: providing 
access to higher education for those determined to realize the American 
dream.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. We yield back the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to the motion.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from South Carolina 
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Vitter).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Washington 
(Ms. Cantwell), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
California (Mrs. Boxer) would vote ``aye''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 356 Leg.]

                                YEAS--83

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--8

     Bond
     Burr
     Coburn
     DeMint
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Sununu

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Biden
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Dodd
     Graham
     Isakson
     Santorum
     Vitter
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                      Motion to Instruct Conferees

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 2 minutes 
equally divided on the Reed motion to instruct conferees. The Senator 
from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I offer this motion along with my colleague, 
Senator Collins from Maine. I will shortly yield to her the last 30 
seconds. I also offer it on behalf of myself and other Senators, 
including Senator Lautenberg.
  The reality is very clear to so many poor families in this country. 
Energy

[[Page 28484]]

prices are rising, temperatures are falling, and they are going to be 
in a very vulnerable and very disadvantaged position. This amendment 
would add $2.9 billion in additional funding for LIHEAP. It would bring 
it up to the authorized level of $5.1 billion.
  We have considered this proposal in various procedural means four 
times. A majority of the Senate has always supported it. I hope it 
continues to do so.
  I yield my remaining time to Senator Collins.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this 
motion to instruct the conferees to add $2.9 billion for the LIHEAP 
program. The time is growing late. In northern Maine, the high 
temperature earlier this week--the high temperature--was 12 degrees. 
Let's act now to avert a real crisis for low-income families across 
this country.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today for one very simple reason--to 
ask for the support of my colleagues for the Reed-Collins-Kennnedy-
Snowe motion to instruct the conferees to S. 1932, to add $2.92 billion 
for the Low Income Home Energy Assistant Program, or LIHEAP. This 
funding, along with the expected $2.18 billion in fiscal year 2006 
appropriations, will confirm the commitment we made just this past July 
and bring LIHEAP up to the level of $5.1 billion we authorized in the 
2005 Energy bill.
  In the Nation's colder States such as Maine, the days are 
relentlessly marching toward winter, the clock is ticking as the 
thermometer edges ever downward and it would be unconscionable for 
Congress to adjourn for the year without providing critical, additional 
assistance for LIHEAP at a time when home heating oil prices have been 
predicted to increase by up to 44 percent this coming winter.
  There should be no mistake--this is an emergency and a crisis that is 
no longer an impending crisis as I have been saying for months--it is 
now here. I feel very strongly that it would be an abrogation of our 
responsibility to stand by and allow more and more of our elderly on 
fixed incomes and low-income people, including children, to suffer 
because of a lack of heat.
  This past week, it was reported to one of my Maine offices that two 
elderly people--who have already used up their entire LIHEAP allotment 
for a winter that has not yet officially arrived--were admitted to the 
hospital with hypothermia. In one of the households, the residence was 
so cold the water in the toilet bowl was frozen. It has been said that 
a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. What 
a failing grade we would get for LIHEAP. The fact is, countless 
Americans don't have room in their budget for such a surge in home 
heating prices--but surely, in looking at our national priorities, we 
can find room in our budget to help Americans stay warm this winter.
  It does not take a crystal ball to predict the dire consequences when 
home heating oil in Maine has risen to $2.59 per gallon, up 66 cents 
from a year ago, kerosene prices average $2.72 a gallon, 52 cents 
higher than this time last year, and propane is at $2.20 per gallon, 17 
cents higher than last year. Some projections have a gallon of heating 
oil reaching $3.00 later in the winter.
  So understandably, we are hearing the mounting concern ``how will I 
pay for home heating oil when it's already almost 30 percent more than 
last year, and I struggled to make ends meet then?'' ``How will I 
afford to pay half again as much for natural gas?'' People need to know 
now that they can count on us--U.S. Congress--for assistance, not the 
most disruptive country leader in the Western Hemisphere who comes 
bearing gifts of discounted oil to our communities and States. This 
country should take care of its own.
  Home heating oil in my State is a necessity of life--so much so that 
73 percent of households in a recent survey reported they would cut 
back on, and even go without, other necessities such as food, 
prescription drugs, and mortgage and rent payments. Churches, food 
pantries, and local service organizations are all hearing the cry and 
sensing the growing need.
  Because of the supply disruptions caused by the Gulf hurricanes at a 
time when prices were already spiraling up, prices have been driven 
even higher and are directly affecting low-come Mainers and how they 
Will be able to pay for their home heating oil, propane and kerosene 
this winter. A recent Wall Street Journal quoted Jo-Ann Choate, who 
heads up Maine's LIHEAP program. Ms. Choate said, ``This year we've got 
a very good chance of running out.'' Eighty-four percent of the 
applicants for the LIHEAP program in the State use oil heat. Over 
46,000 applied for and received State LIHEAP funds last winter. Each 
household received $480, which covered the cost of 275 gallons of 
heating oil.
  The problem this winter is that the same $480 will buy only 172 
gallons, which a household will use up in the first 3 to 4 weeks in 
Maine. What will these people do to stay warm for the four or five 
months left of winter? The water pipes will freeze and then break, 
damaging homes. People will start using their stoves to get heat. The 
Mortgage Bankers Association expects that the steep energy costs could 
increase the number of missed payments and lost homes beginning later 
this year. My State is anticipating at least 48,000 applicants this 
winter, so there will be less money distributed to each household 
unless we can obtain higher funding for the LIHEAP program.
  Ms. Choate says that Maine plans to focus on the elderly, disabled, 
and families with small children, and is studying how to move others to 
heated shelters. This is why our efforts are so very important. And it 
isn't just Maine. It is happening in all of the Nation's cold weather 
States. Quite simply, without increased funding, we are forcing the 
managers of State LIHEAP programs to make a Solomon's choice as to who 
gets served.
  The facts are that LIHEAP is projected to help 5 million households 
nationwide this winter. But that is only about one-sixth of households 
across the country that actually can qualify for the assistance. So 
this is a perennial fight we wage even when prices aren't as high as 
today. And now, that battle becomes all the more pivotal.
  I thank Senators Reed and Collins for their leadership on this motion 
to instruct the conferees for increased LIHEAP funding, and I am proud 
to stand shoulder to shoulder with them to secure what is, in essence, 
literally life-or-death funding for our most vulnerable Americans. The 
cold weather won't wait--and neither should we when it comes to helping 
citizens survive through the coming winter.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let's remember what this amendment does in 
the context of the LIHEAP issue. This amendment will add $2.9 billion 
to the national debt and pass that debt on to our children in order to 
pay for energy costs which are being incurred today.
  The correct way to do this is the way we proposed in the Senate, as 
Republicans, which is to pay for it. That is what we will do in the 
conference. There is already $1 billion additional money for LIHEAP in 
the conference, and it will probably go up. The difference between 
those dollars and what is being proposed in this amendment is we 
actually pay for it.
  It is inappropriate to go to this number, which is a 130-percent 
increase in the LIHEAP program, when spending on oil is estimated to go 
up by 28 to 30 percent or maybe even 40 percent. Increasing the program 
by 130 percent when the oil costs are going up 30 to 40 percent is 
inconsistent on its face.
  It is especially inconsistent when one is taking that bill and giving 
it to one's children and their children's children so they end up 
paying for today's oil costs rather than their oil costs 2 or 3 years 
from today or two or three generations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.

[[Page 28485]]


  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from South Carolina 
(Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Vitter).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Washington 
(Ms. Cantwell), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
California (Mrs. Boxer) would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 28, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 357 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bingaman
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--28

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Craig
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     McConnell
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Biden
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Dodd
     Graham
     Isakson
     Santorum
     Vitter
  The motion was agreed to.
 Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I regret that I was unable to 
vote this afternoon on the Reed motion to instruct conferees with 
respect to S. 1932, the deficit reduction bill.
  The LIHEAP program is of critical importance to Pennsylvania. My 
State routinely faces very harsh winters. Now that the cold weather is 
here and bills must be paid, I believe we must act to provide 
additional funding for this program. My record shows that I have been a 
consistent LIHEAP supporter, and I am hopeful that an increase will be 
promptly approved.
  Mr. President, I ask that the Record reflect that, had I been here, I 
would have voted in favor of Senator Reed's motion to instruct.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER.
  Under the previous order, the Presiding Officer appoints Mr. Gregg, 
Mr. Domenici, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Allard, Mr. Sessions, Mr. 
Stevens, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Specter, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. McConnell, Mr. 
Conrad, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
Bingaman, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Leahy conferees on the part 
of the Senate.

                          ____________________