[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5167-5202]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL 
                               YEAR 2006

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 18, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 18) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for the 
     fiscal year 2006 and including the appropriate budgetary 
     levels for fiscal years 2005 and 2007 and 2010.

  Pending:

       Bingaman (for Smith) Amendment No. 204, to create a reserve 
     fund for the establishment of a Bipartisan Medicaid 
     Commission to consider and recommend appropriate reforms to 
     the Medicaid program, and to strike Medicaid cuts to protect 
     states and vulnerable populations.
       Carper Amendment No. 207, to provide for full consideration 
     of tax cuts in the Senate under regular order.
       Snowe Amendment No. 214, to ensure that any savings 
     associated with legislation that provides the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services with the authority to participate 
     in the negotiation of contracts with manufacturers of covered 
     part D drugs to achieve the best possible prices for such 
     drugs under part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 
     that requires the Secretary to negotiate contracts with 
     manufacturers of such drugs for each fallback prescription 
     drug plan, and that requires the Secretary to participate in 
     the negotiation for a contract for any such drug upon request 
     of a prescription drug plan or an MA-PD plan, is reserved for 
     reducing expenditures under such part.
       Harkin Amendment No. 172, to restore the Perkins Vocational 
     Education program and provide for deficit reduction paid for 
     through the elimination of the phase out of the personal 
     exemption limitation and itemized deduction limitation for 
     high-income taxpayers now scheduled to start in 2006.
       Hutchison Amendment No. 218, to fully fund the level of 
     Border Patrol Agents authorized by the National Intelligence 
     Reform Act of 2004 and as recommended by the 9/11 Commission.
       Landrieu Amendment No. 219, to establish a reserve fund in 
     the event that legislation is passed to provide a 50 percent 
     tax credit to employers that continue to pay the salaries of 
     Guard and Reserve employees who have been called to active 
     duty.
       Salazar/Conrad Amendment No. 215, to provide additional 
     funding for rural education, rural health access, and rural 
     health outreach programs.
       Conrad (for Dorgan) Amendment No. 210, to repeal the tax 
     subsidy for certain domestic companies which move 
     manufacturing operations and American jobs offshore.
       Collins (for Lieberman/Collins) Amendment No. 220, to 
     protect the American people from terrorist attacks by 
     restoring $565 million in cuts to vital first-responder 
     programs in the Department of Homeland Security, including 
     the State Homeland Security Grant program, by providing $150 
     million for port security grants and by providing $140 
     million for 1,000 new border patrol agents.
       Vitter Amendment No. 223, to express the sense of the 
     Senate that Congress should provide dedicated funding for 
     port security enhancements.
       Vitter Amendment No. 224, to restore funding for Corps of 
     Engineers environmental programs to fiscal year 2005 levels.
       Allen Modified Amendment No. 197, to increase by 
     $1,582,700,000 over fiscal years 2006 through 2010 funding 
     for Transportation (budget function 400) with the amount of 
     the increase intended to be allocated to the Vehicle Systems 
     account of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     for subsonic and hypersonic aeronautics research.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                                Schedule

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning we will immediately resume 
consideration of the budget resolution. We have an order in place from 
last night which sets aside specific debate times in relation to 
several amendments this morning. There is no debate time remaining on 
the resolution beyond this time agreement. Senators, therefore, can 
expect a lengthy series of votes to begin sometime around 1:30 today. 
This vote-arama will necessitate continued cooperation from all 
Members. I cannot stress enough the importance of every Senator staying 
on the floor or very close by throughout the afternoon and into the 
evening. This is always a trying and challenging period because of the 
unusual nature of what happens over the course of the day. But 
beginning around 1:30, we will start a series of votes that will go on 
for a while.
  I encourage my colleagues to work with the managers to use restraint 
in not offering amendments if they are purely message amendments and 
are not substantive. It is going to be a challenge to bring everything 
to closure over the course of today and early into this evening 
already, so please use restraint in terms of whether to offer 
amendments.


                             Terri Schiavo

  I know we want to get started, but I did want to bring to the 
attention of my colleagues an issue that we do have to act on before we 
leave. I do so on behalf of a number of my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle who have come up and said: There is an important issue facing 
the country that we have not addressed in the past and that other 
systems of government and other branches of government have 
inadequately addressed, and, therefore, it is time for the U.S. Senate 
to speak.
  It centers on the fact that if we don't act or if somebody does not 
act, a living person who has a level of consciousness, who is self-
breathing, will be starved to death in the next 2 weeks--thus the 
action that is required to be done either later tonight or tomorrow in 
order to prevent that starvation to death by Terri Schiavo.
  I first heard about the situation facing Terri Schiavo actually 
several years ago, but the immediacy of it has played out in the last 
several days because of this decision that has been made, not by her 
parents who want to keep her alive, not by her family who wants to keep 
her alive, but by her husband.
  From a medical standpoint, I wanted to know a little bit more about 
the case itself, so I had the opportunity to review the initial tapes 
that were made, the physical examination on which the case was 
ultimately based, the fact that she was in a persistent vegetative 
state, and scores of neurologists had come forward and said that it

[[Page 5168]]

doesn't look like she is in a persistent vegetative state. It is a 
strange word, ``vegetative state,'' that connotes all sorts of things 
to lay people. It is a medical term that means that she is not in a 
coma. Persistent vegetative state is a specific diagnosis that 
typically has to be made over a period of multiple examinations, 
usually multiple days, and some neurologists say should be made over 
several weeks. The facts of this case are that it was made by a single, 
or maybe two, but a single examination over a very short period of 
time. The professionals themselves who have viewed those tapes question 
that initial diagnosis.
  The other questions arise: Does she have any hope of being 
rehabilitated? I talked personally to one of the neurologists who 
examined her, and he said, absolutely, she can greatly improve, 
substantially improve if she is given the appropriate rehabilitation. I 
asked myself, had she expressed her wishes about the end of her life? 
She had no written directive in terms of what would happen if such an 
event struck her. Did she have an advanced medical directive? The 
answer is no.
  So we have come to the point where on this floor we are going to have 
to face the question of whether we believe that a conscious woman who 
is breathing on her own--and yes, she has a severe disability, similar 
to what cerebral palsy might be. She can't physically feed herself. She 
can't verbally express her desires at this juncture, but she has no 
legal direction.
  The question is, Should we allow her to be starved to death? I 
mention that because it is an important case. It has to do with the 
culture of life. I believe this body is going to have to speak on this 
particular matter before we leave for recess.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 204

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there will be 60 
minutes of debate equally divided in the usual form in relation to the 
Medicaid amendment No. 204 offered by the Senator from Oregon, Mr. 
Smith. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, on the Bingaman amendment, I would like to 
yield 4 minutes to Senator Baucus, 4 minutes to Senator Corzine. I 
believe after that Senator Stabenow will take 4 minutes and Senator 
Clinton for 4 minutes as well, and perhaps Senator Rockefeller 
following if time remains.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I strongly support the Smith-Bingaman-
Coleman amendment to strike the reconciliation instruction to the 
Finance Committee to cut Medicaid by $15 billion. Some say this 
amendment is not important because the budget is just a blueprint and 
the Finance Committee would never make these cuts. That is just not 
true. A vote for this budget is a vote for cuts, plain and simple. If 
the reconciliation instruction is to cut, the Finance Committee is 
under instruction to cut.
  Once we pass this budget, the reconciliation instructions are 
binding. The Finance Committee would be bound to find the $15 billion 
in savings. Although it would be difficult for the committee to reach 
agreement on these cuts, the committee would make the cuts. The Finance 
Committee has never failed to comply with reconciliation instructions. 
I do not believe that it would start this year. Those who say it is 
just a blueprint, that is a smokescreen. It is not accurate.
  The administration says we need to address waste and abuse in 
Medicaid. They say these cuts will end the abuse of intergovernmental 
transfers. I urge my colleagues to not be swayed by these allegations. 
The administration has been negotiating reform of intergovernmental 
transfers on a State-by-State basis for the past 2 years. They have 
already squeezed significant savings through this new policy, and there 
will not be much further savings if Congress goes down this road. How 
do I know this? Because Montana is one of the States that was required 
to revise its intergovernmental program to comply with new State rules 
last year.
  Keep in mind that the change in policy has never been published. 
There has been no notice, no invited comments, no rulemaking--never; no 
State Medicaid director's letter, none.
  So how much in savings remains in reform of intergovernmental 
transfers? The Congressional Budget Office says zero, no savings. So 
let's not fool ourselves into thinking we are really cutting fraud and 
abuse in Medicaid with these cuts. Rather, these cuts will hurt people. 
In fact, in Montana, the proposed cuts would mean a loss of health 
coverage for 2,800 seniors or more than 12,000 children.
  These cuts are definitely shortsighted. If Congress simply starts 
cutting Medicaid without considering the overall effects, it would 
force people to seek care in emergency rooms, and even higher spending 
would result, or even more people could lose coverage altogether.
  Some say these are small and represent only a 1-percent cut in the 
program's growth over 5 years. But the President's $45 billion net 
Medicaid cut over 10 years is more than the $39 billion Congress has 
allocated to CHIP coverage for millions of uninsured children during 
the 10-year lifetime of that program.
  I applaud the leadership of Senators Bingaman, Smith, and Coleman. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment.
  This is important. I strongly urge our colleagues to do what is 
right, to not make these cuts. It is going to directly affect people. 
Support the Smith amendment.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I, too, rise to speak strongly and 
forcefully in support of the bipartisan amendment Senators Smith and 
Bingaman have offered. The idea of cutting $15 billion in the Medicaid 
Program mandated under this resolution is a bad fundamental choice for 
our Nation. It is also a bad policy-setting device because it lets the 
budget process drive Medicaid reform. This amendment directs the 
creation of a Medicaid commission to investigate and consider possible 
improvements.
  A thoughtful, reasoned approach to limiting the growth in the cost of 
the Medicaid Program, which is driven by enrollments and the high cost 
of health care. And while there may be fraud and abuse, the big issue 
is that we have a health care problem and how do we finance it. It is 
being ignored by using what I think is a shotgun approach as opposed to 
the thoughtful, reasoned approach of how Medicaid reform should be 
done. That is what this amendment does.
  Last week, Senators Wyden, Murray, Johnson, and I offered a 
successful amendment during the markup of the budget resolution. The 
sense of the Senate was agreed to unanimously by the Budget Committee. 
As a part of this resolution, it states that the Finance Committee 
shall not achieve any savings under reconciliation that would cap 
Federal Medicaid spending, shift Medicaid costs to the States or 
providers, or undermine the Federal guarantee of Medicaid health 
insurance.
  If this amendment is not accepted--and it is not possible, in my 
view, to cut $15 billion from Medicaid without violating that 
agreement--what we are going to be doing is shifting $15 billion to the 
States; if not to the States, to the local governments; if not to the 
local governments, to the health care providers. It is going to be 
charity care. It is going to be paid for. We are making a clear choice 
of transferring the responsibility for all of this care to someone 
else, moving it off the Federal books on to State and local or even 
private providers. Maybe we are shifting it on to the streets of our 
cities and the homeless.
  We are making another choice, too, which is unacceptable. The fact 
is, we are trying to force others to make a choice of whether we say 
hospice care is more important than mental illness treatment or more 
important than people having the ability to have hearing and other 
kinds of specialty treatments. We are taking away the options of how we 
treat health care and, by the way, preventative care. We are also

[[Page 5169]]

making a choice which I find completely hard to understand. Why have we 
decided that this $15 billion we have mandated the Finance Committee to 
find, why are we saying this $15 billion is so much more important than 
the cumulative $204 billion or the tax cuts for those making over $1 
million? Isn't this a society that believes in sharing the 
responsibility for all of us to have access to a better life? We live 
in a society which provides enormous opportunity for so many, and many 
of us have benefitted from it, and we are making a clear choice that it 
is more important that this $15 billion be cut than $204 billion that 
is accumulating for tax cuts to the very wealthy. I do not think these 
are the choices the American people would make if they had those 
choices laid before them.
  I don't understand. We are saying the most vulnerable should be dealt 
with without rational and reasoned expectations of where those cuts are 
going to come, and we are making all kinds of choices that are embedded 
in these kinds of issues. I believe the idea of a commission to stand 
back and find that reasoned and informed judgment is important.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question, and I will give him 
a minute to answer it?
  Mr. CORZINE. Certainly.
  Mr. GREGG. Does this amendment raise taxes to pay for the $15 billion 
that would be called for to put in this budget, or does it increase the 
deficit with more spending?
  Mr. CORZINE. The Senator from New Hampshire knows very well that what 
we are discussing is whether you extend tax cuts for those who earn 
over a million dollars. It is a debate we can have about language, 
about extension or raising, but at least this Senator would argue that 
it is more important to make sure that we have a health insurance 
program for everyone in this society rather than tax cuts for 
millionaires. These cuts will force states to raise taxes in order to 
raise the funds that will be necessary to maintain health care under 
Medicaid.
  Mr. GREGG. To reclaim the time, the Senator did not answer the 
question. Maybe he is not familiar with the answer, but the answer is 
that this amendment increases the deficit by $15 billion.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Four minutes is yielded to Senator Stabenow.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair.
  First I say to our esteemed colleague who chairs the Budget 
Committee, I think, as I have said before, he has done an excellent job 
on the committee and the floor in allowing important discussions and 
input. We all know this is about choices and priorities. We last year 
passed the tax loophole closings, as they have been called, some $23 
billion in a business tax bill, a tax bill that I supported that did 
not end up becoming law. We have already joined saying there are 
dollars we believe would better be spent in other ways, in fairness 
from a tax standpoint that tax loopholes should be closed, and those 
equal more than what we are talking about here in terms of health care 
for our most vulnerable citizens.
  We also, as my colleague from New Jersey has said, have choices in 
this country about where everyone will contribute to the quality of 
life, what it means to be an American, to the strength of America, to 
what we are proud of and our best values, or whether only some people 
will do that. This is a debate about values and choices. That is what a 
budget resolution is. It is a picture of who we are. It is a picture of 
our values. I can't think of anything that is worse in this budget 
resolution than the picture that says for the most vulnerable children, 
the poorest children, or poorest seniors in the country, we are going 
to take away health care for them. That doesn't fit with what I know 
about my faith and beliefs about helping the least of these. It does 
not reflect what the people of Michigan believe about what is important 
in supporting each other in community and caring about each other.
  In a way it balances priorities. Obviously, we want dollars that are 
spent efficiently and effectively, and we want to give the States 
flexibility. In my home State, I am very proud of what they have been 
able to do in bulk purchasing for prescription drugs under Medicaid and 
working with other States and saving dollars, and we certainly know we 
want flexibility for them under Medicaid. But we also know that 
Medicaid is the single greatest provider of health insurance, covering 
over 21 million children, our future; 800,000 children in Michigan, our 
future. How many times do we say children are our future?
  Well, this budget does not reflect that. It does not reflect that as 
it relates to funding their future skills and technology and education, 
and it certainly doesn't reflect their future if you are a poor child 
whose parents do not have health care.
  Let me speak about a couple of people in Michigan. Betty Counts, who 
lives in Detroit with her daughter Yvette, who has mental and physical 
handicaps, is quoted in the Detroit News as saying, ``It's getting more 
frustrating trying to get the services I need and the help my daughter 
needs.'' And the budget cuts will certainly make things worse for her.
  Ask Jimia Williams how much Medicaid means to her. She lives in Flint 
and has a 19-month-old son who has seizures and asthma. She works 35 to 
40 hours a week--and most of the people we are talking about are people 
who are working; 80 percent of the uninsured are working 1 job, 2 jobs, 
3 jobs that do not provide health insurance--but her only source of 
health insurance right now is Medicaid. Medicaid pays for her young son 
to see a neurologist and get treatments for his seizures and his 
asthma, and it also pays for his medication, inhalers for both of them. 
She said, ``Without Medicaid I would not be able to pay for my son's 
medical needs.''
  I could go on to so many different situations, but the bottom line of 
this vote is about our values and our choices.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. STABENOW. This amendment reflects what is best about America. I 
urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New York is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I, too, come to the floor in support of 
the Smith-Bingaman amendment, and I thank our colleagues for bringing 
this amendment forward. What it does is very simply and very profoundly 
say, wait a minute, let's not cut Medicaid right now. Let's take the 
$15 billion in cuts that are in this budget resolution and restore 
them. But that is not the end of it. Let's also put together a 
bipartisan commission so that we can take a hard look at Medicaid and 
try to figure out how to improve service delivery and quality and do 
more to make it cost effective.
  I am very proud to cosponsor this amendment because I believe this is 
the right way to go. I believe wholeheartedly that we should be on a 
much faster track to return to fiscal discipline and to reduce the 
unprecedented deficits we are running. But I do not believe slashing 
Medicaid funding is the answer to getting our fiscal house in order, 
and it is regrettable that we would have in this same budget room for 
millions and millions of dollars more in tax cuts while we attempt to 
balance our budget on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens.
  I can look at the growth in Medicaid and certainly see the same 
strategy that everyone else has. In part it is part of the sluggish 
economy, the loss of health insurance benefits for so many people who 
do still have jobs. I know in my own State the Medicaid Program grew 
between 2000 and 2004. In fact, in the last 4 years in America, we have 
seen 35 million more Americans receive their health insurance through 
Medicaid. We now have 45 million uninsured Americans. I think that 
number would be above 50 million if we did not have Medicaid as a 
health care safety net.
  This budget resolution hits New York especially hard, cutting our 
Medicaid

[[Page 5170]]

funding by almost $2 billion. Let me just tell you what that means. We 
provide insurance to 4.1 million New Yorkers through Medicaid. That 
includes 1.7 million children, 1.4 million adults, and 1 million 
elderly and disabled beneficiaries. These are people who are the frail 
elderly in nursing homes. These are the children of those who are 
working but do not have health insurance. These are people living with 
chronic diseases. For these people, Medicaid truly is their last 
resort. They have nowhere else to turn.
  As some of you know, I just spent 5 days in the hospital in New York 
City with my husband, and we are very fortunate we can go to one of the 
finest hospitals in the world to get the care that is necessary, but I 
know very well that that hospital has two-thirds of its income coming 
in Medicare and Medicaid. It is in an area in New York City where there 
are a lot of poor people, people who get up every day and go to work. 
They get on the subways, the trains, they get to work, they work hard, 
but they do not have health insurance. Medicaid enables them to go to 
that hospital just like my husband can go to that hospital.
  We need Medicaid reform. That is what Senators Smith and Bingaman are 
proposing. Let us do the right diagnosis about what is wrong with 
Medicaid. Let us do what we need to do to get it on a better footing, 
but let me add that the costs in Medicaid have gone up more than the 
cost of private insurance. This is not just a problem in Medicaid, this 
is a problem in the health care system, and we are going to make our 
problem worse if we do this cutting of Medicaid without this type of 
bipartisan amendment.
  If we tried to cut in New York, for example, we would have to make 
some horrible choices. Should we cut out children? Should we eliminate 
100,000 beneficiaries, most of whom are in nursing homes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. CLINTON. I urge adoption of this very important and necessary 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield myself 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me once again do what I did last 
evening, and that is commend Senator Smith for his leadership on this 
important issue. This is a very important test of what our priorities 
are and also whether we are essentially going to try to take advantage 
of those we think are less organized to resist.
  There are a lot of ways we can save money in health care costs that 
the Federal Government underwrites. In fact, I have an amendment I am 
going to be offering later on today where I will propose some 
significant cuts, substantially more than we are talking about here, 
that can be saved in Medicare because I believe we should look at 
health care as an area where we need to constrain the growth in costs. 
But the problem is this budget does not do anything about Medicare. 
This budget particularly does not do anything about the enormous growth 
in the cost of Medicare as a result of last year's prescription drug 
bill. There are a lot of provisions in that bill which clearly overfund 
health maintenance organizations, HMOs, provide a slush fund to be used 
by the Secretary of Health and Human Resources. There is an enormous 
amount of money sloshing around in that legislation, but there is no 
effort in the budget to get at any of that. Instead, we have said, 
let's go after $15 billion of cuts in the areas that affect these less 
organized lobbies, these less organized groups, these groups that are 
not going to speak up so strongly and resist the cuts.
  That is why Senator Smith's initiative is so important. That is why 
it is so important that we have a national commission to give us 
recommendations as to how we can intelligently save money in health 
care costs in future years.
  There are ways that we can better coordinate health care delivery 
under Medicare and health care delivery under Medicaid. Forty-two 
percent of the cost of Medicaid is spent on people who are covered by 
Medicare. Now, we need to do a better job of coordinating those 
programs, and there are opportunities for saving money. Of course, none 
of that has been studied, and none of that has been given to us in the 
way of recommendations. All we are presented with in this budget is a 
recommendation that we cut $15 billion and somehow or another 
essentially shift that cost to the States.
  I know there is some discussion up and down the halls that maybe 
Secretary Leavitt has made some arrangement with the Governors and they 
are agreeable to this $15 billion cut. I have spoken with our Governor, 
Governor Richardson of New Mexico, who is head of the western 
Democratic Governors--maybe all the Governors; I am not exactly sure of 
the title he holds these days. He is a leader on this issue, and he has 
assured me there is no deal and that these cuts that are proposed in 
this budget will adversely affect us in New Mexico.
  We are struggling to continue the services we have traditionally 
provided under Medicaid. We are struggling to deal with the fact that 
more and more people are insisting on services in Medicaid because they 
are losing their private health insurance. That is why the cost of 
Medicaid overall has been going up, because more and more people are 
dependent on Medicaid.
  This is an important amendment. Senator Smith deserves the support of 
all of our colleagues on this amendment. I urge all our colleagues to 
support it. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon has 8 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, a vote for this amendment to defer these 
cuts to this commission and a reform effort that is bipartisan is not 
about being against reducing the deficit. It is, in fact, a way to 
achieve reductions, if that is what it comes to, in a way that takes 
care of the most vulnerable people in our society.
  We are talking about 52 million Americans. Of these, we are talking 
about the elderly who are in nursing homes. Of these, we are talking 
about the chronically ill people without income who suffer from cancer 
or HIV. We are talking about the children of the working uninsured. We 
are talking about people who have no other recourse except, if they 
lose their health care, to go to the emergency rooms of our community 
hospitals. When they go there without the ability to pay, they are 
served, but we are all then later served the passing on of these costs 
in the form of higher prices to private plans and businesses--small 
businesses especially--that struggle mightily to continue providing 
health care.
  Right now every year 3 percent--and it grows by that number--lose 
their insurance from their businesses because of the escalating costs 
largely driven by the inefficient distribution of health care.
  It is very important for my colleagues to understand that this is not 
a vote against a budget of fiscal responsibility. This is a way to 
proceed toward fiscal responsibility in a way that is thoughtful. It is 
really important, when we talk about a population that is vulnerable--
those covered by Medicaid--that we do this carefully, that we do it 
thoughtfully, that we do it right instead of just doing it fast.
  The truth is, when you put this kind of cut, $15 billion, under 
reconciliation, that means it will be cut. Reconciliation is a Damocles 
sword that hangs over this place and has the ability to disrupt the 
regular process, taking it from a committee and right to the floor 
without the participation that, frankly, we have the privilege to 
provide but the duty not to shirk.
  It is my belief that this proposal of a commission, made up of 23 
members--Governors, Senators, Congressmen, providers, advocates, local 
officials--a bipartisan commission that can deal

[[Page 5171]]

with the necessary reforms that must come to Medicaid can do them in a 
way that works for the population that has to be served and to 
disqualify those who game the system or abuse the system.
  I readily acknowledge there is much in Medicaid that is broken. The 
truth is, we have not had a Medicaid commission since Medicaid's 
creation in 1965, and now we propose to let the budget drive the policy 
when we ought to be letting the policy drive the budget.
  Given that we are going to do this and need to do it to modernize 
Medicaid, given the vulnerability of the population served, given the 
chance to do this right instead of just doing it fast, to let the 
policy drive the budget instead of the budget driving the policy with 
this vulnerable population, I plead with my colleagues to stand up to 
their duty and make sure that Congress is not circumvented, to defend 
the 52 million people in America who are counting on us to do it right, 
and not just to do it fast.
  If we pass this, the reductions will come, but the reforms and the 
flexibility necessary at the State level to accommodate that will not 
be done in a more thoughtful and bipartisan way.
  I see no others of my colleagues seeking recognition, so I simply 
close by asking Republicans and Democrats to be careful with this 
issue. Of all the choices we make around here on issues affecting the 
American people, this one calls for the most care, the most caution, 
the most thought, and the greatest degree of sensitivity because it 
involves the blind, the lame, the poor, the needy, those who have no 
recourse if we pull away this central strand in the safety net of 
America's social promise.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, will my friend from Oregon yield for a 
moment?
  Mr. SMITH. I will be happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to thank the Senator from Oregon 
for his leadership. He and the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, 
have led an effort I am proud to cosponsor. His eloquence is 
meaningful. This is an opportunity for us to work in a bipartisan way, 
to lay out a process to achieve what we all want in terms of 
efficiencies, but to do it in a way that is thoughtful, caring, and 
appropriate, and to allow us to make the best decisions without hurting 
the most vulnerable people in this country.
  I thank the Senator for his leadership.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for her 
kind words. I also say to my friend, the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, Senator Gregg is a terrific fellow, one of the best people I 
know in this place. He has a tough job. I know I have made it more 
difficult. I, at a personal level, apologize to him for that, but I 
want him to know--I want all my colleagues to know--how personally and 
passionately I feel about this as someone who helped to create the 
Oregon health plan, to find ways to serve more with preventive 
medicine, in ways that stretch the dollar and serve more people who 
have no other recourse. I take that responsibility very seriously.
  I am trying to reflect that with the best of motives, with an equal 
commitment to finding a budget that will represent our values and our 
views that includes all the Members; that does, perhaps for a few days, 
delay some of the cuts that would fall, but if these cuts fall badly, 
we will hurt the most vulnerable people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SMITH. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I had the great good fortune when I went to 
college to be taught by one of the historically strongest history 
professors in our Nation, a man named David Truman. He went on to be 
president of Mount Holyoke. He wrote probably the definitive treatise 
on American Government. One chapter in that treatise was dedicated to 
committees and commissions. He said that the commission is the place 
where you send issues when you do not want to have to deal with them, 
when you want to ignore them, when you want to obfuscate the issue, and 
when you want to basically kick the can down the road.
  He was a brilliant professor and usually right, and in this case 
obviously totally correct.
  This amendment, if it is adopted, will guarantee that the issue of 
Medicaid is not addressed. That is a guarantee in this decade. It does 
not kick the can down the road, it kicks the can down the road a decade 
because we will not do reconciliation again for a long time, I suspect. 
Next year is an election year, and Congresses are not inclined to make 
tough choices in election years. It has been 10 years since we did the 
last reconciliation bill, so it is unlikely reconciliation will occur 
again. And we are not going to pass in this Congress a bill which 
reforms a significant program on the entitlement side without using 
reconciliation because the courage simply is not here.
  So let's talk about why it is absolutely critical that this year we 
address the Medicaid issue and why it is not going to impact any 
children and why all this ``wearing your heart on the sleeve'' language 
we heard around here is a large amount of puffery.
  We had some very disturbing testimony--and I believe that is the term 
used by the Senator from North Dakota, and it is accurate--from the 
Comptroller of the Currency as we talked about the liabilities already 
on the books that our children are going to have to pay because our 
generation put them on the books. They add up now to $44 trillion. That 
is ``trillion'' dollars. Mr. President, $44 trillion of liabilities is 
already on the books.
  This chart shows that, $44 trillion. To try to put that in 
perspective because a trillion dollars is something nobody can 
understand. If you take all the taxes paid in America since the 
Revolution, it adds up to $38 trillion. So we have on the books more 
liabilities today than taxes paid in this country in the history of 
this country.
  In fact, if you take the entire net worth of the United States today, 
and every American adds up all their net worth--all their houses, all 
their cars, all their jewelry, whatever they have, stocks, bonds, 
assets, real estate, it comes to $47 trillion. So we have on the books 
almost as much obligation as we have net worth.
  The practical effect of that is that we are overwhelming the next 
generation with obligations which they will have to pay. Our children 
and our grandchildren are going to have to pay the taxes to support 
that $44 trillion worth of obligations we put on the books. So it is 
important that we look at from where those obligations come.
  They come primarily from what is known as entitlement accounts, 
specifically three major accounts: Social Security, Medicare, and 
Medicaid. In fact, the vast majority of them do not come from Social 
Security, they come from Medicare and Medicaid. Health care represents 
$27 trillion of that $44 trillion of costs that are on the books that 
our children are going to have to pay because we have already committed 
them to do that to support the baby boom generation when it retires.
  It is entitlements that are the issue. My colleagues have come 
forward and said: But we do not have to deal with Social Security, even 
though the President has been willing to discuss it. We do not have to 
deal with it, no; stiff arm Social Security. OK, that is off the table.
  The President says he just amended the Medicare law, so he does not 
want to move on Medicare this year. OK, that is off the table.
  That leaves one issue, one major program that should be looked at 
this year at least, and that, of course, is Medicaid.
  The other side of the aisle and three speakers this morning have 
already said you can just address this problem by raising taxes. I 
note--it does not appear to be anybody has focused on this at all--but 
the amendment before us does not raise taxes, it raises the deficit. We 
heard all of yesterday, the day

[[Page 5172]]

before, and the day before that how the other side of the aisle did not 
want to raise the deficit; they wanted to be the party that was opposed 
to deficit spending. Today they come forward and the vast majority of 
the people sponsoring and supporting the program, the bill before us, 
which dramatically raises the deficit by $14 billion in the 5-year 
period, something like $60 billion in the 10-year period.
  But even if you accept the fact that they want to raise taxes to pay 
for it, the issue is, Could you solve this problem, this outyear 
liability that is caused by all these entitlement accounts, Medicare, 
Medicaid, and Social Security, by raising taxes?
  You cannot do it. This chart shows it so clearly. The cost of 
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is the red line here. The blue 
line is the historical amount that the Federal Government spends, 20 
percent of GDP. That is what we have historically spent, since World 
War II, essentially. You can see that the red line crosses the blue 
line in about the year 2029, 2028, in that period. These three 
programs--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--will actually cost 
the Federal Government more than 20 percent of the gross national 
product.
  What does that mean in practical terms? It means you wouldn't be able 
to spend any money on education, any money on roads, any money on 
national defense, because the entire Federal Government would be 
absorbed by paying for these three programs. Or, alternatively, you 
could take the approach the other side wants to take, which is raise 
taxes.
  If you did that, you would have to double the tax rate on Americans 
in order to pay for this program. Working Americans, young Americans, 
these pages who are here today and are going to get a job, would find 
their ability to have a decent lifestyle would be dramatically reduced 
because they would have to pay twice as much in taxes as our generation 
has paid in order to support these Federal programs which are already 
on the books.
  You cannot tax your way out of this. I don't care if you confiscate 
all the income of the two top brackets, you cannot get this system 
under control through taxes. You have to address the other side of the 
ledger, which is spending responsibly on these programs. That is what 
this bill tries to do. That is what the budget tries to do.
  In a most minor way, a minuscule way, almost, we suggest in this 
budget we want to save $15 billion in the rate of growth--not cuts--in 
the rate of growth of Medicaid over the next 5 years; $15 billion. You 
say $15 billion is a lot of money. It is a lot of money, but you have 
to put it in context. Over the next 5 years, the Medicaid system is 
going to spend $1.12 trillion--that is trillion with a ``t''--and $15 
billion on that amount is 1 percent, essentially. What we are actually 
trying to save in this bill is $14 billion.
  This chart shows it. Medicaid spending will go up dramatically. It 
will go up by 39 percent. It will not go up by 41 percent. That is what 
it would do. It would go up by 41 percent if this bill doesn't go into 
place, but if this bill goes into place, it will go up by 39 percent. A 
39-percent rate of growth in this program is what we are planning.
  We have heard people come down here, especially the Senator from 
Oregon, and say if this language passes, lives will be lost. I think he 
said that. Children will be lost. That is absurd, misleading, 
inaccurate, and a total gross exaggeration. I wish the Senator had been 
a Governor because he would know that the Medicaid system today does 
not benefit children as much as he thinks it does. There is a large 
chunk of the Medicaid system today which is being gamed out of the 
system by States and being used in the general operations by the States 
to build roads, to put police officers on the road--a large chunk of 
it. That could be saved.
  There is a large chunk of the Medicaid system today which is going to 
pharmaceuticals to pay dramatically more than what we pay under any 
other program for pharmaceutical products. That could be saved.
  There is a large chunk of the Medicaid system today which is going to 
people who are gaming the system by what is known as spending down. 
That is when you, in a rather fraudulent way, get rid of your assets--
give them to your kids or give them to somebody else in your family so 
that you can then come to the Government and say, Support me in a 
nursing home. So all the other Americans in this country who are 
playing by the rules end up supporting people who are breaking the 
rules and who are gaming the system through spending down. Huge amounts 
of dollars are pouring out of the system under those accounts.
  A lot of money is being lost in this system simply because it is 
inefficiently run, because the Governors do not have the flexibility 
they need in order to get more service because they know how to deliver 
it, but instead they are hamstrung by all sorts of rules and 
regulations which make no sense to them and which undermine their 
capacity to deliver the service efficiently.
  The President and innumerable Governors, responsible Governors in 
this country, have come forward and said you give more flexibility to 
the Governors and they can take a little less rate of increase in 
spending and deliver much more service to many more kids. So this 
concept that you cannot get to this 1-percent savings, that you cannot 
live on a 39-percent rate of growth in Medicaid without having children 
lose their lives and be not able to go to the emergency room for care, 
is scare tactics. Not only that, it is not right. Because if you cannot 
step up--especially as a Republican who supposedly is committed to 
fiscal responsibility, because that is what our party is supposed to be 
committed to--and say that you can deliver better service with more 
flexibility, then you are probably not a very good Governor. I doubt 
there are any Republican Governors, at least, and I suspect there are 
not a lot of Democratic Governors who don't believe they can do more 
with a lot more flexibility.
  The President has listed seven or eight--actually, Governor Leavitt 
has--seven or eight different proposals, none of which impact services 
one iota and, in fact, some of which would significantly expand 
services to children, which could be accomplished if we reform the 
program and would slow the rate of growth in this program along the 
lines projected here.
  So it is unconscionable that people would claim a $14 billion 
reduction in the rate of growth when you are having a $1.1 trillion 
expenditure, a reduction which represents 1 percent over 5 years, could 
not be accomplished in the context of a program where there are 
obviously so many problems which need to be addressed and which could 
deliver more efficient and more effective service.
  It gets back to this point, of course. If we do not do this now, we 
are not going to do it. This is not an amendment to set up a 
commission, the purpose of which is to resolve the problem. This is an 
amendment to set up a commission to make sure the problem is never 
resolved. It is irresponsible because of that.
  I do think it is important to note how this budget has been 
structured. A lot of people say this Federal budget is pretty 
meaningless and it is sort of a process we go through here. Of course, 
2 out of the last 4 years we didn't even have one. To some degree they 
are correct, I regret to say.
  We have in this budget three basic elements: discretionary spending, 
entitlement spending, and the other is taxes. On the discretionary side 
we set a discretionary cap. We have already seen 24 amendments or so 
offered on the floor that will affect that cap--in other words, Members 
not willing to accept the spending levels of this budget. They have to 
put money into this program or that program. We have another hundred or 
so amendments also pending which do exactly the same. So the 
willingness to discipline the discretionary side of the ledger is, to 
say the least, tepid. One would suspect there are going to be a lot of 
games played with that cap even if it gets into place before we get to 
the appropriations process. But it does, hopefully, limit the rate of 
growth and it does have some impact. But regrettably I have to admit it 
is at the margin.

[[Page 5173]]

  Then there is a tax side. Most of the taxes, in this budget at least, 
are taxes which most people are going to vote for. That point was made 
yesterday--whether there are reconciliation instructions, most of these 
tax cuts are going to be extended. They are very popular: R&D, spousal 
stuff, tuition tax stuff.
  No, the essence of this budget is whether we are going to address the 
fastest growing function of the Federal Government, the function of the 
Federal Government which is going to bankrupt our children and give 
them much less of a quality of life than we have had; whether our 
generation, the baby boom generation, which is now the generation that 
governs, is going to be willing to stand up and admit that we put too 
much on the books for our children to bear. That is the essence of this 
amendment. This amendment knocks out the only significant effort--well, 
there is one other dealing with the PBGC--the only significant effort 
to bring under control the rate of growth in the Federal Government in 
the outyears; the major piece of fiscal discipline.
  In the short term you can argue the discretionary caps may help. But 
in the long term, which is where our big problem is and where we all 
acknowledge it to be, the only thing that is going to address that is 
if we reconcile the Medicaid number. If we do not do it this year, it 
is not going to be done. That is why I find this amendment to be so 
pernicious, because it is put forward as if the people who support it 
are for fiscal discipline when in fact its practical implication is to 
gut the only thing in this budget which actually will generate fiscal 
discipline. And it is being done by Republicans. You have to ask 
yourself how they get up in the morning and look in the mirror.
  In any event, that is where we stand. I am not going to deny that 
this isn't a crucial vote. This is a crucial vote. If the Medicaid 
language is passed, if it is knocked out of the bill, I think I put in 
context the effect it has on this budget. More important, I hope I have 
put in context the effect it is going to have on our kids and our 
grandkids, because we will have said that in none of the three areas 
where the explosive growth is occurring--in none of these three areas 
where we are headed to this disaster, where our children are not going 
to be able to afford the costs that we have stuck them with--that in 
none of these three areas is this Congress willing to act. That would 
be more than an unfortunate event.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Do I have any time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes 45 seconds.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I reserve that time and yield the floor. I 
yield the remainder of the time on my side to the Senator from 
Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gregg for the leadership he 
provided at the Budget Committee. This is never an easy job. I worked 
with Senator Pete Domenici when he was chairman, and we had this vote-
arama and critical votes year after year. We got it done every year 
except for 2 out of the last 3 years. We need this blueprint in place 
so we can go forward, so we can have some modicum of controlling 
ourselves, controlling spending.
  I don't like everything in this resolution, particularly. I think 
right now the aggregate of money for a State is too much; the aggregate 
amount of money for Treasury and IRS is too much. I would like to have 
more in agriculture, education, transportation. But if each one of us 
picks our issue where, ``Oh, no, we can't have any restraint here,'' we 
will never have any.
  I enjoy listening to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle get up 
and give these great speeches about how we have a problem with the 
deficit, we have to have restraint, and then when it comes time to have 
restraint, to do things to help the economy grow, or control spending 
in any area, we all say: No, not my area.
  We have to do it across the board. We know that the problem in the 
Federal Government is not on the discretionary side. It is not how much 
we are going to be spending on highways or education. The growth there 
has been relatively restrained. That is true in most of these 
categories. The problem is in the mandatory area. Frankly, I have never 
liked mandatory areas. What does mandatory mean, you get it no matter 
what? Then a Governor or legislature can keep adding people, keep 
adding people, perhaps for good reason, perhaps political reasons.
  All of a sudden, you have a program that grows like topsy-turvy, 
totally out of control. It is going to bust State budgets. It already 
has. It will have a huge impact on the Federal budget.
  These mandatory programs are going to cause situations where we 
cannot continue to afford to spend what we are spending in the future, 
what we committed to on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
  Do I think this is a great program? Yes. I personally know what they 
mean. I have benefited from them. I have seen what they don't do. When 
my father was killed in an automobile accident after 30 years of paying 
into Social Security, because of the marital situation and my age, our 
family got nothing out of it.
  I would like to have some sort of system where people pay and they 
have an opportunity for their families to benefit, if they so choose.
  Medicare--I know what it means to people who are aged and have health 
problems. I think what we did on the prescription drug issue was a huge 
mistake. We didn't have real reforms. In fact, we put more burdens on 
Medicare, and we are not going to be able to afford what we have gotten 
into on Medicare. But Medicaid is the subject for discussion. My State 
has wrestled with this. Over the past few years, we kept adding people 
and programs to it until it was not a problem for a while, but for the 
last 2 years it is absolutely totally out of control, and my poor State 
of Mississippi, there is a $270 million hole. The Governor and 
legislature fought about it, cussed about it, struggled with it. 
Finally, last Sunday night at midnight they came up with an agreement.
  What was the agreement? They couldn't figure out any way to pay for 
it or to cut it, and they borrowed the money from the tobacco trust 
fund, and said: Don't worry, we will pay it back later. Excuse me? I 
don't think that is a very good or permanent solution. The States need 
help. We need to be thoughtful in how we reform Medicaid to make sure 
those we are committed to giving help really do get it, and that it is 
done in a controllable, reasonable way.
  The Federal Government is part of the problem. We have to match the 
funds.
  The President made a very small recommendation of some savings in the 
Medicaid area. Then the Senator from New Hampshire took that, and 
actually he took some of the savings and added some of it back in areas 
where it was badly needed, for a net savings of only $14 billion in 
this resolution over 5 years. If we cannot support that, we might as 
well fold our tent.
  Let me say to my colleagues here, too, that we are going to have to 
do this. We are going to have to do it now and later.
  When we come back out of conference, we are going to have serious 
reforms, or a way to get to reforms and some savings in the Medicaid 
area because we cannot continue down this road.
  I am sorry. I am embarrassed to say that Democrats seem to not want 
to have any kind of restraint, and, unfortunately, some of my 
Republicans colleagues, too.
  This is an important vote. It is not the only important vote. It is 
not one that will destroy the whole process, but it is going to tell a 
whole lot about who we are.
  I don't see how anybody who votes for this amendment to knock out 
this little, tiny savings can ever raise their voice again and say they 
are worried about deficits and Federal Government spending to go on too 
long. I realize I am talking in very broad terms and not going into any 
specificity.

[[Page 5174]]

  This is an important vote. I plead with my colleagues, show some 
restraint. We have shown so little restraint for several years. We have 
all been a part of that. But now we are paying the price. We have these 
deficits which we have to cut. It is estimated this resolution would 
cut the deficit about half over the next 5 years. I believe that is 
right. It is probably not enough. We probably should do more.
  The red line and the red ink on the chart in these entitlement 
programs is going to swamp us. Some people say we can do that later. 
Can we do it better later? No. Every year we wait, it gets worse. It 
makes the reforms and the necessary savings more difficult and larger.
  I just wanted to urge my colleagues to support the Budget Committee's 
action and support this resolution. Don't vote to take out the tiny 
savings in Medicaid that is included here. The States have to be doing 
some of that. They show a lot more restraint and leadership than we do 
on them. They have one thing that is different: they have to have 
balanced their budgets every year. It is in their constitutions. My 
poor State does. Maybe someday we will still have to come back to that 
at the Federal level.
  I thank Senator Gregg for his leadership, and I thank him for 
yielding.
  Mr. GREGG. I appreciate the appropriate comments of the Senator from 
Mississippi.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss devastating cuts 
to Medicaid included the fiscal year 2006 budget we are now debating. 
Medicaid has been the most successful health care safety net program 
our nation has ever established, protecting low-income children, the 
elderly and the disabled from being uninsured. Fifty-two million people 
count on this program and without it, these individuals would be forced 
to seek out care in our emergency rooms, and would likely mean that 
many low-income seniors in nursing homes would not have appropriate 
care in older age.
  As you know, the budget before us includes $14 billion in cuts to the 
Medicaid program over the next 5 years. This is a startling number and 
represents the single largest cut to any program in this budget. 
Fourteen billion in cuts is almost as large as the entire State Health 
Insurance Program or SCHIP budget for the next 3 years, and equal to 
Federal Medicaid spending in six mid-sized States or 18 small States. 
If we allow this reconciliation instruction to move forward, it will 
have very harmful effects for those most in need all across America. 
These reductions will force states to cut services as well as cut 
access entirely for certain populations.
  In my home State of South Dakota, it is estimated that these Medicaid 
cuts could cause a loss of coverage for 800 elderly people. These are 
largely individuals with severe chronic illnesses that require nursing 
home care. It will also cut coverage for 4,000 children in South Dakota 
by the end of 2010; children who would have otherwise been covered 
under the program if the Federal dollars would continue. These are the 
most vulnerable citizens in my State whose families have likely sold 
the farm and exhausted all of their resources just to pay for health 
care. They are the sickest and the poorest, and this budget tells them 
that we do not care.
  Beyond the devastating effect on those most in need, the budget cuts 
will inappropriately shift the entire burden of care to cash-strapped 
States that are already struggling with growing health care costs and 
will not be able to afford these additional burdens. More than half of 
all States will see their Federal matching rates decline in 2006 and 
they will also be required to start making payments back to the Federal 
Government to finance the new Medicare drug coverage for dual eligibles 
or those people eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. Additional 
Medicaid burdens are of great concern to me and the majority of 
Governors have also expressed their opposition to the current Medicaid 
budget.
  These budget cuts not only mean that many South Dakotans will lose 
State coverage, but it also means that the State will have to cut 
services for those who are lucky enough not to be dropped from the 
Medicaid program. Cuts in services may mean that people on Medicaid 
will no longer be able to obtain health services such as breast cancer 
treatment, rehabilitative care or prescription drugs. The impact of 
these cuts in care will not just go away because Medicaid stops paying 
for treatment. Hospitals, health centers and other providers will wind 
up treating those patients in our emergency rooms and as charity care 
patients, absorbing those costs. Also, individuals who lose coverage 
will not have access to preventive care and will likely delay treatment 
until hospital care is needed. This increases the costs to the system, 
since a trip to the hospital is going to be much more expensive than if 
they would have had coverage to go to the doctor or get a prescription 
drug before getting sick.
  Costs within the program are rising, but this is not because the 
Medicaid program is inefficient. The driving force behind rising costs 
is the result of many things. The surge in costs are due in part to 
Congress having failed to deal with the millions of low-income workers 
who are uninsured, and that Medicare does not pay for long-term nursing 
home care. Census data has revealed that there were 5.1 million more 
people uninsured in 2003 than in 2000. An unstable economy has left 
workers with lower incomes and employers dropping health coverage. 
Statistics show that two-thirds of those losing coverage are in low-
income jobs. Because of these access to coverage problems, Medicaid is 
filling a critical gap that most in our nation support--ensuring kids 
have basic medical care, providing low-income working families with 
health coverage that keeps them healthy and productive, and making sure 
that seniors have the care they need in old age. These factors do not 
make the case for cuts to Medicaid, but rather indicate that we should 
be doing more to expand the program for those who lack coverage. The 
SCHIP program was a great example of that, and we should be doing more 
to pull those that are low-income and uninsured under this umbrella.
  The overall rise in health care costs are also contributing to the 
increased expenses in Medicaid. New technologies and the skyrocketing 
costs of prescription drugs are sending all health care costs through 
the roof. Under these circumstances, Medicaid's spending per enrollee 
has actually been more efficient than other health care payors. The 
program spending has increased more slowly than private insurance 
spending and Medicare.
  More and more poor people will need programs like Medicaid if the 
trends continue as they have in recent years. We should be working on 
solutions to reduce the costs of health care in the United States, but 
cutting Medicaid is not the answer. We need to closely examine our care 
system broadly and reduce costs by promoting the use of information 
technology in health, emphasizing prevention techniques that keep 
people healthy, and reducing the costs of prescription drugs. It will 
also be crucial that we closely examine our long-term care system, 
which accounts for almost one-third of Medicaid spending and will 
likely increase as our senior population increases in numbers. This is 
where the discussion must turn to, rather than placing the blame on the 
Medicaid program which has been a cost efficient, successful program 
ensuring coverage for millions of Americans most in need.
  We will be voting soon on an important amendment offered by Senators 
Smith and Bingaman, as well as many others, that will strike the 
reconciliation instructions to the Finance Committee for Medicaid, and 
strike the function that directs that committee to cut the $14 billion 
for that program. In its place, the amendment will create a $1.5 
million reserve fund to create a Medicaid Commission. I am pleased to 
be a cosponsor of this amendment. We do have a need to address the 
skyrocketing costs of our Federal health care programs and health care 
in general, and I think the establishment of a commission on Medicaid 
is a smart way to begin to find solutions. I will

[[Page 5175]]

support this amendment and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. 
We need to get our priorities straight with this budget. A budget that 
proposes to cut billions in health care coverage for our most 
vulnerable citizens while at the same time including $23 billion in tax 
cuts for capital gains and dividends is not a budget that represents my 
values or the values of the American people.


                           Amendment No. 204

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, our Nation is facing very difficult fiscal 
realities which are only going to become more difficult and expensive 
the longer we wait to take action. The Federal Government can no longer 
afford ``business as usual.'' According to the GAO, the unfunded 
Federal financial burden for public debt, including future Social 
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payments, totals more than $40 
trillion or $140,000 per man, woman and child. At what point do we 
listen to the wake up call?
  The Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, has recently warned 
Congress and the Nation that, ``In the end, the consequences for the 
U.S. economy of doing nothing could be severe. But the benefits of 
taking sound, timely action could extend many decades into the 
future.'' We must all work together to reduce the crippling $412 
billion budget deficit and the mounting unfunded Federal financial 
burden.
  I commend the administration for submitting a budget request that 
proposes reduced funding for a number of programs. I clearly understand 
that every program is important to certain constituencies, and Medicaid 
is at the top of the list for many. The Medicaid program provides 
critical services to some of the most vulnerable people in our nation. 
In my home State of Arizona, we have an outstanding Medicaid program, 
the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, that represents a 
model for other States.
  Unfortunately, not every state Administers its program as efficiently 
as Arizona. The reality is, Medicaid costs are skyrocketing out of 
control. It is time we took a long hard look at this program--as every 
other program for that matter and develop proposals to ensure that 
Medicaid will continue to serve the neediest Americans over the long 
term.
  Let me be clear. I do not support across the board cuts to the 
Medicaid program. In fact, I believe such an action could have a 
disastrous effect on many important efforts that ensure access to care 
for many Americans who have nowhere else to turn. Additionally, I 
recognize that cuts to Medicaid that result in reduction of covered 
individuals would flood hospital emergency rooms with additional 
uninsured patients, forcing hospitals to absorb additional cost for 
uncompensated care. Arizona has one of the highest uninsured 
populations in the country and a large number of undocumented 
immigrants, our hospitals are already struggling to absorb the cost of 
providing uncompensated care, dramatically reducing medicare eligible 
populations could severely impact the hospital system in my State and 
in many others.
  In debating potential cuts to the Medicaid program, we must work to 
ensure that the federal government does not further exacerbate these 
existing problems. Any effort to reform Medicaid must be made in a 
cautious and deliberative manner.
  We simply must start to control spending and make some very difficult 
decisions among competing priorities. I was pleased to have joined with 
Senators Smith and Bingaman in cosponsoring S. 338, the bipartisan 
commission on Medicaid Act of 2005, which was introduced on February 9, 
2005. I cannot vote for the pending amendment because I believe 
strongly that the fiscal reality of Medicaid must be addressed sooner 
rather than later. And I have been around here long enough to know that 
too often we need to have our feet held to the fire to really make 
meaningful progress on difficult issues. So I hope that we can agree to 
cut waste in the Medicaid program and also create a bipartisan task 
force to provide recommendations for how best to reform the program for 
the long run. In my judgment, only through comprehensive reforms can we 
prevent across the board cuts in Medicaid in the long term. We should 
begin our reform efforts today.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Smith-
Bingaman amendment. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment to strike 
the proposed $15 billion in cuts to Medicaid and instead create a 
Medicaid Commission.
  In an effort to climb our way out of record Federal budget deficits, 
the Budget resolution we are considering this week will cut Medicaid by 
$15 billion over the next 5 years. This cut would be devastating to 
millions of low-income families, children, disabled and senior citizens 
who are served by Medicaid.
  I recognize that Medicaid--like all health care programs continues to 
face higher health care costs. But it is unconscionable to arbitrarily 
slash billions of dollars from a safety net program like Medicaid, and 
at the same time, give away billions of dollars worth of tax cuts in 
the same budget.
  The main problem causing Medicaid spending growth is not that it is 
bloated or inefficient. New studies by the Urban Institute and the 
Kaiser Family Foundation show that Medicaid spends less, per patient, 
than private health insurance plans and that its costs have grown more 
slowly in the last four years than private-sector insurance premiums.
  The real cost driver in Medicaid is the economy, which continues to 
cause a strain on the ability of businesses to offer health insurance 
coverage to their employees. More and more employers are dropping 
health insurance coverage, pushing low-wage working families onto 
public programs, while the overall cost of health care continues to 
skyrocket. Cutting $15 billion from Federal Medicaid spending is only 
going to make matters worse by forcing the problem down to States, 
which already face severe budget crises.
  A $15 billion cut in Medicaid could translate to a loss of $300 
million for Wisconsin. It would be extremely difficult for Wisconsin 
and other States to absorb a cut of this magnitude while continuing to 
provide the level of services on which families depend. A cut of this 
size has the potential to deprive thousands of poor families needed 
medical care and greatly increase the already record number of 
uninsured Americans.
  I do not object to having a thorough discussion about how we can make 
Medicaid work better to serve low-income Americans. But it is 
unacceptable to force arbitrary cuts in Medicaid without first taking 
the time to consider the future efficiency and operation of the 
Medicaid program. Medicaid is an essential source of health care for 53 
million of our nation's most vulnerable citizens, and any changes to 
the program should be driven by informed, reasoned policy and not by 
arbitrary budget targets.
  I urge my colleagues to reject these harmful cuts.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about Medicaid, 
a program that is very important to my home State of West Virginia. 
Over the past few days I have listened to my colleagues characterize 
the $15 billion in Medicaid cuts contained in this budget as marginal, 
minor, and not a big deal. I want to remind my colleagues that this 
budget isn't simply about numbers. It is about the policies behind the 
numbers that have an impact on real people who would not have access to 
health care in the absence of Medicaid.
  Medicaid is the absolute bedrock of our nation's health care system. 
It is the fulfillment of the promise the Federal Government has made to 
our Nation's most vulnerable citizens that they will have access to 
affordable health care when times get tough.
  It finances nearly 40 percent of all births in the United States. 
Without it, many pregnant women would forego the prenatal visits and 
pregnancy-related care that are vital for a child's healthy start. 
Medicaid provides coverage for one in five of our Nation's children, 
many of whom would otherwise be uninsured. It pays for half of all 
nursing home care and is the largest single purchaser of long-term care 
services in the country.

[[Page 5176]]

  In every State throughout our Nation, Medicaid keeps hospitals, 
doctors, nursing homes, and clinics operating in our communities. And, 
more importantly, it provides our most vulnerable citizens--pregnant 
women, children, the elderly, and the disabled--with access to 
meaningful and affordable health care.
  The $15 billion in Medicaid cuts being proposed by this 
administration matter to the more than 50 million children, pregnant 
women, seniors, and disabled individuals who rely on Medicaid to meet 
their health care needs. Some of my colleagues would have you believe 
that these cuts will have no impact at all on the number of kids 
covered by Medicaid or the number of people who can access care in 
nursing homes. They even argue that these cuts will lead to Medicaid 
expansions because Governors will have greater flexibility over the use 
of their dollars.
  Well, these statements simply are not true. Fewer dollars do not 
equal greater flexibility. Fewer dollars mean that States, medical 
providers, and individual beneficiaries are going to have to shoulder 
more of the burden of rapidly rising health care costs. Cost-shifts of 
this magnitude will undoubtedly lead to eligibility restrictions, 
benefit reductions, increased beneficiary cost-sharing, and provider 
payment cuts or freezes.
  States are already struggling with the numerous unfunded mandates 
that the Federal Government has passed down in recent years. Twenty-
nine states, including my home state of West Virginia, are facing a 
drop in their Federal medical assistance percentage, FMAP, next year 
because of a change in the statutory formula used to compute FMAP.
  When the Medicare drug benefit starts on January 1, 2006, states will 
be required to finance a significant portion of the cost. This will be 
the first time since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 
that a specific Medicare benefit will be financed in significant part 
by state payments. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO estimates that, 
at a minimum, states will pay $48 billion toward the Medicare 
prescription drug benefit in the first 5 years. These costs could be 
much greater if more dual eligibles sign up for prescription drug 
coverage or if States have to cover the costs of drugs for dual 
eligibles that private drug plans do not cover.
  West Virginia is scheduled to lose $36 million in Federal Medicaid 
matching funds in 2006. And, it is still unclear how much 
implementation of the Medicare prescription drug law will cost. The 
additional cuts proposed by the President could result in West Virginia 
losing as much as $100 million in Federal Medicaid matching funds next 
year alone. The hospitals, doctors, nursing homes and clinics in my 
State cannot afford to absorb cuts of this magnitude.
  This budget isn't about reducing the Federal deficit. Otherwise, we 
would have eliminated the $70 billion in tax cuts that are contained 
this budget. We would have taken an objective look at entitlement 
spending, and not just focused on the program that provides health 
benefits to the working poor. We would have reined in excessive 
overpayments to private plans under Medicare and found ways to lower 
Medicare prescription drug costs.
  This budget isn't about reforming the Medicaid program for the 
better. Otherwise, it would have addressed the real reasons Medicaid 
cost are going up: significant decreases in employer-sponsored health 
coverage and Medicare's gaps in long-term care coverage. Otherwise, the 
administration would have provided specific policy proposals for 
strengthening Medicaid for the future, instead of vague ideas that even 
the Congressional Budget Office could not score. If this budget were 
truly about improving Medicaid, then the administration would not be 
attempting to shoehorn sweeping changes to the program into an 
arbitrary budget number. Instead, Medicaid policy would determine the 
budget number.
  I would like to say to my colleagues that Democrats are happy to 
discuss strengthening the Medicaid program for the future. We are happy 
to work toward reforming the program for the better. However, the 
prescription for Medicaid must adequately address the larger problems 
with our health care system that have an impact on the program. This is 
clearly not the case with this budget.
  The bottom line is that this budget is about choices, and this 
administration has chosen to unfairly target low-income working 
families. This budget robs the most vulnerable in our society, while 
simultaneously giving greater tax breaks to the rich. This is 
unacceptable. The Federal Government has a responsibility to maintain 
its commitment to Medicaid in order to protect access to health care 
for working Americans.
  That is why I oppose the $15 billion in Medicaid cuts included in the 
budget and will vote for the Smith-Bingaman amendment to strike these 
cuts from the budget resolution.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I support the floor amendment offered by my 
colleagues Senators Bingaman and Smith to strike the cuts from Medicaid 
and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, in the budget 
resolution.
  The budget resolution includes $15.2 billion in reductions in 
mandatory programs that are part of Function 550, which is limited to 
health programs. Medicaid and SCHIP are the only mandatory programs in 
this category that are under the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance 
Committee.
  The reductions in Medicaid included in the budget resolution will 
lead to further cuts in coverage and benefits for people in need. They 
will prevent individuals from being able to access health care, which 
will increase the burden on our public health system. In Hawaii, 
Medicaid and QUEST, Hawaii's program that provides health coverage 
through managed care plans for eligible lower income residents, 
provided essential health services to nearly 190,000 people in 2002. 
For those in rural Hawaii, particularly the elderly, Medicaid provides 
access to health care that they might otherwise have to go without. The 
Medicaid cuts will further erode the ability of hospitals, clinics, 
physicians, and other medical providers to meet the health care needs 
of our communities. These very same health care providers already are 
confronted with inadequate reimbursements, rising costs, and an 
increasing demand to provide care for the uninsured.
  Without doubt, the Medicaid reductions in the Senate budget plan 
would adversely affect health care coverage for low-income, uninsured 
Americans. Medicaid programs are demanding a larger share of state 
spending than they have in recent years. Reducing the Federal 
commitment to Medicaid will push additional costs to the States and 
increase the number of people who are uninsured or under-insured.
  Contributing to the obstacles in delivering quality health care to 
those who need it the most are the critical losses that a majority of 
states will see in their Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, FMAP. 
The FMAP formula is designed to pay a higher FMAP to states with lower 
per capita income relative to the national average. According to the 
Federal Funds Information for States in its report, Fiscal year 2006 
FMAP projections, 30 States are projected to experience cuts in their 
FMAP. This aggregate FMAP cut translates into an $850 million reduction 
in FY 2006 Medicaid grants to the impacted states. The five states 
facing the largest FMAP decreases include Alaska, Wyoming, New Mexico, 
North Dakota, and South Dakota.
  Hawaii faces a projected FMAP decline of 0.7 percent for FY 2006, 
which translates to a loss of $655,000 that could be used to provide 
health care to the citizens of my state. While it may seem like a small 
decline compared to larger, more prosperous states, let me assure you 
that the loss will be felt. In a June 2004 report by the Families USA 
organization, nearly one out of three people under the age of 65 went 
without health insurance for all or part of the 2-year period from 
2002-2003 in Hawaii. More alarming is the statistic that nearly 82 
percent of uninsured people in Hawaii are members of working families. 
The report went on to make the distinction that 61 percent of families

[[Page 5177]]

in Hawaii, at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, were 
uninsured.
  In 2005, it is estimated that the Hawaii Medicaid program will spend 
just over $929 million. Of this, the Federal Government will contribute 
nearly $544 million. A substantial portion of Hawaii's health care 
industry relies on Medicaid spending. In 2002, Medicaid payments 
infused Hawaii's hospital system with more than $106 million. In 
addition, Medicaid is the primary payer for 70 percent of Hawaii's 
certified nursing facility residents. Any cut in Medicaid funding will 
have a profound effect on the economic viability of Hawaii's health 
care system and its ability to care for people in need.
  Medicaid costs for States have soared in recent years, driven by 
rising health-care costs, an aging population that relies largely on 
Medicaid to pay for nursing homes, and a recession that sent more 
people to state-supported health care. Medicaid reform needs to have a 
reform discussion that is not driven by an arbitrary budget number.
  While I support improving the health care delivery system for all 
citizens of our country, the need for unique legislation to satisfy an 
essential, fundamental need is indicative of the flaws in the current 
Medicaid system and an issue that the commission proposed by this 
amendment can address. Medicaid needs more funding, not less. 
Escalating costs, the increase in the number of uninsured, FMAP cuts, 
and the clawback provision in the 2003 Medicare drug benefit 
legislation only serve to put more pressure on state budgets. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment to restore dollars available to 
provide essential Medicaid coverage to our country's most vulnerable 
citizens.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Medicaid provides a critical safety net 
for 53 million Americans--low-income children, parents, disabled and 
elderly citizens who have nowhere else to turn for health care. 
Medicaid now provides health care for 1 in every 5 children. It pays 
for one-third of all births in this country, almost 40 percent of all 
long-term care expenses, a sixth of all drug costs, and half of the 
States' mental health services. It also is the largest payer of 
services for AIDS patients.
  What does it say about the leadership of this Senate that it proposes 
to cut $15 billion from Medicaid? That program provides health care for 
25 million children, 13 million low-income adults, and 15 million 
disabled and elderly Americans. These cuts are proposed at the very 
same time the budget once again proposes large new tax cuts tilted 
toward higher income households. Our colleagues say they have no choice 
but to make these cuts to Medicaid because of the large deficit. But 
the large deficit was created by the large tax breaks for the rich, not 
by Medicaid.
  The budget is a blueprint of Congress' priorities for the Nation. 
This Congress once again shows that it cares more about those who have 
the most than it does about those who have the least. How can we 
possibly continue to give tax breaks each year to the wealthy, and 
reduce health benefits for the poor to pay for them. Those are not the 
values we stand for.
  In fact, the budget cuts in the Senate resolution are even deeper 
than the cuts proposed in the administration budget. Even if the 
Finance Committee adopts every cut the President proposed to Medicaid, 
they will still need to come up with an additional $7 billion in cuts 
to meet the target in this bill.
  We need to maintain the Federal commitment to medical care for the 
poorest of the poor. If we weaken the Federal commitment, these men, 
women, and children will go without care, or show up at the emergency 
room door. We know that lack of access to care causes harmful 
consequences. We cannot abandon our responsibility to provide for those 
among us who are less fortunate.
  This budget will force the States to pick up costs that the Federal 
Government should be covering. It will result in a massive shift of 
responsibility from the Federal Government to the States. We already 
have shifted much of the cost of the elderly to the States, costs that 
should be covered by Medicare. More than 40 percent of all Medicaid 
expenditures are used to fill the gaps in Medicare. Medicaid pays for 
their long-term care, their prescription drugs, and their cost-sharing.
  Medicaid is the largest source of long-term care today. The more than 
7 million persons who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid are 
among the most vulnerable. Seventy percent of them have incomes below 
$10,000. Nearly one in four live in long-term care facilities. They are 
twice as likely to have Alzheimer's disease, and more likely to have 
diabetes and stroke than others on Medicare beneficiaries. They are a 
small proportion of the Medicaid population, but their costs are among 
the highest. Medicare will start paying for prescription drugs for the 
dually eligible next January, but the states will see little or no 
relief. In fact, because of the so-called ``clawback'' formula in the 
prescription drug law, many states will end up sending the federal 
government more money for picking up these drug costs than they would 
have spent without the drug bill. What kind of relief is that?
  We can all agree that we need to improve Medicaid. We have an 
opportunity to improve the program, but that is not what this budget 
does. This budget is not driven by policy--it is driven by an arbitrary 
number that was picked by the leadership as their deficit reduction 
target. The Federal Government needs to maintain its commitment to 
health care, not try to weaken it and dump the costs on the states. We 
need to help the states provide health care, not cut federal funding 
and put a bigger burden on them. But that is exactly what this budget 
does.
  Some on the other side describe these cuts as minor, or as reductions 
in growth, or as necessary Medicaid reforms. Don't believe a word of 
that. Nothing is further from the truth. There are no policy reasons 
for these cuts. They are large, harmful cuts that are being made so 
that they can say they are reducing the deficit. But if you look at the 
numbers, this budget doesn't reduce the deficit--it increases it over 
the next 5 years. Despite these harmful cuts in Medicaid, they add yet 
another round of tax breaks. Where is the fairness in that? It is Robin 
Hood in reverse steal from the poor to give to wealthy.
  Our colleagues say we need to cut Medicaid because it is growing too 
fast. The reason is obvious. It is growing because over the past 4 
years, more people are losing their jobs and their health care, falling 
into poverty, and finding themselves with no option but Medicaid. That 
is what is responsible for Medicaid's growth.
  Over the past 4 years, the number of uninsured has climbed from 40 
million to 45 million, and it is expected to continue growing for the 
foreseeable future. The number of uninsured would have been much 
greater without Medicaid. During the same time period that the number 
of uninsured increased by 5 million, the number of Americans on 
Medicaid grew by 9 million. If Medicaid had not been available to them, 
we would be facing 54 million uninsured. Is that the kind of policy the 
Nation wants to promote?
  Medicaid enrollment grew 40 percent over the past 5 years, and it is 
projected to grow another 5 percent this year. Enrollment growth is 
causing Medicaid's rising cost, not inefficiencies, or fraud, or abuse. 
In fact, the cost of private employer-sponsored health insurance has 
grown at twice the rate of Medicaid. The percentage of Americans with 
employer-sponsored health insurance fell, but the number of Americans 
on Medicaid grew, and that growth was largely caused by the bad 
economy, the continuing decline of employer health insurance, and the 
soaring cost of prescription drugs.
  Cutting costs is the wrong prescription for Medicaid. This amendment 
will give us time to assess Medicaid fairly, and base any changes on 
sound policy, not arbitrary budget cuts. These cuts will have a real 
impact on real people. Millions may lose their only hope for health 
care if we allow these cuts to stand. Emergency rooms will have more 
and more patients with nowhere else to turn, and the Nation's

[[Page 5178]]

health care safety net will continue to fray. That is not the kind of 
budget we ought to be approving.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Smith-Bingaman amendment. Our 
goal on Medicaid is to improve it, not dismantle it.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, over the last century, the Nation has 
witnessed tremendous advances in medical science and technology. We now 
have treatments and cures for diseases and conditions that were at one 
time surely fatal. Thirty years ago, if children developed cancer, 
doctors couldn't save their lives. Today, more than three-quarters of 
children with cancer survive. Heart disease is no longer the leading 
cause of death because of significant improvements in medical treatment 
and surgical procedures. Americans with AIDS are living many years 
longer and spending more time at home and not in hospitals because of 
new drug cocktails that prevent infections and other deadly 
complications.
  The unfortunate and bitter irony is that while the number of medical 
breakthroughs continues to increase, so does the number of Americans 
who will never benefit from them. Right now, 45 million Americans have 
no health care coverage, and this number continues to rise. Over a 2-
year period, over 85 million Americans have not had continuous 
insurance coverage. In this land of plenty and opportunity, 350,000 
uninsured children with earaches and sore throats will never see a 
doctor. Sixteen million uninsured Americans cannot afford to fill 
prescriptions. Uninsured women who develop breast cancer are 40 percent 
more likely to die, as are 50 percent of uninsured men with prostate 
cancer. The Institute of Medicine has reported that 18,000 adults die 
every year because they are uninsured.
  For many Americans, Medicaid represents their only real hope of 
obtaining health care. Nationally, 53 million people rely on Medicaid 
coverage, including 25 million children, 13 million low-income adults, 
and 15 million disabled and elderly Americans. Nearly 16 percent of 
people who live in rural areas have Medicaid coverage, including more 
than 1 in 4 children in these areas. One quarter of African Americans 
and 20 percent of Hispanics rely on Medicaid, as do 9 percent of women.
  In my home State of Illinois, Medicaid provides health coverage for 2 
million residents. Over 30 percent of children in Illinois receive 
health care through KidCare. Nearly 65 percent of nursing home 
residents rely on Medicaid coverage.
  Despite Medicaid's critical role in providing access to care, the 
Republican budget proposes to cut Medicaid by $15 billion. This cut 
translates into an estimated $287 million loss for Illinois. Experts 
report this funding could provide health care coverage for 200,000 
children or 135,000 working parents in my State.
  Some of my colleagues argue that we have no choice but to make large 
cuts to Medicaid because of the deficit. But these deficits were 
created by huge tax breaks for the rich, not by Medicaid, and we should 
not balance the budget at the expense of health care for low-income 
children, their parents, pregnant women and seniors. We cannot keep tax 
cuts for the rich and cut basic health care for the poor. We cannot 
retreat from our Federal commitment to Medicaid and leave the States 
holding the bag.
  I agree the Medicaid Program is not perfect. The Smith-Bingaman 
amendment to create a commission to study the program and make 
recommendations for improvement is a reasonable approach. Sound policy, 
not politics or deficit concerns, should guide any changes to the 
Medicaid Program, and I am not convinced that we have examined or 
discussed the full range of Medicaid-related issues and options before 
us.
  We cannot and should not deny millions of Americans access to basic 
health care. Medicaid is the Nation's safety net, and we should 
strengthen it, not destroy it. I am going to vote yes for the Smith-
Bingaman amendment to strike proposed cuts in funding for Medicaid, and 
I urge my colleagues to join me.


                           Amendment No. 229

  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, the pending 
amendment will be set aside, and the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. Frist, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 229.

  Mr. GREGG. Madam 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 express the sense of the Senate regarding medicaid 
  reconciliation legislation consistent with recommendations from the 
                secretary of health and human services)

       Beginning on page 58, strike line 11 and all that follows 
     through page 61, line 24, and insert the following:

     SEC. 504. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING MEDICAID 
                   RECONCILIATION LEGISLATION CONSISTENT WITH 
                   RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH 
                   AND HUMAN SERVICES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The Medicaid program provides essential health care and 
     long-term care services to more than 50,000,000 low-income 
     children, pregnant women, parents, individuals with 
     disabilities, and senior citizens. It is a Federal guarantee 
     that ensures the most vulnerable will have access to needed 
     medical services.
       (2) The Medicaid program will spend $189,000,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2006.
       (3) During the period from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal 
     year 2010, the Medicaid program will spend 
     $1,100,000,000,000.
       (4) Over the same period, spending for the Medicaid program 
     will increase by 40 percent.
       (5) Medicaid provides critical access to long-term care and 
     other services for the elderly and individuals living with 
     disabilities, and is the single largest provider of long-term 
     care services. Medicaid also pays for personal care and other 
     supportive services that are typically not provided by 
     private health insurance or Medicare, but are necessary to 
     enable individuals with spinal cord injuries, developmental 
     disabilities, neurological degenerative diseases, serious and 
     persistent mental illnesses, HIV/AIDS, and other chronic 
     conditions to remain in the community, to work, and to 
     maintain independence.
       (6) Medicaid supplements the Medicare program for more than 
     6,000,000 low-income elderly or disabled Medicare 
     beneficiaries, assisting them with their Medicare premiums 
     and co-insurance, wrap-around benefits, and the costs of 
     nursing home care that Medicare does not cover. The Medicaid 
     program spent nearly $40,000,000,000 on uncovered Medicare 
     services in 2002.
       (7) This resolution assumes $163,000,000 in spending to 
     extend Medicare cost-sharing under the Medicaid program for 
     the Medicare part B premium for qualifying individuals 
     through 2006.
       (8) Medicaid provides health insurance for more than 1/4 of 
     America's children and is the largest purchaser of maternity 
     care, paying for more than 1/3 of all the births in the 
     United States each year. Medicaid also provides critical 
     access to care for children with disabilities, covering more 
     than 70 percent of poor children with disabilities.
       (9) More than 16,000,000 women depend on Medicaid for their 
     health care. Women comprise the majority of seniors (71 
     percent) on Medicaid. Half of nonelderly women with permanent 
     mental or physical disabilities have health coverage through 
     Medicaid. Medicaid provides treatment for low-income women 
     diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer in every State.
       (10) Medicaid is the Nation's largest source of payment for 
     mental health services, HIV/AIDS care, and care for children 
     with special needs. Much of this care is either not covered 
     by private insurance or limited in scope or duration. 
     Medicaid is also a critical source of funding for health care 
     for children in foster care and for health services in 
     schools.
       (11) Medicaid funds help ensure access to care for all 
     Americans. Medicaid is the single largest source of revenue 
     for the Nation's safety net hospitals, health centers, and 
     nursing homes, and is critical to the ability of these 
     providers to adequately serve all Americans.
       (12) Medicaid serves a major role in ensuring that the 
     number of Americans without health insurance, approximately 
     45,000,000 in 2003, is not substantially higher. The system 
     of Federal matching for State Medicaid expenditures ensures 
     that Federal funds will grow as State spending increases in 
     response to unmet needs, enabling Medicaid to help buffer the 
     drop in private coverage during recessions. More than 
     4,800,000 Americans lost employer-sponsored coverage between 
     2000 and 2003, during which time Medicaid enrolled an 
     additional 8,400,000 Americans.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the Committee on Finance shall not report a 
     reconciliation bill that achieves spending reductions that 
     would--

[[Page 5179]]

       (A) undermine the role the Medicaid program plays as a 
     critical component of the health care system of the United 
     States;
       (B) cap Federal Medicaid spending, or otherwise shift 
     Medicaid cost burdens to State or local governments and their 
     taxpayers and health providers, forcing a reduction in access 
     to essential health services for low-income elderly 
     individuals, individuals with disabilities, and children and 
     families; or
       (C) undermine the Federal guarantee of health insurance 
     coverage Medicaid provides, which would threaten not only the 
     health care safety net of the United States, but the entire 
     health care system;
       (2) the Secretary of Health and Human Services, working 
     with bipartisan, geographically diverse members of the 
     National Governors Association and in consultation with key 
     stakeholders, shall make recommendations for changes to the 
     Medicaid program that reflect the principles specified in 
     paragraph (3); and
       (3) the Committee on Finance, consistent with such 
     recommendations, shall report a reconciliation bill that--
       (A) allows any Medicaid savings to be shared by the Federal 
     and State governments;
       (B) would emphasize State flexibility through voluntary 
     options for States; and
       (C) would not cause Medicaid recipients to lose coverage.

  Mr. GREGG. I yield back such time as I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Maryland is recognized.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I ask what the time situation is and 
the parliamentary situation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will have 15 minutes equally 
divided on the amendment.
  Mr. SARBANES. I yield myself 3 minutes of the 7\1/2\ minutes that I 
have available.


                           Amendment No. 156

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

       The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes], for himself, Mr. 
     Nelson of Florida, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Corzine, 
     Mr. Feingold, Mr. Reed, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Clinton, 
     Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
     Dayton, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Obama, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
     Harkin, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Byrd, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. 
     Johnson, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 156.

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

(Purpose: To restore funding for the Community Development Block Grant 
  (CDBG) program and other programs proposed to be eliminated and to 
 retain the administration of these programs at their current agencies 
by adopting proposals to close certain tax loopholes that were approved 
                  by the Senate in the last Congress)

       On page 3 line 10, increase the amount by $427,000,000.
       On page 3 line 11, increase the amount by $627,000,000.
       On page 3 line 12, increase the amount by $455,000,000.
       On page 3 line 13, increase the amount by $214,000,000.
       On page 3 line 14, increase the amount by $103,000,000.
       On page 3 line 19, increase the amount by $427,000,000.
       On page 3 line 20, increase the amount by $627,000,000.
       On page 3 line 21, increase the amount by $455,000,000.
       On page 4 line 1, increase the amount by $214,000,000.
       On page 4 line 2, increase the amount by $103,000,000.
       On page 4 line 7, increase the amount by $1,890,000,000.
       On page 4 line 16, increase the amount by $427,000,000.
       On page 4 line 17, increase the amount by $627,000,000.
       On page 4 line 18, increase the amount by $455,000,000.
       On page 4 line 19, increase the amount by $214,000,000.
       On page 4 line 20, increase the amount by $103,000,000.
       On page 16 line 15, increase the amount by $1,219,000,000.
       On page 16 line 16, increase the amount by $38,000,000.
       On page 16 line 20, increase the amount by $365,000,000.
       On page 16 line 24, increase the amount by $442,000,000.
       On page 17 line 3, increase the amount by $207,000,000.
       On page 17 line 7, increase the amount by $103,000,000.
       On page 17 line 16, increase the amount by $671,000,000.
       On page 17 line 17, increase the amount by $389,000,000.
       On page 17 line 21, increase the amount by $262,000,000.
       On page 17 line 25, increase the amount by $13,000,000.
       On page 18 line 4, increase the amount by $7,000,000.
       On page 30 line 16, decrease the amount by $427,000,000.
       On page 30 line 17, decrease the amount by $1,826,000,000.
       On page 48 line 6, increase the amount by $1,890,000,000.
       On page 48 line 7, increase the amount by $427,000,000.

  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, first, let me say at the outset, 
because I neglected to do so the other day in the general debate, that 
I commend both the chairman of the Budget Committee and the ranking 
minority member of the Budget Committee for the fair and expeditious 
way in which consideration of this resolution was conducted in the 
committee. We have a new chairman. It is always a challenge, and I want 
to express to him my recognition of the fair process conducted in the 
committee, which is, of course, essential to the Senate working through 
controversial issues and trying to reach a solution.
  This amendment would restore approximately $1.89 billion in cuts that 
are in the administration's proposed budget to the Community 
Development Block Grant Program and a number of other development 
programs that have been proposed for elimination. It would bring all of 
those programs back to the 2005 level. It is my view, and the view of a 
majority of the Members of the Senate expressed in a letter sent to 
Chairman Gregg and Senator Conrad, that the administration of these 18 
programs should remain as they are currently constituted.
  In other words, the community development block grant should continue 
to be housed at HUD, the rural programs at USDA, and this effort to 
shift all of them over to the Department of Commerce, an idea which has 
not been considered, not examined, not brought to the floor of the 
Congress, ought not to be carried through.
  I am going to focus on the CDBG Program primarily because very 
substantial cuts have been proposed in the budget.
  Roy Bernardi, the Deputy Secretary of HUD, a former mayor of 
Syracuse, has said that the foundation of virtually all community and 
economic development occurring across the Nation is CDBG. This is the 
Deputy Secretary of HUD, formerly mayor of Syracuse. He said:

       We must continue to support and build upon programs that 
     work, those that have a proven record of flexibility and the 
     ability to fit in with locally determined needs. CDBG is such 
     a program and ranks among our Nation's oldest and most 
     successful programs.

  I have two letters strongly supporting full funding for the CDBG 
Program at HUD, signed by a host of State, city, and county 
organizations, such as the National League of Cities, the U.S. 
Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, and the 
National Governors Association.
  I ask unanimous consent those two letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                    March 4, 2005.
     Hon. Judd Gregg,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Gregg and Ranking Member Conrad: As you 
     prepare to consider the FY 2006 Budget Resolution, we the 
     undersigned organizations want to convey our opposition to 
     proposed cuts in the FY 2006 Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development (HUD) budget. We respectfully request that you 
     craft a Budget Resolution that will provide adequate budget 
     authority for all HUD programs and maintain important 
     community and economic development functions and funding at 
     HUD.
       Of particular concern to us is the proposed elimination of 
     the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program along 
     with 17 other federal community and economic development 
     grant programs. We oppose in the strongest terms the 
     elimination of CDBG, and we urge you to reject the proposed 
     ``Strengthening America's Communities'' (SAC) Initiative and 
     support full funding for the CDBG program at HUD.

[[Page 5180]]

       As you know, the FY 2006 Budget would effectively eliminate 
     18 community and economic development programs, including 
     CDBG, and create an entirely new initiative to be operated by 
     the Department of Commerce. Proposed funding for this 
     ``consolidated'' program would be $3.7 billion, a 35% 
     reduction in funding when compared to total FY 2005 
     appropriations for the 18 programs targeted for elimination 
     under the initiative. Consider that Congress funded the CDBG 
     program alone at $4.7 billion in FY 2005, $1 billion more 
     than the entire proposed budget for the SAC initiative.
       Eliminating these 18 programs and substantially reducing 
     the federal investment in community and economic development 
     would have a devastating impact on state and local 
     governments. Each of these existing programs is an important 
     and necessary component of urban, suburban, and rural 
     communities' efforts to revitalize neighborhoods, expand 
     affordable housing opportunities and create economic growth. 
     We believe that CDBG is the glue that holds these efforts 
     together.
       For 30 years, the CDBG program has served as the 
     cornerstone of the federal government's commitment to 
     partnering with state and local governments to strengthen our 
     nation's communities and improve the quality of life for low- 
     and moderate-income Americans. Since its inception, CDBG has 
     made a real and positive difference in communities across 
     America, and there is no shortage of CDBG success stories. 
     Many of the groups that signed this letter have been working 
     in partnership with HUD and the Office of Management and 
     Budget (OMB) in a good faith effort to improve the CDBG 
     program's ability to measure performance. As a result of this 
     effort, HUD plans to unveil a new outcome-based measurement 
     system in early 2005. As recently as November 2004, OMB 
     endorsed this undertaking. We believe this new system will 
     verify what is already obvious: CDBG works.
       CDBG's emphasis on flexibility and local determination of 
     priority needs through citizen participation is allowing 
     state and local governments to achieve real results. 
     According to HUD's ``Highlights of FY 2004 CDBG 
     Accomplishments,'' CDBG funding led to the creation or 
     retention of more than 90,000 jobs in the last year alone. 
     Thanks to CDBG, in 2004 over 130,000 rental units and single-
     family homes were rehabbed, 85,000 individuals received 
     employment training, 1.5 million youth were served by after-
     school enrich- ment programs and other activities, and child 
     care services were provided to 100,065 children in 205 
     communities across the country. CDBG also funded nearly 700 
     crime prevention and awareness programs. Additionally, more 
     than 11,000 Americans became homeowners last year thanks to 
     CDBG funding. CDBG remains a smart, efficient form of 
     investment, as it continues to leverage around three dollars 
     for every dollar of federal investment. It certainly did not 
     come as a surprise to us when HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson, 
     in a March 2nd appearance before the House Financial Services 
     Committee, stated, ``The program works.''
       The CDBG program's design is especially successful at 
     targeting resources to those who need them most. In 2004, 95 
     percent of funds expended by entitlement grantees and 96 
     percent of state CDBG funds expended were for activities that 
     principally benefited low- and moderate-income persons. A 
     full half of persons directly benefiting from CDBG-assisted 
     activities were minorities, including African Americans, 
     Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians. Despite the fact 
     that economic challenges and pockets of poverty exist in 
     almost all American communities, adoption of the SAC 
     initiative would almost certainly result in a complete loss 
     of funding for a significant number of communities.
       For all of the reasons detailed above, we believe that CDBG 
     should remain at HUD and receive full funding of at least 
     $4.7 billion in FY 2006. We also believe it is premature for 
     the Budget Resolution to even address such a far-reaching 
     change to the program before the numerous committees of 
     jurisdiction have had sufficient opportunity to hold 
     appropriate hearings on the topic. We urge you to craft a 
     Budget Resolution reflecting those sentiments. More 
     specifically, we strongly encourage you to include hnguage in 
     your Resolution clearly stating that the Resolution ``does 
     not assume enactment of the proposed `Strengthening America's 
     Communities' Initiative nor the proposed reduction in funding 
     for the CDBG program included in the Administration's FY 2006 
     budget.''
       We thank you for your favorable consideration of this 
     request.
           Sincerely,
       Council of State Community Development Agencies.
       The Enterprise Foundation.
       Habitat for Humanity International.
       Housing Assistance Council.
       Local Initiatives Support Corporation.
       National Association for County Community and Economic 
     Development.
       National Association of Counties.
       National Association of Housing and Redevelopment 
     Officials.
       National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies.
       National Community Development Association.
       National Conference of Black Mayors.
       National League of Cities.
       National Low Income Housing Coalition.
       United States Conference of Mayors.

       
                                  ____
                                                   March 15, 2005.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Majority Leader, Office of the Senate Majority Leader, 
         Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Minority Leader, Office of the Senate Minority Leader, 
         Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Reid: As a 
     diverse coalition of organizations representing the nation's 
     community and economic development practitioners, elected 
     officials and constituency groups, we are writing to express 
     our overwhelming opposition to the Administration's proposal 
     to eliminate 18 federal community and economic development 
     programs and reduce federal grant assistance for distressed 
     and underserved local communities by $2 billion each year. We 
     strongly urge you to restore these vital resources as part of 
     the FY2006 congressional budget resolution.
       At a time when nearly every American business and community 
     is confronting intense competition from emerging and 
     developing nations, the federal government should be 
     expanding its resources and assistance for local community 
     and economic development. Instead, the Administration is 
     recommending a 34 percent funding cut and more unfunded 
     mandates for our nation's state and local governments. The 
     President's plan would also significantly diminish and 
     eviscerate the federal role in community development projects 
     such as providing first-time access to clean and drinkable 
     water, affordable housing and community facilities for our 
     nation's poorer areas and citizens.
       From our perspective as the constituencies at the 
     frontlines of community and economic development, we feel 
     strongly that the current federal investment of $5.7 billion 
     each year is a solid, wise and effective investment in our 
     nation's local communities. While we understand and recognize 
     the current federal budget climate, we must point out that 
     the proposed funding cut represents less than one-half of a 
     percent of last year's federal deficit. More importantly, the 
     $2 billion reduction in federal investments will result in 
     the loss of at least $18 billion in matching and leveraging 
     investments by the private sector and other governmental and 
     nonprofit programs at the state and local level.
       Our nation's distressed regions, communities and 
     neighborhoods need national leadership, models of innovation 
     and matching funds for locally-led projects and initiatives. 
     Instead, we fear the Administration's proposal will result in 
     more communities marking time in the land of lost 
     opportunity.
           Sincerely,
       American Planning Association.
       American Public Works Association.
       Association for Enterprise Opportunity.
       Center for Rural Affairs.
       Coalition of Community Development Financial Institutions.
       US Conference of Mayors.
       Council of State Community Development Agencies.
       Local Initiatives Support Corporation.
       National Association of Counties.
       National Association of Development Organizations.
       National Association of Regional Councils.
       National Association of RC&D Councils.
       National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies.
       National Community Capital Association.
       National Community Development Association.
       National Farmers Union.
       National Low Income Housing Coalition.
       National Rural Funders Collaborative.
       National Rural Housing Coalition.
       Northeast-Midwest Institute.
       Rural Community Advancement Program.
       The Enterprise Foundation.

  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, the private sector strongly supports 
CDBG.
  Doug Woodruff, Senior Vice President of the Bank of America, said at 
a recent Hill briefing:

       From the perspective of the private sector, the CDBG 
     program provides a valuable and irreplaceable function in the 
     continuum of efforts that surround many revitalization 
     projects.

       The success of CDBG is unquestionable. It has produced over 
     2 million jobs in its 30-year history, and generated more 
     than $50 billion in personal earnings.

  I want to address one other point; that is, how do we restore the 
funding? That is always a question. It is a matter of priorities.
  This amendment proposes to restore the funding by eliminating tax 
loopholes that were closed by this body in the last Congress. Ninety-
two Members voted to do this. A lot of those provisions were dropped in 
conference.
  Just 2 weeks ago, colleagues supported closing these loopholes in the

[[Page 5181]]

context of the minimum wage debate. Obviously, these loopholes should 
be closed. The headlines are screaming ``abusive tax shelter schemes.'' 
The GAO recently reported that 60 of the Nation's largest corporations 
used and abused tax shelter services in recent years.
  Some want to cut other programs but this would mean taking from Peter 
to pay Paul. We have a perfect opportunity here to recoup valuable 
revenues that are now being lost through these tax shelter schemes. 
That is the tradeoff in this amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes forty seconds.
  Mr. SARBANES. I yield half of that time to the Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I appreciate very much having an 
opportunity to support this amendment and to be a cosponsor. I thank my 
colleague from Maryland for his leadership.
  This is a small way in which we support local communities to create 
jobs, revitalize neighborhoods, support infrastructure, water, sewer, 
roads--those things that help create jobs.
  From the highlights of the 2004 CDBG accomplishments, they show very 
specifically that they created or had the retention of more than 90,000 
jobs last year. In a State like Michigan, this is incredibly important. 
Over 130,000 rental units and single-family homes were rehabbed, 85,000 
individuals received employment training, 1.5 million children were 
served with afterschool enrichment programs, childcare services were 
provided to over 100,000 children and their families, 700 crime 
prevention and awareness programs, and 11,000 Americans became 
homeowners.
  What is more important to each of us as parents than to be able to 
make sure we have shelter and a home for our children?
  These are partnerships with local communities, small amounts of 
revenue that we bring together with our communities to make major 
impacts on the quality of life. That is what we are about--to partner 
with our local communities.
  I urge the support of the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Sarbanes 
amendment, which will prevent one the greatest failings of this 
President's Budget--its elimination of more than $2 billion from 
critically needed economic development and social service programs and 
the proposed consolidation of 18 valuable Federal programs into a 
single block grant under the so-called ``Strengthening America's 
Communities Initiative.''
  I am heartened that so many of my colleagues have come together in 
opposition to these cuts--55 Senators wrote to the Budget Committee in 
an important show of bipartisanship 2 weeks ago.
  Under the President's plan most American cities can expect at least a 
35 percent cut in assistance from the Federal Government to help secure 
investment, house the poor, provide health care to the uninsured, and 
counsel the abused.
  If the administration dislikes helping cities, they should have the 
decency to say so, instead of this charade where they try to hide 
massive cuts under the cloak of streamlining.
  Their proposal insults the intelligence of mayors, community 
development officials, and social service agencies across the country--
by cynically suggesting that somehow these cuts are going to make life 
better and be helpful to cities across America.
  What makes these cuts so objectionable is they come at a time of 
great stress and difficulty for Americans who live in poverty. 1We are 
the wealthiest nation on earth. We are blessed with great abundance. 
Yet despite our great wealth, too many of our fellow citizens remain in 
the shadows, the prisoners of persistent and increasing urban and rural 
poverty.
  The numbers are alarming. Today, nearly 36 million Americans live in 
poverty, and 3 million more working Americans live in hunger or on the 
verge of hunger today than in 2000. One out of five American children 
goes to bed hungry each night. We have it in our power to eliminate so 
much of this poverty.
  At the very least, we shouldn't do anything to make it worse which is 
exactly what this ``Strengthening America's Communities'' plan from the 
White House would do. In the powerful words of the Gospel, ``To whom 
much is given, much is required.''
  We need to pass the Sarbanes amendment, so that the work of tens of 
thousands of public officials, health officials, educators, community 
development experts toiling to improve living conditions in our cities 
isn't made any more difficult.
  Mayors across the country on the front lines every day are struggling 
to create new jobs and attract capital investment. They are struggling 
to educate and house the children of the poor, and they are not fooled 
by this administration's misleading slogan ``Strengthening America's 
Communities,'' because they know it is the exact opposite.
  My friend, Mayor Clare Higgins of Northampton isn't fooled. She 
recently wrote me urging Congress to save Community Development Block 
Grants, one of the very few tools she has to meet Northampton's needs 
and one of the biggest programs on the President's chopping block.
  Most recently, Northampton invested $300,000 of these Federal funds 
to acquire the Interfaith Cold Weather Emergency Homeless shelter--the 
only cold weather shelter serving Hampshire County. It is a 
collaborative effort between area church groups and ServiceNet Inc., a 
local human service provider. Without these funds, there would be no 
cold weather shelter in Hampshire County.
  Mayor Higgins wrote:

       Without CDBG funds, the City will be unable to develop a 
     planned senior center, public services that provide emergency 
     food, homeless services, child care and after school 
     programming, literacy skills and health care would not be 
     funded; the City's ability to promote and develop affordable 
     housing will be severely limited, parks and playgrounds will 
     not be improved, and the City's ability to provide funding 
     for the redevelopment of the former Northampton State 
     Hospital will cease.

  Mayor Tom Menino of Boston--the former head of the U.S. Conference of 
Mayors--isn't fooled. He knows what's at stake and recently conducted 
an analysis of the budget cuts on his city.

       Since 1998 alone--

  Mayor Menino stated at a recent press conference--

     the City of Boston has permitted almost 5,000 new units of 
     affordable housing and permitted more than 12,000 other 
     units. We have invested a total of $7.8 million in CDBG funds 
     in 19 large developments that have created a total of 1,175 
     apartments including 517 units for the formerly homeless.

  He went on to say that this budget for housing, community 
development, and social services threatens to ``throw the nation into 
the dark ages.''
  That doesn't sound like he believes his community will be 
``strengthened'' by the Bush administration's cuts.
  Mayor Menino believes the President's budget will mean the loss of $8 
million in Community Development Block Grant funding for Boston and the 
loss of $5.5 million in Community Services Block Grant funding.
  On any given night in the City of Boston, there are nearly 6,000 
homeless men, women, and children in the city. Shelters in 
Massachusetts have been overflowing for 6 straight years, with 4 beds 
available for every 5 adults.
  Yet the very support he has relied on to help build 133 units of 
affordable housing for homeless people, to help 500 low-income 
homeowners rehabilitate their properties, and to provide 130 first-time 
homebuyers with their down payments is now in grave danger.
  How exactly is the mayor supposed to strengthen Boston when the 
support he needs to do it is getting the axe under this budget?
  Other local officials tell the same story.
  A letter I recently received from Elizabeth Cohen, Executive Director 
of Rape Crises Services of Greater Lowell, says:

       Dear Senator Kennedy:
       We need your help . . . We use CDBG Funds to support 
     multilingual sexual assault support services. We are the only 
     program in the

[[Page 5182]]

     Greater Lowell area and the only agency to have certified 
     rape crisis counselors who speak Spanish and Khmer. With the 
     elimination of this funding, we will have to cut back on 
     these services, which will result in 100 Khmer-speaking 
     clients being unable to have a counselor in their language . 
     . .
       As you know, immigrants and refugees already have many 
     struggles when they move to a new city or new country. Having 
     to deal with the trauma of sexual violence on top of the 
     difficulties in housing, education, food and school can 
     paralyze a family . . . Please don't let the President take 
     away this funding for Lowell.

  I ask the Senate, does this sound like we are strengthening 
communities with this budget?
  In Lawrence--one of Massachusetts' and the Nation's poorest cities--
CDBG funds have been used to amazing effect to leverage nearly $110 
million of investment in the remedation and redevelopment of an 
abandoned industrial brownfield site known as the Lawrence Gateway 
Project.
  The city has invested nearly $6 million of its CDBG funds in the 
project and formed a model partnership with GenCorp, a private company 
that has invested $75 million so far in the redevelopment.
  Today, Lawrence is continuing to use its CDBG funds to meet debt 
service payments on loans made to clean the properties.
  Without these Federal funds, the partnership with GenCorp could not 
exist, and the City would not be able to do anything about this 15-
acre, fenced-in, desolate property, which would stand as a stark 
reminder of the city's industrial past rather than as a symbol of the 
kind of innovative development needed to build a stronger future for 
the city.
  How will we be strengthening Lawrence by eliminating one of the best 
ways they have to create investment partnerships with private 
businesses?
  In addition to the community development block grant, the Sarbanes 
amendment will also preserve the community services block grant. These 
funds strengthen communities by funding local agencies, which provide 
services such as literacy, child health care, after school activities, 
low-income housing, food stamps, emergency shelter, and other support.
  In Worcester, Patsy Lewis of the Worcester Community Action Council 
sent me a letter on just how devastating the President's plans to 
eliminate this program are.
  Simply put, Patsy wrote, they would have to reduce or close their GED 
classes and partnerships for at-risk students in the public schools. 
The agency may even be forced to close.
  Perhaps the President can explain how a community can be 
``strengthened'' by eliminating GED programs.
  Another person who isn't fooled about the effect of the President's 
devastating ``Strengthening America's Communities,'' budget cuts is 
Steve Teasdale, executive director of the Main South Community 
Development Corporation in Worcester, which is doing incredible work 
attacking poverty in one of Massachusetts most economically distressed 
neighborhoods.
  The Main South Community Development Corporation was formed in 1986, 
when concerned citizens came together to revitalize the neighborhood 
surrounding Clark University, which was reeling from the economic and 
social devastation wrought by the loss of Worcester's industrial base.
  The obstacles in Main South's path are considerable:
  Between 1960 and 2000, the population of the neighborhood fell 35 
percent from 5,600 to 3,700. The housing stock fell by 29 percent.
  Over 40 percent of the population lives below the poverty line--and 
17 percent have incomes lower than 50 percent of the poverty level.
  At 11.4 percent, unemployment is double the city's rate of 6.3 
percent. Over half of neighborhood households are headed by single 
parents.
  The challenges confronting the community are great, and Federal funds 
made available through the community services block grant, the 
community development block grant, and HUD's section 108 loan program 
have been absolutely essential to the extraordinary successes of Main 
South in recent years.
  CDBG funds were used at the outset to match a challenge grant from 
the Ford Foundation that provided for the creation of the entity, and 
enabled Main South to attract outside investment. The result is 
numerous accomplishments for the neighborhood.
  Since 1988, Main South has acquired and rehabilitated 246 units of 
low and moderate income housing--137 of which had been abandoned, and 
78 of which were fire-damaged, many from arson. The new homes added 
$500,000 annually to Worcester's tax rolls.
  In addition, as a direct result of Main South's housing 
rehabilitation, over $20 million of investment has flowed back into the 
community. Three ongoing private developments represent another $40 
million of capital brought into the area.
  Because of this Federal support, Main South has been able to be a 
true partner to Clark University, providing greater educational 
opportunity to neighborhood families--through a homework center, 
computer training classes, and career placement services.
  In fact, because of the success of the partnership, Clark University 
lets neighborhood high school students take college classes and 
provides full tuition to neighborhood students who make the grade 
academically. This is extraordinary.
  All of this has been made possible by the commitment and dedication 
of concerned community leaders--and the relatively modest sums of 
Federal support that are in danger with this budget before us.
  Now Main South is taking on its greatest project, the Kilby-Gardner-
Hammond Neighborhood Project.
  This partnership between the Boys and Girls Club, the City, Clark 
University, and Main South will revitalize 30 acres of distressed 
industrial property consisting of over 40 vacant, trash-strewn lots.
  It aims to transform the neighborhood through the construction of a 
$7 million new Boys and Girls Club, between 70 to 80 affordable housing 
units, and a new outdoor track and field complex for Clark University 
students and neighborhood children alike.
  It is a transformative project, with a total investment impact of $30 
million, much of that made possible by Section 108 loan guarantees that 
this budget would eliminate.
  Without Section 108, Teasdale and Main South would never have been 
able to acquire the properties to put this project together. This fact 
alone should cause us to reject the administration's ``strengthening 
communities'' proposal--because it will do nothing of the sort.

       The question has to be asked, [Teasdale recently wrote] is 
     what would happen in these neighborhoods if such funding was 
     severely restricted or cut back. The answer can only be 
     assumed to be that the current problems in these areas would 
     get worse as capital investment once again withdraws to safer 
     havens and the social service needs of the resident 
     populations are stripped away. Crime, substance abuse, lack 
     of recreational and educational opportunities for the youth 
     of these areas and the incidence of poverty can all be 
     expected to increase if CDBG funding is no longer available.
       The long-term social and financial costs associated with 
     such cut backs would be deeply damaging and although the 
     immediate impact would be most severely felt in our poorer 
     urban communities the resulting social distress would 
     eventually affect everyone.

  Steve Teasdale and the leadership of the Main South Community 
Development Corporation know more about the day-to-day challenges 
affecting our poorer urban communities and the difficulties associated 
with urban economic revitalization than any of us, because they live it 
every day.
  I ask my colleagues to consider his words and vote for the Sarbanes 
amendment, so we can save these critically important poverty prevention 
and economic development programs.
  The Senate has a moral obligation not to make it harder for 
communities to solve the complicated issues of poverty and community 
development they face. Without the Sarbanes amendment, that is exactly 
what the Senate will allow to happen.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I rise today in support of Senator Sarbanes' 
amendment to the Budget resolution that would restore funding to the 
Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, program

[[Page 5183]]

and 17 other community and economic development programs proposed to be 
eliminated.
  These programs are vital to our Nation's low and moderate income 
neighborhoods, as these are the communities who need these programs the 
most.
  Despite the proven results of the CDBG program and the other 17 
community and economic development programs, the fiscal year 2006 
budget proposes to consolidate these programs into a single Commerce 
Department program, resulting in a $1.89 billion cut.
  In fiscal year 2005, the total budget for all 18 community and 
economic development programs proposed to be consolidated, including 
CDBG, was $5.6 billion.
  The administration's proposal only provides $3.7 billion for all 18 
programs, leading to a $1.89 billion cut in community development 
funds.
  This major reduction would have a devastating impact on our Nation's 
neediest communities and families who rely on these programs.
  The loss of funds would also impact our Nation's economy, affecting 
small businesses who receive loans to finance projects that lead to the 
creation and retention of jobs.
  The Sarbanes' amendment would restore the proposed $1.89 billion cuts 
to the CDBG program and 17 other community and economic development 
programs, such as the Community Development Loan Guarantees Program and 
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund; retain the 
administration of these important programs at their current agencies. 
For example, the CDBG program would remain at HUD and not be 
transferred to the Department of Commerce; accomplish this by closing 
tax loopholes that an overwhelming majority of Senators voted to close 
in the last Congress.
  While the vote to close tax loopholes was not enacted, it offers us a 
bipartisan way to save community and economic development programs.
  The Community Development Block Grant Program is one of the most 
effective Federal domestic programs to revitalize urban and rural 
communities.
  Over the past 30 years, cities, counties, and States have used more 
than $105 billion in CDBG funds.
  Over 95 percent of CDBG funds have gone to projects and activities 
principally benefiting low- and moderate-income individuals and 
families such as housing development, recreation centers, clinics, day-
care facilities, and job creation and training.
  According to HUD's ``Highlights of Fiscal Year 2004 CDBG 
Accomplishments,'' CDBG funding led to the creation and retention of 
more than 90,000 jobs and 85,000 individuals received employment 
training nationwide in the last year alone.
  In 2004, CDBG funds also helped with the rehabilitation of over 
130,000 rental units and single family homes, and allowed more than 
11,000 Americans to achieve the American Dream and become homeowners.
  Additionally, nearly 700 crime prevention and awareness programs were 
funded and child care services were provided to 100,065 children in 205 
communities across the country.
  In my State of California, CDBG grants are critical to both urban and 
rural cities who rely on these funds to serve many low-income 
neighborhoods.
  In fiscal year 2005, California received over $526 million in CDBG 
funds, accounting for 12.8 percent of the total $4.1 billion grant 
program.
  Of these funds, for example, California cities and counties received 
$82.8 million to the city of Los Angeles and $34.6 million to Los 
Angeles County; $24.6 million to the city of San Francisco; $11.5 
million to Riverside County; $8.4 million to San Bernardino County; and 
$5.5 million to Fresno County.
  Over the past 5 years, the diverse use of CDBG funds have allowed Los 
Angeles County to develop almost 9,000 affordable housing units, to 
create and preserve over 2,000 jobs, to remove over 32 million square 
feet of graffiti, and to provide loans and technical assistance to over 
5,000 businesses among other programs.
  Cuts to the CDBG program would greatly hurt Los Angeles County's low 
income residents, the primary beneficiaries of CDBG-funded services.
  According to 2000 Census data, 17.9 percent of Los Angeles County 
residents had incomes below the poverty level, a far higher poverty 
rate than the 12.4 percent national average.
  CDBG funds have not only benefited large urban counties like Los 
Angeles, but rural counties and cities in California as well. Here are 
a few examples:
  The city of Porterville in the Central Valley, which has a population 
of over 39,000 and an unemployment rate of 12.3 percent, has utilized 
CDBG funds to rehabilitate over 50 homes and assist more than 200 first 
time homebuyers purchase their first home. Many of these first time 
homebuyers are farm worker families.
  The city of Victorville, located in San Bernardino County, served 
over 2,900 senior citizens, youth, homeless, disabled, victims of 
domestic violence, and low-income families in 2004 with CDGB funds. 
Over $551,550 in CDBG grants were provided to low-income senior and 
disabled homeowners to rehabilitate their homes, ensuring that 
Victorville citizens have a safe place to live.
  As you can see, CDBG funds are crucial to closing the disparity 
between rich and poor in so many communities in California and 
throughout the country.
  As a former mayor, I know that CDBG resources are the most flexible 
dollars within city government, making them extremely valuable to the 
economic vitality of local communities.
  We cannot allow these funds to be cut.
  To do so would send the wrong message to our country's neediest 
communities and families who rely on these funds the most.
  Although CDBG is one of the main community development programs 
slated for consolidation and cuts in the fiscal year 2006 budget, there 
are 17 other important programs that would be impacted as well.
  Specifically, I would like to touch on a few of the following 
programs that have had a substantial benefit to counties and cities:
  Community Development Loan Guarantees, section 108 loan program, 
funded at $7 million in fiscal year 2005, is used often with CDBG funds 
to finance the construction of new facilities and economic development 
activities such as business loans.
  Through the section 108 Loan Program, the city of San Francisco has 
been able to construct 13 new childcare facilities which created 599 
new slots for children of low-income families, and created 200 new jobs 
through 8 business start ups and expansions.
  Brownfields Economic Development Initiative, which received $24 
million in fiscal year 2005, used with the section 108 loan program, 
helps finance the redevelopment of seriously contaminated sites.
  Cities throughout California and the Nation have received assistance 
through these funds to conduct environmental engineering assessments 
for site cleanup activities.
  This amendment would also restore funding for the Community 
Development Financial Institutions, CDFI, which provides private sector 
investors with tax credits to raise money for hard to finance 
development projects in low-income areas, as well as other economic 
development programs. CDFI received $55 million in funding this year.
  These community and economic development programs proposed to be cut 
in the fiscal year 2006 budget put Federal dollars where they are 
needed most by funding projects that are unique to the problems they 
address.
  The proposed cuts to the CDBG program and 17 other programs would 
result in higher unemployment, diminish business creation and 
retention, increase the number of blighted buildings, and the number of 
homeless people who cannot find affordable housing.
  The loss of these dedicated funds would profoundly affect our 
country's low and moderate income communities and residents.
  We must not allow this to happen.

[[Page 5184]]

  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Sarbanes amendment to restore 
funding for CDBG and the 17 other community and economic development 
programs proposed to be eliminated.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to address shortfalls in the 
budget resolution for key community and economic development programs. 
The budget before us includes a reduction of roughly $2 billion in 
Federal assistance to distressed and underserved communities. These 
cuts are shortsighted, ill-advised and represent a significant retreat 
from our long-standing commitment to invest in our Nation's 
communities. I join Senator Sarbanes in offering an amendment to 
restore funding for these programs to their fiscal year 2005 levels.
  Last year the Federal Government invested $5.7 billion in communities 
across the country through a network of community and economic 
development programs. These programs were used to enhance social 
services, invest in infrastructure, promote affordable housing, provide 
public services and revitalize our downtowns. These investments changed 
the face of our cities and helped improve the standards of living 
across the Nation.
  Unfortunately, the President has proposed to eliminate this network 
of programs and replace them with a single block grant at the 
Department of Commerce. Eighteen programs are on the chopping block, 
including the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, the Community 
Development Financial Institutions Fund, CDFI, the Community Services 
Block Grant, CSBG, Brownfields Economic Development Initiatives and the 
Economic Development Agency, EDA. I find this proposal underwhelming 
and unacceptable. To add insult to injury the President has proposed, 
and this budget includes, only $3.7 billion for community and economic 
development activities covered under this initiative--a 34-percent 
reduction in all programs combined. This is simply not adequate.
  Each of the programs slated for elimination was created for a 
specific purpose, each serves targeted constituencies and addresses 
distinct needs. Consolidating and under funding these programs would 
leave critical gaps in the web of support for our Nation's cities and 
towns. I question the President's assertion that these programs are 
ineffective or inefficient and I question the wisdom of starting a new 
program at a new agency when the old system is not broken.
  I am particularly concerned with the elimination of the Community 
Development Block Grant program. CDBG is the centerpiece of the Federal 
government's efforts to help States and localities meet the needs of 
low-income communities. CDBG funds vital housing rehabilitation, 
supportive services, public improvements and economic development 
projects in communities across the Nation. It serves more than 1,100 
entitlement communities, urban counties and States, and more than 3,000 
rural communities.
  Last year over 95 percent of CDBG funds went to activities benefiting 
low and moderate income persons. CDBG housing projects assisted over 
160,000 households, public service projects benefited over 13 million 
individuals, and economic development projects helped create or retain 
over 90,000 jobs. Vermont used CDBG grants to rehabilitate over 270 
units of affordable housing and help create or preserve over 150 jobs.
  I recently led a bipartisan letter with Senator Coleman to the Budget 
Committee attesting to the effectiveness of CDBG and urged that it be 
fully funded and retained at the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development. Fifty-seven members of the Senate joined me in this 
letter.
  I ask unanimous consent to print this letter in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, March 2, 2005.
     Hon. Judd Gregg,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
     U.S. Senate, Washington. DC.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Gregg and Ranking Member Conrad: The 
     Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program funds 
     housing rehabilitation, supportive services, public 
     improvements and economic development projects in communities 
     across the nation. CDBG serves more than 1,100 entitlement 
     communities, urban counties and states, and more than 3,000 
     rural communities. We urge the Budget Committee to maintain 
     the Federal government's current commitment to community 
     development programs at the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development and support a budget allocation of $4,732 billion 
     in Function 450 for CDBG, Section 108 economic development 
     loan guarantees, and the Brownfields Economic Development 
     Initiative.
       HUD is the Federal Department principally responsible for 
     community economic development. CDBG is the center piece of 
     the Federal government's efforts to help states and 
     localities meet the needs of low-income communities. Section 
     101 of the Housing and Community Development Act created the 
     CDBG program to consolidate a number of complex and 
     overlapping programs of financial assistance in order to 
     encourage community development activities which are 
     consistent with comprehensive local and areawide development 
     planning; to further the national housing goal of a decent 
     home and a suitable living environment for every American 
     family; and to foster the undertaking of housing and 
     community development activities in a coordinated and 
     mutually supportive manner by Federal agencies and programs, 
     as well as by communities. HUD's community development 
     programs coupled with HUD's housing and homeless programs and 
     supportive services, provide communities with a comprehensive 
     approach to serving the needs of residents. CDBG is the glue 
     that holds other Federal programs serving low-income 
     communities together.
       The Strengthening America's Community proposal aims to 
     create strong accountability standards, offer flexibility to 
     communities and create a more unified federal approach. These 
     goals are already hallmarks; of the CDBG program. On the 30th 
     Anniversary of CDBG in 2004, HUD Deputy Secretary Roy 
     Bernardi said the following about the program: ``HUD has a 
     long history of `being there' and providing help for people, 
     particularly those with the greatest needs--our lower income 
     constituents. CDBG has certainly been there, during boom 
     years and most importantly in times of tightening budgets, 
     which place greater demands on existing services. We must 
     continue to support and build upon programs that work, those 
     that have a proven record of flexibility and the ability to 
     fit in with locally determined needs. CDBG is such a program 
     and ranks among our nation's oldest and most successful 
     programs. It continues to set the standard for all other 
     block grant programs.''
       The Strengthening America's Communities proposal would 
     recreate a block grant program similar to CDBG within the 
     Deparment of Commerce. The Department of Commerce, however, 
     does not have the vital infrastructure or institutional 
     capacity to provide a comprehensive approach to neighborhood 
     development. Replicating HUD's CDBG program within the 
     Department of Commerce would require rebuilding HUD's 
     ``infrastructure'' and would result in inefficiencies, 
     greater complexity and less aid to fewer cities, an approach 
     which does not serve America's communities or taxpayers. 
     CDBG's success depends on a locally driven, citizen 
     participation process that provides flexibility and does not 
     take a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach. The needs of Nashua, 
     New Hampshire; Bismarck, North Dakota; Cincinnati, Ohio and 
     Kansas City, Missouri are very different from the needs of 
     Miami, Florida; El Paso, Texas; Pueblo, Colorado; or San 
     Diego, California. CDBG is capable of addressing the diverse 
     needs of these communities whether it is housing 
     rehabilitation, homeownership, supported services for the 
     elderly or children, business development or infrastructure 
     improvements.
       CDBG is one of the most effective Federal domestic programs 
     to revitalize neighborhoods with proven results. Over 95 
     percent of CDBG funds went to activities principally 
     benefiting low- and moderate-income persons. Twenty-eight 
     percent of CDBG funds supported housing activities in 
     distressed communities, 24 percent supported public 
     improvements, 15 percent went to the provision of public 
     services, and 7 percent supported economic deve1opment 
     activities. In FY2004, CDBG housing projects assisted 168,938 
     households. Public service projects funded with CDBG served 
     13,312,631 individuals. Economic development programs funded 
     by CDBG in fiscal 2004 created or retained 90,637 jobs for 
     Americans and public improvement projects benefited 9,453,993 
     persons. CDBG also has a strong record in business retention: 
     CDBG ensured that over 80 percent of the businesses assisted 
     through the program were still in operation after three 
     years.
       Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to 
     working with you to ensure that communities across the 
     country can provide good jobs, affordable housing, and public 
     services to meet the needs of all Americans.
           Sincerely,
         Norm Coleman, Patrick Leahy, Jack Reed, Kit Bond, Mike 
           DeWine, Paul

[[Page 5185]]

           Sarbanes, Evan Bayh, Barbara Mikulski, Ted Kennedy, 
           George Voinovich, Jeff Bingaman.
         Debbie Stabenow, Rick Santorum, Frank R. Lautenberg, Carl 
           Levin, Olympia Snowe, Jon S. Corzine, Charles Schumer, 
           Lincoln Chafee, Dick Durbin, Herb Kohl, Kay Bailey 
           Hutchison.
         Chris Dodd, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mel Martinez, Max 
           Baucus, Joe Lieberman, Arlen Specter, Byron L. Dorgan, 
           Tom Harkin, John F. Kerry, Conrad Burns, Mary L. 
           Landrieu.
         Barbara Boxer, David Vitter, Maria Cantwell, Tim Johnson, 
           Gordon Smith, Mark Dayton, Patty Murray, Jim Talent, 
           Russ Feingold, Ken Salazar, Barack Obama.
         Bill Nelson, Dianne Feinstein, Ron Wyden, Jay 
           Rockefeller, Daniel K. Akaka, Jim Jeffords, Blanche L. 
           Lincoln, E. Benjamin Nelson, Joe Biden, Tom Carper, 
           Mark Pryor, Saxby Chambliss, Daniel K. Inouye.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I believe you will find similar support for 
each of the other programs under this umbrella.
  I challenge each Member to go back to their State and find one 
community that has not reaped the benefits of a CDBG investment. I 
challenge each member to visit with their local community action groups 
and hear how they use the Community Services Block Grant to support the 
neediest in their communities. These programs fill a real need and have 
proven results. A cut of $2 billion in Federal funds will result in the 
loss of at least $18 billion in matching funds from local and State 
governments and nonprofit and private sector investments. I fail to see 
the wisdom in dismantling programs that are so vital to our 
communities.
  Our amendment would restore nearly $2 billion for community and 
economic development programs and urges the Senate to retain the 
administration of these programs at their current agencies. We fully 
pay for the increase in funds by closing egregious tax loop holes that 
over 90 Members of this Chamber has already gone on record in support 
of closing.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment and 
express their support for these important programs.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
amendment of my friend and to express my support of the Community 
Development Block Grant Program, the Economic Development 
Administration, and the 16 other economic and community development 
programs that are dramatically underfunded in this budget. It is no 
surprise to see this amendment coming from my distinguished colleague 
from Maryland. I thank him for his work on this issue, both now and in 
the past. Throughout his career in the Senate he has been a powerful 
advocate for CDBG and similar community development programs.
  The CDBG Program has for 31 years provided vital funding to 
communities all over the United States and throughout my home State of 
Montana. CDBG is especially valuable to economically distressed 
communities that often lack basic public infrastructure. It funds a 
diverse range of projects. Just last year, CDBG dollars helped fund 
head start facilities in Havre and Kalispell, and money to help Dodson 
modernize their wastewater system.
  A CDBG grant helped Big Horn County renovate Memorial Hospital. In 
Anaconda, where we have a Jack Nicklaus-designed golf-course, a CDBG 
loan helped renovate the Old Works Hotel, dramatically improving the 
region's tourism industry.
  These CDBG investments leveraged millions of State and local dollars. 
In Montana, CDBG dollars are primarily administered at the State level, 
so local officials can direct the funding to the areas of greatest 
need. CDBG is a program that works. It is a good investment of taxpayer 
money that communities leverage to fund vital projects they could not 
complete on their own.
  And the CDBG Program has been supporting community development for 
the past 30 years with great success. Providing small infusions of 
Federal funding to jumpstart projects, CDBG has touched hundreds of 
Montana communities, and thousands of lives.
  Unfortunately, CDBG isn't the only program on the chopping block. The 
Economic Development Administration is a small but crucial program that 
invests to help communities--particularly economically distressed 
communities--get ready for new businesses. EDA has a documented record 
of success. Since its inception in 1964, the EDA has created more than 
4 million jobs and leveraged more than $18 billion in private sector 
investment in thousands of communities all across the country.
  EDA investments in Montana have helped Montana farmers, suffering 
from years of draught. The Bear Paw economic development district in 
northern Montana used an EDA planning grant to help farmers study the 
feasibility of growing carrots and other vegetables in a region 
dominated by wheat growth for more than a century. The study 
demonstrated the viability of these crops, and farmers are excited to 
have a variety of crops to choose amongst.
  Why, then, does this budget propose to eliminate it? At a time when 
it is critical for our country to maintain competitiveness in the 
global economy a proposal to eliminate a successful catalyst for 
economic growth is a mistake.
  The growing budget deficit is a concern. But continued economic 
growth is central to everyone's plan to reduce the deficit. Why then 
are we cutting programs that spur economic growth? EDA creates jobs, 
more than 4 million in its history. It is essential that we preserve 
this job creating agency.
  Our economy is in recovery, and as this recovery continues, EDA is 
working to make sure that all of America recovers. EDA targets its 
funding at economically disadvantaged communities. Areas that have 
recently experienced a factory closure, or a military base closure. The 
people who benefit the most from EDA are those who have been hurt the 
most by outsourcing.
  States, counties, and cities are experiencing ever greater demands on 
their budgets. The choices they make, just like the choices we make 
here in the Senate, are tough, and getting tougher. The rising costs of 
health care, education, and other investments programs are straining 
local budgets to the breaking point. In some communities they have been 
forced to raise local taxes so high the benefits from recent tax cuts 
are all but gone.
  We are robbing Peter to pay Paul. And it doesn't make sense to do it 
with agencies that have the ability to leverage their funds and ripple 
through their communities. For us here in Washington to eliminate 
Federal programs like the CDBG and EDA would devastate communities.
  Cities will be forced to choose between school for our children or 
housing for our seniors, between improving decaying infrastructure 
needed to create new jobs and providing health coverage for our 
children. This amendment doesn't solve all of these problems, but it is 
a giant step to improving our communities.
  Once again, I thank my colleague from Maryland, as well as all of our 
other cosponsors. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. These 
programs create jobs and improve lives and communities all over our 
country. Let's not shortchange our communities that need this help the 
most.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today many Americans in communities across 
the Nation are being left behind in our economy. Federal community and 
economic development programs, such as Community Development Block 
Grants, Community Development Financial Institutions, and Economic 
Development Administration grants, have a history of ``being there'' 
for communities--providing funding for housing rehabilitation, job 
creation, and infrastructure. I thank Senator Sarbanes for offering his 
amendment to save these important programs from elimination, and I am 
glad to be a cosponsor. Senator Sarbanes' amendment will restore 
funding to these vital programs by closing tax loopholes that the 
majority of the Senate supported closing in the FSC/ETI bill.
  The President's Strengthening America's Communities Initiatives, 
SACI, would fundamentally change Federal economic and community 
development programs serving our communities.

[[Page 5186]]

The President's fiscal year 2006 budget eliminates 18 successful 
programs serving low-income urban, rural, and Native American 
communities. It reduces the Federal commitment to funding community 
development by 33 percent, cutting funding from $5.6 billion to $3.71 
billion. And the President's proposal will also reduce the number of 
communities served. A program that serves fewer Americans with less 
resource can only place more families and low-income neighborhoods at 
risk, rather than create vibrant and strong economies as CDBG, CDFI, 
EDA, the Brownfields Economic Development Initiative and Section 108 
loan guarantees are doing.
  The real issue with federal community development assistance is the 
lack of financial resources for the thousands of communities struggling 
to remain economically competitive, not the current structure of the 
existing programs. While the budget resolution includes funding for tax 
loopholes that the Senate voted to close last year, it fails to 
adequately fund programs that provide affordable housing to American 
workers, programs that create or retain jobs in the economy, and 
programs that provide vital public services to our senior citizens.
  In fiscal year 2003, the economy lost 486,000 jobs. CDBG projects 
created or retained 108,700 jobs for Americans. CDBG also has a strong 
record in business retention. While businesses have left American 
shores for other countries, CDBG ensured that over 80 percent of the 
businesses assisted through this program were still in operation after 
3 years.
  There is overwhelming opposition to the Strengthening America's 
Community Initiative. Mayors, local and State community development 
agencies, housing assistance agencies, and others from Rhode Island to 
Utah, and from Michigan to Texas, have written letters to Congress and 
to the administration opposing these devastating cuts and changes to 
Federal economic and community development assistance. They know that 
CDBG, CDFI, and EDA programs are the foundation of strong communities--
these programs are literally the building blocks of community 
development. A unified grant program, as proposed by the 
administration, will leave gaping holes in community and economic 
development assistance.
  CDBG is the glue that holds other Federal programs serving low-income 
communities together. On the 30th Anniversary of CDBG in 2004, HUD 
Deputy Secretary Roy Bernardi said the following about the program:

       HUD has a long history of 'being there' and providing help 
     for people, particularly those with the greatest needs--our 
     lower income constituents. CDBG has certainly been there, 
     during boom years and most importantly in times of tightening 
     budgets, which place greater demands on existing services. We 
     must continue to support and build upon programs that work, 
     those that have a proven record of flexibility and the 
     ability to fit in with locally determined needs. CDBG is such 
     a program and ranks among our nation's oldest and most 
     successful programs. It continues to set the standard for all 
     other block grant programs.

  I want to tell my colleagues about CDBG's history of ``being there.'' 
In Rhode Island, CDBG was there when the West Elmwood Housing 
Development Corporation, a not-for-profit community based organization, 
needed to build and renovate affordable homes. CDBG gave Rhode Island 
families, who would otherwise be unable to achieve the American dream 
of homeownership, the chance to own their own home. In Florida, 
Congress turned to CDBG to provide relief after last year's devastating 
hurricane season, and in New York City, CDBG helped the city rebuild 
after the September 11 tragedy. In New Hampshire, CDBG is there for the 
Concord Area Trust for Community Housing to layer with Low-Income 
Housing Tax Credits to build affordable housing. In Ohio, Community 
Development Financial Institutions are there for communities across the 
State helping to finance businesses and microenterprises that support 
new jobs in the economy. And EDA was there to provide planning and 
technical assistance to help save 466 existing jobs and create 78 new 
jobs near Billings, MT. There are no other Federal programs or tax 
loophole that have the history of ``being there'' like CDBG, CDFI, and 
EDA.
  Senator Sarbanes' amendment to restore funding to these programs 
deserves the full support of my Senate colleagues, whether Republican 
or Democratic, representing an urban state such as Rhode Island or a 
rural state such as Montana. I hope my colleagues will join me in 
voting for Senator Sarbanes' amendment so that all workers, families, 
neighborhoods, and communities can participate in our Nation's economic 
growth.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, what is the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 7 minutes 
25 seconds.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, this amendment increases spending by $2.5 
billion, exceeding the cap, and it increases taxes by the same amount 
of money. It is a tax-and-spend amendment. Therefore, I would oppose 
it. There are a lot of other reasons I would oppose it, but I wanted to 
give the Senator from Missouri an opportunity to say a couple of words 
on something else.
  I yield to the Senator from Missouri, and I yield the remainder of my 
time on this amendment.
  Mr. TALENT. Madam President, I thank my friend, the chairman. I would 
like to speak briefly on a separate amendment that I am going to offer 
and ask for a vote on it during the vote-arama today.
  I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Thune, Stabenow, 
and Wyden.
  This amendment is endorsed by all the major transportation groups--
including ASSHTO, Associated General Contractors, the Road Builders, 
the American Public Transportation Association, the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, and the Heavy Highway Alliance, representing major trade 
unions. These groups understand the importance of this amendment and 
many will be scoring it as one of their key transportation votes of 
this session.
  As has been the case in past resolutions, the current budget 
resolution in the Reserve Fund section allows the budget chairman to 
make adjustments to the allocation for surface transportation.
  However, the Senate language as written significantly restricts the 
transportation reauthorization funding options available to the Finance 
Committee.
  In the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution, last year's resolution, we 
agreed to reserve fund language that allowed new transportation funding 
so long as it was offset by an increase in receipts of any kind to the 
highway trust fund. That is as it should be. We ought to allow the 
Finance Committee to have the full range of funding options.
  As written in this year's resolution, the resolution takes away the 
flexibility of the Finance Committee, the EPW Committee, the Banking 
and Commerce Committees, to consider all available funding mechanisms 
for the reauthorization bill. It precludes the use of resolutions used 
in past authorization bills, some of which the administration has 
agreed to and which passed last year by 74 bipartisan votes. Among the 
funding options that would be blocked are interest on the highway trust 
fund's unexpended balances; the motor fuels refund reform for over-the-
road and lend-lease vehicles; and drawdown of the highway trust fund 
balance.
  My amendment simply changes the language to be consistent with the 
language in the House budget resolution and the fiscal year 2005 
conference report. The amendment is narrowly targeted and does not 
affect the budget neutrality of the final transportation bill. The 
amendment simply ensures we have that debate at the right time on the 
highway bill with all the funding options on the table. I urge my 
colleagues who support transportation funding to vote for this 
amendment. It restores the flexibility to use revenue sources approved 
in the past and gets us out of the box that the current language traps 
us in and makes it easier to adequately fund our transportation needs 
within the limits of a revenue-neutral bill.

[[Page 5187]]

  I will be asking for a vote at the appropriate time on the amendment. 
I thank my cosponsors, including the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. What is the time situation on Senator Sarbanes' amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire controls 4 
minutes and the Senator from Maryland controls 1 minute 19 seconds.
  Ms. STABENOW. As the cosponsor with my colleague from Missouri, I 
would appreciate a couple of minutes to speak on the Talent-Stabenow 
amendment before proceeding with the other amendments.
  Mr. GREGG. We do not have any time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Ms. STABENOW. I ask for 2 minutes off the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time remaining.
  Mr. SARBANES. I yield the balance of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The balance of the time is 1 minute 19 
seconds.
  Ms. STABENOW. To my colleagues, I rise to speak in support of the 
Talent-Stabenow amendment. It is very simple, as my colleague 
indicated. It is extremely important as the Senate begins the work of 
SAFETEA transportation legislation.
  As in past resolutions, the current budget resolution in the reserve 
fund section allows the budget chairman to make adjustments to the 
surface transportation allocation. However, this budget resolution as 
written ties the hands of the Finance Committee and restricts the 
transportation funding options available to them such as using interest 
from the highway trust fund and drawing down the trust fund balance.
  All the Talent-Stabenow amendment would do is modify the language to 
put all the funding options on the table. This change would be 
identical to the provision in the current House budget resolution and 
what has been included in past House and Senate budget resolutions.
  We all know how critical SAFETEA is. Transportation issues in each of 
our States are absolutely critical. The transportation bill creates 
jobs. It supports communities. It uplifts all of our roads and highways 
and bridges in a critically important way. I am hopeful this amendment 
will receive strong bipartisan support so we can pass a strong safety 
bill with all the options on the table and make sure we have the 
options available to make it the very best bill we possibly can, given 
all of the concerns regarding funding.
  Mr. GREGG. We yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired.


                           Amendment No. 230

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I have an amendment I send to the desk 
for immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Coleman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 230.

  Mr. COLEMAN. 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:
  Mr. COLEMAN (for himself) proposes an amendment to the concurrent 
resolution S. Con. Res. 18 setting forth the congressional budget for 
the United States Government for fiscal year 2006 and including the 
appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2006 through 2010; as 
follows:
  (Purpose: To fully fund the Community Development Block Grant Program 
and related pograms, including Community Services Block Grant Program, 
Brownfield Redevelopment, Empowerment Zones, Rural Community 
Advancement Program, EDA, Native American CDBG, Native Hawaiian CDBG, 
and Rural Housing and Economic Development)

       On page 16, line 15, increase the amount by $1,454,000,000.
       On page 16, line 16, increase the amount by $29,080,000.
       On page 16, line 20, increase the amount by $465,280,000.
       On page 16, line 24, increase the amount by $610,680,000.
       On page 17, line 3, increase the amount by $203,560,000.
       On page 17, line 7, increase the amount by $72,700,000
       On page 17, line 16, increase the amount by $619,000,000.
       On page 17, line 17, increase the amount by $359,020,000.
       On page 17, line 21, increase the amount by $241,410,000.
       On page 17, line 25, increase the amount by $12,380,000.
       On page 18, line 4, increase the amount by $6,190,000.
       On page 26, line 14, decrease the amount by $2,073,000,000.
       On page 26, line 15, decrease the amount by $388,100,000.
       On page 26, line 18, decrease the amount by $706,690,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $623,060,000.
       On page 26, line 24, decrease the amount by $209,750,000.
       On page 27, line 2, decrease the amount by $72,700,000.

  Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, let me express my thanks to my 
colleague from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, for his work on this issue 
and for his leadership in the Senate. We serve together on the Foreign 
Relations Committee. It is a great honor. He brings great compassion, 
great respect, great dignity to the committee, to the institution, and 
his service is greatly appreciated. It is my honor as a relatively new 
Senator to be working on an issue that is so important to him as it is 
to me and to the folks I represent, both as a Senator from Minnesota, 
but as I represented as mayor in the city of St. Paul.
  My amendment is simple. It says no cuts to the Community Development 
Block Grant Program. It says no moving CDBG, no to program changes that 
limit CDBG's effectiveness.
  I share the President's goal of reducing the deficit and bringing 
fiscal accountability to Washington. But like so many things in 
Washington, the devil is in the details. In the case of CDBG, the 
details in the budget need to be reworked quite a bit.
  I have a simple philosophy: Don't kill those things that build the 
economy and help cut deficits. I strongly supported tax cuts that 
create investment and grow jobs. CDBG grows jobs. Community development 
block grants grow communities.
  When I talk to the folks back in Minnesota, whether they are city 
administrators or mayors or county commissioners, they all say the same 
thing: The Community Development Block Grant Program is the lifeblood 
of community development. That is why I am offering this amendment to 
fully fund CDBG along with the Community Service Block Grant Program, 
the Brownfield Redevelopment Program, and the Rural Housing and 
Economic Development Program, to name a few. These are things that 
work. Let's change and reshape things that do not work. But when you go 
home and folks say across the board--big town, small town, urban, 
rural--that it works, work with it.
  CDBG was enacted in 1974 and has been assisting America's communities 
for 30 years. It is a program that helps State and local government tap 
their most serious community development challenges, including 
infrastructure, housing, and economic development. Over the first 25 
years, it has created 2 million jobs and contributed in excess of $129 
billion to the Nation's gross domestic product.
  CDBG and public-private partnerships are the cornerstone of the 
economic revitalization across the country and in many of our cities in 
recent years. They have provided the tools to provide economic 
opportunity and hold jobs.
  When you deal with the budget, there is a question of fiscal 
responsibility. Does the program work? Fair question. Is it cost 
effective? Fair question. What does it achieve?
  I know CDBG works because when I was mayor, before coming to 
Washington, I worked with it. In coming here, my hope was to be 
Minnesota's

[[Page 5188]]

mayor in Washington. I always take pride in the fact that a mayor's 
focus is on getting things done. They are at the bottom of the 
political food chain but really responsive. That was the bottom line. 
It was getting things done. If streets were unplowed in the city of St. 
Paul, I heard about it. So as a former mayor I know something about 
fiscal responsibility, about having to reduce needless bureaucracy, 
about turning deficits into surpluses, and setting money aside for a 
rainy day, all while submitting budgets that contained no tax increases 
in 8 years. Part of my ability to do that was the growth I saw in my 
communities and the public-private partnerships that CDBG created and 
shaped and was a part of. Community centers and crime prevention, 
affordable housing, and business and economic development--the heart 
and soul of Federal help to our cities.
  The Presiding Officer serves the great State of Alaska, which has 
challenges. They are not awash in a surplus of cash. The Presiding 
Officer understands, as I understand, we have to support those things 
that grow our communities.
  The fact is, jobs in St. Paul's economy have not grown without CDBG. 
We used CDBG to revitalize neighborhoods, and it is through this effort 
we were successful.
  I can personally testify that dollar for dollar there is no better 
initiative to help States and localities renew and rebuild our cities 
and create economic growth and jobs than the Community Development 
Block Grant Program.
  As Minnesota's mayor in Washington, I still believe that Government 
is beholden to the people; that individuals, with the help of their 
local representatives, can plan their lives better than bureaucrats in 
some distant capital.
  That is what I like, and the idea behind CDBG, a very conservative 
idea that we should not have 1,500 command and control programs rush 
out of Washington trying to micromanage the needs of communities. 
Instead, we should help communities meet those needs and priorities 
through one block grant. With all the unfunded mandates coming from 
Washington, CDBG is a way we help communities across the country meet 
some very critical priorities. CDBG is a fiscally responsible program 
that exponentially produces more than it costs and is a truly 
conservative initiative enabling local leaders to meet local needs.
  CDBG works. Last year, the Office of Management and Budget celebrated 
CDBG under the theme ``performance counts.'' Since then, the Office of 
Management and Budget may have changed its mind, but America hasn't.
  Let me state what CDBG means to my home State in Minnesota. When I 
became mayor of St. Paul, we got businesses and jobs growing. But not 
all St. Paul was benefiting from the turnaround. An area around Ames 
Lake on the east side of St. Paul, one of my toughest neighborhoods, 
needed help, needed growth. They could not take part in the surrounding 
economic boom because the buildings were in total disrepair and 
businesses were looking to move out, not move in. It would have been an 
impossible situation if not for CDBG. But thanks to CDBG, we were able 
to leverage Federal funds to attract millions of private dollars to 
improve infrastructure and replace the blight of city sprawl with green 
space, and build a community center to keep kids off the street.
  I was at the League of City meetings the other day and talking to the 
member who represents the east side of St. Paul. In that community, 
they had a shopping center that was blighted, with nothing there. Reeds 
grew up through the concrete. We figured out the Good Lord was saying 
there was a wetland in the heart of the city. We got rid of the 
shopping center, got rid of the concrete, and created wetlands. Now he 
is telling me we have housing in the worst areas of St. Paul; the most 
blighted areas are growing and prospering. Again, CDBG was an important 
part of it.
  In other words, thanks to CDBG, Ames Lake is now moving in the right 
direction. St. Paul is located within Ramsey County. And like all 
counties with a big city, Ramsey County struggles with sort of a split 
identity. On one hand, it has suburbs that are doing well compared to 
parts of the big city. Within the city is land intense with industrial 
projects such as car parks and truck sites that big cities need. Now 
these projects are great to have when they are up and running, but when 
they shut down, they are so large they take whole communities with them 
that is happened with the Glendenning Truck site.
  It was in bad condition, and local officials knew something had to be 
done about it. Using CDBG, they were able to replace a dilapidated 
truck site with thriving businesses and jobs.
  Ramsey County also used CDBG to transform the Vadnais Highlands 
apartment complex into safe, attractive and affordable housing.
  I give another example of how community development becomes economic 
development. There is a town of 502 people in Minnesota called 
Brewster. In 1997, Brewster was awarded a one time community 
development block grant. This grant allowed Brewster to renew and 
rejuvenate its infrastructure by tearing down its dilapidated 
structures and replacing them with 40 homes. As a result of this 
investment, when Minnesota Soybean Processors was looking for a new 
home, there was no better place than Brewster.
  The relocation of Minnesota Soybean Processors immediately created 40 
jobs. In fact, that CDBG grant is still creating jobs as Minnesota 
Soybean Processors are now opening a biodiesel division which will 
employ 10 more people.
  In another example, the city of Rochester, MN, used CDBG to fund the 
Aldrich Memorial Nursery School, providing pre-school kids with a safe 
place to be while mom and dad are working.
  The city of Minneapolis uses CDBG to improve housing, stimulate job 
growth, improve public infrastructure, provide public health services, 
and school readiness programs.
  A reduction in CDBG could hinder the city's current efforts to help 
200 moms and dads to find jobs; efforts to develop 150 multifamily 
homes; efforts to acquire and demolish 110 vacant and boarded up 
houses; efforts to provide capital improvements to child care 
facilities, and efforts to reduce lead hazards in 70 homes and provide 
youth employment training to 300 kids. That is a lot of bang for the 
buck.
  Minneapolis is a big city, but community development block grants are 
just as important to our rural communities. As you may know, America's 
rural communities often lack the resources to improve their 
infrastructure and housing.
  The town of Detroit Lakes is located in Becker County, MN, and has 
about 7,500 residents. It is the heart of Lake Country in the land of 
10,000 lakes. If you have not visited there, you should. Spend some 
money there while enjoying the lakes. The beach is right in town. At 
119 Pioneer Street is the Graystone Hotel.
  Built in 1916 to accommodate the region's growing tourism industry, 
the Graystone Hotel had since fallen on hard times. Its once grand 
exterior had degenerated into an unsightly mess, and its rooms all but 
abandoned. In short, what was once one of Detroit Lakes' flagship 
buildings, was now its biggest detraction.
  Using CDBG along with private funding, the Graystone Hotel now 
includes 41 residential units and a variety of businesses and nonprofit 
enterprises ranging from Lakeland Medical Health Center to Godfather's 
Pizza.
  St. Louis County, which is located in northern Minnesota and is one 
of the more rural areas in Minnesota, has also used CDBG. Since 1993, 
CDBG has helped create 560 jobs in St. Louis County; it has provided 
2,900 residents of St. Louis County with business training resulting in 
159 new start-up businesses; 450 homes were improved through local 
housing rehabilitation programs in the county.
  Hundreds of first-time home buyers participated in a first-time home 
buyer program, resulting in the purchase of 600 single family homes.
  In St. Louis County, CDBG also helps fund community soup kitchens, 
emergency shelters, child daycare projects,

[[Page 5189]]

programs combating domestic violence, and a number of infrastructure 
improvements such as the water treatment facility in Aurora. St. Louis 
County has been able to leverage $5 in private dollars for every dollar 
they received through the CDBG program.
  CDBG works, but don't take my word for it, just 1 ask the folks in 
Detroit Lakes, St. Paul, or St. Louis County.
  I was pleased to work with Senator Patrick Leahy in leading a 
bipartisan coalition of 57 Senators in sending a message to the Senate 
Budget Committee signifying our strong commitment to CDBG and reminding 
folks that cities from Montpelier to Minneapolis need CDBG to create 
economic opportunity and to grow jobs.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, March 2, 2005.
     Hon. Judd Gregg,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Gregg and Ranking Member Conrad: The 
     Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program funds 
     housing rehabilitation, supportive services, public 
     improvements and economic development projects in communities 
     across the nation. CDBG serves more than 1,100 entitlement 
     communities, urban counties and states, and more than 3,000 
     rural communities. We urge the Budget Committee to maintain 
     the Federal government's current commitment to community 
     development programs at the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development and support a budget allocation of $4.732 billion 
     in Function 450 for CDBG, Section 108 economic development 
     loan guarantees, and the Brownfields Economic Development 
     Initiative.
       HUD is the Federal Department principally responsible for 
     community economic development. CDBG is the centerpiece of 
     the Federal government's efforts to help states and 
     localities meet the needs of low-income communities. Section 
     101 of the Housing and Community Development Act created the 
     CDBG program to consolidate a number of complex and 
     overlapping programs of financial assistance in order to 
     encourage community development activities which are 
     consistent with comprehensive local and areawide development 
     planning; to further the national housing goal of a decent 
     home and a suitable living environment for every American 
     family; and to foster the undertaking of housing and 
     community development activities in a coordinated and 
     mutually supportive manner by Federal agencies and programs, 
     as well as by communities. HUD's community development 
     programs coupled with HUD's housing and homeless programs and 
     supportive services, provide communities with a comprehensive 
     approach to serving the needs of residents. CDBG is the glue 
     that holds other Federal programs serving low-income 
     communities together.
       The Strengthening America's Community proposal aims to 
     create strong accountability standards, offer flexibility to 
     communities and create a more unified federal approach. These 
     goals are already hallmarks of the CDBG program. On the 30th 
     Anniversary of CDBG in 2004, HUD Deputy Secretary Roy 
     Bernardi said the following about the program:
       ``HUD has a long history of `being there' and providing 
     help for people, particularly those with the greatest needs--
     our lower income constituents. CDBG has certainly been there, 
     during boom years and most importantly in times of tightening 
     budgets, which place greater demands on existing services. We 
     must continue to support and build upon programs that work, 
     those that have a proven record of flexibility and the 
     ability to fit in with locally determined needs. CDBG is such 
     a program and ranks among our nation's oldest and most 
     successful programs. It continues to set the standard for all 
     other block grant programs.''
       The Strengthening America's Communities proposal would 
     recreate a block grant program similar to CDBG within the 
     Department of Commerce. The Department of Commerce, however, 
     does not have the vital infrastructure or institutional 
     capacity to provide a comprehensive approach to neighborhood 
     development. Replicating HUD's CDBG program within the 
     Department of Commerce would require rebuilding HUD's 
     ``infrastructure'' and would result in inefficiencies, 
     greater complexity and less aid to fewer cities, an approach 
     which does not serve America's communities or taxpayers. 
     CDBG's success depends on a locally driven, citizen 
     participation process that provides flexibility and does not 
     take a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach. The needs of Nashua, 
     New Hampshire; Bismarck, North Dakota; Cincinnati, Ohio; and 
     Kansas City, Missouri are very different from the needs of 
     Miami, Florida; El Paso, Texas; Pueblo, Colorado; or San 
     Diego, California. CDBG is capable of addressing the diverse 
     needs of these communities whether it is housing 
     rehabilitation, homeownership, supported services for the 
     elderly or children, business development or infrastructure 
     improvements.
       CDBG is one of the most effective Federal domestic programs 
     to revitalize neighborhoods with proven results. Over 95 
     percent of CDBG funds went to activities principally 
     benefiting low- and moderate-income persons. Twenty-eight 
     percent of CDBG funds supported housing activities in 
     distressed communities, 24 percent supported public 
     improvements, 15 percent went to the provision of public 
     services, and 7 percent supported economic development 
     activities. In FY2004, CDBG housing projects assisted 168,938 
     households. Public service projects funded with CDBG served 
     13,312,631 individuals. Economic development programs funded 
     by CDBG in fiscal 2004 created or retained 90,637 jobs for 
     Americans and public improvement projects benefited 9,453,993 
     persons. CDBG also has a strong record in business retention: 
     CDBG ensured that over 80 percent of the businesses assisted 
     through the program were still in operation after three 
     years.
       Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to 
     working with you to ensure that communities across the 
     country can provide good jobs, affordable housing, and public 
     services to meet the needs of all Americans.
           Sincerely,
         Norm Coleman, Patrick J. Leahy, Jack Reed, Mike DeWine, 
           Evan Bayh, Edward M. Kennedy, Jeff Bingaman, Rick 
           Santorum, Carl Levin, Jon S. Corzine, Christopher S. 
           Bond, Paul S. Sarbanes, Barbara Mikulski, George V. 
           Voinovich, Debbie Stabenow, Frank R. Lautenberg, 
           Olympia J. Snowe, Charles E. Schumer, Lincoln Chafee, 
           Herb Kohl, Christopher J. Dodd, Mel Martinez, Joseph I. 
           Lieberman, Byron L. Dorgan, John F. Kerry, Mary L. 
           Landrieu, Richard Durbin, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Hillary 
           Rodham Clinton, Max Baucus, Arlen Specter, Tom Harkin, 
           Conrad R. Burns, Barbara Boxer, David Vitter, Tim 
           Johnson, Mark Dayton, Jim Talent, Ken Salazar, Bill 
           Nelson, Ron Wyden, Daniel K. Akaka, Maria Cantwell, 
           Gordon Smith, Patty Murray, Russell D. Feingold, Barack 
           Obama, Dianne Feinstein, John D. Rockefeller IV, James 
           M. Jeffords, Blanche L. Lincoln, Joseph R. Biden, Mark 
           Pryor, E. Benjamin Nelson, and Thomas R. Carper.

  Mr. COLEMAN. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a letter of support for the community development block grant 
program from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Governors 
Association, the National Community Development Association, National 
Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the Council of 
State Community Development Agencies, the Local Initiatives Support 
Corporation, the Enterprise Foundation, the National Association of 
Housing and Redevelopment Officials, the National Association of Local 
Housing Finance Agencies, the National Council of State Housing 
Agencies, and the National Congress for Community Economic Development.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    March 4, 2005.
     Hon. Judd Gregg,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Gregg and Ranking Member Conrad: As you 
     prepare to consider the FY 2006 Budget Resolution, we the 
     undersigned organizations want to convey our opposition to 
     proposed cuts in the FY 2006 Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development (HUD) budget. We respectfully request that you 
     craft a Budget Resolution that will provide adequate budget 
     authority for all HUD programs and maintain important 
     community and economic development functions and funding at 
     HUD.
       Of particular concern to us is the proposed elimination of 
     the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program along 
     with 17 other Federal community and economic development 
     grant programs. We oppose in the strongest terms the 
     elimination of CDBG, and we urge you to reject the proposed 
     ``Strengthening America's Communities'' (SAC) Initiative and 
     support full funding for the CDBG program at HUD.
       As you know, the FY 2006 Budget would effectively eliminate 
     18 community and economic development programs, including 
     CDBG, and create an entirely new initiative to be operated by 
     the Department of Commerce. Proposed funding for this 
     ``consolidated'' program would be $3.7 billion, and 35 
     percent reduction in funding when compared to total FY 2005 
     appropriations for the 18 programs targeted for elimination 
     under the initiative. Consider that Congress funded the CDBG 
     program alone at $4.7 billion in FY 2005, $1 billion more 
     than the entire proposed budget for the SAC initiative.

[[Page 5190]]

       Eliminating these 18 programs and substantially reducing 
     the Federal investment in community and economic development 
     would have a devastating impact on State and local 
     governments. Each of these existing programs is an important 
     and necessary component of urban, suburban, and rural 
     communities' efforts to revitalize neighborhoods, expand 
     affordable housing opportunities and create economic growth. 
     We believe that CDBG is the glue that holds these efforts 
     together.
       For 30 years, the CDBG program has served as the 
     cornerstone of the Federal government's commitment to 
     partnering with state and local governments to strengthen our 
     Nation's communities and improve the quality of life for low- 
     and moderate-income Americans. Since its inception, CDBG has 
     made a real and positive difference in communities across 
     America, and there is no shortage of CDBG success stories. 
     Many of the groups that signed this letter have been working 
     in partnership with HUD and the Office of Management and 
     Budget (OMB) in a good faith effort to improve the CDBG 
     program's ability to measure performance. As a result of this 
     effort, HUD plans to unveil a new outcome-based measurement 
     system in early 2005. As recently as November 2004, OMB 
     endorsed this undertaking. We believe this new system will 
     verify what is already obvious: CDBG works.
       CDBG's emphasis on flexibility and local determination of 
     priority needs through citizen participation is allowing 
     state and local governments to achieve real results. 
     According to HUD's ``Highlights of FY 2004 CDBG 
     Accomplishments,'' CDBG funding led to the creation or 
     retention of more than 90,000 jobs in the last year alone. 
     Thanks to CDBG, in 2004 over 130,000 rental units and single-
     family homes were rehabbed, 85,000 individuals received 
     employment training, 1.5 million youth were served by after-
     school enrichment programs and other activities, and child 
     care services were provided to 100,065 children in 205 
     communities across the country. CDBG also funded nearly 700 
     crime prevention and awareness programs. Additionally, more 
     than 11,000 Americans became homeowners last year thanks to 
     CDBG funding. CDBG remains a smart, efficient form of 
     investment, as it continues to leverage around three dollars 
     for every dollar of Federal investment. It certainly did not 
     come as a surprise to us when HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson, 
     in a March 2nd appearance before the House Financial Services 
     Committee, stated, ``The program works.''
       The CDBG program's design is especially successful at 
     targeting resources to those who need them most. In 2004, 95 
     percent of funds expended by entitlement grantees and 96 
     percent of State CDBG funds expended were for activities that 
     principally benefited low- and moderate-income persons. A 
     full half of persons directly benefiting from CDBG-assisted 
     activities were minorities, including African Americans, 
     Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians. Despite the fact 
     that economic challenges and pockets of poverty exist in 
     almost all American communities, adoption of the SAC 
     initiative would almost certainly result in a complete loss 
     of funding for a significant number of communities.
       For all of the reasons detailed above, we believe that CDBG 
     should remain at HUD and receive full funding of at least 
     $4.7 billion in FY 2006. We also believe it is premature for 
     the Budget Resolution to even address such a far-reaching 
     change to the program before the numerous committees of 
     jurisdiction have had sufficient opportunity to hold 
     appropriate hearings on the topic. We urge you to craft a 
     Budget Resolution reflecting those sentiments. More 
     specifically, we strongly encourage you to include language 
     in your Resolution clearly stating that the Resolution ``does 
     not assume enactment of the proposed `Strengthening America's 
     Communities' Initiative nor the proposed reduction in funding 
     for the CDBG program included in the Administration's FY 2006 
     budget.''
       We thank you for your favorable consideration of this 
     request.
           Sincerely,
       Council of State Community Development Agencies.
       The Enterprise Foundation.
       Habitat for Humanity International.
       Housing Assistance Council.
       Local Initiatives Support Corporation.
       National Association for County Community and Economic 
     Development.
       National Association of Counties.
       National Association of Housing and Redevelopment 
     Officials.
       National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies.
       National Community Development Association.
       National Conference of Black Mayors.
       National League of Cities.
       National Low Income Housing Coalition.
       United States Conference of Mayors.

  Mr. COLEMAN. I urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment and show 
their support for these community leaders by fully funding the 
community development block grant program, keeping it at HUD, and 
rejecting any harmful changes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. GREGG. There is 7\1/2\ minutes remaining in opposition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. There is story after story for everything in this country. 
The problem is, if we start funding all the stories, we will run out of 
money and tax our kids so they cannot afford it and tax ourselves so we 
cannot afford it.
  The issue is setting priorities. The President has suggested a 
priority in the area of CDBGs. I suspect this Congress is not going to 
accept that priority, but it should function within the caps that have 
been set in order to decide whether it chooses that priority.
  This is a reasonable approach, to set a cap and then say to the 
Appropriations Committee, you decide whether CDBGs make more sense than 
some other program that would compete for the same amount of money.
  I will not vote for either of these amendments, but if I had to vote 
for one or the other, I would be more inclined to vote for the one from 
the Senator from Minnesota because he does not impact caps and takes it 
out of something called 800 which is the general operation of the 
Government which means basically a cut to IRS and other operating 
accounts within the Government.
  I don't think that should be the way we should approach this. We 
should, rather, allow the Appropriations Committee to make decisions on 
this and we should not be arbitrarily in the Senate reallocating money 
from IRS over to the CDBG Program on the basis of anything, including 
stories.
  I understood the Senator from Maryland wanted a couple of minutes.
  I yield the Senator 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, I commend the Senator from Minnesota 
for a very eloquent statement about the effectiveness of the CDBG 
program. Of course, he has absolutely firsthand experience with it 
having been a mayor of one of our great cities. I appreciate his 
analysis of the worth of the CDBG program.
  I simply make this point, and this is a broader priorities question: 
The amendment I have offered derives the funding, in order to restore 
the money, by closing tax loopholes--the very provisions that passed 
the Senate overwhelmingly last year 92 to 4 on the FSC/ETI bill. A lot 
of these provisions were dropped in conference. The ones dropped would 
produce $27 billion over a 5-year period. So there is not much argument 
about the necessity of closing these loopholes. The overwhelming 
judgment here was that ought to be done. That would then avoid cutting 
other programs.
  There is a dilemma here. I understand that. If we are trying to keep 
things neutral as far as contributing to the deficit is concerned, then 
the question becomes, do you cut other programs in what is, I think, an 
already extremely tight budget. So you fund CDBG, but you would 
diminish the funding for housing, education, and other programs--across 
the board. The alternative is to find a revenue source in which there 
is general agreement in terms of an abuse of the Tax Code.
  Now, the chairman refers to that as taxing and spending. I do not 
know how you spend if you do not tax unless you are going to run up a 
deficit. I regard that as responsible budget making.
  You always have to use reasoned judgement and analysis in terms of 
what is fair and right. The proposal here is to close some of those tax 
loopholes. There has been an overwhelming judgment that those loopholes 
should be closed. The amount of revenue produced by closing the 
loopholes dropped in conference is three times what it would cost to 
restore the CDBG Program. Thus closing only some of them would produce 
sufficient revenue to restore these programs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 2 minutes
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maryland.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.

[[Page 5191]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The Senator from Mississippi.


                           Amendment No. 208

       (Purpose: to modify the designation authority for an 
     emergency requirement)

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 208, which is 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 208.
       On page 42, line 14, strike ``that'' and all that follows 
     through ``designates'' on line 15 and insert: ``that the 
     Congress designates as an emergency requirement''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 10 minutes evenly divided on this 
amendment.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, section 402 of the pending budget 
resolution establishes a procedure for designating emergency 
appropriations that I believe creates a new and unnecessary hurdle for 
Congress in responding to emergency situations. It distorts the balance 
of power between Congress and the President.
  Section 402 permits an emergency designation of an appropriation to 
be challenged on a point of order and provides that the point of order 
can be waived only by a vote of three-fifths of the Senate. That point 
of order has been incorporated in budget resolutions for several years 
now. It was put in place to curb what was seen as an overuse of the 
emergency designation to escape the limitations of the caps on 
discretionary spending. It has served successfully to impose restraint 
on emergency designations.
  But now, in this resolution, the distinguished chairman of the Budget 
Committee has included, in addition to that requirement, the further 
requirement that the President must also designate the appropriation as 
an emergency in order for it to escape being counted against the budget 
resolution caps for discretionary spending.
  While it is true the Presidential designation was part of the process 
in the original Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, that legislation was a 
comprehensive measure with a number of budget enforcement provisions, 
and was before the three-fifths or 60-vote requirement had been imposed 
on the process. It seems to me we do not need both the 60-vote 
requirement and the new Presidential designation requirement.
  Let me suggest a hypothetical situation. Let us say this provision 
were in place when this body takes up the President's emergency 
supplemental request, which has been passed by the other body. Let us 
say that an amendment is offered on the floor to address an emergency 
situation not included in the President's budget request, and its 
emergency designation is challenged by a point of order here in the 
Senate, and, further, that an overwhelming majority of the Senate votes 
to approve the emergency designation. Despite the size of the vote in 
the Senate, so long as it is over 60, and even if the President signs 
the bill into law, if the President declines to specifically and 
expressly concur with the congressional emergency designation, the 
appropriation will be counted against the discretionary cap by the 
Budget Committee scorekeepers. This is even though the President 
approves the appropriation.
  My suggestion is by signing the bill the President approves the 
decision of the Congress that the funds are needed, and that they 
should be spent, and that they are needed to address an emergency.
  So despite a substantial majority vote here in the Senate on a 
particular appropriation provision, despite congressional approval of 
an appropriations bill, including its emergency designation, and 
despite the President signing the bill, approving the bill with this 
provision in it, the President can effectively nullify the action of 
the Congress relative to the caps on spending set by Congress in its 
own budget resolution.
  I believe the inclusion of this additional Presidential power should 
be stricken from this resolution and we should enforce our budget 
provisions with the 60-vote point of order as provided by our rules and 
under the law. Congressionally imposed caps on spending should be set 
and enforced by Congress, not by the President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I rise in opposition.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GREGG. How much time would the Senator need?
  Mr. BYRD. Two minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I yield the Senator 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator, the 
chairman of the committee, for his characteristic courtesy.
  I rise, Madam President, to express my admiration for Senator Cochran 
as he assumes the duties of chairman of the Senate Appropriations 
Committee. Today, I stand with Chairman Cochran in support of his 
amendment concerning the authority of Congress to designate funding as 
an emergency.
  In the Constitution, there is no ambiguity about which branch of 
Government has the power of the purse. It is the congressional power of 
the purse which is the central pillar of the system of checks and 
balances under our Constitution. The budget resolution that is before 
the Senate includes a provision which makes the ability of the Congress 
to designate funding as an emergency subject to the approval of the 
President.
  The measure that is before the Senate is a budget resolution. It is 
not a law. It will not be sent to the President for his approval. The 
Congress should not use a budget resolution to tie its own hands on 
spending decisions. The Congress should not tie its own hands in 
determining whether an expenditure for war, or an expenditure for 
victims of a flood, hurricane, or earthquake is an emergency. The 
Senate should not have to get on its knees and plead with any President 
for his permission to designate a provision as an emergency. The 
Congress is a coequal branch of Government under our Constitution, and 
it should jealously guard the prerogatives associated with the power of 
the purse, so wisely preserved for the legislative branch by our 
Founding Fathers.
  If the Senate wants to provide emergency funding for agriculture 
disaster relief, or for responding to a recent flood or hurricane, or 
to provide additional funding to the Department of Defense for body 
armor, it must have that authority. The Cochran amendment makes clear 
Congress retains that authority.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Again, I thank the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, a lot of folks around here talk about 
budget reform, and this is budget reform in that it returns us to the 
days when the President was treated essentially this way, back under 
President Clinton, under President Bush the first. I think it is 
important to know what the issue is.
  The issue is not defense spending, because the proposed budget point 
of order and the Presidential involvement does not apply to defense 
spending. So with regard to the supplemental that is coming at us, the 
majority of which is defense spending, it does not affect that. It is 
nondefense areas where basically emergency designations are used to 
avoid the cap.
  The cap is the enforcement mechanism on the discretionary side. There 
are going to be instances where we are going to have to go through the 
cap because there are legitimate emergencies--hurricanes, the tsunami. 
But the simple fact is, there are also instances where we have used the 
emergency designation, such as for oyster farming, where maybe they 
were not quite emergencies, and yet they allowed the cap to be avoided 
for that spending item.
  This tries to put some balance back into the process of when we are 
going to have domestic emergencies and

[[Page 5192]]

when we are not, and making sure the President is part of that process, 
which has traditionally been the way we did it around here. So I think 
it is reasonable change.
  I understand the chairman and the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee are concerned because it may well impact them, 
although I suspect with this President they will be able to work out an 
understanding that they will agree on. But I do think it is an 
enforcement mechanism that is appropriate at this time.
  Madam President, do I have any time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 20 seconds remaining.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield that back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is yielded back.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
this debate which has just been completed, the following times be 
allocated specifically for Members to offer their amendments; provided 
further, that if the Senator is not here during the allocated time, the 
clock run against the time reserved for the amendment.
  I send a list of those allocations to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 177

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I inquire, I believe in the order of 
matters it is appropriate now to consider amendment No. 177, and there 
is a 15-minute time limit on it. Am I correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a 15-minute time limit on the 
education amendment. Does the Senator call up the amendment?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I call up the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself, 
     Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Kerry, 
     Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. Reed, proposes an amendment numbered 
     177.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To reduce the deficit by $5.4 billion and support college 
   access an equal amount by closing $10.8 billion in corporate tax 
    loopholes and: (1) restoring education program cuts slated for 
     vocational education, adult education, GEAR UP, and TRIO, (2) 
 increasing the maximum Pell Grant scholarship to $4,500 immediately, 
    and (3) increasing future math and science teacher student loan 
                        forgiveness to $23,000)

       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $1,446,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $7,606,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $1,332,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $454,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $110,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $1,446,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $7,606,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $1,332,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $454,000,000.
       On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $110,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $5,389,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $5,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $15,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 4, line 11, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $723,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $3,803,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $666,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $227,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $55,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $723,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by $3,803,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $666,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $227,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, increase the amount by $55,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $723,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $4,526,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $5,192,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $5,419,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $5,474,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $723,000,000.
       On page 5, line 16, decrease the amount by $4,526,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by $5,192,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, decrease the amount by $5,419,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, decrease the amount by $5,474,000,000.
       On page 17, line 16, increase the amount by $5,389,000,000.
       On page 17, line 17, increase the amount by $723,000,000.
       On page 17, line 20, increase the amount by $5,000,000.
       On page 17, line 21, increase the amount by $3,803,000,000.
       On page 17, line 24, increase the amount by $15,000,000.
       On page 17, line 25, increase the amount by $666,000,000.
       On page 18, line 3, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 18, line 4, increase the amount by $227,000,000.
       On page 18, line 7, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 18, line 8, increase the amount by $55,000,000.
       On page 30, line 16, decrease the amount by $1,446,000,000.
       On page 30, line 17, decrease the amount by 
     $10,948,000,000.
       On page 36, line 21, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 36, line 22, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 36, line 23, increase the amount by $93,000,000.
       On page 36, line 24, increase the amount by $93,000,000.
       On page 48, line 6, increase the amount by $5,381,000,000.
       On page 48, line 7, increase the amount by $715,000,000.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, during the last few days, we have voted 
on various education amendments. I want to direct the attention of our 
Members to some of the facts as we are coming to the final 
consideration of this amendment.
  Fact No. 1: The chairman's mark in the 2006 budget, if you look on 
page 5, you will see education, training programs, and you see that 
there will be cut $2.5 billion now, $4 billion in the second year. 
According to the best estimate we have, from the Center on Budget and 
Policy Priorities, cumulatively over 5 years this will be $40 billion. 
Those who are opposed to our amendment will say, you have a $5 billion 
higher education trust fund. But as the chairman of our committee 
pointed out, that basically is a phony mark.
  The chairman of our committee, Mr. Enzi, says that chairman's mark 
contains a $5 billion reserve for new initiatives coupled with 
approximately $5 billion in spending cuts. In order to get the $5 
billion in reserve funds, you have to effectively have these cuts plus 
the reconciliation cuts. What we are talking about basically are very 
dramatic and significant cuts in education.
  This amendment does two basic things. First, it will ensure that we 
will reach $4,500 in Pell grants. Second, it will fund the cuts that 
are proposed by the President in terms of TRIO and GEAR UP so that we 
will help the needy children in that area. Third, it will ensure that 
we are going to provide funding for vocational education, special 
skills, the adult education program, so we are going to have a 
continuing upgrade of American skills. That is one important part of 
this amendment.
  The second important part is the part of the amendment that gives 
attention to where the United States is in terms of a global challenge. 
I personally believe that the greatest challenge we are facing today is 
globalization, and the challenge we ought to respond to is to make sure 
that our people will be able to deal with the global challenge. And 
that means investing in math and science.
  This amendment will fund education for math and science teachers in a 
similar way that we did at the time we were threatened with sputnik in 
1957. With this amendment we will effectively get 50,000 to 60,000 more 
math and science teachers every year.

[[Page 5193]]

  We have seen what has happened to the United States in the area of 
math and science. In 1975, we were third in the world in terms of math 
and science and engineering degrees. By the year 2000, we were 15th in 
the world, and we are going down. This budget resolution will drive us 
down further. This amendment provides a stopgap to that and the 
opportunity to make significant gains. That is what this is about.
  We know that the Chinese are graduating three times as many engineers 
as the United States will this year. India is graduating three times as 
many computer scientists as we are. If we just think that we can go 
along with business as usual, we are missing an enormously important 
opportunity and responsibility. We need this kind of investment. We 
need it so that we will be able to compete globally in terms of the 
economy. We need this investment so that we will be able to compete 
from a national security point of view. Investing in our young people 
is an essential part of our national security. We cannot tolerate the 
kinds of cuts that are included in this legislation. This amendment 
addresses that.
  Those on the other side will say we have increased education funding 
by all these percentages in recent years. We have increased funding in 
education, but it is still totally inadequate. The fact is, most of the 
increase has been the result of action on this side. I wish we had been 
able to meet our responsibilities.
  If you look at what is happening currently in terms of high school 
dropouts, these are three of the large high schools in Los Angeles--it 
is difficult to see, but you should be able to see the trend lines--
Roosevelt High School, Garfield High School, and Huntington Park High 
School. You see the dramatic dropout that is taking place across the 
country. That is happening in our high schools.
  Talk to any principal, talk to any school board, talk to any of those 
involved in education--they know what is not happening; that is, 
getting a good education.
  Finally, for every 100 ninth graders, 68 of those graduate from high 
school out of every 100; 40, when they graduate, will enroll in 
college. Only 27 will stay enrolled as sophomores, and only 18 graduate 
from college on time out of the 100.
  Money is not the only answer. Money in a number of instances isn't 
the answer. But investing in resources is an indication of our national 
priority. It does seem to me that we can afford the $5.4 billion which 
is offset and paid for with the close of tax loopholes in a proposal 
that also includes $71 billion in tax reductions for individuals. That 
is what this whole proposal is about. That is what this budget is 
about: the question of priorities. This is a $5.5 billion investment in 
our children, offset--not increasing the deficit--with the closing of 
tax loopholes which has been accepted by the Senate in a proposal that 
is already providing $71 billion in tax reductions. It does seem to me 
that this is more of an expression of the values of the American 
people. Five billion is a lot, but we know that investing in our young 
people, investing in math and science, is key to our future. It seems 
to me to be something that the American people should and will support. 
I hope this amendment will be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, the Senator from Massachusetts is 
correct. Money does not solve the problem of education. If it did, the 
city of Washington would have the finest schools and the best academic 
experience in the country instead of the worst. The students 
regrettably score at the bottom of the Nation year in and year out. Yet 
on a per capita basis, more money is spent per child here in Washington 
than any place else in America: $12,000 a year per child. I 
congratulate the present Mayor for trying to address the issue through 
creating choice within the school system. But that is a fact. Money 
does not necessarily solve education problems.
  However, in the area of money, this Presidency has done a 
dramatically better job than the prior President in his commitment to 
increasing education dollars. Since coming into office, President 
Bush's increase in education exceeds that of President Clinton by 33 
percent. His increase in funding for title I exceeds that of President 
Clinton by 52 percent. His increase in IDEA funding exceeds that of 
President Clinton by 75 percent. His increase in funding of No Child 
Left Behind exceeds President Clinton's areas in approximately the same 
programs by 46 percent. In this budget proposal, the President has 
proposed adding another $500 million in IDEA, $600 million in title I, 
$1 billion in No Child Left Behind, and half a billion dollars into 
Pell grants.
  In addition, this budget itself sets up the process for significant 
increases in funding in the Pell grant area so that we can get to a 
$4,150 grant next year. And if we follow the proposal of this budget, 
we will get to a $5,100 grant for people who use Pell grants and go to 
college for 4 years and complete their schooling.
  In addition, we put in $5.5 billion, approximately, in order to 
reauthorize the Higher Education Act. And yes, it is paid for in large 
part, but it is paid for by basically ratcheting down on lenders. I 
suspect the Senator from Massachusetts will be comfortable with many of 
the pay-fors which Senator Enzi comes up with in committee. So the 
education commitment of this administration has been extraordinarily 
strong, and this budget puts forth some very creative and unique ideas 
for going forward on that aggressive approach.
  This amendment is not the way to proceed. The Senator from 
Massachusetts has never been a wilting violet on the concept of 
increasing taxes. This amendment reinforces that fine track record as 
it increases taxes by $10.9 billion. In fact, the entire other side of 
the aisle has not been much in the way of wilting violets on the issue 
of increasing taxes.
  So far we have had approximately seven amendments that we have 
accounted for. I think there are a lot more floating around here that 
we have not yet accounted for that had they been passed or if they are 
passed--four of them were, fortunately, defeated--would have added $47 
billion. That doesn't count this $10 billion. So we are up to almost 
$60 billion of new taxes that has been proposed so far. I suspect that 
number is understated because I think we are missing five or six 
amendments that had been suggested in the last few hours late last 
evening.
  So there is no question but there is a philosophy on the other side 
which this side is trying not to subscribe to, which is that you just 
raise taxes and you spend more money and that solves the problem. That 
doesn't solve the problem. The problem is that we have to set 
priorities, and within those priorities, some programs of the Federal 
Government should be funded more aggressively than others.
  What the President has suggested specifically is that the core 
educational initiatives of the Federal Government--No Child Left 
Behind, title I, special education, Pell grant, higher education--will 
be funded extremely aggressively. The Congress may not decide to choose 
to follow that course of action, but at least we should go forward with 
the concept that we are going to set the priorities within a budget 
that we can afford and not break that budget and raise taxes on the 
American people.
  Therefore, I oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of 
Senator Kennedy's amendment to increase education funding in the budget 
by $5.4 billion. This amendment will provide additional budget 
authority for the purpose of addressing many important education needs, 
including ensuring continued funding for TRIO, GEAR UP, and Perkins 
vocational education. In addition, this amendment will include funding 
to raise the maximum Pell grant award to $4,500 this year, which is one 
of my top legislative priorities for this year.
  Our system of higher education is in many ways the envy of the world, 
but its benefits have not been equally available. Unfortunately, it is 
still the

[[Page 5194]]

case that one of the most determinative factors of whether students 
will pursue higher education is their family income. Students from 
families with incomes above $75,000 are more than twice as likely to 
attend college as students from families with incomes of less that 
$25,000.
  To help remedy these inequities, the Federal Government has wisely 
invested in a need-based system of student financial aid designed to 
remove these economic barriers. Central to this effort for the past 30 
years has been the Pell grant program.
  The Pell grant program is the single largest source of grant aid for 
postsecondary education funded by the Federal Government. It provides 
grants to students based on their level of financial need to support 
their studies at the institutions they have chosen to attend.
  I have long supported efforts to raise the Pell grant maximum award. 
I am pleased by the efforts of the Budget Committee to provide a $100 
increase in the Pell grant maximum award for this year. But I believe 
it is imperative that we succeed in providing a more substantial 
increase in the maximum grant this year.
  That is why, as my first legislation of this year, I introduced 
Senate Resolution 8, calling on the Senate to increase the Pell grant 
to $4,500 this year. I am very pleased to have Senators Feingold, 
Coleman, Kennedy, and Durbin joining me as cosponsors of this 
resolution. They are all leaders in the effort to expand access to 
higher education.
  The amendment before us builds on the efforts of my resolution, by 
following up to ensure sufficient budget authority to meet this goal.
  While I understand that we face many difficult decisions on the 
budget resolution before us, I believe that a $450 increase is an 
imminently reasonable and achievable goal for this year--especially in 
light of the fact that the Pell maximum grant has gone essentially 
unchanged for 4 years. After receiving a modest increase of $50 in 
2002, the maximum award has been stuck at the $4,050 level for 2003, 
2004, and 2005.
  In the meantime, the cost of attending college has continued to rise. 
The combination of these factors over the past 4 years has led to a 
significant erosion in the purchasing power of the Pell grant, and has 
forced students to rely increasingly on loans to finance their higher 
education.
  In 1975, the maximum Pell grant covered approximately 80 percent of 
the costs of attending a public, 4-year institution. Today, it covers 
less than 40 percent of these costs, forcing students to make up the 
difference by taking on larger and larger amounts of debt.
  The decline in the value of grant aid and the growing reliance on 
loans have serious consequences for access to higher education for low-
income students. The staggering amount of loans causes some students to 
abandon their plans to attend college altogether. According to the 
College Board, low-income families are significantly less willing, by 
almost 50 percent, to finance a college education through borrowed 
money than their wealthier counterparts.
  That does not surprise me. Many working families in Maine are 
committed to living within their means. Understandably, they are 
extremely wary of the staggering amount of debt that is now required to 
finance a college education.
  I also know this to be true from my experiences as a college 
administrator at Husson College in Maine. At Husson, 85-90 percent of 
students currently receive some sort of Federal financial aid, and--
approximately 60 percent of students receive Pell grants.
  As Linda Conant, the financial aid director at Husson told me:

       You cannot imagine how difficult it is to sit with a family 
     and to explain to them the amount of loans that are needed to 
     finance a post-secondary degree. It scares them. That is why 
     Pell grant aid is so important for low-income families. For 
     these families, loans don't always work, but Pell does.

  We also know that having a well-educated workforce is crucial to our 
economic future and competitiveness in the global economy. The Bureau 
of Labor Statistics has projected that over the next 10 years, there 
will be significant growth in jobs requiring at least some post-
secondary education. So increasingly, higher education is going to be 
necessary to ensure employability and to prepare Americans to 
participate in tomorrow's economy.
  That is why Pell grants are so important. Pell grants make the 
difference in whether students have access to higher education, and a 
chance to participate fully in the American dream.
  Mr. President, Pell grants are targeted to the neediest of students--
recipients have a median family income of only $15,200. An additional 
$450 in Pell grant aid may very well be the deciding factor on whether 
these students can pursue their college dreams.
  The Pell grant program is the foundation of making good on the 
American promise of access to higher education. Now is the time for us 
to make a commitment to raising the Pell maximum award to $4,500 for 
the upcoming award year. I hope that my colleagues will join me in 
supporting this amendment.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Kennedy's 
amendment to the, fiscal year 2006 budget resolution. This amendment 
would ensure the necessary investment in education to secure our 
Nation's continued prosperity.
  This amendment would focus on three areas critical to boosting 
educational opportunity and our economy. First, it would make college 
more affordable and accessible. The amendment would raise the maximum 
Pell grant by $450, to $4,500, a long overdue and necessary increase 
for millions of students who struggle to keep up with ever-rising 
college tuition. It also would restore a host of programs that give 
low-income Americans a lifeline to college. The President seeks to 
eliminate programs like TRIO, GEAR UP, and LEAP, which have opened 
doors for students who otherwise might never consider a college 
education, let alone be able to afford it.
  Second, this amendment would make a crucial difference for high-need 
schools. We cannot remain global leaders in technology if we do not 
maintain a world-class standard of education in math and the sciences 
for all students. Yet we have a shortage of highly qualified teachers 
in these very areas. This amendment would use loan forgiveness as an 
incentive to attract and retain 57,000 teachers in math, science, and 
another woefully understaffed arena, special education.
  Finally, this amendment would ensure the future competitiveness of 
the workforce by preserving investments in workforce development, adult 
literacy, and vocational education. In voting to reauthorize and 
improve the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act, 99 
Senators just last week recognized the indispensable nature of the act, 
despite the President's efforts to eliminate it. With this amendment we 
can restore funding for Perkins programs as well as for job training 
and literacy programs that give adults the tools they need to be 
economically productive.
  The investment in these commonsense measures is one we cannot afford 
to forego. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 234

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). There will now be 30 minutes of 
debate equally divided on the Baucus-Conrad amendment on agriculture.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 234.

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

   (Purpose: To ensure that legislation to make cuts in agriculture 
  programs receives full consideration and debate in the Senate under 
  regular order, rather than being fast-tracked under reconciliation 
                              procedures)

       On page 28, strike lines 14 through 20.


[[Page 5195]]

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this amendment is critical to my home 
State of Montana and to most States in the Nation. It is agriculture. 
Agriculture is the financial engine that drives, certainly, my State's 
economy. It brings in $2 billion of annual revenue plus benefits to 
rural communities and to our State generally. One in five Montana 
workers is employed in agriculture or a related field.
  But this amendment is important not just to Montana; it is important 
to the Nation. America's agricultural producers provide us with the 
safest and highest quality food supply in the world. We all know that. 
It is worth repeating. It is worth remembering. Sometimes we take 
things for granted. Our agricultural producers in America provide us 
with the safest, highest quality food supply in the world. Americans 
are extremely fortunate to enjoy those benefits.
  Agriculture is a small part of the Federal budget, but it is expected 
to shoulder huge cuts, very disproportionate cuts in this budget 
resolution.
  The Senate budget resolution calls for a reduction in mandatory 
agricultural programs of $5.4 billion over 5 years. The budget 
resolution puts $2.8 billion of those savings on fast track through 
reconciliation.
  I was one of the farm bill negotiators and supporters of that 
legislation, but I disagree with some of the provisions within the law. 
The 2002 farm bill represented a delicate balance between diverse 
interests. It was very tough to put that together. The 2002 farm bill 
was a 6-year bill, not an on-and-off bill but a 6-year bill, and people 
had reason to expect it settled farm policy for 6 years. People have to 
plan, to have a sense of what is going on. It is not just farmers, but 
bankers, equipment suppliers, and farm implement dealers. Producers and 
bankers who made financial decisions to enter into contracts with the 
understanding that the farm bill would not be renegotiated until 2007, 
that was their understanding.
  If Congress proceeds with the agriculture cuts in this budget 
resolution, we will be cutting nutrition, not just the six basic crops 
in the farm bill, but cutting nutrition, conservation, and forestry 
programs. These cuts are not directed solely at the commodity programs. 
In fact, they are directed at many other segments of the whole 
agriculture bill.
  The Senate should put off the policy discussions that are behind 
these cuts until we begin debate on the new farm legislation. That is 
the appropriate time to debate these policy discussions, not in the 
budget resolution to cut for the sake of cutting. The commitment that 
Congress and the President made to farmers, to conservatives, and the 
neediest in our society should be maintained until a new farm bill is 
developed.
  Proposed mandatory spending cuts will also unilaterally disarm our 
trade negotiators, especially our agricultural trade negotiators. The 
United States recently lost its appeal of the World Trade Organization 
dispute panel decision concerning domestic cotton. It is not widely 
known, but it should be well understood, the implications of that 
decision.
  At the same time, we are negotiating a new global trade agreement 
with the WTO, of which agriculture is a critical part. That decision is 
going to put our agricultural producers and our agriculture program in 
jeopardy. We should, therefore, not commit to the substantial 
agriculture policy changes that this resolution would require while we 
are engaged in those trade talks. We should not unilaterally disarm. It 
makes no sense, and I cannot understand for the life of me why this 
budget resolution unilaterally disarms our farmers before we go into 
negotiations. Some argue the proposed cuts are good for our negotiators 
because they demonstrate to other countries that the United States is 
serious about agriculture reform.
  I have learned through very hard, bitter experience that no country 
altruistically, out of the goodness of its heart, if it has any sense, 
is going to lower a trade barrier. They do not unless they have to. You 
have to provide leverage. There are many examples where the United 
States had to exercise leverage to get other countries to lower a trade 
barrier. It takes leverage. They just do not do it out of the goodness 
of their heart.
  If we do that, think what the Europeans are going to do. They are 
going to say: Oh, those Americans, they have already eliminated their 
agriculture program, they have cut their supports, so we Europeans do 
not have to go quite so far. I tell you, it makes no sense, no sense 
whatsoever for this Congress to pass a budget resolution which cuts 
agriculture by such a dramatic amount.
  In 2002, total EU domestic supports plus export subsidies totaled $37 
billion. What was ours? What was the U.S. comparable figure? It is 
about $17 billion, and that is just actual spending.
  Look at that: Europeans have twice the amount of agricultural support 
payments that we have, twice as much as the United States has--more 
than twice as much as the United States has. Yet we are coming before 
this body and saying we are going to cut agriculture even more, while 
the Europeans have close to three times the amount of subsidies we 
have. I do not think that makes much sense.
  The total amount agreed to in the WTO Uruguay Round is $81 billion 
for the EU and $19 billion for the United States. Just think of that. 
That was the Uruguay Round. That was a mistake. Mr. President, 81 for 
them, 19 for us. These cuts contained in the budget resolution, to 
which I am opposed, are, therefore, clearly ill timed. This is the 
wrong time to do this. Developing countries, in particular, have 
offered very little in agricultural talks. If we pass this resolution, 
they are going to ask themselves: Why should they? They can keep their 
sky-high tariffs on agricultural products and still get the United 
States to cut its support of U.S. agricultural programs.
  We also lose bargaining power to push for changes to the European's 
agricultural policy. That policy transformed postwar Europe from the 
world's largest food importer to one of the world's largest net 
exporter of agricultural products.
  Let me state what happened. This pretty much demonstrates what 
happened in this country, why agricultural producers in the United 
States are in tough shape. In the 1970s, the European Union was the 
world's largest net importer of agricultural products. They decided 
that is wrong; we have to do something about it. So they did. What did 
they do? They implemented massive agricultural support payments for 
their farmers so that in a 10-year time in the mid-1980s, Europe became 
the largest net exporter of agricultural products. It was a big shift 
from the world's largest importer to the world's largest exporter in 10 
years, and that is where they stayed. That is what we face. That is why 
it is wrong right now in this budget resolution to further cut 
agricultural payments which are disproportionate right now.
  Our farmers and our ranchers can compete with anybody in the world 
just as long as the playing field is level, but we should not put 
American farmers and ranchers at a disadvantage by cutting U.S. 
programs just as we are seeking changes in other countries' programs. 
We should not unilaterally disarm. We should not unilaterally disarm 
agriculture just as the trade talks reach a critical point. They are 
upcoming. To do so would not just be unwise, it would be reckless.
  Agriculture is being asked to make a substantial and disproportionate 
contribution to spending reductions. This is unjustified. There are 
other cuts in this budget not nearly as great as the ones agriculture 
will face. I just think it is sensible to support this amendment so we 
do not cut agriculture the way proposed in this resolution. It makes no 
sense.
  I see some of my colleagues on the floor who wish to speak on this 
amendment. I see Senator Conrad. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, the amendment before the Senate strikes the budget 
reconciliation instructions to the Senate Committee on Agriculture. The 
amendment deletes the requirement that the

[[Page 5196]]

Senate Agriculture Committee report legislation that reduces outlays by 
$2.8 billion. It does not change the other budgetary assumptions for 
agriculture contained in the resolution.
  The fact is, agriculture has already contributed substantially to 
deficit reduction. We are far below in funding what the farm bill 
called for. We are $16 billion below what the farm bill anticipated. If 
the national media ever reported something incorrectly, they reported 
incorrectly the effect of the last farm bill on agriculture spending. 
You would have thought, reading the national press, that agriculture 
got an enormous increase, a 60-percent increase. Wrong. Agriculture did 
not get an increase, agriculture got less money. What they left out 
were the disaster bills we had been reporting and passing year after 
year. Here is the pattern of farm program spending, and this shows the 
spending went down. It did not go up. The national media just got it 
wrong.
  This is in the midst of a circumstance in which our major competitors 
are providing far more funding to their producers than we are providing 
to ours. Our major competitors are the Europeans. Here is what they are 
doing. They are providing $277 an acre of support each and every year 
for their producers. The comparable amount in the United States is $48. 
So they are outgunning us over 5 to 1.
  It is not just in domestic support. It is also in international 
subsidies, subsidies for export. Here is the European Union's part of 
world agricultural subsidies. They account for 87 percent of world 
agricultural export subsidies. This is the U.S. share--1 percent. They 
are outgunning us 87 to 1.
  Right now we are entering negotiations with the WTO to try to level 
the playing field. Let me remind my colleagues, this is what Europe is 
doing for their farmers. These are not Kent Conrad's numbers, these are 
the international scorekeepers' numbers, OECD: Europe, $277 an acre per 
year per producer; the United States, $48. On export subsidy, Europe 
accounts for 87 percent of all the world's agricultural export subsidy; 
the United States is 1 percent. They are outgunning us 87 to 1.
  We are just entering negotiations to try to level the playing field. 
Why would we ever unilaterally disarm in the midst of a trade dispute? 
We would never do that in a military confrontation. Why would we do it 
in a trade confrontation?
  Unilaterally cutting in the midst of the farm bill, in the midst of 
international negotiations, is a profound mistake. If anybody doubts 
what is happening, Europe has gone from being the biggest importing 
region in the world to the biggest exporting region, and they are now 
equivalent to us in world market share. Keep up with this strategy and 
America is going to become a second-class agricultural power.
  This year, USDA forecasts we are going to import more agricultural 
production than we will export. That is a stunning turnaround for the 
United States. We should not continue down that path.
  I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague and yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 40 seconds remaining.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from North 
Dakota if he might have time he can allocate to other Senators, 
insomuch as the time remaining on this amendment has virtually expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. The short answer is I do not. Under the agreement that 
has been reached, all time has been allocated among these various 
amendments, so there is no time remaining to allocate.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I wonder if I can impose upon the very gracious 
generosity of the Senator from New Hampshire and ask if perhaps he 
could give a little time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I do have 5 minutes, I have been informed, 
that I can allocate. Let me give that 5 minutes that I have available.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator 
from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is a critically important issue. I 
appreciate the work of my colleague from Montana and my colleague from 
North Dakota. This is about family farmers. The reconciliation 
instruction to take money from an account that is critically important 
for the survival of family farmers is just a bad instruction. My 
colleague from Montana wants to abolish that instruction.
  Look, family farmers, in my judgment, have a lot of fights. They 
fight every year. They fight against bad weather, crop disease and 
insects, and they have to fight grain markets trying to make a living 
out under the yard light on the family farm. They should not have to 
fight the U.S. Congress and the administration.
  We made a deal on the farm program. We made commitments on food 
programs. The family farmers should not have to face jeopardy from this 
Congress.
  The fact is, this Congress has decided for family farmers that we 
want to provide a bridge across price valleys, so that when prices 
precipitously drop, we don't wash away all of the family farmers of 
this country. So we put together a farm program, an account in the 
budget that deals with ag. It all works together. I believe the 
recommendation to cut these funds is a recommendation that pulls the 
rug out from under America's family farmers.
  Bad trade deals have undermined our farmers. Weather and insects and 
grain markets have undermined our family farmers. The last thing that 
should happen is for us to pull the rug out from under our family 
farmers.
  I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague, 
Senator Baucus, from Montana. I hope the Senate will adopt this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Pryor.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, in 2002, this Congress entered into a 
contract with our farmers, and today what we are discussing is--believe 
it or not--actually breaking that contract with America's farmers. 
Let's not just focus on the farmers, because the agriculture bill is 
much broader than that, including children and nutrition programs, poor 
people on food stamps, and every consumer who buys food in this 
country. As it now stands, America spends less on food than any other 
nation in the world. If this passes, that might change.
  I support deficit reduction. We know that. The farmers have already 
contributed over $16 billion to deficit reduction. That is according to 
CBO. When you look at the numbers, they are very clear. Farm spending 
only amounts to less than one-half of 1 percent of Federal spending, 
but accounts for 17 percent of the Nation's GDP and 25 million jobs.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the senior Senator 
from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, there is not enough time in the day for 
me to talk about agriculture because it is in my veins. I do come to 
the floor to support my colleague from Montana. A few weeks ago, I came 
to the floor to note my extreme disappointment in President Bush's ag 
budget proposal, and really his entire budget proposal as it relates to 
rural America. I reiterate my support for our farmers and our rural 
communities by speaking in strong support of this amendment.
  Our agricultural producers and the folks who live in rural America 
are every bit a part of the fabric of this American family. There is no 
reason why they should be asked to carry a disproportionate share of 
the sacrifice in dealing with this historic debt. I join President Bush 
in wanting to deal with this historic debt. But there is no reason in 
this world why rural communities and agricultural producers----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, is there any of my time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 45 seconds.

[[Page 5197]]


  Mr. BAUCUS. I yield that to the Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Thank you. I do want people in this country to know 
that the people in rural America, whether it is ag producers, who have 
absolutely no certainty about the things that contribute to what they 
have to do; they have no control over the weather, no substantial 
control over trade. Yet, they did have a role to play, as everybody in 
this body did, in the contract that came about in the farm bill.
  This is not the appropriate place to breach that contract. It is not 
the appropriate place to turn on the people of rural America that 
support this great Nation in the safest, most abundant and affordable 
food supply in the world. We have an opportunity to look at what we can 
do for rural America.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
Senators be added as cosponsors to my amendment: Harkin, Stabenow, 
Dayton, Pryor, Lincoln, Salazar, and Conrad.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Montana for the 
purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my chairman, who has almost an 
impossible job on this budget.
  I rise to discuss this resolution and its impact on agriculture. I 
ask the Senator, is my understanding correct that this budget 
resolution directs the Senate Agriculture Committee to contribute 
toward deficit reduction by reducing mandatory program spending by $2.8 
billion over the next 5 years? Is my understanding correct?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the question of the Senator 
from Montana. Yes, the Senator's understanding is correct. We took 
great care to assure that this budget resolution was constructed to 
provide the Agriculture Committee with the flexibility needed to 
achieve a reduction in the deficit while ensuring continued support for 
programs that provide a critical safety net for farmers and ranchers, 
promote conservation, and reduce hunger.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the chairman. I understand the challenges of 
attempting to reduce the budget deficit by reducing spending. I believe 
we have to get a budget resolution passed, and I know that the Senator 
has to make some difficult choices. I also note that $2.8 billion is a 
lot of money in Montana, especially given skyrocketing energy prices 
and the likelihood that this will be another drought year in Montana.
  I ask the Senator, is it true that the House has asked their 
Agriculture Committee to reduce mandatory spending at a higher level 
than has been proposed by this budget resolution?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes, the Senator is correct. I believe the House budget 
resolution proposes reducing mandatory spending for agriculture by $5.3 
billion over the next 5 years. I add that the President's budget 
proposed to reduce mandatory program spending for agriculture by nearly 
$9 billion.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator. In a perfect world, I would prefer no 
reduction in spending for agriculture at all. As you know, the 2002 
farm bill has already contributed significantly to deficit reduction. 
Over the past 3 years, farm programs spending has been about $17 
billion less than projected. So a lot of my farmers in Montana feel 
like they already ``gave at the office.''
  However, we must face up to the reality of our budget situation and 
address this deficit. In doing so, however, reductions in spending must 
be proportionate. I urge the chairman, in the strongest manner 
possible, to keep the final budget resolution from asking for a higher 
level of mandatory program savings from agriculture than the $2.8 
billion that we have included in this budget resolution.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I will state that the Senator from Montana 
has been extremely persuasive. We started out with a budget number in 
this budget that essentially tracked the President's number in 
agriculture. But as a result of listening to the Senator from Montana 
and the Senator from Georgia, chairman of the Agriculture Committee, we 
have backed that number down rather dramatically from the original 
request of $9 billion by the President's $2.8 billion. And we have, as 
the Senator from Montana noted, at the request of the Senator from 
Georgia, given maximum flexibility to the Agriculture Committee so that 
they can reach that number. Remember, that is a 5-year number, not a 1-
year number; the $2.8 billion is spent over 5 years. They can reach 
that number however it is deemed best in looking at it through the lens 
of the Agriculture Committee, where the real expertise resides.
  I thank the Senator from Montana for his very constructive effort in 
this area. I assure the people of Montana he has certainly held their 
interests and put their interests first and aggressively pursued it.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield the balance of our time to the Senator from 
Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I want to start out today by 
acknowledging the cooperation and thanking the chairman of the Budget 
Committee for working together with those of us who have real concerns 
about agriculture and, particularly, relative to, obviously, the 
numbers that are contained in the President's budget and the final 
number agreed upon between the Budget Committee, as well as the 
Agriculture Committee. I thank my friend, Senator Burns from Montana, 
for his outstanding input into this and his persuasive arguments. It is 
because of things like that that we have been able to negotiate this 
number down to something that we think is now fair and reasonable.
  Let me, first of all, say that I, too--like my Democratic colleagues 
on the other side alluded to earlier--came to the floor immediately 
after the President's budget was sent to the Hill. He was extremely 
critical of that budget relative to the requested deficit savings in 
agriculture.
  I, too, was at the table when we negotiated the 2002 farm bill. On 
the House side, we felt like we had a good farm bill, and we got 
together with folks on the Senate side and crafted a bill that provides 
a real safety net for our farmers across America.
  The fact is that that farm bill has worked exactly like those of us 
who crafted the farm bill wanted it to work--that is, philosophically. 
When times and yields are good and prices are up, there are very few 
Government payments going to our farmers. In tough times, when prices 
are low and yields are low, whether it be from drought or other 
circumstances, in agriculture country the Federal Government does 
extend a helping hand not to guarantee any farmer a profit, but it 
allows them to get through to the next year when times might get 
better.
  That having been said, I discussed not just on the floor of the 
Senate my displeasure with the administration relative to their budget 
proposals, but I went directly to the President. I told the President 
face to face that I was very disappointed in the numbers that had been 
sent down here and that, at the end of the day, I really did feel like 
America's farmers and ranchers would be willing to pay their fair share 
for deficit reduction, but we were simply not going to pay a 
disproportionate amount when times are difficult in agriculture 
country, and when we have farmers who have depended on that 6-year farm 
bill and have made financial plans, whether it is the purchase or lease 
of land, purchase of farm equipment, or planning for the growing and 
harvesting of crops, as they have done, depending on that 6-year farm 
bill being in place.

  Therefore, as chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I made a 
commitment to our farmers and ranchers that we are going to do 
everything possible to make sure that the policy of that farm bill is 
not changed. We can do that.

  The folks on the other side, frankly, have made my argument for me. 
That

[[Page 5198]]

is this: They have said, correctly, that in 2002 when the farm bill was 
passed and signed into law, fiscal conservatives all across the country 
and the media really chastised those of us that crafted that farm bill 
for spending way too much of the American taxpayers' money on 
agriculture programs. We knew that if the farm bill worked right, we 
would never spend what was projected. In actuality, it was projected 
that we would spend $52 billion on commodity programs in 2002, 2003, 
and 2004, and because we have had good yields and good prices in those 
years, we have spent only $37 billion. That is just in one title of the 
farm bill. So we have achieved savings of $15 billion in 3 years.
  We also have the food stamp title, where no projected savings have 
been talked about at this point. Maybe some can be achieved. When I 
came to Congress in 1995, USDA reported that the Food Stamp Program 
error rate was 10 percent.
  Last week, USDA testified before the House Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Agriculture and said that the error rate has now been 
reduced to 6 percent. That is because of the hard work of everybody in 
this body on both sides of the aisle and everybody in the House on both 
sides of the aisle. We have squeezed that program down to where the 
error rate is still at 6 percent. That is too much. But still it is 
coming way down.
  We can probably achieve some additional savings there. Also, we have 
the conservation title, which has not been discussed. We are going to 
spend about $33 billion this year on the Food Stamp Program, about 2.5 
on conservation, and projected about 18 on commodities.
  Now, if we have saved $15 billion on the commodity title alone in 3 
years, am I hearing this right, that folks on the other side are saying 
we cannot achieve $2.8 billion over the next 5 years, not just from 
commodities but from all three titles in the farm bill? I think that is 
kind of a ludicrous argument for us to say that when we are in tough 
times--times have changed since we passed this farm bill in 2002, where 
we were in surplus times. Times have changed because we are now in a 
deficit situation and we must be fiscally responsible in this body, 
just as our colleagues on the House side must be fiscally responsible.
  I cannot imagine anybody saying that we cannot be treated fairly when 
we are going to be cutting and asked to be finding savings in Medicaid, 
in transportation, in education, and in other mandatory programs, that 
farmers and ranchers and their respective States are not going to be 
willing to participate when we have already saved an average of $5 
billion per year, that we are now being asked to save $2.8 billion over 
5 years, that our farmers and ranchers would not be willing to 
participate in their fair share, so long as, and I emphasize this, we 
do not change the policy in the farm bill.
  We have entered into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of 
the Budget Committee that as he goes into conference he is going to do 
everything within his power to make sure we hold this $2.8 billion 
figure because we already know the House has come in with a number in 
excess of that. I would again say if the requested deficit savings on 
agriculture are disproportionate in any way, we need to look at it and 
we need to rethink where we are today. But when we look at the $2.8 
billion and the fact that we have saved an average of $5 billion a 
year, I know and understand we have not been asked to share in an 
amount that requires that the deficit reduction requested by the 
President be taken out on the backs of farmers and ranchers. I would 
rather not have any, but being fiscally responsible is as important as 
writing a good farm bill.
  I close by saying that as I have gone around the country--and I have 
over the last 2 weeks. I have been in the far West, I have been in the 
Midwest, and I have been in the Southeast, talking to farmers and 
ranchers, and I am very pleased with the reaction that farmers and 
ranchers have given to me personally when we have explained to them how 
we are going to approach these deficit savings. What I have told them 
is we are going to be fair and equitable in each and every title, and 
that we are going to ask all of agriculture to share somewhat in the 
pain, but it is not going to be disproportionate, and we are going to 
keep the policy of the farm bill in place and we are going to find 
reductions in savings that will allow the greatest patriots in 
America--and that is farmers--to participate once again in deficit 
reduction, and when we do this we want to assure, in all probability, 
that farmers and ranchers will have this $2.8 billion returned to them 
in interest savings alone, because we all know if we continue down this 
trail of deficit spending, interest rates are going to rise. If we act 
responsibly in this body and also on the House side relative to this 
issue of deficit spending, we can either hold interest rates in line or 
maybe see them reduced again, which will be of tremendous benefit to 
our farmers and ranchers.
  I am proud to represent agriculture country. I come from the heart 
and soul of agriculture country in my State, and farmers and ranchers 
all across America are the salt-of-the-Earth people who make this 
country the great country it is. They have always been willing to do 
their fair share, and that is simply what we are asking for, nothing 
more.
  I yield back.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I support this amendment because it would 
prevent the damage this budget resolution seeks to inflict on Americans 
throughout our country in all walks of life who benefit from the whole 
range of programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, where I am proud to serve as 
ranking Democratic member.
  It is said that the cuts to these programs required by this 
resolution are no cause for worry, no sweat. With respect, I must say 
the facts are otherwise. The 2002 farm bill has already suffered 
serious cuts in three annual appropriations cycles. This budget 
resolution contains further and even deeper cuts--both in 
appropriations and through budget reconciliation instructions to our 
committee and the House Agriculture Committee. To be sure, the $2.8 
billion reconciliation instruction in this resolution is less than in 
the President's budget, and it is less than the $5.3 billion 
reconciliation instruction in the House's version of the budget 
resolution. However, I would note that the Senate resolution does 
assume additional budget reductions of $2.7 billion, so the total 
assumed budget savings from the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and 
Forestry is $5.5 billion in this resolution.
  The budget reconciliation figures in these resolutions are a direct 
assault on the progress we made in writing a balanced farm bill in 2002 
that covered a whole range of needs from helping protect farm income, 
to providing food to poor families and children, to improving 
conservation and environmental practices, to promoting farm-based 
renewable energy, to increasing food and agriculture research, to 
assisting rural economic development and others. We need to protect 
that balance.
  Where is the budgetary justification for making these cuts and 
upsetting the balance we struck and the progress we made in the farm 
bill? There is no justification. We have been fiscally responsible in 
the programs falling in our committee's jurisdiction. We were provided 
a budget allocation to write the 2002 farm bill and we stayed within 
it. We repaired Freedom to Farm and reinstated a countercyclical 
commodity program. Thanks to that countercyclical feature, the 
commodity programs have cost some $15 billion less than they were 
expected to cost over the first three years of the 2002 farm bill. We 
also carefully and responsibly invested some of our farm bill budget 
allocation to strengthen programs and adopt innovative new initiatives 
in conservation, agricultural trade, rural development, nutrition, 
agricultural research and renewable energy.
  The direct harm from these budget cuts would be serious enough, but 
in addition they can only upset carefully struck balances in the 2002 
farm bill and reopen old arguments and old fault lines. We had broadly 
based bipartisan

[[Page 5199]]

support for the 2002 farm bill, but this budget resolution threatens to 
tear that all apart. This resolution would pit one group and its 
interests against others--one title of the farm bill against others. As 
a result, we would be looking to the next farm bill with a reduced 
budget baseline and a fractured farm bill coalition, which would surely 
make it all the harder and more contentious to write the next farm 
bill.
  Less than 3 years ago we passed a farm bill to repair our Nation's 
farm income protection system. It would be irresponsible to weaken that 
system now and create new uncertainty--especially when we need 
bargaining leverage in the midst of global agricultural trade 
negotiations in the WTO. Farm commodity programs are less than a half 
of a percent of the Federal budget. It is terribly misguided to propose 
that cutting farm income protection can significantly help solve 
Federal budget deficits.
  Nor is there money to be spared in the farm bill's conservation, 
rural economic development, research or renewable energy initiatives--
some of the most innovative and forward-looking parts of the 2002 farm 
bill which have already suffered the most and seem to be at the 
greatest risk of further cuts. These initiatives constitute investments 
in the future of our Nation's food and agriculture system, our rural 
communities and our environment and natural resources. Believe me, we 
are not investing too much in these initiatives. We are investing far 
too little.
  This resolution is especially threatening to Federal food assistance 
and nutrition programs if history is our guide. The last time there was 
budget reconciliation, recipients of Federal food assistance took the 
heaviest hit of anyone. Think about the fairness of that. Those cuts 
did not come from waste, fraud, and abuse, but instead were taken from 
across-the-board benefit reductions that affected nearly all recipient 
households, including families with children, the working poor, the 
elderly, and people with disabilities.
  This year we are hearing the same claims about waste, fraud, and 
abuse in Federal nutrition programs. In reality, we have worked hard to 
improve the program integrity of nutrition programs, and we have done 
it on a bipartisan basis. The error rate in the Food Stamp Program is 
now at an all-time low. There is not a realistic way to wring 
significant budget savings out of waste, fraud and abuse in nutrition 
programs. It is not there. Instead, this resolution would take away 
food from American families, most of them with children and most of 
them working or trying to find work. We should not add new hardship to 
the lives of working American families by cutting food assistance 
programs.
  For all of these reasons, I support and am proud to cosponsor the 
amendment of Senator Baucus and urge my colleagues to support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Could I take a minute off of managers' time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let us be very clear what this amendment 
is about. Agriculture represents less than 1 percent of Federal 
spending. It is being asked to take 9 percent of the mandatory cuts. If 
the Medicaid amendment is adopted, agriculture will be asked to take 
16.5 percent of the cuts, and we are less than 1 percent of the budget. 
That is not fair. That sets a precedent.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I will not yield.
  That sets a precedent that is a profound mistake for agriculture and 
we will rue the day when we are in the midst of negotiations that we 
cut the heart out of our negotiators' ability to level the playing 
field for our producers. That is a mistake.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.


                           Amendment No. 239

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 15 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the Biden amendment on COPS. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk, which I 
do not have in my hand, 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], for himself, Mr. 
     Dorgan, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kohl, and 
     Mr. Salazar, proposes an amendment numbered 239.

  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 enhance the ability of state and local law enforcement to 
prevent crime and terrorism by adding $1 billion to restore funding to 
 the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. This amendment is 
   fully off-set by closing corporate loopholes and will generate $2 
 billion in revenue with $1 billion allocated to the COPS program and 
              the remaining billion to reduce the deficit)

       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $240,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $560,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $300,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $240,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $560,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $300,000,000.
       On page 4, 1ine 7, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $120,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $280,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $250,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $120,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by $280,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $250,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, increase the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $120,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $650,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $850,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $120,000,000.
       On page 5, line 16, decrease the amount by $400,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by $650,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, decrease the amount by $850,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, decrease the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 23, line 16, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 23, line 17, increase the amount by $120,000,000.
       On page 23, line 21, increase the amount by $280,000,000.
       On page 23, line 25, increase the amount by $250,000,000.
       On page 24, line 4, increase the amount by $200,000,000.
       On page 24, line 8, increase the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 30, line 16, decrease the amount by $240,000,000.
       On page 30, line 17, decrease the amount by $2,000,000,000.
       On page 48, line 6, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 48, line 7, increase the amount by $120,000,000.
       On page 65, after line 25 insert the following:

FUNDING FOR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES 
                               PROGRAMS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) State and local law enforcement officers provide 
     essential services that preserve and protect our freedom and 
     safety;
       (2) with the support of the Community Oriented Policing 
     Services program (referred to in this section as the ``COPS 
     program''), State and local law enforcement officers have 
     succeeded in dramatically reducing violent crime;
       (3) on July 15, 2002, the Attorney General stated, ``Since 
     law enforcement agencies

[[Page 5200]]

     began partnering with citizens through community policing, 
     we've seen significant drops in crime rates. COPS provides 
     resources that reflect our national priority of terrorism 
     prevention.'';
       (4) on February 26, 2002, the Attorney General stated, 
     ``The COPS program has been a miraculous sort of success. 
     It's one of those things that Congress hopes will happen when 
     it sets up a program.'';
       (5) the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Assistant 
     Director for the Office of Law Enforcement Coordination has 
     stated, ``The FBI fully understands that our success in the 
     fight against terrorism is directly related to the strength 
     of our relationship with our State and local partners.'';
       (6) a 2003 study of the 44 largest metropolitan police 
     departments found that 27 of them have reduced force levels;
       (7) shortages of officers and increased homeland security 
     duties has forced many local police agencies to rely on 
     overtime and abandon effective, preventative policing 
     practices. And, as a result police chiefs from around the 
     nation are reporting increased gang activity and other 
     troubling crime indicators;
       (8) several studies have concluded that the implementation 
     of community policing as a law enforcement strategy is an 
     important factor in the reduction of crime in our 
     communities;
       (9) In addition, experts at the Brookings Institute have 
     concluded that community policing programs are critical to 
     our success in the war against terrorism.
       (10) the continuation and full funding of the COPS program 
     through fiscal year 2010 is supported by several major law 
     enforcement organizations, including--
       (A) the International Association of Chiefs of Police;
       (B) the International Brotherhood of Police Officers;
       (C) the Fraternal Order of Police;
       (D) the National Sheriffs' Association;
       (E) the National Troopers Coalition;
       (F) the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association;
       (G) the National Association of Police Organizations;
       (H) the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement 
     Executives;
       (I) the Police Executive Research Forum; and
       (J) the Major Cities Chiefs;
       (11) Congress appropriated $928,912,000 for the COPS 
     program for fiscal year 2003, $756,283,000 for fiscal year 
     2004, and $499,364,000 for fiscal year 2005, and
       (12) the President requested $117,781,000 for the COPS 
     program for fiscal year 2006, $381,583,000 less than the 
     amount appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this resolution assume that an increase of 
     $1,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 for the Department of 
     Justice's community oriented policing program will be 
     provided without reduction and consistent with previous 
     appropriated and authorized levels.

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I only have a few minutes. I consider this, 
as my colleagues might guess--in all my years working on this, I sound 
a little like a broken record, but this amendment restores money for 
local law enforcement.
  I want to make a stark point. In the past, we had an opportunity to 
deal with actually affecting violent crime. The way we did that was we 
passed a COPS bill that did a simple thing. It put more cops on the 
street in the Nation's cities and rural communities. It had a funny 
effect, a profound effect. Violent crime dropped on average 8 percent 
per year since the bill passed in 1994.
  We began to struggle with this concept and this notion even after the 
former Attorney General said the crime bill has worked miraculously, 
and then announced the administration was eliminating the funding for 
the COPS Program.
  In that process, we went from spending over $400 million on hiring 
additional cops at the local level--not we, but local law enforcement, 
local mayors, local town councils, local State police hired more cops, 
and in the year 2001 we spent over $400 million on hiring new cops. 
That number is now down to zero in this budget.
  All of my colleagues know, notwithstanding the fact they may 
subscribe to this notion of devolution of Government, meaning the 
Federal Government should not do anything the States can do, they have 
not only decimated the program that allows for hiring of law 
enforcement agencies locally but they have eliminated the big three, 
the COPS Program, the local law enforcement block grants, and the Byrne 
grants.
  Total support for local law enforcement from the Federal Government 
has gone down from $2.2 billion we were sending to local law 
enforcement in the year 2002 to $118 million this year. Will someone on 
this floor tell me how that possibly makes sense?
  Local law enforcement is facing what I would call the perfect storm. 
First, the FBI has been taken out of local law enforcement. The FBI 
accounted for somewhere between 2 and 10 percent of all the enforcement 
done at the local level, depending on the jurisdiction, for bank 
robberies, interstate auto theft, and a whole range of other issues. 
But necessarily, the FBI has been taken out of that and put in 
counterterrorism. Violent crime task forces are gone. The Federal arm 
has been withdrawn.
  Secondly, of the 46 or so major police agencies in the United States 
of America, 27 of them have had to cut the number of cops they have. In 
New York, it is 3,400 cops down; Cleveland, 250; Minneapolis, 140; New 
Orleans, 100. There are some 3,373 pending applications for additional 
cops from 3,373 jurisdictions in America, totaling well over a request 
for more than 10,000 additional law enforcement officers.
  What is the last part of this perfect storm? The last part in the 
perfect storm is that State and local budgets are crunched. Now, I 
realize I only have 7 minutes so I will conclude with this simple 
point: I hear my friends say that Homeland Security is going to fill in 
the blanks. There is not one penny in Homeland Security allowing for 
the hiring of an additional local law enforcement officer, No. 1. No. 
2, if anybody is going to find a terrorist about to put sarin gas into 
the heating system or cooling system of the largest mall in Little 
Rock, AR, or in Savannah, GA, it is not going to be some guy wearing 
fatigues and night-vision goggles who is a special forces officer in 
the U.S. military. It is going to be a local cop on his way from a 
Dunkin' Donut shop on his rounds behind that shopping center.
  So we are making a tragic mistake. I do not understand the 
President's rationale. My legislation calls for funding the COPS 
Program at over $1 billion to eliminate the current backlog in 
applications and to meet State and local needs. We do it by cutting 
corporate loopholes and we provide an additional $1 billion in deficit 
reduction as well.
  The COPS office has met its goal of funding over 100,000 cops, but it 
is like cutting grass. Everybody says what a great job it did. Well, 
when one cuts their grass this summer, the first week it looks great. 
Two weeks later, when one does not cut it, it looks a little ragged. 
Six weeks later, it is a wheatfield. That is how crime is.
  The idea with an expanding population that we can use fewer resources 
to fight crime is absolutely mindless, and that is exactly what we 
continue to do.
  These law enforcement officers taking this money over the years are a 
victim of their own success. They made it work.
  I will close with a quote from the president of the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, IACP:

       But when I first read President Bush's budget for 2006, I 
     felt as if someone had punched me in the stomach.

  I ask any one of my colleagues to go home and ask any one of their 
law enforcement agencies, State, municipal, town, county, whether they 
need this help. I will be dumbfounded if they find anybody who says 
they do not. The idea that this is not a Federal responsibility is 
beyond me.
  Where do my colleagues think the dope is coming from that is coming 
into their cities and towns? It is because of a failed Federal policy 
on interdiction at our borders. It is because of a failed Federal 
policy relating to all the poppy being grown in Afghanistan, a failed 
Federal policy of all the cocaine coming out of the Andes.
  This is a Federal responsibility. To quote President Reagan--I do not 
know who he was quoting, but he is most associated with the comment--if 
it ain't broke, do not fix it.
  This ain't broke. It is working. Do not try to fix it by eliminating 
funding for local law enforcement from in 2002 over $2 billion to in 
this budget less than $118 million.

[[Page 5201]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BIDEN. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. To quote President Reagan: The only thing in this city 
that has eternal life is a Federal program.
  COPS is the No. 1 poster child for that statement. Why is the COPS 
Program being wound down? Because when it was started, it was supposed 
to end after 3 years.
  Mr. BIDEN. Not true.
  Mr. GREGG. That was the agreement. When President Clinton offered 
this proposal, which I supported, which I funded--I happened to chair 
the subcommittee that funded this proposal--the understanding was it 
would be a 3-year program. The cities and towns would come in, they 
would get their police officers approved, and then after 3 years those 
police officers would be off the Federal payroll, on the local payroll, 
and when we got to 100,000 police officers, the program would end. In 
the year 2000, we got to 100,000 police officers; in the year 2001, we 
got to 110,000 police officers--and the program goes on and on.
  There was an agreement 2 years ago that we would only fund those 
officers who were sort of the end of the line--in rural communities, 
essentially--and then we would terminate the program the way it was 
supposed to be originally terminated. That has not happened, either.
  Finally, the President, living up to the commitment of President 
Clinton, has said: Enough is enough. The program did what it was 
supposed to do, it put over 100,000 police officers on the street. As a 
result of doing that, it has succeeded. Let's declare victory relative 
to this program because it accomplished what it was supposed to 
accomplish--it added 110,000 or 120,000 officers, I guess, in the end--
and let's take these funds which were being used here and move them to 
another account, specifically accounts which are going to be more 
focused on a targeted response--primarily to the threat of terrorism--
versus a general response.
  The police officers, obviously, have a terrorism role, but they have 
a lot broader portfolio when they walk on that street, from moving-
vehicle crimes to, obviously, violent crimes to drug crimes. But the 
dollars that were being spent on the COPS Program have been moved over, 
essentially to homeland defense and other accounts, the purpose of 
which is to get the Federal role together in an area where we have a 
priority, which is fighting terrorism.
  The officers who were put on the street by this program are 
theoretically still on the street because the communities that use this 
program to basically gear these officers up--I think we paid 75 percent 
the first year, 55 percent the second year, 25 percent the third year, 
and then it goes on the community's payroll, that officer's salary--
those officers are still out there, one presumes.
  It is just extremely ironic that there would be such an outcry to 
keep a program that the prior administration fully expected and put 
forward as a program that was going to be focused on getting 100,000 
police officers on the street, and when it accomplished that it would 
terminate. It accomplished that and more, and it should be terminated.
  So I hope maybe we could prove President Reagan wrong once. He has 
been right on just about everything he ever did as a President, but 
maybe we could just prove him wrong once--I'm sure it would make the 
other side happy--by showing all programs are not eternal in this city 
and we can terminate one--the COPS Program.
  I yield the remainder of my time on this amendment, then, and we will 
move on to the next amendment, which I guess is Senator Feinstein's.


                           Amendment No. 188

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 15 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the Feinstein amendment on SCAAP.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 188 and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself, 
     Mr. Kyl, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Cornyn, 
     Mr. Schumer, Mr. Feingold, and Mrs. Clinton, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 188.

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

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that Congress should enact 
  a long term reauthorization of the State Criminal Alien Assistance 
  Program and appropriate $750,000,000 for the program in fiscal year 
                                 2006)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE STATE CRIMINAL 
                   ALIEN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) Control of illegal immigration is a Federal 
     responsibility.
       (2) The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (referred 
     to in this section as ``SCAAP'') provides critical funding to 
     States and localities for reimbursement of costs incurred as 
     a result of housing undocumented criminal aliens.
       (3) Congress appropriated $250,000,000 for SCAAP to 
     reimburse State and local governments for these costs in 
     fiscal year 2003.
       (4) Congress appropriated $300,000,000 for SCAAP to 
     reimburse State and local governments for these costs in 
     fiscal year 2004.
       (5) Congress appropriated $305,000,000 for SCAAP to 
     reimburse State and local governments for these costs in 
     fiscal year 2005.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this concurrent resolution assume that--
       (1) Congress will appropriate $750,000,000 for SCAAP for 
     fiscal year 2006; and
       (2) Congress will enact long-term reauthorization of SCAAP 
     to reimburse State and local governments for the financial 
     burdens undocumented criminal aliens place on their local 
     criminal justice systems.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment sent to the floor by Senator Kyl, Senator Hutchison, Senator 
Bingaman, Senator Akaka, Senator Cornyn, Senator Schumer, Senator 
Feingold, and Senator Clinton. It is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment to 
urge this Congress to reauthorize the SCAAP Program, the State Criminal 
Alien Assistance Program.
  On every desk there is a chart that shows how much each State 
received for this program. What does this program do? What this program 
does is reimburse the State for the cost of the incarceration of an 
illegal alien. In other words, when someone comes to our country, 
commits a crime, is convicted of that crime, is in jail or is in State 
prison, the Federal Government--it is their responsibility for all 
matters pertaining to immigration--has reimbursed the State. The 
program reimburses the State for less than 20 percent of the actual 
cost to the State. The authorization is due to expire. We are asking in 
the sense of the Senate that it be considered for reauthorization.
  Before I speak further, my main author, Senator Kyl, wanted to make a 
few comments and then Senator Cornyn, if I might.
  I yield briefly to Senator Kyl.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for 
helping, again, to lead this effort to get adequate reimbursement to 
the States for the incarceration of illegal immigrants. In the past, 
the amount of reimbursement had been roughly one-third of their costs. 
That is not enough, but at least it helped to defray the expenses of 
the States in housing these people who were convicted of crimes and who 
were ultimately the responsibility of the Federal Government.
  In the last couple of years, the amount of money has gone down to the 
point that, as the Senator said, last year it was about 17 cents on the 
dollar. That is absolutely unacceptable. If the Federal Government 
cannot do what is necessary to control the border and prevent illegal 
immigration, at least it can help the States defray some part of their 
cost in incarcerating the people who come here and commit crimes. 
Surely we can authorize a program that could reimburse the States again 
at the level of approximately one-third of their costs. That will be 
our goal.
  That is why I am very proud to, again, work with Senator Feinstein to

[[Page 5202]]

try to get adequate reimbursement to the States for this program. I 
fully support her effort. I compliment her for her leadership, and I 
hope my colleagues will join in accepting this sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield my portion of the time to the 
Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I also want to express my gratitude to the 
Senator from California for taking the leadership on this issue again 
this year.
  This is a common theme among those of us who represent border States, 
to ask the Federal Government to live up to its responsibilities. It is 
clear that the cost of housing aliens who are committing crimes in our 
country is a Federal responsibility. Yet for year upon year upon year 
they have thrust that burden on the States, and indeed on the counties 
at the local level.
  In my State, about 8,700 criminal aliens have been detained at a cost 
of roughly three times what this provision would reimburse my State. 
This is about one-third of the money that is a Federal responsibility 
that would go back to my State and the States that bear that Federal 
expense.
  I am all for the Federal Government living within its means, and I 
support this budget at the top-line number. I think part of budgeting 
is not only living within your means but it is making sure you fund 
your priorities. It is arguably a Federal priority to deal with the 
detention of illegal aliens who come into the country and commit 
crimes. It is a scandal that this sense of the Senate is even necessary 
again this year.
  I want to express in closing again my gratitude to Senator Feinstein 
for taking the leadership on this, and I certainly commend this to our 
colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I very much thank the Senators from 
Texas and Arizona for their support on this matter.
  I know Senator Kennedy has an urgent matter he would like to be able 
to present. I will not yield my time, but I would be hopeful that the 
President would give him time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to 
proceed for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California and 
others.

                          ____________________