[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5221-5262]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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


                           Amendment No. 188

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 1 minute of debate on Feinstein 
amendment No. 188. Who yields time?
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, submitted by 
myself and Senators Kyl, Hutchison, Cornyn, Schumer, and Clinton, 
having to do with the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.
  As we all know, illegal immigration is the responsibility of the 
Federal Government. Since early 1990, the Federal Government has 
provided some reimbursement to States. That authorization has run out. 
We have just passed it out of the Judiciary Committee this morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we have serious reservations about SCAAP 
which we discussed earlier when we debated this amendment. However, 
since this amendment is a sense of the Senate and since we are getting 
to a point where some of these sense of the Senates we think we can 
take, this one is clearly at the margin on that exercise, but rather 
than going through the exercise of a vote on it, we accept the 
amendment with prejudice.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 188) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 240

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 1 minute for debate on Byrd 
amendment No. 240.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this amendment would boost the amount of 
funding in the budget to allow for a highway bill totaling $318 
billion. That is the same size as the highway bill we passed last year. 
Every Senator should look at the table on their desk and see how much 
money and how many jobs he or she is foregoing by voting against this 
amendment. The offsets for the amendment are not new taxes. The offsets 
are precisely the same offsets that were used in the finance title of 
last year's highway bill. I urge the Senate to approve the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, there is an agreement--and it is fairly 
well agreed to, not only within this body but on the House side and 
with the President--that the highway bill will be $284 billion. That is 
funded in this budget resolution. This would increase that funding by 
approximately $30 billion. In addition, it raises taxes by $14 billion. 
It is a classic tax-and-spend amendment. I hope it will be defeated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). The question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 240.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.

[[Page 5222]]

  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 71 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

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

                                NAYS--54

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Cornyn
       
  The amendment (No. 240) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.


 Amendments Nos. 159; 160; 164; 194; 209; 226; 180, As Modified; 198; 
                   153, As Modified, and 182, en bloc

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to propound a set of unanimous 
consent requests. We have 11 amendments that have been cleared as a 
result of extensive work and in an effort to be cooperative by both 
sides of the aisle, which I appreciate.
  I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be approved en bloc. 
First is amendment No. 159, by Senator Obama, regarding Avian Flu; No. 
160, by Senator Leahy, regarding UNICEF; No. 164, by Senators Grassley 
and Kennedy, regarding the Family Opportunity Act; No. 194, by Senators 
Hatch and Grassley, regarding S-CHIP Program; No. 209, by Senators 
Cochran and Byrd, regarding advance appropriation scoring; No. 226, by 
Senators Thomas and Conrad, regarding rural health; No. 180, by Senator 
Mikulski, as modified, regarding HOPE credit; No. 198, by Senators 
Allen, Voinovich, Dodd, Warner and DeWine, a sense of the Senate 
relative to NASA aeronautics; No. 153, as modified, by Senators DeWine 
and Dodd, on HIV/AIDS; amendment No. 182, by Senator Lott, on DDX 
destroyer.
  I send the modifications to the desk on behalf of the Senators, and I 
ask unanimous consent that those amendments be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:


                           amendment no. 159

  (Purpose: To prevent and, if necessary, respond to an international 
                       outbreak of the avian flu)

       On page 9, line 15, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 9, line 16, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 9, line 20, increase the amount by $11,000,000.
       On page 9, line 24, increase the amount by $5,000,000.
       On page 10, line 3, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 26, line 14, decrease the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 26, line 15, decrease the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 26, line 18, decrease the amount by $11,000,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $5,000,000.
       On page 26, line 24, decrease the amount by $2,000,000.


                           amendment no. 160

   (Purpose: To increase funding for UNICEF and other international 
                             organizations)

       On page 9, line 15, increase the amount by $44,000,000.
       On page 9, line 16, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 9, line 20, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 9, line 24, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 26, line 14, decrease the amount by $44,000,000.
       On page 26, line 15, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 26, line 18, decrease the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $1,000,000.


                           Amendment No. 164

  (Purpose: To provide a reserve fund for the Family Opportunity Act)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE FAMILY 
                   OPPORTUNITY ACT.

       In the Senate, if the Committee on Finance reports a bill 
     or joint resolution or an amendment is offered thereto or a 
     conference report is submitted thereon, that provides 
     families of disabled children with the opportunity to 
     purchase coverage under the medicaid coverage for such 
     children (the Family Opportunity Act), and provided that the 
     committee is within its allocation as provided under section 
     302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the chairman 
     of the Committee on the Budget may revise allocations of new 
     budget authority and outlays, revenue aggregates, and other 
     appropriate measures to reflect such legislation if any such 
     measure would not increase the deficit for fiscal year 2006 
     and for the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.


                           Amendment No. 194

(Purpose: To provide a deficit-neutral reserve fund for the restoration 
                            of SCHIP funds)

       At the end of title III, add the following:

     SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE RESTORATION OF 
                   SCHIP FUNDS.

       In the Senate, if the Committee on Finance reports a bill 
     or joint resolution or an amendment is offered thereto or a 
     conference report is submitted thereon, that provides for the 
     restoration of unexpended funds under the State children's 
     health insurance program that reverted to the Treasury on 
     October 1, 2004, and that may provide for the redistribution 
     of such funds for outreach and enrollment as well as for 
     coverage initiatives, the chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget may revise allocations of new budget authority and 
     outlays, revenue aggregates, and other appropriate measures 
     to reflect such legislation, if such legislation would not 
     increase the deficit for fiscal year 2006 and for the period 
     of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.


                           amendment no. 209

(Purpose: To modify a provision defining advance appropriations subject 
                               to limit)

       On page 41, line 17, strike ``au-'' and all that follows 
     through ``in'' on line 19, and insert: ``authority in''


                           Amendment no. 226

  (Purpose: To restore discretionary funding levels for crucial rural 
 health programs, such as the rural health outreach grant program, the 
     rural hospital flexibility grant program, the small hospital 
    improvement program, telehealth, trauma programs, and rural AED 
     programs to fiscal year 2005 levels and offset this change by 
           reductions in overall government travel expenses)

       On page 18, line 16, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 18, line 17, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 24, line 16, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 24, line 17, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.


                     Amendment No. 180, as modified

   (Purpose: To provide a deficit neutral reserve fund for the Hope 
                                credit)

       On page 40, after line 8 insert the following:

     SEC. ___. RESERVE FOR FUNDING OF HOPE CREDIT.

       If the Committee on Finance of the Senate reports a bill or 
     joint resolution, or an amendment thereto is offered or a 
     conference report thereon is submitted, that increases the 
     Hope credit to $4,000 and makes the credit available for 4 
     years, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may revise 
     committee allocations for the Committee on Finance and other 
     appropriate budgetary aggregates and allocations of new 
     budget authority and outlays by the amount provided by that 
     measure for that purpose, if that measure includes offsets 
     including legislation closing corporate tax loopholes and 
     would not increase the deficit for fiscal year 2006 and for 
     the period of fiscal years 2006 though 2010.


                           Amendment No. 198

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding funding for the 
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration for subsonic and 
                    hypersonic aeronautics research)

       At the end of title V, add the following:

[[Page 5223]]



     SEC. 510. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FUNDING FOR SUBSONIC 
                   AND HYPERSONIC AERONAUTICS RESEARCH BY THE 
                   NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The economic and military security of the United States 
     depends on the continued development of improved aeronautics 
     technologies.
       (2) Research and development on many emerging aeronautics 
     technologies is often too expensive or removed in terms of 
     time from commercial application to garner the necessary 
     level of support from the private sector.
       (3) The advances made possible by Government-funded 
     research in emerging aeronautics technologies have enabled a 
     longstanding positive balance of trade and air superiority on 
     the battlefield for the United States in recent decades.
       (4) The aeronautics industry has grown increasingly mature 
     in recent years, with growth dependent on the availability of 
     the research workforce and facilities provided by the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
       (5) Recent NASA studies have demonstrated the 
     competitiveness, and scientific merit, and necessity of 
     nearly all existing aeronautics wind tunnel and propulsion 
     testing facilities.
       (6) A minimum level of investment by NASA is necessary to 
     maintain these facilities in operational condition and to 
     prevent their financial collapse.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the level of funding provided for the Aeronautics 
     Mission Directorate within the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration should be increased by $1,582,700,000 between 
     fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2010; and
       (2) the increases provided should be applied to the Vehicle 
     Systems portion of the Aeronautics Mission Directorate budget 
     for use in subsonic and hypersonic aeronautical research.


                     Amendment No. 153 as modified

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning the care and 
                  treatment of children with HIV/AIDS)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING CHILDREN WITH HIV/
                   AIDS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Approximately 2,200,000 million children under the age 
     of 15 are infected with the HIV virus, and 1,900 children 
     worldwide are infected with HIV each day.
       (2) In 2004, it was estimated that of the 4,900,000 people 
     newly infected with HIV, 640,000 were children. The vast 
     majority of them were infected through mother-to-child 
     transmission, which includes transmission at any point during 
     pregnancy, labor, delivery, or breastfeeding.
       (3) Effective implementation of prevention of mother-to-
     child transmission of HIV and care and treatment services in 
     the United States has resulted in the near elimination (less 
     than 2 percent transmission) of mother-to-child transmission 
     of HIV/AIDS. By contrast, in resource-poor settings less than 
     10 percent of pregnant women living with HIV have access to 
     services to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV.
       (4) Currently, more than 4,000,000 children worldwide are 
     estimated to have died from AIDS.
       (5) In 2004, approximately 510,000 children died of AIDS, 
     resulting in almost 1,400 AIDS deaths in children per day.
       (6) According to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/
     AIDS, if current trends continue by 2010, 3,500,000 of the 
     45,000,000 people infected worldwide will be children under 
     the age of 15.
       (7) At least a quarter of newborns infected with HIV die 
     before the age of one, up to 60 percent die before reaching 
     their second birthday, and overall, most die before they are 
     5 years of age.
       (8) HIV threatens to reverse the child survival and 
     developmental gains of past decades.
       (9) Research and practice have shown conclusively that 
     timely initiation of antiretroviral therapy to infants or 
     young children with HIV/AIDS can preserve or restore their 
     immune functions, promote normal growth and development, and 
     prolong life.
       (10) There is clear evidence in resource-rich countries 
     that antiretroviral treatment in children is very effective. 
     For example, many children who were infected through mother-
     to-child transmission in the United States are living with 
     HIV as young adults.
       (11) Few programs specifically target the treatment of 
     children with HIV/AIDS in resource-poor countries due to 
     significant challenges in diagnosing and treating infants and 
     young children with HIV. Such challenges include difficulty 
     in diagnosing HIV in infants less than 18 months of age, lack 
     of appropriate and affordable pediatric HIV/AIDS medicines, 
     and lack of trained health care providers.
       (12) Children are not small adults and treating them as 
     such can seriously jeopardize their health.
       (13) Children should not be forgotten in the fight against 
     the global HIV/AIDS pandemic.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that this resolution assumes that--
       (1)(A) assistance should be provided to support the 
     expansion of programs to prevent mother-to-child transmission 
     of HIV as an integral component of a comprehensive approach 
     to fighting HIV/AIDS;
       (B) to facilitate the expansion described in subparagraph 
     (A)--
       (i) more resources are needed for infrastructure 
     improvements and education and training of health care 
     workers; and
       (ii) better linkages between mother-to-child transmission 
     and broader care and treatment programs should be created for 
     women, children, and families who are in need of access to 
     expanded services;
       (2) assistance should be provided to support the care and 
     treatment of children with HIV/AIDS, including the 
     development and purchase of high-quality, Food and Drug 
     Administration-approved pediatric formulations of 
     antiretroviral drugs and other HIV/AIDS medicines, including 
     fixed-dose combinations, pediatric-specific training to 
     doctors and other health-care personnel, and the purchase of 
     pediatric-appropriate technologies;
       (3) antiretroviral drugs intended for pediatric use should 
     include age-appropriate dosing information;
       (4) health care sites in resource-poor countries need 
     better diagnostic capacity and appropriate supplies to 
     provide care and treatment services for children, and 
     additional training is required to ensure that health care 
     providers can administer specialized care services for 
     children; and
       (5) pediatric care and treatment should be integrated into 
     the existing health care framework so children and families 
     can be treated simultaneously.


                           Amendment No. 182

(Purpose: Expressing the sense of the Senate on the acquisition of the 
                    next generation destroyer (DDX))

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. 510. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE ACQUISITION OF 
                   THE NEXT GENERATION DESTROYER (DDX).

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The Quadrennial Defense Review to be conducted in 2005 
     has not been completed.
       (2) The national security of the United States is best 
     served by a competitive industrial base consisting of at 
     least two shipyards capable of constructing major surface 
     combatants.
       (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) it is ill-advised for the Department of Defense to 
     pursue a winner-take-all strategy for the acquisition of 
     destroyers under the next generation destroyer (DDX) program; 
     and
       (2) the amounts identified in this resolution assume that 
     the Department of Defense will not acquire any destroyer 
     under the next generation destroyer program through a winner-
     take-all strategy.
       (c) Winner-Take-All Strategy Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``winner-take-all strategy'', with respect to the 
     acquisition of destroyers under the next generation destroyer 
     program, means the acquisition (including design and 
     construction) of such destroyers through a single shipyard.


                           Amendment No. 180

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this amendment would increase the Hope 
credit to $4,000 and make it available for 4 years of college. The core 
of the American Dream is getting a college education and I want to make 
sure that every student has access to that dream. I want to help 
families who are trying to send their children to college and adults 
who are going back to school for their first degree or their third.
  Our middle-class families are stressed and stretched. Families in my 
state of Maryland are worried--they're worried about their jobs and 
they're terrified of losing their healthcare when costs keep 
ballooning. Many are holding down more than one job to make ends meet. 
They're racing from carpools to work and back again. But most of all, 
they don't know how they can afford to send their kids to college. And 
they want to know what we in the United States Senate are doing to help 
them.
  That's why I want to give every family sending a child to college a 
$4,000 tuition tax credit. This amendment would give help to those who 
practice self help--the families who are working and saving to send 
their child to college or update their own skills.
  College tuition is on the rise across America. Tuition at the 
University of Maryland has increased by almost 40 percent since 2002. 
Tuition for Baltimore Community College rose by $300

[[Page 5224]]

in one year. The average total cost of going to a 4-year public college 
is $10,635 per year, including tuition, fees, room and board. 
University of Maryland will cost more than $15,000 for a full time 
undergraduate student who lives on campus.
  Financial Aid isn't keeping up with these rising costs. Pell Grants 
cover only 40 percent of average costs at 4-year public colleges. 
Twenty years ago, Pell Grants covered 80 percent of average costs. Our 
students are graduating with so much debt it's like their first 
mortgage. The average undergraduate student debt from college loans is 
almost $19,000. College is part of the American Dream; it shouldn't be 
part of the American financial nightmare.
  Families are looking for help. I'm sad to say, the President doesn't 
offer them much hope. The Republican budget has all the wrong 
priorities. President Bush proposed increasing the maximum Pell Grant 
by just $100 to $4,150. I want to double Pell Grants. Instead of easing 
the burden on middle class families, the Republican budget helps out 
big business cronies with lavish tax breaks while eating into Social 
Security and creating deficits as far as the eye can see.
  We need to do more to help middle-class families afford college. We 
need to immediately increase the maximum Pell Grant to $4,500 and 
double it over the next 6 years. We need to make sure student loans are 
affordable. And we need a bigger tuition tax credit for the families 
stuck in the middle who aren't eligible for Pell Grants but still can't 
afford college.
  A $4,000 tax credit for tuition will go a long way. It will give 
middle class families some relief by helping the first-time student at 
our 4-year institutions like University of Maryland and the midcareer 
student at our terrific community colleges. A $4,000 tax credit would 
be 60 percent of the tuition at Maryland and enough to cover the cost 
of tuition at most community colleges. My amendment would help make 
college affordable for everyone.
  College education is more important than ever: 40 percent of new jobs 
in the next 10 years will require post-secondary education. College is 
important to families and it's important to our economy. To compete in 
the global economy, we need to make sure all our children have 21st 
century skills for 21st century jobs. And the benefits of education 
help not just the individual but society as a whole.
  To have a safer America and a stronger economy, we need to have a 
smarter America. We need to invest in our human capital to create a 
world class workforce. That means making a college education 
affordable.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, there is a genuine effort going forward to 
reduce the number of amendments pending before the body. We still have 
an incredible number of amendments out there--somewhere in the vicinity 
of 30, at the minimum. At the rate we are going, that is about 8 to 9 
hours of voting. It would be helpful if folks would sit down with the 
leadership on both sides, if they have amendments, and try to determine 
ways to deal with those and determine if it is necessary to go forward 
with them, or maybe we can do them in a more expeditious way than to 
formally vote on them. I hope we can get that sort of assistance.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, just to report to the colleagues, we have 
five more amendments in this queue. We have five amendments that we are 
working to try to get approved. We have 23 amendments beyond that.
  I make an appeal. There are a number of Senators with multiple 
amendments. We have 8 Senators that, among them, have 20 amendments. I 
appeal to those Senators, please work with leadership to try to reduce 
those amendments. We are working diligently to get, as we have just 
seen described by the chairman, a series of amendments approved. Let's 
work and make modifications where necessary, where we can get others 
handled in that way. If we don't do this, we are going to be here at 
3:30 tomorrow morning. So please, let's get these amendments worked 
out. These are 5-minute votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 225

  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 225.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri, [Mr. Talent], for himself, Mr. 
     Thune, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr. Wyden, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 225.

  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To provide the flexibility to consider all available 
                    transportation funding options)

       On page 39, lines 8 and 9 strike ``net new user-fee 
     receipts related to the purposes of'' and insert ``receipts 
     to''.

  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I will just take 30 seconds.
  This amendment is endorsed by all the major transportation groups. 
The budget resolution restricts the transportation funding available to 
the Finance Committee. Our amendment changes the language to be 
consistent with past conference reports and budget resolutions. It 
ensures that transportation funding options are on the table when we 
consider the highway bill. It doesn't affect the budget neutrality.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this takes the fund, the purpose of which 
is to allow the Senate to spend more than the $284 billion but requires 
that that be genuinely paid for, and turns it into a reserve fund. The 
pay-fors will become not necessarily illusory but close to that. I 
don't think it is good policy to do that. I would rather we had a 
strong statement that if we are going to go over the $284 billion, it 
is really going to be paid for.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 72 Leg.]

                                YEAS--81

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Martinez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--19

     Alexander
     Allard
     Burr
     Coburn
     DeMint
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Kyl
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Sessions
     Stevens
     Sununu
  The amendment (No. 225) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 243

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the Conrad amendment No. 
243. There is 1 minute equally divided.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this amendment says simply that we ought 
to repeal the tax that applies to Social Security benefits; that we 
should do it in a way that does not cut Medicare funding and that does 
not further increase deficits and debt.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. 
It

[[Page 5225]]

has no meaning at all, and it is not paid for by any method, so it 
means nothing. The senior citizen is still stuck with the additional 
35-percent tax on their benefits on Social Security.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, 30 seconds off my leader time. This 
amendment is fully paid for, and it has exactly the same force and 
effect of law, as does the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
243.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 73 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--6

     Allard
     Bunning
     Hagel
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Voinovich
  The amendment (No. 243) was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 241

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on amendment No. 241.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. For my 94 colleagues who just voted for that sense-of-
the-Senate amendment, they now have a chance to vote for the real thing 
that actually pays for it. We put instructions in our resolution to the 
Finance Committee to actually set aside money to pay for this. The 
amendment my colleagues voted for last time made them feel good, but it 
did not do anything for our senior citizens and reduce the tax of 35 
percent on the Social Security income they get. This is a chance to do 
just that. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let us be clear, the Bunning amendment 
doubles the tax cut, undermines funding for Medicare, and provides 
absolutely no assurance that the additional tax cut will be used to 
eliminate the tax on Social Security benefits.
  So let's be clear. It doubles the tax cut. It undermines funding for 
Medicare. It provides no assurance that the money would be used to 
reduce the tax on Social Security benefits.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 241.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 74 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Voinovich
     Wyden
  The amendment (No. 241) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I oppose the taxation of Social Security 
benefits. Nevertheless, deficits continue to rise to alarming levels, 
and the tax cuts authorized by this budget resolution will worsen those 
deficits significantly. I urge the Finance Committee to pay for any tax 
cuts included in the reconciliation bill authorized by this budget 
resolution.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, can we get order so we can discuss where we 
are? We still have a lot of amendments pending and we are going to be 
here well into tomorrow morning at this rate. It would be very helpful 
if Members would come forward and agree to either adjust their 
amendment so they didn't have to have it heard tonight or reach an 
agreement where we did not have to vote on it. Otherwise, we are 
heading for the wee hours of tomorrow morning. I know Senator Conrad 
had some thoughts on how we might address this.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, there has been excellent cooperation. I 
thank our colleagues. We have removed at least 80 amendments. But here 
is where we stand at the moment. We still have 24 or 25 amendments. We 
need to take a break because we need to have the desk crew take a 
break. They have worked nonstop. We are going to need to take about a 
30-minute break. But to be able to do that and not wind up right back 
at 3 a.m., because we have made some progress now, we are headed for 
about 1:45 right now if all the amendments are voted on that are in 
queue, we have to ask colleagues to please let us know if you can 
accept a vote on your amendment on a later vehicle. That is the only 
way we are going to avoid it.
  You can do the math yourself: 25 votes, 4 an hour, 6 more hours--that 
is right back at 2 o'clock in the morning.
  So, please, during these next two votes, those who have amendments 
that do not have to be on this vehicle, come to us and let's see if we 
cannot work something out.
  Senator Clinton is next up.


                     Amendment No. 244, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized on 
amendment 244.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I send a modified version of the 
amendment to the desk, and ask unanimous consent that it be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The amendment is modified.
  The amendment, (No. 244) as modified, is as follows:

       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $54,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $7,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $54,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $7,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $2,000,000.

[[Page 5226]]

       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $54,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $7,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 18, line 21, increase the amount by $54,000,000.
       On page 18, line 25, increase the amount by $7,000,000.
       On page 18, line 16, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 18, line 17, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
       On page 19, line 4, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 30, line 16, decrease the amount by $36,000,000.
       On page 30, line 17, decrease the amount by $54,000,000.
       On page 48, line 6, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 48, line 7, increase the amount by $36,000,000.
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING PREVENTIVE HEALTH 
                   CARE SERVICES.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     included family planning in its published list of the Ten 
     Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century, the 
     United States still has one of the highest rates of 
     unintended pregnancies among industrialized nations.
       (2) Increasing access to family planning services will 
     improve women's health and reduce the rates of unintended 
     pregnancy, abortion, and infection with sexually transmitted 
     infections.
       (3) Contraceptive use saves public health dollars. Every 
     dollar spent on providing family planning services saves an 
     estimated $3 in expenditures for pregnancy-related and 
     newborn care for Medicaid alone.
       (4) Each year, 3,000,000 pregnancies, nearly half of all 
     pregnancies, in the United States are unintended, and nearly 
     half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion.
       (5) In 2002, 34,000,000 women--half of all women of 
     reproductive age were in need of contraceptive services and 
     supplies to help prevent unintended pregnancy, and half of 
     those were in need of public support for such care.
       (6) The United States also has the highest rate of 
     infection with sexually transmitted infections of any 
     industrialized country. In 2003 there were approximately 
     19,000,000 new cases of sexually transmitted infections. 
     According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     (November 2004), these sexually transmitted infections impose 
     a tremendous economic burden with direct medical costs as 
     high as $15,500,000,000 per year.
       (7) The child born from an unintended pregnancy is at 
     greater risk of low birth weight, dying in the first year of 
     life, being abused, and not receiving sufficient resources 
     for healthy development.
       (8) Each year, services under title X of the Public Health 
     Service Act enable Americans to prevent approximately 
     1,000,000 unintended pregnancies, and one in three women of 
     reproductive age who obtains testing or treatment for 
     sexually transmitted infections does so at a title X-funded 
     clinic. In 2003, title X-funded clinics provided 2,800,000 
     Pap tests, 5,100,000 sexually transmitted infection tests, 
     and 526,000 HIV tests.
       (9) The increasing number of uninsured individuals, 
     stagnant funding, health care inflation, new and expensive 
     contraceptive technologies, and improved but expensive 
     screening and treatment for cervical cancer and sexually 
     transmitted infections, have diminished the ability of 
     clinics funded under title X of the Public Health Service Act 
     to adequately serve all those in need. Taking medical 
     inflation into account, funding for the program under such 
     title X declined by 59 percent between 1980 and 2004.
       (10) Although employer-sponsored health plans have improved 
     coverage of contraceptive services and supplies, largely in 
     response to State contraceptive coverage laws, there is still 
     significant room for improvement. Half of the 45,000,000 
     women of reproductive age currently live in the 29 States 
     without contraceptive coverage policies. These women may 
     still find the most effective forms of contraceptives beyond 
     their financial reach due to a lack of coverage.
       (11) Including contraceptive coverage in private health 
     care plans saves employers money. Not covering contraceptives 
     in employee health plans costs employers 15 to 17 percent 
     more than providing such coverage.
       (12) Approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration, 
     emergency contraception is a safe and effective way to 
     prevent unintended pregnancy after unprotected sex. It is 
     estimated that the use of emergency contraception could cut 
     the number of unintended pregnancies in half, thereby 
     reducing the need for abortion. New research confirms that 
     easier access to emergency contraceptives does not increase 
     sexual risk-taking or sexually transmitted infections.
       (13) In 2000, 51,000 abortions were prevented by the use of 
     emergency contraception. Increased use of emergency 
     contraception accounted for up to 43 percent of the total 
     decline in abortions between 1994 and 2000.
       (14) Thirteen percent of all teens give birth before age 
     20. Eighty-eight percent of births to teens age 17 or younger 
     were unintended. Twenty-four percent of Hispanic females gave 
     birth before the age of 20. (Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, December 2004).
       (15) Children born to teen moms begin life with the odds 
     against them. They are less likely to be ready for 
     kindergarten, more likely to be of low-birth weight, 50 
     percent more likely to repeat a grade, more likely to live in 
     poverty, and significantly more likely to be victims of abuse 
     and neglect.
       (16) Research shows that a range of initiatives, including 
     sex education, youth development and service learning 
     programs, can encourage teens to behave responsibly by 
     delaying sexual activity and pregnancy. Federal tax dollars 
     are best invested in programs with research-based evidence of 
     success.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that this resolution assumes that--
       (1) $100,000,000 of the amount provided for under function 
     category 550 (health) for fiscal year 2006 may be used for 
     any or all of the following--
       (A) to fund increases in amounts appropriated to carry out 
     title X of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300 et 
     seq.) above amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2005;
       (B) to fund legislation that would require equitable 
     coverage of prescription contraceptive drugs and devices, and 
     contraceptive services under health plans;
       (C) to fund legislation that would create a public 
     education program administered through the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention concerning the use, safety, 
     efficacy, and availability of emergency contraception that 
     is--
       (i) approved by the Food and Drug administration to prevent 
     pregnancy; and
       (ii) used post-coitally; or
       (D) to fund legislation that would permit the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services to award, on a competitive basis, 
     grants to public and private entities to establish or expand 
     teenage pregnancy prevention programs or to disseminate 
     information to educators and parents about the most effective 
     strategies for preventing teen pregnancy (funds made 
     available under the authority of this subparagraph are not 
     intended for use by abstinence-only education programs);
       (2) the prevention programs described in paragraph (1) are 
     cost effective and will achieve savings by--
       (A) reducing the number of unintended pregnancies;
       (B) reducing the rate of sexually transmitted infections;
       (C) reducing the costs to the medicaid program under title 
     XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.); and
       (D) providing for the early detection of HIV and early 
     detection of breast and cervical cancer; and
       (3) the increase in funding described in paragraph (1) is 
     offset by an increase in revenues of not to exceed 
     $200,000,000 to be derived from closing corporate tax 
     loopholes, of which the remaining $100,000,000 (after amounts 
     are expended pursuant to this section) should be used for 
     deficit reduction.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, this is the Clinton-Reid prevention 
first amendment. What it does is try to put us on record and provide 
funding for the important goal of preventing unintended pregnancies and 
abortions. What this amendment does is to increase public health 
funding for the National Family Planning Program and enact the EPIC 
bill which says to insurance companies, if you are going to provide 
insurance coverage for Viagra you should provide insurance coverage for 
contraception. It increases funding to improve awareness and education 
about emergency contraception, which is a prevention program, not 
termination, and finally funds a new teen prevention program.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment increases taxes by $200 
million and raises spending by $200 million and would prevent 
abstinence-only programs from receiving funds under it. It would also 
create a mandated insurance coverage which will increase the cost of 
insurance and create more uninsured individuals today, so I recommend a 
vote against it.

[[Page 5227]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--53

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 244) as modified, was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 187

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I believe my amendment is next in order. I would like 
to be able to confirm that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment of the Senator from New Jersey 
is at the desk.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in the last 4 years we have raised the 
Nation's debt limit three times, from less than $6 trillion to more 
than $8 trillion. Now we are being asked to add $446 billion of new 
debt, $1,500 for every man, woman, and child, without debate. My 
amendment says we ought to have a debate and answer the question after 
we have discussed it. The issue ought to be debated. Nothing poses a 
greater threat to our future security. The President said he doesn't 
think it is right to avoid facing up to tough issues that our children 
will have to deal with in the future. Let us face up to our 
responsibilities.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, for the edification of our colleagues, 
after this vote is completed, we will take a half hour recess to give 
the staff a rest for a little bit. Then we will be back and voting, I 
presume, sometime around quarter of 8.
  The use of reconciliation on the debt ceiling is a very common 
procedure. Our colleagues across the aisle, when they were in the 
majority, used it a number of times. It is an option that should be 
made available. We have to pay our debt and, therefore, we have to 
raise that debt ceiling. This is a very typical and appropriate way to 
handle the debt ceiling should the Finance Committee choose to pursue 
it. We are just giving them this tool and this option.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on this 
amendment.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 76 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

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

                                NAYS--54

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Chambliss
       
  The amendment (No. 187) was rejected.


                                 RECESS

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, it is now our plan to recess until 7:45, at 
which time we will vote on the Boxer amendment. That is what we will 
vote on at 7:45. It will be a 10-minute vote and we will hold that 10-
minute vote. In other words, there will not be any effort to go past 10 
minutes. We will close it out after 10 minutes.
  I ask unanimous consent that we recess until 7:45 and at 7:45 we 
shall vote on the Boxer amendment which has been submitted to both 
sides.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 7:15 p.m., recessed until 
7:45 p.m., and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding 
Officer (Mr. Burr).


                           Amendment No. 257

  Mr. GREGG. Is the amendment at the desk?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes. I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 257.

  Mrs. BOXER. 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 establish a point of order in the Senate against any 
 appropriations bill if it allows funds to be provided for prepackaged 
   news stories that do not have a disclaimer that continuously runs 
 through the presentation which says, ``Paid for by the United States 
                             Government.'')

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. POINT OF ORDER.

       (a) Point of Order in the Senate.--It shall not be in order 
     in the Senate to consider any appropriations bill if it 
     allows funds to be provided for prepackaged news stories that 
     do not have a disclaimer that continuously runs through the 
     presentation which says, ``Paid for by the United States 
     Government.''.
       (b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be 
     waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote 
     of \3/5\ of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An 
     affirmative vote of \3/5\ of the Members of the Senate, duly 
     chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain 
     an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order 
     raised under this section.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the Comptroller General of GAO tells us 
that prepackaged news that is put together by Federal agencies is 
unacceptable and that--I am quoting them--``Americans deserve to know 
when their Government is spending taxpayer money to try to influence 
them.''
  My amendment simply encourages agencies to add a disclaimer to those 
prepackaged news stories that says ``Paid for by the United States 
Government.''
  This is very important for the taxpayers to know it is their money 
that is being spent. I hope and I wish the other side would agree to 
this amendment. If not, I guess we will have to have a vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment creates a point of order on 
language which probably is not able to be given a conciseness that 
would make it effective. What does ``prepackaging'' mean? It would be 
virtually impossible to exercise this point of order,

[[Page 5228]]

and I think it would set a bad precedent for the Senate to create such 
a point of order.
  I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Mr. GREGG. This will be a 10-minute vote, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg.]

                                YEAS--44

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

                                NAYS--54

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Burns
     Clinton
       
  The amendment (No. 257) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 259

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield a minute to the Senator from 
California to make a comment on her amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senators Gregg, Conrad, Stevens, 
and Sununu. We are all working together to make sure that our oceans 
can finally get the attention they deserve. We have a new commission on 
oceans. Admiral Watkins is working hard on that commission. What we are 
doing, which has been agreed to on all sides, is simply saying we need 
to enact a comprehensive, coordinated, integrated national ocean policy 
that will ensure the long-term economic and ecological health of the 
U.S. oceans, coasts, and lakes.
  I think it is wonderful that we can come together on this, and on the 
Commerce Committee we will be working to make sure this happens.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask that this amendment be adopted.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 259) was agreed to, as follows:

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the need for a 
   comprehensive, coordinated, and integrated national ocean policy)

       On page 65, after line 25, insert the following:

     SEC. 510. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE NEED FOR A 
                   COMPREHENSIVE, COORDINATED, AND INTEGRATED 
                   NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States Commission on Ocean Policy and the 
     Pew Ocean Commission have each completed and published 
     independent findings on the state of the United States 
     oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes.
       (2) The findings made by the Commissions include the 
     following:
       (A) The United States oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes are a 
     vital component of the economy of the United States.
       (B) The resources and ecosystems associated with the United 
     States oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes are in trouble.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the President and the Congress should--
       (1) expeditiously consider the recommendations of the 
     United States Commission on Ocean Policy during the 109th 
     Congress; and
       (2) enact a comprehensive, coordinated, and integrated 
     national ocean policy that will ensure the long-term economic 
     and ecological health of the United States oceans, coasts, 
     and Great Lakes.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we just had a good example, one amendment 
cleared and one dropped. We need to do more of that. We have 20 
amendments left here, 7 on the other side; that is 27. We have a lot of 
work to do. We need Senators to be willing to give up some of these 
amendments. They can offer them at a later time. I ask my colleagues to 
consider that.
  I thank the Senator from California.


                           Amendment No. 211

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the next item will be a 5-minute vote, with 
1 minute to speak about it. It is Senator Dorgan's amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is amendment No. 211. This amendment 
adds back $1 billion to the Indian accounts. We all know we have a bona 
fide crisis in health care, housing, and education on Indian 
reservations in this country. Many of those appropriations have been 
cut. This amendment restores some of that cut. It is $1 billion, which 
would be paid for by closing a tax loophole.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment would raise taxes by $3.25 
billion. It is a tax-and-spend amendment. There is absolutely no 
assurance that any of these funds would go as represented on the 
amendment. That would be a decision made by the proper authorizing or 
appropriating committee.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     Ms. Cantwell, and Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 
     211.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To restore funding for tribal programs and provide necessary 
additional funding based on recommendations from Indian country and to 
                          reduce the deficit.)

       On page 3 line 10, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 3 line 11, increase the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 3 line 12, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 3 line 13, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 3 line 14, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 3 line 19, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 3 line 20, increase the amount by $600,000,000.
       On page 3 line 21, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 4 line 1, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 4 line 2, increase the amount by $700,000,000.
       On page 4 line 7, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 4 line 16, increase the amount by $589,000,000.
       On page 4 line 17, increase the amount by $195,000,000.
       On page 4 line 18, increase the amount by $87,000,000.
       On page 4 line 19, increase the amount by $66,000,000.
       On page 4 line 20, increase the amount by $38,000,000.
       On page 4 line 24, decrease the amount by $89,000,000.
       On page 4 line 25, increase the amount by $405,000,000.
       On page 5 line 1, increase the amount by $613,000,000.
       On page 5 line 2, increase the amount by $634,000,000.
       On page 5 line 3, increase the amount by $662,000,000.
       On page 5 line 7, increase the amount by $89,000,000.

[[Page 5229]]

       On page 5 line 8, decrease the amount by $316,000,000.
       On page 5 line 9, decrease the amount by $929,000,000.
       On page 5 line 10, decrease the amount by $1,563,000,000.
       On page 5 line 11, decrease the amount by $2,225,000,000.
       On page 5 line 15, increase the amount by $89,000,000.
       On page 5 line 16, decrease the amount by $316,000,000.
       On page 5 line 17, decrease the amount by $929,000,000.
       On page 5 line 18, decrease the amount by $1,563,000,000.
       On page 5 line 19, decrease the amount by $2,225,000,000.
       On page 12 line 15, increase the amount by $135,000,000.
       On page 12 line 16, increase the amount by $7,000,000.
       On page 12 line 20, increase the amount by $20,000,000.
       On page 12 line 24, increase the amount by $41,000,000.
       On page 13 line 3, increase the amount by $41,000,000.
       On page 13 line 7, increase the amount by $20,000,000.
       On page 16 line 15, increase the amount by $330,000,000.
       On page 16 line 16, increase the amount by $222,000,000.
       On page 16 line 20, increase the amount by $80,000,000.
       On page 16 line 24, increase the amount by $14,000,000.
       On page 17 line 3, increase the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 17 line 7, increase the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 17 line 16, increase the amount by $80,000,000.
       On page 17 line 17, increase the amount by $37,000,000.
       On page 17 line 21, increase the amount by $34,000,000.
       On page 17 line 25, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 18 line 4, increase the amount by $2,000,000.
       On page 18 line 16, increase the amount by $300,000,000.
       On page 18 line 17, increase the amount by $270,000,000.
       On page 18 line 21, increase the amount by $27,000,000.
       On page 18 line 25, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 20 line 16, increase the amount by $130,000,000.
       On page 20 line 17, increase the amount by $47,000,000.
       On page 20 line 21, increase the amount by $26,000,000.
       On page 20 line 25, increase the amount by $18,000,000
       On page 21 line 4, increase the amount by $15,000,000.
       On page 21 line 8, increase the amount by $14,000,000.
       On page 23 line 16, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 23 line 17, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 23 line 21, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 23 line 25, increase the amount by $5,000,000.
       On page 24 line 4, increase the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 24 line 8, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 30 line 16, decrease the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 30 line 17, decrease the amount by $3,200,000,000.
       On page 48 line 6, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 48 line 7, increase the amount by $589,000,000.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 78 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

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

                                NAYS--55

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 211) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the next amendment will be from the Senator 
from Wisconsin for 30 seconds.


                           Amendment No. 258

  Mr. FEINGOLD. I call up amendment No. 258.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself and 
     Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 258.

  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To ensure that savings associated with legislation that 
   reduces overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans is reserved for 
  deficit reduction and to strengthen the Federal Hospital Insurance 
                              Trust Fund)

       On page 40, after line 8, insert the following:

     SEC. __. RESERVE FUND FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION AND TO STRENGTHEN 
                   THE PART A TRUST FUND.

       The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the aggregates, allocations, functional totals, and 
     other appropriate levels and limits in this resolution upon 
     enactment of legislation that achieves savings under the 
     medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act 
     by reducing overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans (such as 
     legislation that requires the full amount of savings from the 
     implementation of risk adjusted payments to Medicare 
     Advantage plans to accrue to the medicare program, that 
     eliminates the plan stabilization fund under section 1858(e) 
     of such Act, and that adjusts the MA area-specific non-drug 
     monthly benchmark amount under part C of such title to 
     exclude payments for the indirect costs of medical education 
     under section 1886(d)(5)(B) of such Act), by the amount of 
     savings in that legislation, to ensure that those savings are 
     reserved for deficit reduction and to strengthen the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in deference to the request of our two 
floor leaders, I will not ask for a rollcall vote, but I do hope my 
colleagues will voice their support for this amendment.
  This is real deficit reduction. The other side keeps asking us to cut 
spending. This amendment does just that. This amendment cuts over $20 
billion from the Medicare Program and unnecessary overpayments to 
private Medicare plans.
  We have a simple choice: subsidize private health insurance companies 
or reduce the deficit. The private Medicare plans are successful in 
bringing costs down and if the senior supposedly wants to choose 
private plans, then why should American taxpayers pay private companies 
more money than traditional Medicare?
  We heard a lot of talk from the other side about the need to cut 
spending. This amendment is a fiscally responsible effort to bring down 
the deficit. I urge my colleagues' support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it is amazing to me that this is the 
second time tonight that we have had people who are standing around 
wanting to change the Medicare Modernization Act, and it does not even 
go into effect until the 2006. We do not even know that all this money 
my colleague wants to save will ever be spent in the first place, and 
if it is spent, it is to bring the plans to rural Wisconsin so that his 
folks in rural Wisconsin can have the same benefits as people in 
Florida or Los Angeles. It was a major compromise of this bill. We 
ought to preserve that compromise because it is for rural America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. I suggest a voice vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin already suggested

[[Page 5230]]

a voice vote. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 258.
  The amendment (No. 258) was rejected.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the next amendment is an amendment from the 
Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 203

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am offering a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment intended to head off the administration's plans to raid the 
Crime Victims Fund of more than $1.2 billion. I am joined by Senators 
Kennedy, Mikulski, Feingold, Biden, Durbin, Obama, and Dodd on this 
amendment.
  We created this fund under the Victims Crime Act of 1984 to be used 
for the victims of crime. We made a solemn promise these funds would be 
there. The budget resolution rescinds all amounts remaining in the 
fund. It is wrong. We should not be saying your suffering--even though 
we promised with great fanfare, the President and everybody else 
promised that your suffering is going to be our concern. We should not 
say it is no longer that way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suspect under the rules adopted earlier 
this evening, with the way things are going to be accounted for in the 
Appropriations Committee, the point of this amendment will be moot.
  I suggest a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for himself, Mr. 
     Kennedy, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Biden, 
     and Mr. Obama, proposes an amendment numbered 203.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate in support of full funding 
              and availability of the Crime Victims Fund)

       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE CRIME VICTIMS FUND.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:--
       (1) The Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (``VOCA'') was enacted 
     to provide Federal financial support for services to victims 
     of all types of crime, primarily through grants to state 
     crime victim compensation and victim assistance programs.
       (2) VOCA created the Crime Victims Fund (``the Fund'') as a 
     separate account into which are deposited monies collected 
     from persons convicted of Federal criminal offenses, 
     including criminal fines, forfeitures and special 
     assessments. There are no general taxpayer generated revenues 
     deposited into the Fund.
       (3) Each fiscal year, the Fund is used to support--
       (A) Children's Justice Act grants to States to improve the 
     investigation and prosecution of child abuse cases;
       (B) victim witness coordinators in United States Attorney's 
     Offices;
       (C) victim assistance specialists in Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation field offices;
       (D) discretionary grants by the Office for Victims of Crime 
     to provide training and technical assistance and services to 
     victims of Federal crimes;
       (E) formula grants to States to supplement State crime 
     victim compensation programs, which reimburse more than 
     150,000 violent crime victims annually for out-of-pocket 
     expenses, including medical expenses, mental health 
     counseling, lost wages, loss of support and funeral costs;
       (F) formula grants to States for financial assistance to 
     upwards of 4,400 programs providing direct victim assistance 
     services to nearly 4,000,000 victims of all types of crimes 
     annually, with priority for programs serving victims of 
     domestic violence, sexual assault and child abuse, and 
     previously underserved victims of violent crime; and
       (G) the Antiterrorism Emergency Reserve, to assist victims 
     of domestic and international terrorism.
       (4) Just 4 months ago, a strong bipartisan, bicameral 
     majority in Congress affirmed its support for the Crime 
     Victims Fund and increased its commitment to crime victims in 
     the Justice for All Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-405), which 
     establishes Federal crime victims rights and authorized 2 new 
     VOCA-funded victim programs.
       (5) Before fiscal year 2000, all amounts deposited into the 
     Crime Victims Fund in each fiscal year were made available 
     for authorized programs in the subsequent fiscal year.
       (6) Beginning in fiscal year 2000, Congress responded to 
     large fluctuations of deposits into the Fund by delaying 
     obligations from the Fund above certain amount, as follows:
       (A) For fiscal year 2000, $500,000,000.
       (B) For fiscal year 2001, $537,500,000.
       (C) For fiscal year 2002, $550,000,000.
       (D) For fiscal year 2003, $600,000,000.
       (E) For fiscal year 2004, $625,000,000.
       (F) For fiscal year 2005, $625,000,000.
       (7) In the conference report on an omnibus spending bill 
     for fiscal year 2000 (Public Law 106-113), Congress explained 
     that the reason for delaying annual Fund obligations was ``to 
     protect against wide fluctuations in receipts into the Fund, 
     and to ensure that a stable level of funding will remain 
     available for these programs in future years''.
       (8) VOCA mandates that ``. . . all sums deposited in the 
     Fund in any fiscal year that are not made available for 
     obligation by Congress in the subsequent fiscal year shall 
     remain in the Fund for obligation in future fiscal years, 
     without fiscal year limitation''.
       (9) For fiscal year 2006, the President is recommending 
     ``rescission'' of $1,267,000,000 from amounts in the Fund.
       (10) The rescission proposed by the President would result 
     in no funds being available to support crime victim services 
     at the start of fiscal year 2007. Further, such rescission 
     would make the Fund vulnerable to fluctuations in receipts 
     into the Fund, and would not ensure that a stable level of 
     funding will remain available for vital programs in future 
     years.
       (11) Retention of all amounts deposited into the Fund for 
     the immediate and future use of crime victim services as 
     authorized by VOCA is supported by many major national victim 
     service organizations, including--
       (A) Justice Solutions, NPO;
       (B) National Organization for Victim Assistance;
       (C) National Alliance to End Sexual Violence;
       (D) National Children's Alliance;
       (E) National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators;
       (F) National Association of Crime Victim Compensation 
     Boards;
       (G) Mothers Against Drunk Driving;
       (H) National Center for Victims of Crime;
       (I) National Organization for Parents of Murdered Children;
       (J) National Coalition Against Domestic Violence;
       (K) Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape; and
       (L) National Network to End Domestic Violence.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the funding levels in this resolution assume that all 
     amounts that have been and will be deposited into the Crime 
     Victims Fund, including amounts deposited in fiscal year 2006 
     and thereafter, shall remain in the Fund for use as 
     authorized under the Victims of Crime Act of 1984.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
203.
  The amendment (No. 203) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the next amendment will be offered by the 
Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 169

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, this is one of the most important things 
we can do to meet the pandemic afflicting Africa right now. The 
President came up with a great number for bilateral aid. We are still a 
little short on the global fund. This is to add half a billion dollars 
to the global fund to make sure we can meet our commitment to provide 
drugs and services to this pandemic.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am happy to join the Senator from 
Pennsylvania in a bipartisan effort to attack the deadliest epidemic in 
modern times. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum], for himself, 
     Mr. Durbin, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mr. 
     Dodd, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kohl, Mr. 
     Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Murray, and Ms. 
     Stabenow proposes an amendment numbered 169.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: Reaffirming that the United States maintain a one-to-two 
ratio for contributions to the Global Fund, that the United States not 
exceed contributing more than 33 percent of the Global Fund's revenue, 
and that the United States contribute an additional $500,000,000 to the 
    Global Fund for Fiscal Year 2006, for a total of not less than 
   $3,700,000,000 for all international HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and 
                           malaria programs)

       On page 9, line 15, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 9, line 16, increase the amount by $500,000,000.

[[Page 5231]]

       On page 26, line 14, decrease the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 26, line 15, decrease the amount by $500,000,000.
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. UNITED STATES RESPONSE TO GLOBAL HIV/AIDS, 
                   TUBERCULOSIS, AND MALARIA.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The HIV/AIDS pandemic has reached staggering 
     proportions. At the end of 2004, an estimated 40,000,000 
     people were infected with HIV or living with AIDS. HIV/AIDS 
     is estimated to kill 3,000,000 men, women and children each 
     year. Each year, there are estimated to be 5,000,000 new HIV 
     infections.
       (2) The United States was the first, and remains the 
     largest, contributor to the Global Fund.
       (3) The Presidential Administration of George W. Bush 
     (referred to in this section as the ``Administration'') has 
     supported language in the Global HIV/AIDS authorization bill 
     that links United States contributions to the Global Fund to 
     the contributions of other donors, permitting the United 
     States to provide 33 percent of all donations, which would 
     match contributions on a one-to-two basis.
       (4) Congress has provided one-third of all donations to the 
     Global Fund every year of the Fund's existence.
       (5) For fiscal year 2006, the Global Fund estimates it will 
     renew $2,400,000,000 worth of effective programs that are 
     already operating on the ground, and the Administration and 
     Fund Board have said that renewals of existing grants should 
     receive priority funding.
       (6) The Global Fund is an important component of United 
     States efforts to combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, and 
     supports approximately 300 projects in 130 countries.
       (7) For fiscal year 2006, the President has requested 
     $300,000,000 for the United States contribution to the Global 
     Fund.
       (8) Through a mid-year review process, Congress and the 
     Administration will assess contributions to date and 
     anticipated contributions to the Global Fund, and ensure that 
     United States contributions, at year-end, are at the 
     appropriate one-to-two ratio.
       (9) Congress and the Administration will monitor 
     contributions to the Global Fund to ensure that United States 
     contributions do not exceed one-third of the Global Fund's 
     revenues.
       (10) In order to cover one-third of renewals during fiscal 
     year 2006, and to maintain the one-to-two funding match, the 
     United States will need to contribute an additional 
     $500,000,000 above the President's request for the Global 
     Fund for fiscal year 2006 to keep good programs funded at a 
     level of $800,000,000.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the assumptions underlying this budget resolution assume 
     that none of the offsets needed to provide $800,000,000 for 
     the Global Fund will come from international humanitarian 
     assistance programs.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
169.
  The amendment (No. 169) was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
  Mr. CONRAD. What is the next amendment in the queue?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The only amendment that has been proposed but 
not disposed of is the Allen amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. Is this the Allen amendment relative to NASA?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is correct.
  Mr. GREGG. That amendment was agreed to by unanimous consent, as 
modified, in a tranche of amendments we did earlier this evening. We 
will get this clarified, Mr. President.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask that we recognize Senator Lincoln 
for the purpose of offering an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 192

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I would imagine that everyone in this 
body has heard equally as much from their local sheriffs as I have 
about the problem of methamphetamines across this country, particularly 
in rural America.
  What this amendment does is it takes and restores the funding from 
the COPS initiative to methamphetamine enforcement and cleanup. We have 
seen tremendous increases across this great Nation in this destructive 
drug and what it is doing to rural America.
  I compliment some of my colleagues on the other side--Senator Coleman 
and Senator Talent--who have done a lot of work on this issue. We have 
good cosponsors on this side.
  We pay for this initiative by some of the tax loopholes that did not 
seem to get closed in the FSC/ETI package. We are glad to work with our 
colleagues in any way possible to get this funding out to our States, 
out to our local law enforcement officers. They are having a 
devastating time trying to address this issue, and I hope my colleagues 
will take a look at the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield myself a minute off the managers' time. I was 
under the impression that the Senator's amendment took the funds from 
920. Are you saying the Senator's amendment pays for this with an 
increase in taxes?
  Mrs. LINCOLN. We will be more than willing to work with the other 
side on how we pay for it. It does need to be paid for.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I reserve my time.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. We can modify the amendment if the Senator would like.
  Mr. GREGG. Why don't we reserve action on the Senator's amendment 
until we have a couple seconds to talk about it?
  Mr. President, I would like to clarify that the Allen amendment has 
been adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment that I have just offered and that the funds necessary to 
implement this amendment be taken from the 920----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Arkansas call up her 
amendment?
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 192.

  Mr. CONRAD. 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 restore funding to the COPS Methamphetamine Enforcement 
    and Clean Up Program to 2005 levels and to close corporate tax 
                               loopholes)

       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $13,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $21,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $27,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $13,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $21,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $27,000,000.
       On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 4, line 11, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $13,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $21,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $27,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 23, line 16, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 23, line 17, increase the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 23, line 20, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 23, line 21, increase the amount by $13,000,000.

[[Page 5232]]

       On page 23, line 24, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 23, line 25, increase the amount by $21,000,000.
       On page 24, line 3, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 24, line 4, increase the amount by $27,000,000.
       On page 24, line 7, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 24, line 8, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 30, line 16, decrease the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 30, line 17, decrease the amount by $97,000,000.
       On page 48, line 6, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 48, line 7, increase the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 48, line 9, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 48, line 12, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. OFFSET FOR INCREASES IN FUNDING FOR THE COPS 
                   METHAMPHETAMINE ENFORCEMENT AND CLEAN UP 
                   PROGRAM.

       It is the sense of the Senate that this resolution assumes 
     that any increases in funding for the COPS Methamphetamine 
     Enforcement Clean Up Program should be offset by increased 
     revenues to be derived from closing corporate tax loopholes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Arkansas, is the 
Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman, listed as a cosponsor?
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Senator Coleman did ask to be listed as a cosponsor. I 
ask unanimous consent that both Senator Talent and Senator Coleman be 
added as cosponsors to my amendment.
  Mr. TALENT. Yes, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 192), as modified, is as follows:

 (Purpose: To restore funding to the COPS Methamphetamine Enforcement 
    and Clean Up Program to 2005 levels and to close corporate tax 
                               loopholes)

       On page 23, line 16, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 23, line 17, increase the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 23, line 20, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 23, line 21, increase the amount by $13,000,000.
       On page 23, line 24, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 23, line 25, increase the amount by $21,000,000.
       On page 24, line 3, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 24, line 4, increase the amount by $27,000,000.
       On page 24, line 7, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 24, line 8, increase the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 26, line 14, decrease the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 26, line 15, decrease the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 26, line 18, decrease the amount by $13,000,000.
       On page 26, line 20, decrease the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $21,000,000.
       On page 26, line 23, decrease the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 26, line 24, decrease the amount by $27,000,000.
       On page 27, line 1, decrease the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 27, line 2, decrease the amount by $32,000,000.
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. OFFSET FOR INCREASES IN FUNDING FOR THE COPS 
                   METHAMPHETAMINE ENFORCEMENT AND CLEAN UP 
                   PROGRAM.

       It is the sense of the Senate that this resolution assumes 
     that any increases in funding for the COPS Methamphetamine 
     Enforcement Clean Up Program should be offset by increased 
     revenues to be derived from closing corporate tax loopholes.

  Mr. GREGG. I suggest we have a voice vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
192, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 192), as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                      Amendment No. 197 withdrawn

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, in the two matters that were listed, so we 
have this all straight, my amendment No. 197, which has not been acted 
on--we passed my amendment 198, which was a sense of the Senate insofar 
as aeronautics funding which has been adopted--I ask unanimous consent 
that amendment No. 197 be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 253

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask that we consider the Baucus 
amendment that is pending. Senator Baucus can give us 30 seconds on his 
amendment and then perhaps we could get it accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for himself, Mr. 
     Grassley, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. 
     Talent, proposes an amendment numbered 253.

  Mr. BAUCUS. 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 support full funding for HIDTAs)

       On page 65, after line 25, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE SUPPORTING FUNDING FOR HIDTAS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) 
     program encompasses 28 strategic regions, 355 task forces, 53 
     intelligence centers, 4,428 Federal personnel, and 8,459 
     State and local personnel.
       (2) The purposes of the HIDTA program  are to reduce drug 
     trafficking and drug production in designated areas in the 
     United States by--
       (A) facilitating cooperation among Federal, State, and 
     local law enforcement agencies to share information and 
     implement coordinated enforcement activities;
       (B) enhancing intelligence sharing among Federal, State, 
     and local law enforcement agencies;
       (C) providing reliable intelligence to law enforcement 
     agencies needed to design effective enforcement strategies 
     and operations; and
       (D) supporting coordinated law enforcement strategies which 
     maximize use of available resources to reduce the supply of 
     drugs in HIDTA designated areas.
       (3) In 2004, HIDTA efforts resulted in disrupting or 
     dismantling over 509 international, 711 multi-State, and 
     1,110 local drug trafficking organizations.
       (4) In 2004, HIDTA instructors trained 21,893 students in 
     cutting-edge practices to limit drug trafficking and 
     manufacturing within their areas.
       (5) The HIDTAs are the only drug enforcement coalitions 
     that include equal partnership between Federal, State, and 
     local law enforcement leaders executing a regional approach 
     to achieving regional goals while pursuing a national 
     mission.
       (6) The proposed budget of $100,000,000 for the HIDTA 
     program is inadequate to effectively maintain all of the 
     operations currently being supported.
       (7) The proposed budget of $100,000,000 for the HIDTA 
     program would undermine the viability of this program and the 
     efforts of law enforcement around the country to combat 
     illegal drugs, particularly methamphetamine.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the spending level of budget function 750 
     (Administration of Justice) is assumed to include 
     $227,000,000 for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas; 
     and
       (2) unless new legislation is enacted, it is assumed that 
     the HIDTA program will remain with the Office of National 
     Drug Control Policy, where Congress last authorized it to 
     reside.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this is very simple. It is to restore a 
cut in the HIDTA funding. HIDTA is called the High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Administration. This is the major law enforcement 
mechanism. It covers lots of different law enforcement agencies, in the 
west, particularly rural areas, to fight methamphetamine. We need the 
resources to fight methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is probably the 
largest scourge in many rural parts of America. This is designed to 
enable us to have the resources to fight methamphetamine in our 
country.

[[Page 5233]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest a voice vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on our side, we want to signal strong 
support for this amendment, and we can voice vote the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
253.
  The amendment (No. 253) was agreed to.
  Mr. TALENT. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 202

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask that we recognize Senator Dayton for 
the purpose of offering an amendment and that Senator Dayton have 1 
minute to describe his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 202 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I recognize that there is a lot going on 
right now and I apologize for a touch of confusion, but if Senator 
Dayton has been yielded 1 minute as a result of a unanimous consent, we 
ask unanimous consent for 1 minute on our side in opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Dayton], for himself, Mr. 
     Akaka, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, and Ms. Mikulski, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 202.

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

(Purpose: To provide full funding for the Individuals with Disabilities 
 Education Act, IDEA, part B grants over five years. This amendment is 
 fully offset by restoring the uppermost marginal income tax rate for 
    millionaires only, and by closing corporate tax loopholes. The 
amendment will also provide for $2.5 billion in deficit reduction over 
                         the five-year period)

       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $12,100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 11, increase the amount by $13,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by $13,600,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $17,100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $17,966,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $12,100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $13,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $13,600,000,000.
       On page 4, line 1, increase the amount by $17,100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $17,966,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $12,977,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $13,556,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $14,236,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $14,922,000,000.
       On page 4, line 11, increase the amount by $15,600,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $260,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $8,836,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $13,125,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $14,021,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $14,703,000,000.
       On page 4, line 24, increase the amount by $11,840,000,000.
       On page 4, line 25, increase the amount by $4,164,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $475,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $3,079,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, increase the amount by $3,263,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $11,840,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $16,004,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $16,479,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $19,558,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $22,821,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $11,840,000,000.
       On page 5, line 16, decrease the amount by $16,004,000,000.
       On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by $16,479,000,000.
       On page 5, line 18, decrease the amount by $19,558,000,000.
       On page 5, line 19, decrease the amount by $22,821,000,000.
       On page 17, line 16, increase the amount by 
     $12,977,000,000.
       On page 17, line 17, increase the amount by $260,000,000.
       On page 17, line 20, increase the amount by 
     $13,556;000,000.
       On page 17, line 21, increase the amount by $8,836,000,000.
       On page 17, line 24, increase the amount by 
     $14,236,000,000.
       On page 17, line 25, increase the amount by 
     $13,125,000,000.
       On page 18, line 3, increase the amount by $14,922,000,000.
       On page 18, line 4, increase the amount by $14,021,000,000.
       On page 18, line 7, increase the amount by $15,600,000,000.
       On page 18, line 8, increase the amount by $14,703,000,000
       On page 30, line 16, decrease the amount by 
     $12,100,000,000.
       On page 30, line 17, decrease the amount by 
     $73,766,000,000.
       At the end of Section 309, insert the following:

     SEC. 310. RESERVE FUND FOR THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES 
                   EDUCATION ACT.

        The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate 
     shall, in consultation with the Members of the Committee on 
     the Budget and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
     appropriate committee, increase the allocations pursuant to 
     section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the 
     Senate by up to $12,977,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     $260,000,000 in outlays for fiscal year 2006, and 
     $71,292,000,000 in new budget authority and $50,944,000,000 
     in outlays for the total of fiscal years 2006 through 2010, 
     for a bill, amendment, or conference report that would 
     provide increased funding for part B grants, other than 
     section 619, under the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (IDEA), with the goal that funding for these 
     grants, when taken together with amounts provided by the 
     Committee on Appropriations, provides 40 percent of the 
     national average per pupil expenditure for children with 
     disabilities.

  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank my cosponsors, Senators Durbin, 
Mikulski, Lieberman, Stabenow, and Akaka. My amendment would increase 
the Federal share of funding for special education to the level of 40 
percent of the cost that was promised when IDEA was established almost 
30 years ago. Despite the increases that President Bush has proposed 
and that this Congress has enacted in the last 4 years, that Federal 
share is still less than half of what was promised back then. My 
colleagues have before them as a part of the letter that I submitted 
what the difference is for their respective States. For Minnesota, it 
is about $250 million. That money would be badly needed and best used 
by our local school districts.
  As a result of the shortfall in Minnesota, and I suspect other 
States, funds that are supposed to go to regular education get shifted 
over to cover the shortfall for special education, meaning the quality 
of education for all of our students goes down.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DAYTON. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment would add $74 billion in 
spending and would increase taxes by $74 billion. It comes in the 
context of the fact that it would actually exceed the authorized level 
of IDEA as just reauthorized. In addition, it ignores the fact that 
this President has made a stronger commitment to IDEA than any 
President in history, especially in comparison to the prior President. 
This President has increased IDEA funding

[[Page 5234]]

by 74 percent in his first 4 years in office, and he has made a 
commitment in this budget to add another $500 million in IDEA. It is 
obviously a classic tax-and-spend amendment, and I certainly hope my 
colleagues would defeat it.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. GREGG. I would suggest that this be a 10-minute vote since we had 
a break in the voting.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 202.
  This will be a 10-minute vote.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 63, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 79 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--63

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 202) was rejected.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, can I just say for the information of my 
colleagues--could I have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will suspend. The Senate will come 
to order.
  Mr. CONRAD. Can I say for the information of my colleagues, we are 
getting close now. We are under 10 amendments to go. We are trying to 
work things out. We have a number of other amendments. I see the 
chairman is back now. I think there are three more amendments that we 
could take on a unanimous consent basis, is that not correct?
  Mr. GREGG. We can in probably just a few minutes, yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. So, for the information of our colleagues, if they will 
continue to work with us we can reach conclusion at a reasonable time. 
We have made enormous progress in the last hour, I say to my 
colleagues. Again, we are at about 10 amendments left. We have a number 
that we can work out.
  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


Amendments Nos. 155, 216, As Modified, 157, As Modified, 163, 167, and 
                       154, As Modified, en bloc

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I list the following amendments which have 
been agreed to. We will ask they be accepted en bloc by unanimous 
consent: the Gregg-Clinton-Kennedy flu reserve amendment, No. 155; the 
Snowe-Kerry SBA, as modified, No. 216; the Bayh sense of the Senate on 
a GAO study of debt, No. 157; the Santorum amendment No. 163, a sense 
of the Senate on charitable activity; the Chafee clean water, Baucus-
Grassley SSA--Social Security Administration--No. 167; the Clinton 
comparative effectiveness sense of the Senate, No. 154.
  I ask unanimous consent those amendments be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 155

  (Purpose: To establish a deficit neutral reserve fund for influenza 
                      vaccine shortage prevention)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. DEFICIT NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR INFLUENZA VACCINE 
                   SHORTAGE PREVENTION.

       If the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
     of the Senate reports a bill or joint resolution, or an 
     amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted, that increases the participation of 
     manufacturers in the production of influenza vaccine, 
     increases research and innovation in new technologies for the 
     development of influenza vaccine, and enhances the ability of 
     the United States to track and respond to domestic influenza 
     outbreaks as well as pandemic containment efforts, the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget shall revise 
     committee allocations for the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions and other appropriate budgetary 
     aggregates and allocations of new budget authority and 
     outlays by the amount provided by that measure for that 
     purpose, regardless of whether the committee is within its 
     302(a) allocations, and such legislation shall be exempt from 
     sections 302, 303, 311, and 425 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act, and from section 505 of the concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 2004 (H. Con. Res. 95), if that 
     measure would not increase the deficit for fiscal year 2006 
     and for the period of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.


                     amendment no. 216, as modified

     (Purpose: To increase funding for the SBA's programs such as 
   Microloans, Small Business Development Centers, Women's Business 
 Centers, the HUBZone program and other small business programs and to 
  offset the cost through a reduction in funds under function 150 for 
                 foreign microloans and other programs)

       On page 9, line 15, decrease the amount by $78,000,000.
       On page 9, line 16, decrease the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 9, line 20, decrease the amount by $13,000,000.
       On page 9, line 24, decrease the amount by $28,000,000.
       On page 10, line 3, decrease the amount by $1,000,000.
       On page 14, line 15, increase the amount by $78,000,000.
       On page 14, line 16, increase the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 14, line 20, increase the amount by $13,000,000.
       On page 14, line 24, increase the amount by $28,000,000.
       On page 15, line 3, increase the amount by $1,000,000.


                     amendment no. 157, as modified

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the amount of 
               United States debt that is foreign-owned)

       On page 65, after line 25, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FOREIGN-OWNED DEBT.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of the 
     Treasury and the Comptroller General should each conduct a 
     study to examine the economic impact of United States 
     publicly-held debt that is held by foreign governments, 
     institutions, and individuals. The study should provide an 
     analysis of the following:
       (1) The amount of foreign-owned debt dating back to 1980, 
     broken down by foreign governments, foreign institutions, and 
     foreign private investors, and expressed in nominal terms and 
     as a percentage of the total amount of publicly-held debt in 
     each year.
       (2) The economic impact that the increased foreign 
     ownership of United States publicly-held debt has had on the 
     ability of the United States to maintain a stable dollar 
     policy.
       (3) The impact that foreign ownership of United States 
     publicly-held debt has had, or could have, on United States 
     trade policy.


                           amendment no. 163

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding tax relief to 
                encourage charitable giving incentives)

       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TAX RELIEF TO 
                   ENCOURAGE CHARITABLE GIVING.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the CARE Act, which represents a part of the 
     President's faith-based initiative, will spur charitable 
     giving and assist faith-based and community organizations 
     that serve the needy;
       (2) more than 1,600 small and large organizations from 
     around the Nation have endorsed the CARE Act, and in the 
     108th Congress the CARE Act had bipartisan support and was 
     sponsored by 23 Senators;
       (3) although the CARE Act passed the Senate on April 9, 
     2003, by a vote of 95 to 5, and the House of Representatives 
     passed companion legislation on September 17, 2003, by

[[Page 5235]]

     a vote of 408 to 13, a conference committee on the CARE Act 
     was never formed and a final version was not passed in the 
     108th Congress; and
       (4) charities around the Nation continue to struggle, and 
     the passage of the incentives for charitable giving contained 
     in the CARE Act would provide significant dollars in private 
     and public sector assistance to those in need.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that a relevant portion of amounts in this budget resolution 
     providing for tax relief should be used--
       (1) to provide the 86,000,000 Americans who do not itemize 
     deductions an opportunity to deduct charitable contributions;
       (2) to provide incentives for individuals to give tax free 
     contributions from individual retirement accounts for 
     charitable purposes;
       (3) to provide incentives for an estimated $2,000,000,000 
     in food donations from farmers, restaurants, and corporations 
     to help the needy, an equivalent of 878,000,000 meals for 
     hungry Americans over 10 years;
       (4) to provide at least 300,000 low-income, working 
     Americans the opportunity to build assets through individual 
     development accounts or IDAs, which can be used to purchase a 
     home, expand educational opportunity, or to start a small 
     business; and
       (5) to provide incentives for corporate charitable 
     contributions.


                           amendment no. 167

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the full amount of 
  the President's request for the administrative costs of the Social 
     Security Administration for fiscal year 2006 should be funded)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FUNDING OF 
                   ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF SOCIAL SECURITY 
                   ADMINISTRATION.

       It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should approve 
     the full amount of the President's request for the 
     administrative costs of the Social Security Administration 
     for fiscal year 2006, including funds for the implementation 
     of the low-income prescription drug subsidy under part D of 
     title XVIII of the Social Security Act (as added by the 
     Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization 
     Act of 2003).


                     amendment no. 154, as modified

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning comparative 
                         effectiveness studies)

       At the appropriate place in title III, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING COMPARATIVE 
                   EFFECTIVENESS STUDIES.

       It is the Sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the overall discretionary levels set in this resolution 
     assume $75,000,000 in new budget authority in fiscal year 
     2006 and new outlays that flow from this budget authority in 
     fiscal year 2006 and subsequent years, to fund research and 
     ongoing systematic reviews, consistent with efforts currently 
     undertaken by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality 
     designed to improve scientific evidence related to the 
     comparative effectiveness and safety of prescription drugs 
     and other treatments and to disseminate the findings from 
     such research to health care practitioners, consumers, and 
     health care purchasers; and
       (2) knowledge gaps identified through such efforts be 
     addressed in accordance with the authorizing legislation and 
     with oversight from the committees of subject matter 
     jurisdiction.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the chairman, the manager of the 
bill, yield for a question?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes.
  Mr. SARBANES. I understand in the list you just read was a sense of 
the Senate by Senator Chafee on clean water, is that correct?
  Mr. GREGG. That is correct.
  Mr. SARBANES. I inform the managers that I have an amendment 
involving clean water, but I will not offer it.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator. That is very helpful.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant Journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 217, as modified

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
by Senator Kohl dealing with juvenile accountability block grants, No. 
217, be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 217) as modified, was agreed to, as follows:

   (Purpose: To restore $1 billion to juvenile justice and local law 
enforcement programs funded by the Department of Justice, including the 
    Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program, the Byrne Justice 
Assistance Grant Program, the COPS Program, and the High Intensity Drug 
                   Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Program)

       On page 23 line 16, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 23 line 17, increase the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 23 line 21, increase the amount by $140,000,000.
       On page 23 line 25, increase the amount by $125,000,000.
       On page 24 line 4, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 24 line 8, increase the amount by $75,000,000.
       On page 26 line 14, decrease the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 26 line 15, decrease the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 26 line 18, decrease the amount by $140,000,000.
       On page 26 line 21, decrease the amount by $125,000,000.
       On page 26 line 24, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 27 line 2, decrease the amount by $75,000,000.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant Journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


         Amendments Nos. 155, as modified, and 157, as modified

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask that the previously agreed-to Bayh 
and Gregg amendments be modified with the modifications which are at 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 154, As Modified

  Mr. GREGG. I ask that it also apply to the Clinton amendment No. 154.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask that we now turn our attention to 
the Pryor LIHEAP amendment and that we recognize Senator Pryor for 30 
seconds to present that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 213

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 213.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant Journal clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 213.

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

(Purpose: To increase funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
     Program and reduce the national debt by closing corporate tax 
                               loopholes)

       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $1,200,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $1,200,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $1,200,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $1,200,000,000.
       On page 20, line 16, increase the amount by $1,200,000,000.
       On page 20, line 17, increase the amount by $1,200,000,000.
       On page 30, line 16, decrease the amount by $1,200,000,000.
       On page 30, line 17, decrease the amount by $1,200,000,000.
       On page 48, line 6, increase the amount by $1,200,000,000.
       On page 48, line 7, increase the amount by $1,200,000,000.

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I offer an amendment to increase the 
funding for LIHEAP from $1.8 billion to $3 billion. This amendment is 
fully offset. LIHEAP has received level funding for more than 20 years, 
but energy prices have not remained level. They have not remained 
stable. In fact, they are at all-time highs. We all have stories such 
as this from our States. Recently, a mother of two from Arkansas turned 
on her electric oven in order to heat

[[Page 5236]]

the house, burned the house down, and killed her two daughters. We all 
have similar stories such as that from around the Nation.
  This is an amendment that will help the people who need it most in 
all of our States.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment actually increases spending 
on the program by $1.2 billion. It is a bit excessive, and, therefore, 
I will oppose this amendment and ask for a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 213) was rejected.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to say for the information of 
Senators that we are now very close. We have six or seven amendments 
left to do. We are working hard to try to clear some of them. Some of 
them no doubt will still require votes. We ask for our colleagues' 
patience. We have, I think, made enormous progress. You will remember 
when we started this, we were headed for being here until 3 o'clock in 
the morning. Very substantial progress has been made because of the 
cooperation of Members on both sides. If we can be patient a few more 
minutes, we can clear additional amendments and then be prepared to 
push to the end.


                     Amendment No. 254, As Modified

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

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. 
     Salazar, proposes an amendment numbered 254, as modified.

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

 (Purpose: To restore funding for the payment in lieu of taxes program 
(PILT), in order to compensate rural counties for deceased tax revenues 
as a result of non-taxed federally owned county lands. The increase is 
                       offset using Function 150)

       On page 9, line 15, decrease the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 9, line 16, decrease the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 24, line 16, increase the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 24, line 17, increase the amount by $150,000,000.

  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the modified 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 254), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. This is another good example of a Senator cooperating, I 
might add. We got one amendment worked out, he dropped another 
amendment. This is a very good way to proceed.
  I ask the Chair if we could turn our attention to Senator Pryor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                     Amendment No. 252, as Modified

  Mr. PRYOR. I call amendment 252, as modified, to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Pryor], for himself and Mr. 
     Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 252, as modified.

  Mr. PRYOR. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

 (Purpose: To create a reserve fund for extension of the treatment of 
   combat pay as earned income for purposes of the earned income tax 
                    credit and the child tax credit)

       At the end of title III, insert:

     SEC. ___. RESERVE FUND FOR EXTENSION OF TREATMENT OF COMBAT 
                   PAY FOR EARNED INCOME AND CHILD TAX CREDITS.

       If the Committee on Finance reports a bill or joint 
     resolution, or an amendment thereto is offered or a 
     conference report thereon is submitted, that makes permanent 
     the taxpayer election to treat combat pay otherwise excluded 
     from gross income under section 112 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code as earned income for purposes of the earned income 
     credit and makes permanent the treatment of such combat pay 
     as earned income for purposes of the child tax credit, 
     provided that the Committee is within its allocation as 
     provided under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget may 
     revise the allocations of budget authority and outlays, the 
     revenue aggregates, and other appropriate measures, provided 
     that such legislation would not increase the deficit for the 
     period of fiscal year 2006 or the total of fiscal years 2006 
     though 2010.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if the Senator from Arkansas wants to 
proceed.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, amendment 252, as modified, creates a 
reserve fund for the extension of the treatment of combat pay as earned 
income for purposes of the earned-income tax credit and the child tax 
credit. This actually is something the Senate signed off on last year, 
but it was knocked out in conference. I certainly would appreciate 
positive consideration for this amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the modified 
amendment.
  The amendment, (No. 252), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. As the Senator from North Dakota has mentioned, we are 
moving rather close to completion. There are a couple of amendments 
still pending on which votes may be required. Hopefully, we can proceed 
promptly to those and wrap this up also promptly.


                     Amendment No. 238, as Modified

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the Senator from Michigan has an 
amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send modified amendment numbered 288 to 
the desk for immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself, Mr. 
     DeWine, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Bingaman, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 238, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To promote innovation and U.S. competitiveness by expressing 
 the sense of the Senate urging the Senate Appropriations Committee to 
 make efforts to fund the Advanced Technology Program, which supports 
industry-led research and development of cutting-edge technologies with 
           broad commercial potential and societal benefits)

       In the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE ADVANCED 
                   TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.

       (a) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Senate Committee on Appropriations should make every 
     effort to provide funding for the Advanced Technology Program 
     in fiscal year 2006.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment is on behalf of Senator 
DeWine, myself, Senator Lieberman, and others. We have lost 2.8 million 
manufacturing jobs in this country in the last 4 years. We have a very 
modest program called the Advanced Technology Program, which, according 
to the Department of Commerce, in their publication, which I would be 
happy to share with those who can come to take a look at it, according 
to the Department of Commerce, this program has had a result eight 
times more in technologies developed than the amount of money we have 
put into the program. It is an eight-time return--multiple--in advanced 
technologies which is achieved when the Department of Commerce partners 
with industry.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment would suggest we continue a 
program which has certainly outlived its day. It is essentially walking 
around money for the technology industries, picking winners and losers 
in the area of commercial products that the Government has no role in 
doing. It is money that could be better spent on basic research--for 
example, at the NIH.
  I strongly oppose this amendment and hope we will defeat it.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. This is now a sense of the Senate.

[[Page 5237]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
numbered 238. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

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

                                NAYS--46

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Santorum
       
  The amendment (No. 238), as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I think the Record should show that 
Senator Santorum, through no fault of his own, missed the last vote. 
And I regret that we cannot, through unanimous consent, correct that.
  Mr. GREGG. I think that is a very appropriate statement by the 
Senator from North Dakota, which we all can agree with.
  Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Vermont for an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                     Amendment No. 237, As Modified

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk regarding 
Boys and Girls Clubs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask to send a modification of the amendment to the desk. 
If they cannot find the amendment at the desk, I ask that it be in 
order to have the modification be the amendment to be considered. It is 
amendment No. 237.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant Journal clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 237, as modified.

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

        (Purpose: To increase funding for Boys and Girls Clubs)

       On page 23 line 16, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 23 line 17, increase the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 23 line 21, increase the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 23 line 25, increase the amount by $5,000,000.
       On page 24 line 4, increase the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 24 line 8, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 26, line 14, decrease the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 26, line 15, decrease the amount by $6,000,000.
       On page 26, line 18, decrease the amount by $8,000,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $5,000,000.
       On page 26, line 24, decrease the amount by $4,000,000.
       On page 27, line 2, decrease the amount by $3,000,000.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is an amendment to restore funding for 
the Boys & Girls Clubs of America to their current fiscal year level. 
From my days as a prosecutor, throughout my career in the Senate, I 
have seen the great value of Boys and Girls Clubs. This is not a 
Democratic or Republican issue.
  We have a responsibility to make sure that our children are safe and 
secure. I know firsthand how well Boys and Girls Clubs work and what 
top-notch organizations they are. When I was a prosecutor in Vermont, I 
was convinced of the great need for Boys and Girls Clubs because we 
rarely encountered children from these kinds of programs. In fact, 
after I became a U.S. Senator, a police chief was such a big fan of the 
clubs that he asked me to help fund a Boys and Girls Club in his 
district rather than helping him add a couple more police officers.
  In Vermont, Boys and Girls Clubs have succeeded in preventing crime 
and supporting our children. The first club was established in 
Burlington 63 years ago. Now we have 20 club sites operating throughout 
the State in Addison, Chittenden, Orange, Rutland, Washington, Windham 
and Windsor Counties. There are also four new Boys and Girls Clubs in 
the works in Winooski, Brattleboro, Barre and Vergennes. These clubs 
will serve well over 10,000 kids statewide.
  As a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have 
pushed for more Federal funding for Boys and Girls Clubs. Since 1998, 
Congress has increased Federal support for Boys and Girls Clubs from 
$20 million to $85 million in this fiscal year. Due in large part to 
this increase in funding, there now exist 3,500 Boys and Girls Clubs in 
all 50 States serving more than 4 million young people.
  Because of these successes, I was both surprised and disappointed to 
see that the President requested a reduction of $25 million for fiscal 
year 2006. That request will leave thousands of children and their 
Clubs behind. We cannot allow such a thing to happen.
  Last year, Senator Hatch and I worked together to shepherd into law a 
reauthorization of Justice Department grants at $80 million for fiscal 
year 2006, $85 million for fiscal year 2007, $90 million for fiscal 
year 2008, $95 million for fiscal year 2009 and $100 million for fiscal 
year 2010 to Boys and Girls Clubs to help establish 1,500 additional 
Boys and Girls Clubs across the Nation with the goal of having 5,000 
Boys and Girls Clubs in operation by December 31, 2010.
  If we had a Boys and Girls Club in every community, prosecutors in 
our country would have a lot less work to do in the courtroom. Each 
time I visit a club in Vermont, I am approached by parents, educators, 
teachers, grandparents and law enforcement officers who tell me ``Keep 
doing this! These clubs give our children the chance to grow up free of 
drugs, gangs and crime.''
  You cannot argue that these are just Democratic or Republican ideas, 
or conservative or liberal ideas--they are simply good sense ideas. We 
need safe havens where our youth--the future of our country--can learn 
and grow up free from the influences of drugs, gangs and crime. That is 
why Boys and Girls Clubs are so important to our children.
  Across the Nation, Boys and Girls Clubs are preventing crime and 
supporting our children. My amendment will restore funding for the Boys 
and Girls Clubs of America to the fiscal year 2005 level of $85 
million. It provides a full offset at $50 million split evenly for the 
Boys and Girls Clubs and for deficit reduction by, for example, closing 
corporate tax loopholes. It also expresses the sense of the Senate on 
the value of Boys and Girls Clubs in their mission to inspire and 
enable all young people, especially those from disadvantaged 
circumstances, to realize their full potential as productive, 
responsible and caring citizens.
  Congress has authorized and appropriated increased levels of funding 
for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America in each of the last 8 years 
because of the clubs' proven role in discouraging

[[Page 5238]]

youth gangs, drug abuse and youth violence. The budget resolution, 
following the President's lead, reduces funding for Boys and Girls 
Clubs by $25 million--from $85 million to $60 million--and completely 
ignores the 5-year authorization for the Boys and Girls Club grant 
program enacted by Congress and signed by the President in October 
2004. A drop to $60 million in the coming fiscal year will likely 
result in an across-the-board decrease of 30 percent to club pass-thru 
grants, as well as a 30 percent cut to the overall increase in youth 
served. In connection with my amendment I have offered to substitute 
other offsets.
  Mr. President, I urge the Senate to adopt the Leahy amendment to 
restore funding by $25 million for the 2006 fiscal year for the Boys 
and Girls Clubs of America. Our country's strength and ultimate success 
lies with our children. Our greatest responsibility is to help them 
inhabit this century the best way possible and we can help do that by 
supporting the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.
  Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 237), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 262

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send to the desk, on behalf of Senators 
Grassley, Baucus, Enzi, and Kennedy, an amendment and ask for its 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for Mr. 
     Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 262.

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

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate with respect to pension 
                                reform)

       At the end of title V, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF THE SENATE WITH RESPECT TO PENSION REFORM.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
       (1) The rules for calculating the funded status of pension 
     plans and for determining calculations, premiums, and other 
     issues should ensure strong funding of such plans in both 
     good and bad economic times.
       (2) The expiration of the interest rate provisions of the 
     Pension Funding Equity Act of 2004 at the end of 2005 and the 
     need to address the deficit at the Pension Benefit Guaranty 
     Corporation (referred to in this section as the ``PBGC'') 
     demand enactment of pension legislation this year.
       (3) Thirty-four million active and retired workers are 
     relying on their defined benefit plans to provide retirement 
     security, and a failure by Congress to reform the defined 
     benefit system will place at risk the pensions of millions of 
     Americans.
       (4) Stabilization of the defined benefit pension system and 
     the PBGC may require significant and structural changes in 
     the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act of 1974 and 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, which must be undertaken 
     in a single comprehensive set of reforms.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Senate conferees shall insist on the Senate position 
     expressed in this resolution with respect to PBGC premiums.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 262) was agreed to.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Ohio.


                     Amendment No. 161, As Modified

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, amendment No. 161 is at the desk, with 
modifications.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine], for himself and Mr. 
     Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 161, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To increase funding for Child Survival and Maternal Health 
                               Programs)

       On page 9, line 15, increase the amount by $76,000,000.
       On page 9, line 16, increase the amount by $15,000,000.
       On page 9, line 20, increase the amount by $34,000,000.
       On page 9, line 24, increase the amount by $14,000,000.
       On page 10, line 3, increase the amount by $7,000,000.
       On page 10, line 7, increase the amount by $3,000,000.
       On page 26, line 14, decrease the amount by $76,000,000.
       On page 26, line 15, decrease the amount by $15,000,000.
       On page 26, line 18, decrease the amount by $34,000,000.
       On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $14,000,000.
       On page 26, line 24, decrease the amount by $7,000,000.
       On page 27, line 2, decrease the amount by $3,000,000.

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today I join my friend and colleague, 
Senator Leahy, in offering this amendment that would increase the 
funding level for the child survival and maternal health program to 
$400 million.
  Basically, by voting for this amendment we will save many lives. It 
provides money for vaccinations, immunizations, and vitamins that will 
save lives around the world.
  Mr. LEAHY. I join the Senator and urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we now have the DeWine amendment before 
us.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 161), as modified, was agreed to.


                           parity assumption

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I begin by complimenting my friend from 
New Hampshire and the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee on a job 
well done. As the new Chairman, he has skillfully navigated a difficult 
course to produce the budget resolution before us today. 
Congratulations.
  I also want to tell him that even though this is his first year as 
the Budget Committee chairman, he has handled the job like a seasoned 
veteran.
  I would like to raise the issue of mental health parity as the Senate 
debates the FY 2006 Senate Budget Resolution.
  It is my understanding the resolution before us assumes the revenue 
impact of enacting a mental health parity law at a cost of $1.5 billion 
over 5 years. However, I want to make sure that this is indeed the case 
because the assumption I just mentioned is not specifically referenced 
in S. Con. Res. 18. Rather, the overall revenue number is such that it 
assumes Congress will pass mental health parity legislation.
  Mr. GREGG. I understand the concern of the distinguished senior 
Senator from New Mexico regarding mental health parity legislation and 
I would concur with my colleague's assessment. S. Con. Res. 18 does 
assume the revenue impact of enacting mental health parity legislation.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Chairman for his 
consideration and explanation of this important matter.


                  energy savings performance contracts

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the Budget 
Committee's attention a great program that saves the Federal Government 
both money and energy--it is called Energy Savings Performance 
Contracting or ESPC. Under this public-private initiative, the private 
sector upgrades our aging federal facilities and military bases with 
new energy efficient equipment, at no upfront cost to the government. 
The private sector is then paid back over time with the savings from 
the government's utility bills. The beauty of this program is that 
under the law, the energy savings must cover the project costs and also 
guarantee that there will be additional savings to the government, as 
codified per the Energy Policy Act of 1992:

[[Page 5239]]



                                H.R. 776

       Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed 
     by Both House and Senate)

     SEC. 155. ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 801 of the National Energy 
     Conservation Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8287) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The head'' and inserting the following:
       ``(a) In General.--(1) The head''; and
       (2) by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(2)(A) Contracts under this title shall be energy savings 
     performance contracts and shall require an annual energy 
     audit and specify the terms and conditions of any Government 
     payments and performance guarantees. Any such performance 
     guarantee shall provide that the contractor is responsible 
     for maintenance and repair services for any energy related 
     equipment, including computer software systems.
       ``(B) Aggregate annual payments by an agency to both 
     utilities and energy savings performance contractors, under 
     an energy savings performance contract, may not exceed the 
     amount that the agency would have paid for utilities without 
     an energy savings performance contract (as estimated through 
     the procedures developed pursuant to this section) during 
     contract years. The contract shall provide for a guarantee of 
     savings to the agency, and shall establish payment schedules 
     reflecting such guarantee, taking into account any capital 
     costs under the contract.
       ``(C) Federal agencies may incur obligations pursuant to 
     such contracts in finance energy conservation measures 
     provided guaranteed savings exceed the debt service 
     requirements.''

  It's a win-win program for the government and taxpayers.
  The problem is that under the current CBO budget scoring methodology, 
the entire contract cost is scored up front and there is no accounting 
for the guaranteed savings which are required by law. Since these 
guaranteed savings are not recognized, this program is scored as 
costing the government money when in reality this is not the case. The 
Office of Management and Budget views the program as budget neutral, 
and the program has strong support from the Administration.
  This current scoring dilemma for the ESPC program has been 
problematic in the reauthorization of this valuable program. I 
respectfully ask that the Budget Committee work with the Congressional 
Budget Office to resolve this scoring problem for the ESPC program.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I want to thank the Senator from Oklahoma for raising 
this issue, and I will ask the Budget Committee staff to look into the 
scoring of the ESPC program with an eye towards accounting for the 
mandatory savings and thus resolving the matter.


                          it/p4p reserve fund

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend the chairman and ranking member 
of the Budget Committee for working with me, and with the chairman of 
the HELP Committee, as well as with the chairman and ranking member of 
the Finance Committee to include within the budget resolution a reserve 
fund to provide incentives for adoption of modern information 
technology to improve quality in health care and for performance-based 
payments that are based on accepted clinical performance measures that 
improve the quality of health care.
  The goal of this fund is to allow for legislation to create a program 
through which incentives would be provided in the initial years of the 
program to encourage health care providers to enhance their use of 
information technology and improve quality. The fund would achieve 
deficit neutrality through the savings that will accrue to public 
programs through better use of information technology and higher 
quality care. The reserve fund thus requires deficit neutrality over 
the 5 years of the budget resolution.
  It was the intent of all those Members who worked on this proposal to 
require the program to achieve deficit neutrality over the 5 years of 
the budget resolution, but not to require deficit neutrality in the 
initial year of the program or, on a year-by-year basis, in subsequent 
years. I ask the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee whether 
what I have just described reflects their understanding of the intent 
of the program to be established in accordance with this reserve fund.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the description of the intent of the 
reserve fund that my colleague from Massachusetts just provided also 
reflects my understanding and intent in supporting the inclusion of 
this fund. I believe the intent of the reserve fund would be satisfied 
by legislation reported by the HELP Committee or the Finance Committee 
that is not deficit neutral in the initial year or any other single 
year during fiscal years 2006 to 2010 but that otherwise complies with 
the conditions of the reserve fund. I do not intend to raise or support 
a budget point of order raised against such legislation on the basis 
that it is not deficit neutral in any particular year during fiscal 
years 2006-2010.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the description of the intent of the 
reserve fund offered by my colleagues from Massachusetts and from New 
Hampshire also reflects my understanding of the intent of including 
this fund in the budget resolution. I commend the chairman and ranking 
member of the Budget Committee for their leadership in including this 
reserve fund in the Senate budget resolution. And I commend my 
colleagues from New Hampshire and Massachusetts and others for their 
willingness to work toward this signal of our bipartisan commitment to 
improving the quality and safety of health care in this country, and to 
addressing the problem of health care costs. These are critically 
important issues facing our nation today, and I look forward to 
continuing our bipartisan dialogue, making the best use of this 
important reserve fund, and working together on legislation to 
encourage the adoption of health information technology for quality 
improvement and to develop performance-based payment systems.


                           amendment no. 204

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I voted in support of Senator Smith's 
amendment to strike $14 billion in Medicaid cuts from the budget 
resolution and instead create a bipartisan Medicaid commission to study 
how to best reform the program.
  Sound policy--not arbitrary budget cuts--should be the driving force 
for strengthening and improving the Medicaid program. A Medicaid 
commission could help foster a much-needed dialogue about how to take 
prudent steps to make this critical safety net stronger and sustainable 
in the long term.
  More than 40 million Americans, including 300,000 West Virginians, 
rely on Medicaid. In West Virginia, the health care safety net--
comprised of hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies, physician 
offices, and community health centers--relies heavily on Federal 
Medicaid funding to care for the poor, disabled, and elderly.
  If Medicaid funding is capped at an arbitrary funding level, states, 
such as West Virginia, will be left to shoulder the burden of 
increasing health care costs on their own. The health care needs of 
low-income people do not magically disappear just because there are 
fewer federal funds made available.
  It is my hope that a bipartisan consensus of policies can be reached 
to best address the challenges confronting the Medicaid program. The 
passage of the Smith Amendment to establish a Medicaid commission is a 
constructive first step toward that goal.


                           Amendment No. 216

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on January 20, 2005, President Bush said in 
his Inaugural speech, ``We will widen the ownership of homes and 
businesses. . . .'' Two weeks later he turned around and submitted a 
budget that cut funding for the only agency dedicated to cultivating 
small business ownership in this country, the Small Business 
Administration. How much did he cut? 20 percent. This is nothing new. 
The President's track record is even worse. Since President Bush took 
office in 2001, he has reduced small business resources available 
through the SBA by 36 percent, the most of any government agency. You 
may not think the SBA is important, but, last year alone, through the 
SBA, more than 88,000 small businesses in this country got loans and 
venture capital, totaling more than $21 billion. A lot more than that, 
1.5 million, turned to the SBA and its partners last year for 
management counseling so that they could start a business, keep their 
doors

[[Page 5240]]

open, or expand their business. Think of the SBA next time you get ice 
cream from Ben & Jerry's, see a mother with a ``boppy'' baby pillow, 
take a road trip and see a Winnebago, send a package Federal Express, 
type on an Apple computer, or swing a Callaway golf club. All these 
companies were helped by the SBA. Where would these companies have been 
when they were shut out from financing if the SBA had not existed? 
Imagine the void in our economy without the taxes they generate and all 
the people without jobs if those companies didn't exist. SBA more than 
pays for itself.
  The SBA is a good return on the investment for our country. As my 
colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, pointed out at our recent hearing 
on the SBA's fiscal year 2006 budget, the SBA's budget represents less 
than 3/100ths of a percent of all Federal spending. And a lot of that 
funding for the SBA supports emergency loans that help families and 
businesses when disaster strikes. We are all for fiscal responsibility, 
but cutting this resource that is so important to our economy is not 
responsible. Instead of weakening this resource, we should be 
maximizing it to leverage more businesses and creating more jobs.
  Evidently my colleagues agree because tonight they agreed unanimously 
to adopt a bi-partisan amendment to restore $78 million to the SBA's 
budget for fiscal year 2006. Senator Snowe and I both had our own 
amendments, but in the end we joined together so that we could get a 
win for small business. I thank the Chair for her cooperation and 
leadership.
  My amendment would have restored $139 million to the SBA, including 
$42 million in fee relief for borrowers and lenders in the 7(a) Loan 
Guarantee program; $30 million for microloans and $20 million for 
microloan technical assistance; $5 million for PRIME; $24 million to 
restore funding New Markets Venture Capital that was unfairly and 
unwisely rescinded; $3.6 million for 7(j) contracting assistance to 
disadvantage small businesses; $2 million for Native American Outreach; 
$109 million for Small Business Development Centers; a combined $4 
million for SBIR FAST and Rural Outreach; $7 million for SCORE; $5 
million for the U.S. Export Assistance Centers; $2 million for Veterans 
Business Outreach; $16.5 million for Women's Business Centers; and $6.5 
million for 65 procurement center representatives. That would have 
raised SBA's funding to $732 million, still far less than the $900 
million provided to the SBA 5 years ago. It was a responsible and 
reasonable increase.
  Nevertheless, to get things done, we must reach across the aisle and 
work together. So, as I said earlier, I joined my colleague of the 
Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, Chair Snowe, to pass 
Senate amendment No. 216. It did not go as far as I would have liked, 
but it is still a big step in the right direction. As part of the 
compromise, Senator Snowe agreed to include $5 million for the PRIME 
micro business program. The Snowe-Kerry compromise includes: $15 
million for Microloan Technical Assistance, which the President 
recommended terminating; $1.91 million to fund $20 million in 
microloans, which the President recommended terminating; $5 million for 
the Program for Investment in Microentrepreneurs, PRIME, which the 
President recommended terminating, $3 million for the Small Business 
Innovation Research, SBIR, FAST Program, which the President 
recommended terminating; $1 million for the SBIR Rural Outreach 
Program, which the President recommended terminating; $21 million for 
Small Business Development Centers, increasing funding to $109 million 
overall; $10 million to fund procurement center representatives, PCRs, 
in order to hire 100 new representatives; $7.7 million for the HUBZone 
program, increasing funding to $10 million; $4.5 million for the 
Women's Business Centers Program, increasing funding to $16.5 million; 
$3.5 million for U.S. Export Assistance Centers, increasing funding to 
$5 million; $2 million for the SCORE program, increasing funding to $7 
million; $750,000 for Veterans Outreach, increasing funding to $1.5 
million; and $500,000 for the 7(j) contracting assistance program, 
increasing funding to $2.5 million.
  These amounts are important to include in the Record so that the 
public knows our intentions. I thank my colleagues, Senators Snowe, 
Conrad, and Gregg, for their help and also their staffs. In advance, I 
ask my colleagues on the appropriations committee to match our 
requests.


                           amendment no. 169

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the HIV/AIDS pandemic has reached 
staggering proportions. At the end of 2004, an estimated 40 million 
people were living with HIV/AIDS. Each year, 5 million more people 
become infected.
  The United States has demonstrated important leadership fighting the 
AIDS epidemic. And this leadership is yielding results. At the end of 
2004, an estimated 700,000 people in the developing world were 
receiving antiretroviral therapy. Many of these individuals were 
receiving treatment thanks to U.S.-supported bilateral and multilateral 
programs.
  The President's budget request for fiscal year 2006 includes $2.9 
billion for bilateral programs for AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. 
This amendment would maintain full funding for this component of the 
President's request.
  The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria is an 
important component of U.S. efforts, and supports approximately 300 
projects in 130 countries. The United States was the first and remains 
the largest contributor to the Global Fund.
  To balance the U.S. share and encourage contributions from other 
donors, the administration supported language in the U.S. Leadership 
Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 that links U.S. 
contributions to the Fund to the contributions of other donors.
  Together with Senator Durbin, I believe Congress should fulfill the 
commitment implied in the act by matching, on a one-to-two basis, the 
contributions of other donors. Through a mid-year review process, 
Congress and the administration should assess anticipated contributions 
to the Global Fund and ensure that U.S. contributions, at year-end, are 
at the appropriate one-to-two ratio, and that the U.S. does not exceed 
33 percent of total contributions to the fund.
  For fiscal year 2005, the Global Fund estimates it will renew $2.4 
billion worth of effective programs that are already operating on the 
ground. The administration and the Global Fund Board have said that 
renewing existing grants should receive funding priority.
  In order to cover one-third of renewals during fiscal year 2006, and 
to maintain the one-to-two funding match, the U.S. will need to 
contribute an additional $500 million above the President's request to 
keep well-functioning programs funded at a level of $800 million.
  Senator Durbin and I consider this number to be the necessary level 
of funding. Failing to renew grants could cut off life-saving 
treatments in proven programs.
  Senator Durbin and I firmly believe that funding the global fight 
against AIDS is a top priority. If adopted by the Senate, this 
amendment will ensure a level of $3.7 billion for international AIDS, 
tuberculosis, and malaria assistance, including $800 million for the 
Global Fund.


                           Amendment No. 238

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the second year in a row, the President 
proposes to completely eliminate the Advanced Technology Program, ATP. 
Last year, Congress wisely chose to fund the ATP program at $142.3 
million. The bottom line is that the ATP promotes the development of 
new, innovative products that are made and developed in the United 
States, helping American companies compete against their foreign 
competitors and contribute to the growth of the U.S. economy.
  I hope Congress will continue to fund this important program in 
fiscal year 2006. Doing so will help strengthen the technological and 
economic leadership of America's high technology manufacturing 
companies that is necessary for them to remain competitive in today's 
global marketplace. It will also help

[[Page 5241]]

ensure that the most cutting-edge companies can continue to innovate, 
expand and create jobs.
  My amendment expresses the sense of the Senate calling on the Senate 
Committee on Appropriations to make every effort to restore funding for 
the Advanced Technology Program in fiscal year 2006.
  Continued ATP funding would encourage public-private cooperation and 
investment in economically important technology R&D. Through a cost-
shared program, the ATP provides grants to support research and 
development of high-tech, cutting-edge technologies with commercial 
potential and societal benefits. The ATP focuses on improving the 
competitiveness of American companies and funds many research and 
development projects that have the potential to create broad-based U.S. 
economic benefits and that otherwise may not get developed or that 
would be developed too slowly to take advantage of market 
opportunities.
  According to one study, the manufacturing sector, more than any 
other, helps to generate increased economic activity in other 
industries with every dollar of goods produced generating an additional 
$1.43 in economic activity in other industries or sectors.
  According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, returns for the 
American people on the ATP, as measured from 41 of the 736 projects--
just 6 percent of the portfolio--have exceeded $17 billion in economic 
benefits, more than eight times the amount invested in ATP.
  Manufacturers' investment in innovation account for almost two-thirds 
of all private-sector research and development. This investment in turn 
leads to advances in other manufacturing sectors and spillover into 
nonmanufacturing activities in the United States.
  ATP involvement accelerates the development and commercialization of 
new technologies. Time to market was reduced by 1 year in 10 percent of 
projects, by 2 years in 22 percent of projects, and by 3 years in 26 
percent of projects.
  The ATP program supports small business. Over 65 percent of ATP 
projects have been led by small businesses. This is exceptional given 
that small businesses lead in the creation of job growth and new 
technology advancement in our country.
  ATP has received applications from 50 States and made awards to high 
technology businesses in 40 States plus the District of Columbia.
  The Biotechnology Industry Organization, BIO, the Industrial Research 
Institute, the Alliance for Science and Technology Research in America, 
and the American Chemical Society have expressed support for ATP.
  Unfortunately, current funding levels do not meet the demand for ATP. 
Over 1,000 proposals submitted in 2002 alone yielded enough high 
quality projects to absorb the total funding available in both fiscal 
year 2002 and fiscal year 2003. Fiscal year 2004 saw the second highest 
number of applications for funding in ATP history, 870, but funding was 
available for only 59 awards.
  The ATP is one of the few Federal programs available to help American 
manufacturers remain competitive in the global economy. This high 
octane economic development engine should be supported by Democrats and 
Republicans alike. If we want NIST to continue making these important 
job-creating ATP awards, we have to fund it.
  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nationally we have lost 
nearly 2.8 million manufacturing jobs since January 2001. In the face 
of these losses and strong global economic competition, we should be 
doing all we can to promote programs that help create jobs and 
strengthen the technological innovation of American companies. 
Supporting the ATP program is one way to do this.


                           amendment no. 253

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to an amendment with 
my good friend and colleague, Senator Grassley, expressing the sense of 
the Senate on the High Intensity Drug Trafficking area, or HIDTA, 
program. My amendment assumes that the HIDTA program will be fully 
funded at $227 million in fiscal year 2006 and that the HIDTA program 
will remain with the Office National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, where 
it was last authorized by Congress to be. Additional cosponsors are 
Senators Leahy, Bingaman, Murray, and Talent. I would also like to add 
Senators Gordon Smith and DeWine as cosponsors to this amendment. I 
thank my colleagues for their strong support.
  I am proud to offer this much-needed amendment. The proposed budget 
would cut the HIDTA program by 56 percent, assuming only $100 million 
for HIDTA. The President's Budget also proposes to shift the program 
from ONDCP to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force program 
within the Department of Justice. Both of these proposals could derail 
the highly successful HIDTA program.
  As many of my colleagues know, methamphetamine is a powerful and 
highly addictive central nervous system stimulant that is associated 
with violence and crime. It can cause paranoia, aggression, and mood 
swings. The byproducts of making meth are highly toxic and flammable 
and require costly clean ups. They also endanger many children who are 
exposed when their parents cook meth within the home. Since its 
inception in 1990, HIDTA has become one of the most effective and 
comprehensive programs we have to fight meth.
  Specifically, a HIDTA designation provides states like Montana with 
increased resources, information and intelligence to fight 
methamphetamine use and production. The Federal funding and increased 
cooperation among Federal, State and local law enforcement frees up 
state resources that allow, for example, the Montana Department of 
Justice to better support Montana's rural communities. It provides law 
enforcement officials with new technology to coordinate their efforts 
at the local, State, and Federal level.
  Montana fought hard and successfully to join the Rocky Mountain HIDTA 
in 2002. Since that time, Montana has successfully cut the number of 
meth labs it busts in half. I have been told by law enforcement across 
my State that the proposed cuts to HIDTA, combined with cuts proposed 
by the President to other Justice assistance programs like the Byrne 
and COPS programs, would be a disaster for Montana. It would 
effectively end drug enforcement in rural Montana and would set the 
clock back years in our efforts to fight the rapid spread of meth in 
our state.
  Yesterday, I was proud to cosponsor and support Senator Stabenow's 
amendment to restore funding for our first responder programs, Byrne 
and COPS. Sadly, that amendment failed. I also proudly supported 
Senator Biden's amendment to fully fund the COPS program. That 
amendment unfortunately also failed. We must do everything we can to 
make sure these programs survive and so far Congress is not holding up 
their end of the bargain.
  Although my amendment specifically focuses on the HIDTA program, let 
me list again what the Montana Board of Crime Control has told me would 
happen to Montana if the President's fiscal year 2006 budget is 
enacted:
  1. Montana will lose its multi-jurisdiction drug enforcement 
capacity, including seven multijurisdictional drug task forces. This 
means that already stretched local law enforcement agencies will have 
to do what they can to address drug enforcement at the local level, 
without broader support from the drug task forces.
  2. Montana will lose 33 drug enforcement offices throughout the 
State.
  3. Montana will experience a significant increase in drug 
availability, manufacturing and trafficking and drug-related crime.
  4. Montana would experience an increase in clandestine labs that 
manufacture methamphetamine.
  5. Montana would experience a reduction in the amounts of illegal 
drugs and guns removed from our communities.
  6. Montana would experience the elimination of funds for rural law 
enforcement agencies' manpower, equipment and training.
  Again, the above scenario is only the tip of the iceberg. The 
manufacturing,

[[Page 5242]]

trafficking, drug addiction and crime will have a ripple effect 
throughout the State in our public health and correction systems and 
the courts, negatively affecting public safety and the quality of life 
in Montana and across the United States.
  As the findings in the Baucus-Grassley amendment explain, the HIDTA 
program encompasses 28 strategic regions, 355 task forces, 53 
intelligence centers, 4,428 Federal personnel, and 8,459 State and 
local personnel. In 2004, HIDTA efforts resulted in disrupting or 
dismantling over 509 international, 711 multi-State, and 1,110 local 
drug trafficking organizations. In 2004, HIDTA instructors trained 
21,893 students in cutting-edge practices to limit drug trafficking and 
manufacturing within their areas.
  The HIDTAs are successful drug enforcement coalitions that include 
equal partnership among Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
leaders. This is what Congress created the HIDTA's to do--to provide 
coordination of drug enforcement efforts in critical regions of the 
country. That's why full funding for the HIDTA's is so important, and 
that's what the first part of the Baucus-Grassley sense of the Senate 
addresses--assuming that Congress will fully fund the HIDTA program at 
fiscal year 2005 levels.
  The second part of the Baucus-Grassley Sense of the Senate on HIDTA 
would address the administration's decision to shift the HIDTA program 
from ONDCP to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, OCDETF, 
program within the Department of Justice. Moving the program from ONDCP 
to OCDETF is a mistake. The OCDETF program has a different mission and 
purpose than ONDCP and the HIDTA's. The HIDTA program has worked well 
at ONDCP and is a complement to the OCDETF mission. I do not understand 
why the Administration would want to shift it from its Congressionally 
authorized home within ONDCP.
  Montana law enforcement tell me that moving the HIDTA program to 
OCDETF will do nothing to improve law enforcement capabilities and will 
undermine the unique partnerships and innovation that the HIDTA program 
has helped to create nationwide and that have been so successful in 
curbing the spread of meth in Montana. HIDTA's are about coordination 
and collaboration. OCDETF is more centrally managed, with an assumed 
Federal lead, and with a focus on investigation and prosecution--an 
important mission, but not the same as the HIDTA mission. Additionally, 
according to the National Narcotics Officers Association, the vast 
majority of OCDETF's cases originate within HIDTA funded operational 
task forces. The current organization works; why change it?
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. I also hope 
that we can adopt one of the many amendments that would actually 
increase funding for all Justice assistance programs, like Byrne and 
COPS, but this amendment is an important step in the right direction.


                           Amendment No. 193

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it had been my intent to offer an amendment 
No. 193, to S. Con. Res. 18, the FY 06, Congressional Budget 
Resolution, to fully fund the Help America Vote Act, HAVA, P.L. 107-
252, by increasing discretionary spending in FY 06 by $822 million. 
This issue is too important, however, to be relegated to 30 seconds, or 
less, of debate, and so under the circumstances, I will not offer this 
amendment to fully fund HAVA today.
  However, I want to serve notice to my colleagues, that Congress must 
act soon to provide funds to the States to finance the mandatory 
election reform requirements we imposed on the States in HAVA. If not, 
we will have created an unjustified and unfunded mandate on State and 
local governments and lost the opportunity to ensure that every 
eligible American voter has an equal opportunity to cast a vote and 
have that vote counted in the 2006 Federal elections.
  The amendment was supported by a broad coalition of organizations 
representing the civil rights communities, voting rights groups, 
disabilities groups, and State and local governments, spearheaded by 
the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the National Association 
of Secretaries of State. I am grateful to LCCR and NASS for their 
consistent leadership in ensuring that Congress, and the President, 
fulfill our commitment to fully fund the HAVA reforms. I applaud the 
non-partisan work of the LCCR/NASS Coalition and look forward to 
continuing to work with them to see this commitment come to fruition.
  No civil right is more fundamental to the vitality and endurance of a 
democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people, than the 
people's right to vote. In the words of Thomas Paine, ``The right of 
voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights 
are protected.'' To ensure this right, Congress passed the bipartisan 
Help America Vote Act. At a time when we are spending millions of 
dollars to ensure the spread of democracy across the globe, we must 
also remember that building democracy and freedom for every American 
must begin at home. Ensuring that primary right to vote for all 
eligible American voters was the bipartisan goal of HAVA.
  Nearly two and one-half years ago, the Senate overwhelmingly passed 
this bipartisan landmark legislation and on October 29, 2002, President 
Bush signed HAVA into law. At the White House signing ceremony, 
surrounded by a bipartisan group of Members, President Bush said in a 
brief speech, ``When problems arise in the administration of elections, 
we have a responsibility to fix them . . . Every registered voter 
deserves to have confidence that the system is fair and elections are 
honest, that every vote is recorded and that the rules are consistently 
applied. The legislation I sign today will add to the nation's 
confidence.''
  I could not agree more with the President. However, for the second 
year in a row, while the President's budget assumes millions in funding 
for democratic elections in foreign countries, the President's budget 
assumes no funding for elections at home. Our shared bipartisan vision 
for HAVA as the vehicle to restore the nation's confidence in the 
results of our elections cannot be realized without the promised 
funding to the States.
  In the aftermath of historic elections in Iraq, it is critical that 
America take stock of our own decentralized elections systems. There is 
much we can learn from the Iraqi experiment in democracy that can 
strengthen the equal opportunity for participation of all Americans in 
our democracy. In light of the continuing barriers that Americans found 
at polling places across this Nation in November 2004, we cannot fail 
to fully fund HAVA. America's ability to promote free societies abroad 
is inextricably linked to our ability to promote, expand and secure 
Federal elections at home.
  HAVA has been acknowledged as the ``first civil rights law of the 
21st century.'' For the first time in our Nation's history, Congress 
acknowledged the responsibility of the Federal government to provide 
leadership and funding to States and local governments in the 
administration of Federal elections. Congress required States to 
conduct Federal elections according to minimum Federal requirements for 
provisional balloting, voting system standards, and statewide voter 
registration lists, including new requirements to prevent voter fraud. 
Finally, Congress refused to impose an unfunded mandate on States by 
authorizing nearly $4 billion in payments to States over three fiscal 
years to implement the HAVA requirements and disability access 
services.
  To date, Congress has appropriated over $3 billion for these purposes 
and States are currently in varying stages of implementing HAVA 
requirements to meet the pending 2006 effective date. But Congress has 
failed to fully fund HAVA and as a consequence, there remains a $822 
million shortfall in Federal funds. In addition to the $600 million 
authorized in FY 05, but not appropriated, Congress has underfunded 
HAVA by an additional $222 million for a total of $822 million.
  To remedy this, the amendment I intended to offer would have 
increased

[[Page 5243]]

function 800 by $727 million in BA in FY 06 for election reform 
requirements payments to the States, and increased function 500 by $95 
million in BA in FY 06 to fund election reform disability access 
payments to the States. The amendment was fully offset by adjusting the 
reconciliation savings assigned to the Finance Committee in order to 
allow for the closing of corporate tax loopholes and provided 
additional deficit reduction in an equivalent amount in the amount of 
$822 million.
  The absence of these funds will at best impede, or at worst stop, 
statewide election reforms for the 2006 Congressional elections, the 
2008 Presidential elections, and beyond. According to a letter issued 
by the LCCR/NASS Coalition in support of my amendment, State and local 
governments cannot enact the requirement reforms on time without full 
Federal funding. The coalition letter states, in pertinent part: 
``Without full federal funding, state and local governments will 
encounter serious fiscal shortfalls and will not be able to afford 
complete implementation of important HAVA mandates.''
  Similarly, the National Association of Counties, NACO, in a letter 
dated March 17, 2005, noted that a recent NACO report ``demonstrates 
that the funds counties have received so far for implementation of the 
Help America Vote Act are clearly insufficient.'' The letter goes on to 
conclude that HAVA has ``clearly become an unfunded mandate on the 
nation's counties.''
  Some have expressed concerns that States do not need additional 
Federal funding, nor should Congress appropriate additional funding, 
because States still have millions in unspent HAVA funding. This 
argument is contrary to both the law and the facts. As a matter of law, 
HAVA does not require States to spend Federal funding by a date-certain 
within any fiscal year. To the contrary, HAVA merely requires States to 
comply with specific Federal requirements by certain effective date 
deadlines, depending upon the timing of the first Federal election in 
that State. Since the time, place and manner of Federal elections may 
differ from state to state, HAVA accommodates the diversity of state 
circumstances by ensuring that States could retain Federal funding 
without making premature obligations or expenditures and without 
threats of a Federal recoupment of such funds.
  Similarly, HAVA did not mandate a ``one-size'' fits all approach to 
how States will implement the HAVA requirements or other election 
reforms. As a result, HAVA contains a savings clause requiring that 
Federal funds remain available until expended pursuant to 42 USC 15462. 
As a matter of fact, while some States have unspent HAVA dollars today, 
it is also a fact that all States are in varying degrees of compliance 
with HAVA, including enacting state implementing legislation, 
establishing certain processes such as administrative complaints 
procedures, contacting or obligating funds for new or retro-fitted 
voting systems, or otherwise enhancing any number of election-related 
programs and procedures to improve state-based election administration. 
At this time, there does not appear to be any State that is fully 
compliant with HAVA and that also has a significant surplus of funds.
  Moreover, the most important requirements in the Act do not have to 
be implemented by the States until the first Federal elections on or 
after January 1, 2006. Also, because of the delay in the issuance of 
the voluntary voting system standards by the Election Assistance 
Commission, some States have delayed purchases of voting systems and 
technology until that guidance is issued. Consequently, such States 
have unexpended funds.
  However, that does not lessen the critical need for full funding in 
fiscal year 2006. Although the FY 06 funds will not be available to the 
States until October 1, 2005, just 3 months before some States must 
have these requirements in place, States will be able to issue 
contracts, obligate funds for programs, and otherwise fully implement 
real election reforms if Congress signals its intent to provide these 
necessary funds.
  After the concerns raised by the November 2000 general election, 
Congress made a commitment to the States, and to the voters of this 
Nation, that we would be a full partner in the conduct of Federal 
elections. While Congress accomplished much with the passage of HAVA, 4 
years later in the November 2004 general election, voters faced many of 
the same barriers in different forms and new barriers to voting that 
HAVA promised to remove. After the 2000 November elections, Americans 
recognized that real election reform changes must be made to ensure the 
integrity and security of our democracy. We can do better and we must 
do better. Full Federal funding is critical to ensuring that America 
will do better.
  HAVA began a new era in election law--one where the Federal 
Government is a supporting partner to help State and local governments, 
in conjunction with civil rights, voting rights and disability rights 
organizations, to conduct fair, free and transparent elections in our 
Nation. HAVA is our collective promise to the American people to fix 
the problems in our Federal elections.
  If we fail to honor our commitment now and provide the States with 
only partial funding, we may jeopardize the opportunity of the States 
to implement the most historic and comprehensive election reforms in 
American history and may ensure that the public's confidence was 
misplaced in Congress. Full Federal funding is critical to ensuring the 
integrity and security of Federal elections and the confidence of the 
American people in the final results of those elections.
  It is time to fulfill that promise and we must do so yet this year.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter issued by the coalition of 
organizations spearheaded by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 
and the National Association of Secretaries of State dated March 8, 
2005 and a letter issued by the National Association of Counties, dated 
March 17, 2005, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Make Election Reform a Reality; Fully Fund the ``Help America Vote 
                                 Act''

       Dear Senators: We, the undersigned organizations, urge you 
     to support full funding for the Help America Vote Act of 2002 
     (HAVA) and include $822 million in the upcoming FY06 Senate 
     Budget Resolution. This figure represents the authorized HAVA 
     funds that remain unappropriated.
       HAVA, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, 
     includes an important list of reforms that states must 
     implement for federal elections. State and local governments 
     have been working on such reforms as improving disability 
     access to polling places, updating voting equipment, 
     implementing new provisional balloting procedures, developing 
     and implementing a new statewide voter registration database 
     system, training poll workers and educating voters on new 
     procedures and new equipment.
       To help state and local governments pay for these reforms, 
     HAVA authorized $3.9 billion over three fiscal years. To 
     date, Congress has generously appropriated $3 billion between 
     FY03 and FY04. Unfortunately, while HAVA authorized funding 
     for states for FY05, none was appropriated. The states and 
     localities need the remaining authorized funding to implement 
     the requirements of HAVA, and the federal EAC needs to be 
     fully funded to carry out its responsibilities as well.
       States and localities are laboring to implement the 
     requirements of HAVA based on a federal commitment that HAVA 
     would not be an unfunded mandate. State officials have 
     incorporated the federal amounts Congress promised when 
     developing their HAVA implementation budgets and plans. 
     Without full federal funding, state and local governments 
     will encounter serious fiscal shortfalls and will not be able 
     to afford complete implementation of important HAVA mandates. 
     According to a state survey, lack of federal funding for HAVA 
     implementation will result in many states scaling back on 
     their voter and poll worker education initiatives and on 
     voting equipment purchase plans, both of which are vital 
     components to making every vote count in America.
       We are thankful that you have seen the importance of 
     funding the work of the Election Assistance Commission in 
     FY06. States, localities and civic organizations look forward 
     to the work products from the EAC that will aid in the 
     implementation of HAVA, e.g., voting system standards, 
     statewide database guidance, and studies on provisional 
     voting, voter education, poll worker training, and voter 
     fraud and voter intimidation.
       We thank you for your support of funding for the Help 
     America Vote Act, and we look

[[Page 5244]]

     forward to working with you on this critical issue. Should 
     you have any questions, please contact Leslie Reynolds of the 
     National Association of Secretaries of State at (202) 624-
     3525 or Rob Randhava of the Leadership Conference on Civil 
     Rights at (202) 466-6058, or any of the individual 
     organizations listed below.
           Sincerely,
     Organizations Representing State and Local Election Officials
       Council of State Governments.
       International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election 
     Officials and Treasurers.
       National Association of County Recorders, Election 
     Officials and Clerks.
       National Association of Counties.
       National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed 
     Officials Educational Fund.
       National Association of Secretaries of State.
       National Association of State Election Directors.
       National Conference of State Legislatures.
     Civil and Disability Rights Organizations
       Advancement Project.
       Alliance for Retired Americans.
       American Association of People with Disabilities.
       American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial 
     Organizations.
       Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund.
       Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO.
       Asian Pacific American Legal Center.
       Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
       Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
       Common Cause.
       Demos: A Network for Ideas & Action.
       FairVote: The Center For Voting and Democracy.
       Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America.
       Jewish Council for Public Affairs.
       Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
       Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
       League of Women Voters.
       NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
       National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium.
       National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
       National Coalition on Black Civic Participation.
       Project Vote.
       Public Citizen.
       United Auto Workers.
       United States Student Association.
       U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
                                  ____



                             National Association of Counties,

                                   Washington, DC, March 17, 2005.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Bob Ney,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Christopher Dodd,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators McConnell and Dodd and Representatives Ney 
     and Hoyer: On behalf of county officials across the nation, I 
     would like to reiterate our appreciation for your efforts on 
     behalf of counties in the development of the Help America 
     Vote Act of 2001. As you remember, NACo and other 
     organizations representing state and local government 
     officials supported the Help America Vote Act based on an 
     assumption that the federal government would meet numerous 
     deadlines set forth in the legislation and would provide the 
     full authorized level of funding. Thanks to your leadership, 
     sufficient funding was provided in fiscal years 2003 and 
     2004. However, no funds were provided for FY 2005 and total 
     funding for the Help America Vote Act remains more than $800 
     million short of the authorized amount.
       Attached is an excerpt from a recent report of the National 
     Association of Counties that demonstrates that the funds 
     counties have received so far for implementation of the Help 
     America Vote Act are clearly insufficient. This excerpt, from 
     a recent snapshot survey conducted by the National 
     Association of Counties on the costs that counties have 
     identified for compliance with unfunded federal mandates, 
     shows that the Help America Vote Act has clearly become an 
     unfunded mandate on the nation's counties.
       This funding shortfall is a particular burden for counties 
     because the federal government did not live up to its 
     commitment to issue federal voting systems standards by 
     January 1, 2004. These standards are not expected until later 
     this year; the delay is creating uncertainty surrounding 
     compliance with HAVA and is driving up costs for many 
     counties. We look forward to working with you and your staff 
     to secure additional funding and assist counties in meeting 
     the deadlines in the Help America Vote Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Larry Naake,
                                               Executive Director.

           Excerpt From Unfunded Mandates: A Snapshot Survey

       A report issued in March 2005 by the National Association 
     of Counties based on a snapshot survey conducted during a 
     two-week period from January 26 through February 11, 2005. 
     The full report provides a snapshot of the continuing 
     unfunded mandates burden facing counties on the tenth 
     anniversary of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.


                         help america vote act

       The Help America Vote Act requires most counties in the 
     nation to purchase new voting equipment that permits all 
     voters to cast a secret ballot regardless of disability. The 
     accelerated timetable nationwide and lack of federal 
     standards are driving up the cost for counties to purchase 
     equipment. In addition, counties are working in cooperation 
     with the states to merge existing voter registration 
     databases into a statewide list and to implement new voting 
     procedures, such as provisional ballots.
       Thirty six provided information on their costs related to 
     the Help America Vote Act. The counties who responded 
     represent a broad mix of states that have moved forward with 
     reform, those that are nearing compliance and those have not 
     yet budgeted for or issued contracts on voting equipment. 
     Some of the figures that counties provided below do not 
     include the full cost of purchasing voting equipment:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             2003               2004               2005            Population
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cochise County, AZ..................         $53,626.00         $48,390.00         $36,090.00            122,161
Butte County, CA....................          40,000.00         850,000.00       2,000,000.00            212,010
Colusa County, CA...................           3,050.00           9,590.00          46,350.00             19,678
Kern County, CA.....................       5,000,000.00  .................  .................            713,087
Mesa County, CO.....................          19,535.00         157,700.00            124,676
Brevard County, FL..................  .................          43,000.00       2,442,500.00            505,711
Escambia County, FL.................  .................         344,663.00  .................            295,886
Lee County, FL......................       6,200,000.00         100,000.00         300,000.00            492,210
Polk County, IA.....................  .................          20,000.00         750,000.00            388,606
Scott County, IA....................  .................           3,500.00         200,000.00            159,414
Idaho County, ID....................          34,480.00          36,560.00          36,560.00             15,413
Hamilton County, IN.................  .................  .................          25,000.00            216,826
Lake County, IN.....................  .................  .................       2,120,900.00            487,476
Sedgwick County, KS.................          44,700.00          29,600.00          29,350.00            462,896
Calvert County, MD..................  .................           9,300.00          77,158.00             84,110
Anoka County, MN....................  .................         793,178.00  .................            314,074
Blue Earth County, MN...............  .................          55,000.00          56,650.00             57,306
Durham County, NC...................  .................  .................           5,000.00            236,781
Gaston County, NC...................  .................  .................          21,441.00            193,097
Northhampton County, NC.............  .................  .................           8,000.00             21,782
Richland County, ND.................  .................           2,522.00  .................             17,598
Rolette County, ND..................  .................           7,931.77               0.00             13,732
Ward County, ND.....................  .................          22,225.00           2,825.00             56,721
Williams County, ND.................           2,368.38          17,757.27           5,000.00             19,316
Clark County, NY....................  .................         997,566.00         131,825.00          1,576,541
Clermont County, OH.................  .................  .................           7,110.00            185,799
Montgomery County, OH...............  .................         300,000.00       2,000,000.00            555,187
Chester County, PA..................       1,168,935.00       8,208,611.00       1,648,480.00            457,393
Monroe County, PA...................          10,000.00          44,000.00          45,000.00            154,495
County of Gloucester, VA............           1,785.00           1,788.00          58,788.00             36,698
Fairfax County, VA..................         184,388.00         194,092.00         203,797.00          1,000,405
Prince George, VA...................  .................           6,783.00           7,340.00             34,305
Kitsap County, WA...................  .................           8,768.00  .................            240,719
Greenbrier, WV......................  .................  .................         490,000.00             34,656
Monongalia County, WV...............  .................           4,000.00  .................             84,370
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 5245]]

       The highest cost was reported by Chester County, 
     Pennsylvania, which spent in excess of $8 million of its own 
     source revenue on HAVA compliance in FY 2004. Over the three-
     year period, the total cost for a family of four in Chester 
     County is $96.42. Idaho County, Idaho, is spending $27.92 per 
     family of four. Greenbrier County, West Virginia, is spending 
     $56.56 per family of four in FY 2005. Montgomery County, 
     Ohio, is spending $2.3 million for FY 2004-FY 2005, or $16.57 
     per person. Taxpayers in Butte County, California, are 
     spending $54.53 per family of four to update their voting 
     equipment over the three-year period and voters in Lake 
     County, Indiana are paying $17.40 per family in FY 2005.
       Notes and additions to the data:
       Henrico County, Virginia has subsequently reported county 
     funding for FY 2004 of $805,000 for the purchase of new 
     voting equipment. The federal share of the total is $650,000; 
     the state is providing $2 million. The registrar's office 
     also anticipates spending $307,141 in the operating budget 
     for FY 2005 for costs associated with the new voting 
     machines.
       The following explanations from individual counties are 
     likely typical of county costs reported in the snapshot 
     survey:
       Scott County, Iowa has explained that their data includes 
     $3,500 is a rough estimate of staff time used in the planning 
     process that has not been reimbursed by state or federal 
     funds. The $200,000 figure for FY 2005 is an estimate of the 
     county share of the cost of new machines and software net of 
     federal and state funds.
       Polk County, Iowa has indicated that their figure for FY 
     2004 is associated with administrative costs such as 
     reprinting forms. The figure for FY 2005 represents the 
     county cost, less federal and state reimbursements, for the 
     purchase of accessible voting equipment.
       Clermont County, Ohio, has indicated that none of their 
     reported costs are for the actual purchase of equipment. The 
     entire figure is for administrative labor and travel 
     associated with review of proposed equipment except for $300 
     for printing and processing of provisional ballots.


                           amendment no. 253

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today and join 
Senator Baucus and our colleagues in offering this Sense of the Senate 
resolution calling for full funding of the High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Areas program.
  In all areas the President proposes and Congress disposes, and the 
budget is no different. While I support the President's efforts to 
control Federal spending to address the budget deficit, I have concerns 
about how some of his proposals would affect law enforcement efforts to 
identify, arrest, and prosecute drug trafficking organizations selling 
their poison to our kids and grand kids. I think it is critically 
important that we not hinder their ability to protect citizens, 
especially from the dangers of drugs.
  In particular, the proposal to transfer to the Department of Justice 
and reduce the funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 
program--also known as the HIDTA program--would have a major impact on 
drug enforcement efforts. With the continued growth of meth in Iowa and 
throughout the Midwest, we cannot afford to reduce programs designed to 
increase cooperation and coordination. Just as modem technology allows 
our businesses and our citizens to freely move around the country, the 
criminal element within the United States can take advantages of these 
same opportunities. That's why it is essential that they be able to 
work together, across jurisdictions, so that our laws against drug 
trafficking can be effectively enforced.
  Congress provided the Office of National Drug Control Policy with the 
responsibility for the management--and effectiveness--of the High 
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program. For a relatively modest 
investment, Federal, State, and local law enforcement have tremendously 
benefitted from the increased information sharing and improved 
coordination that HIDTAs create. The task forces created through the 
HIDTA program can serve as models for initiatives against terrorism, 
money laundering, and other modem threats to civil society.
  This amendment is consistent with the views expressed by the Budget 
Committee. It is consistent with the views expressed in the legislation 
introduced last year to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy.
  I hope that all of our colleagues will join us in supporting this 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 197

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Allen in 
urging the Senate to adopt budget language reinforcing our Nation's 
commitment to vital aeronautics research. For decades, the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration has conducted a wide array of 
aeronautics research programs that have helped ensure our economic and 
military security and revolutionize the way we travel. NASA's work in 
aeronautics has captured the spirit of the Wright Brothers, spawning 
generation after generation of progress. The amendment before us, which 
I am cosponsoring, will help make certain that progress continues for 
many years to come.
  Members of this body, including me, will fly to their home states 
later today or tomorrow when we have completed the budget, and when we 
do, we will benefit from countless innovations first developed in NASA 
aeronautics programs over the years--efficient jet engines, safe and 
secure air traffic control networks, advanced de-icing technologies, 
and so on.
  The impact of NASA's work is indeed widespread. The U.S. aviation 
industry supports over 11 million jobs and contributes $1 trillion in 
economic activity. Our airlines carry 750 million passengers per year, 
with that number expected to grow to a billion within 15 years. We ship 
52 percent of our exports by air, and in fact, the aviation industry 
contributes more to the U.S. balance of trade than any other domestic 
manufacturing industry.
  Today we are at grave risk of losing the staff, facilities, and 
expertise necessary to continue the long history of NASA's aeronautics 
research programs. We are at risk of essentially allowing the first 
``A'' in NASA--the one that stands for aeronautics--to die over the 
next several years. What a tragedy that would be for the traveling 
public, for our aviation industries, for our military, and really for 
our entire economy.
  The budget we have before us does not contain specific references to 
aeronautics funding. Nonetheless, we know of NASA's plans for 
aeronautics from its fiscal year 2006 budget request. We know that the 
agency intends to reduce overall aeronautics funding by over 17 percent 
from fiscal year 2004, dropping another 12 percent by 2009. That is 
nearly one-third in just 5 years.
  The cuts are even more severe within the ``vehicle systems'' 
account--the portion of NASA's aeronautics program that focuses on 
making aircraft safer, faster, quieter, more fuel efficient, and 
dynamic. NASA has announced its intention to cut over 28 percent of its 
budget in this area relative to fiscal year 2004, with plans to 
eventually cut even deeper in the out years. What will the practical 
consequences of these cuts be?
  For starters, the cuts mean that all subsonic and hypersonic research 
will be terminated. This is the research that focuses on designing 
stronger airframes and better turbine engines--technologies that with 
just a little work can be taken from the lab and applied directly to 
functional aircraft, whether commercial or military. As a result, 
domestic aircraft and engine producers will lack the ability to draw on 
a body of solid pre-competitive research, while competitors abroad 
benefit from well financed efforts, such as the European Union's 
``Vision 2020'' aeronautics program. Ultimately, the consequence may be 
the loss of our longstanding global leadership in civil aviation and 
all the economic benefits that flow from that leadership.
  Second, many of the facilities necessary to design and test new 
aeronautics technologies will likely be closed as a result of budget 
shortfalls. Wind tunnels and propulsion test facilities are used by 
government, academia, and industry--often on a pay-for-use basis--and 
require minimal funding to maintain. A recent RAND National Defense 
Research Institute determined that over 84 percent of these NASA 
facilities serve strategic national needs, and concluded that the 
success of the U.S. aerospace industry ``relies on our workforce and 
test facility infrastructure . . . and will continue to need to predict 
airflow behavior over a range of designs.'' If we allow wind tunnels 
and propulsion labs to close, there will, in fact, be no way to serve 
these needs.

[[Page 5246]]

  So these proposed aeronautics cuts are a double threat to the U.S. 
aviation industry: On the one hand, they get NASA out of the business 
of subsonic research, and on the other, they may well lead to the 
closure of the very facilities industry and academia would need to 
replace that research. There would, of course, be consequences for 
cross-cutting technologies used by the military and for the scores of 
Americans employed in these areas. On balance, the overall long-term 
impact would be devastating.
  Instead of focusing on these subsonic and hypersonic aeronautics 
program areas, NASA intends to focus on ``barrier breaking'' flight 
demonstrations. These are exciting projects that involve UAVs and 
aircraft capable of quietly crossing the sound barrier, and they may 
pay off 15, 20, or 25 years down the road. By then, however, it could 
be too late for our aviation industry. The language offered by Senator 
Allen today addresses that fact head-on by restoring balance in NASA's 
aeronautics programs.
  We need to step back and re-evaluate where we are with aeronautics 
research, where we want to be in 5, 10, 15 years, and make a commitment 
to do what it takes to get us there. A study specifically requested by 
Congress in the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations bill mapping 
this course will be unveiled later this month by the National Institute 
of Aerospace. Just yesterday, the House Science Committee held an 
important hearing on the direction of aeronautics research.
  There is movement on these issues, and we will have opportunities to 
define our goals as the year progresses. What Senator Allen is 
proposing to do is to say that we must keep all of our options open and 
our areas of expertise healthy until we are able to come to a 
conclusion between Congress, the administration, industry, academia, 
and really our Nation on what our direction will be. Senator Allen's 
language, in essence, ensures that our debate on how to approach 
aeronautics will not be over before it begins.


                           amendment no. 220

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Lieberman-Collins amendment No. 220 
provides $855 million to restore cuts to vital first responder programs 
in the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, 
and for port security grants. The amendment provides an additional $565 
million for programs that support our first responders, including State 
homeland security formula grants, Urban Area Security Initiative 
grants, FIRE Act grants, SAFER grants, Emergency Management Planning 
Grants, and the Metropolitan Medical Response System. It would restore 
$140 million for community policing and local law enforcement efforts 
under the COPS and Byrne Grant programs. It would also provide $150 
million for port security grants, ensuring at least the same amount of 
funding for the Nation's ports as last year.


                           amendment no. 217

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I submitted an amendment to the budget 
resolution with Senator Hatch, Senator Specter, Senator Biden, Senator 
DeWine, Senator Leahy, and Senator Baucus to restore funding for 
juvenile justice and local law enforcement programs closer to last 
year's levels. Our amendment will increase funding for these programs 
funded by the Department of Justice by $500 million. Specifically, this 
money will add $173 million to the Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention, OJJDP, budget, $200 million for the Byrne 
Justice Assistance Grant Program and the COPS program, and $127 million 
to the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, HIDTA, program. The 
amendment accomplishes this by raising the functional total for the 
justice allocation by $500 million offset in function 920, which gives 
the Appropriations Committee the flexibility to design the exact 
offsets.
  Let me briefly illustrate why we must put money back into these 
programs. Following the administration's lead, the Senate Budget 
Committee allocated $187 million to the OJJDP budget, which is about 
$173 million less than what we appropriated last year. I am 
particularly disturbed that the Senate budget resolution assumes 
complete elimination of the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant 
program, JABG, which received $55 million last year. JABG provides 
funding for intervention programs that address the urgent needs of 
juveniles who have had run-ins with the law.
  The Budget Committee seems to feel that the JABG program is 
ineffective. An example from my home State of Wisconsin proves 
otherwise. Using Federal dollars from the JABG program, the Southern 
Oaks Girls School, a juvenile detention center outside of Racine, WI, 
built a new mental health wing to provide much-needed counseling 
services for the girl inmates. The administrator of this school cites a 
56 drop in violent behavior since the new mental services have been 
offered. This is just one example of JABG's many successes, a record 
that supports keeping JABG alive and well-funded.
  The same is true of title V Local Delinquency Prevention Program, the 
only Federal program solely dedicated to juvenile crime prevention. The 
Senate budget assumes a $50 million cut to title V, penny pinching now 
that will cost us dearly in the future. According to many experts in 
the field, every dollar spent on prevention saves three or four dollars 
in costs attributable to juvenile crime. And who can put a dollar value 
on the hundreds, even thousands of young lives turned from crime and 
into productive work and community life by the juvenile crime 
prevention programs supported by title V?
  Following the President's lead, the Senate Budget Committee also 
drastically cuts the programs most important to state and local law 
enforcement. Congress appropriated a little more than $700 million last 
year in both discretionary and formula funds for the Byrne Justice 
Assistance Grant program. The budget before us assumes no funding for 
this program at all. Byrne grants pay for State and local drug task 
forces, community crime prevention programs, substance abuse treatment 
programs, prosecution initiatives, and many other local crime control 
programs.
  Talk to any police chief or sheriff back in Wisconsin and they will 
tell you that the Byrne program is the backbone of Federal aid for 
local law enforcement. Do we really want to walk away from a program 
with more than 30 years of success supporting our local police chiefs, 
sheriffs, and district attorneys?
  The COPS program is another victim of this budget. The budget assumes 
$118 million for the COPS program. That is down from $388 million last 
year. What is worse is that, within the COPS program, popular 
initiatives like the COPS Universal Hiring Program and the COPS 
Technology Grants Program are zeroed out entirely. We should remember 
that just 3 years ago, the overall COPS program received more than a 
billion dollars. Of that amount, $330,000,000 was for the hiring 
program that helped provide police officers for towns in Wisconsin like 
Ashland and Onalaska. Another $154,000,000 was for the COPS technology 
program that helped fund critical communications upgrades in cities, 
like Milwaukee and Madison and many other cities, not only in 
Wisconsin, but across the Nation.
  Almost 3 years ago, I asked Attorney General Ashcroft him why the 
COPS program was being cut. He answered that that the COPS program was 
a ``good thing'', that it ``worked very well'' and that it had been one 
of the ``most successful programs'' we have ever had. I call on the 
Senate to heed our former Attorney General's words and restore funding 
for COPS in our budget.
  Finally, The Senate budget assumes cuts in the High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Areas, HIDTA program from $227 top $100 million. The HIDTA 
program is a vital collaboration between Federal, State and local law 
enforcement to combat drug trafficking through intelligence-gathering 
and cooperation. This proposed cut in the overall HIDTA program 
threatens the future of smaller HIDTAs like the one in Milwaukee, a 
program that has been extremely successful in stemming crime.

[[Page 5247]]

  The downward spiral of juvenile justice and local law enforcement 
funding is a disturbing budget trend with ugly real world implications. 
As a result of the Byrne, COPS, JABG, HIDTA and title V programs, we 
have enjoyed steadily decreasing crime rates for the past decade. But, 
if we do not, at a minimum, maintain funding for crime fighting, we 
cannot be surprised if crime again infests our cities, communities, and 
neighborhoods.
  The budget assumes more than $1.2 billion will be cut from what it 
would take to fully fund OJJDP, the Byrne Grant Program, COPS, and 
HIDTA at last year's level adjusted for inflation. We restore $500 
million of that, not enough to make these important crime fighting 
programs whole, but enough to keep them functioning and working to keep 
our communities and families safe. Though some of us would prefer an 
even higher increase, my amendment represents a step in the right 
direction. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.


                           Amendment No. 214

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Snowe-
Wyden amendment. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment to allow the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate for the lowest 
prescription drug prices in Medicare.
  Americans pay the highest drug prices in the world. Americans pay, on 
average, two-thirds more than the Canadians, 80 percent more than the 
Germans, and 60 percent more than the British. While drug companies 
argue that they need high prices in America in order to fund research 
and development for new drugs, drug companies spend more on marketing, 
advertising, and administration than they spend on research.
  Our seniors deserve a Medicare prescription drug benefit that gets 
the best prices for their medication. But the Medicare prescription 
drug law actually prohibits the Federal Government from negotiating 
with drug companies for lower prices. This is a missed opportunity and 
a waste of taxpayers' dollars.
  In light of the growing concerns over the rising cost of this 
benefit--$57 billion more than originally expected--every effort should 
be made to save our seniors and taxpayers dollars.
  This amendment requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
use the tremendous purchasing power of the 41 million Medicare 
beneficiaries to assist the private drug plans in getting the lowest 
price for seniors. The savings provided by this amendment would go to 
pay for deficit reduction.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense effort to lower 
prescription drug prices and reduce the deficit.


                           amendment no. 172

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Harkin 
amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment, which 
preserves funding for Perkins career and technical education for the 
next 5 years. While the Administration has determined that Perkins is 
ineffective, I rise today to defend Perkins and highlight its proven 
effectiveness in my home State of Wisconsin.
  Perkins provides over $24 million in education and job training to 
Wisconsin students. These funds are allocated between the Wisconsin 
Technical College System and the Wisconsin Department of Public 
Instruction.
  Over the past 5 years, 97 percent of Wisconsin's high schools have 
participated in the federally funded Perkins career and technical 
education programs. This includes over 98 percent of 11th and 12th 
grade students, as well as secondary special students in the State. As 
the result of this investment in career and technical programs, 96 
percent of Wisconsin students completing high school career and 
technical education programs graduate, compared to the State's overall 
graduation rate of 91 percent.
  The Wisconsin Technica1 College System and its 16-member colleges 
receive $13 million in Perkins funding to reach 25,000 students 
statewide. Students who qualify for Perkins-funded services are those 
most in need of assistance to ensure their future success in the 
workforce. Many are academically and economically disadvantaged. Some 
have disabilities, are single parents or have limited English 
proficiency. These students are provided counseling, disability support 
services, services related to increasing students enrolled in non-
traditional occupations, remedial instruction, and transition services 
that help students successfully move from K-12 education to technical 
colleges and from technical colleges to the workforce.
  Our technical colleges have demonstrated success helping their 
students meet these unique challenges. Six months after graduation, 91 
percent of graduates are employed with an annual median salary of over 
$30,000. Five years after graduation, 97 percent are employed making 
nearly $36,000 a year. These graduates positively contribute to their 
communities and meet the needs of local businesses.
  The loss of Perkins funding would significantly weaken our Nation's 
educational quality and economic competitiveness. This amendment is 
fully offset and provides deficit reduction. I urge my colleagues to 
support Senator Harkin's amendment to ensure that students in Wisconsin 
and elsewhere continue to benefit from Perkins to compete in the 21st 
century economy.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I was pleased to join with my colleague 
Senator Chafee in sponsoring a sense of the Senate resolution which 
sought to restore the Clean Water State Revolving Funds to the fiscal 
year 2004 enacted level of $1.35 billion.
  For the past 2 years, Senators Crapo, Jeffords, and I, along with 
other Members of this body, have offered successful amendments to the 
budget resolution on the Senate floor seeking to boost funding for this 
program from $1.35 billion to $3.2 billion.
  Unfortunately, these amendments were not accepted by the conference 
committee for fiscal year 2004, and there was no budget resolution in 
fiscal year 2005.
  There is a tremendous need for increased funding for wastewater 
treatment infrastructure improvements throughout the country. As we 
underscore in this resolution, in 2002 the Congressional Budget Office 
estimated a spending gap for clean water needs between $132 billion and 
$388 billion over 20 years. This year we are proposing a very modest 
amendment simply to hold the line.
  All States will be affected by the President's proposed cut in 
spending, a cut of 33 percent from the fiscal year 2005 enacted funding 
and a cut of 46 percent from the 2004 enacted level.
  This cut will have a devastating impact on the ability of States and 
communities to continue upgrading their wastewater infrastructure and 
to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
  This request to restore the funding has broad bipartisan support: 41 
Senators joined me in a letter seeking this restoration.
  Americans overwhelmingly believe that clean and safe water should be 
a national issue and a national priority. Protecting our Nation's water 
is an essential Federal role, not just a State and local 
responsibility.
  In a recent poll, nearly three-quarters of Americans agreed that 
``clean and safe water is a national issue that requires dedicated 
national funding.'' More than two-thirds think Federal spending to 
ensure clean and safe water is more important than tax cuts. Across the 
Nation, our wastewater systems are aging. Some systems currently in use 
were built more than a century ago and have outlived their useful life.
  Many communities cannot meet water-quality goals with their current 
systems. The American Society of Civil Engineers recently released its 
2005 Report Card for America's Infrastructure and gave Wastewater 
systems a D minus, down from a D 2 years ago.
  Obviously, I would like to see a significant increase in these clean 
water State revolving funds, which have been a highly effective means 
for improving wastewater treatment for communities across the Nation. 
However, at a minimum, I urge a simple restoration of the funding to 
the 2004 enacted level.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Enzi, and I filed 
our

[[Page 5248]]

amendment dealing with the defined benefit plan reform proposals in 
this budget. The amendment provides the necessary flexibility with 
respect to revenues and outlay savings between our two committees.
  Unfortunately, a last-minute objection from staff on the other side 
sidetracked our amendment. We will pursue this amendment in the 
conference on the resolution.


                            vote explanation

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, yesterday I inadvertently missed a vote on 
an amendment to increase funding for AMTRAK by $1.4 billion. The 
amendment would have been paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes. 
If I were present I would have voted yea.
  AMTRAK is important to Arkansas. By shifting the AMTRAK funding 
burden to States we are doing a real disservice to those people in 
rural America who rely on rail service. And without adequate 
assistance, I fear we will witness a rapid decrease in Amtrak's 
performance and infrastructure, and the end of rail service for my 
State.
  I think it should be a goal of AMTRAK to achieve economic viability 
and I am open to discussions on how best to achieve that goal. But in 
this budget we should not ignore their funding needs or the needs of 
our rail passengers and State and local governments. I commend Senator 
Robert Byrd for this amendment and I regret having inadvertently missed 
this vote.


                            vote explanation

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, had I been present for vote number 66, 
amendment No. 230 sponsored by Senator Coleman, to restore funding for 
Community Development Block Grants and other programs, I would have 
voted in favor of the amendment.
  Due to the rapid scheduling of amendments at this time, I was unable 
to be here for that vote. However, my position with respect to CDBG 
funding is crystal clear. In fact, I was a cosponsor of the Sarbanes 
amendment to restore CDBG funding, which unfortunately failed on a 50-
50 vote.
  Although I preferred the offset in the Sarbanes amendment, I 
nonetheless would have voted for the Coleman amendment as well. CDBG 
provides critical funds to many communities in my State. It is one of 
the Federal Government's most effective neighborhood privatization 
programs. I am please that the Coleman amendment passed this body 
today, and I will continue to work in the Senate to ensure that the 
President's proposed cuts are not enacted into law.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
the Budget resolution before us.
  Let's start with the revenue reconciliation instructions. We have 
already seen many amendments to raise taxes and I am sure we will see 
more. But there is another tax increase on the horizon. I am referring 
to the tax increase our constituents will feel in their pocketbooks and 
wallets if we fail to extend current tax law.
  The so-called ``tax cuts'' the other side keeps referring to is 
really nothing more than just keeping current tax law. There are over 
40 provisions that American families and employers have come to rely on 
that will expire at the end of this year if we do nothing.
  The $70 billion in reconciliation that this resolution calls for is 
needed to prevent a massive tax increase. This is about provisions in 
current law that are important to our constituents and to our economy. 
We cannot afford to allow them to expire and therefore be raised.
  Let's take a look at the items that the Finance Committee, which I 
serve on, will examine this year. There is the R&D tax credit. This is 
an important provision of the Tax Code that spurs innovation and new 
technologies and one that I and most others here support.
  In fact, the bill introduced in the Senate in the last Congress to 
make this provision permanent had 40 cosponsors, including 22 
Democrats. It will cost $7 billion to extend this provision alone for 
the 5 years of this budget.
  Then there is the deduction for tuition expenses that will cost $10 
billion to extend for 5 years. And we need to address the ability of 
taxpayers to deduct their State sales taxes from their Federal taxes. 
This will cost $2 billion for just 1 year.
  We have a temporary, 1-year fix for the alternative minimum tax that 
will cost $30 billion.
  Other items that expire this year include: the work opportunity and 
welfare-to-work tax credits, mental health parity, a provision 
regarding military pay and the earned income tax credit, a deduction 
for teachers who buy classroom supplies, the wind energy tax credit, 
oil and gas tax provisions, tax credit bonds for school renovations. I 
could go on and on.
  Again, over 40 provisions in total will expire this year. Let me be 
clear, these are not new tax proposals. This is simply current law. If 
we do not extend these provisions we will cause a substantial increase 
in the tax bills of American families and businesses.
  Our Finance Committee needs every cent of the $70 billion in the 
reconciliation instruction to make that happen. And that is even before 
we turn our attention to the dividends and capital gains tax provisions 
that have been important to our economy. I will push hard to extend 
these through the end of the budget window.
  The amendments we have seen the last few days also deal with 
``closing tax loopholes'' to get so-called ``corporate cheats''. I 
serve on the Senate Finance Committee and I can tell my colleagues that 
no one is more committed to closing tax loopholes than Chairman 
Grassley.
  In fact, the last tax bill we passed, the Jobs bill, had tens of 
billions of dollars in tax loophole closers. If any doubts that Chuck 
Grassley will take every opportunity to shut down tax cheats, then I 
suggest they go talk to him and look at the record on this issue.
  And for the record, it has been a Republican Congress and President 
that has gone after these loopholes and tax cheats in the Finance 
Committee.
  In addition to the over 40 tax extenders I referred to, we also have 
other priorities, such as the tax title of the Energy bill and 
charitable provisions in the Care Act. Charities do such important work 
in America and offer incredible compassion. They touch lives in ways 
the Government never can.
  And if we want to be energy independent and less dependent on foreign 
sources, then we need to encourage the development of energy 
alternatives for the cleaner burning of fuels, such as clean coal 
technologies.
  So I hope we can avoid getting caught in the rhetoric that calls the 
reconciliation instruction ``unnecessary.'' It is absolutely necessary 
if we are to prevent a massive tax increase. And it is especially vital 
when our economy is showing real signs of continuing solid growth.
  I also want to address some of the complaints that we have heard 
about the horrible so-called ``cuts'' in Medicaid spending that the 
president asked for and we assumed in this budget.
  Medicaid spending is projected to grow $1.112 trillion in the next 5 
years. The president's plan would call for a spending increase of 
$1.098 trillion over 5 years.
  Notice that I said a spending increase of more than $1 trillion. That 
works out to an annual growth rate of 7.2 percent. On what planet is an 
increase of 7.2 percent a year a cut? Let's get honest about the 
complaints we are hearing. What we are hearing are complaints that an 
increase of 40 percent in 5 years is just too little. Think about that: 
40 percent.
  All we are asking of the Medicaid program, as we hand them a more 
than $1 trillion funding increase, is to cut out $14 billion in abuse 
and waste. I don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face 
that it is impossible to save less than 2 percent of the budget of any 
program over a 5-year period. It absolutely can be done. We just need 
to have the will to do it.
  We absolutely must get a handle on entitlement and mandatory spending 
because the numbers are alarming. By 2030 Medicare, Medicaid and Social 
Security spending alone will be 13 percent of GDP. Unless we reform 
entitlement spending, we simply cannot continue on our current path.

[[Page 5249]]

  This budget is a first step, a very small first step, toward 
beginning to address the entitlement spending that threatens to 
overburden our economy.
  I support this budget before us. It recognizes the realities of our 
world with the need to limit spending and extend current tax law to 
create jobs and keep America on the road to economic recovery. I 
congratulate Chairman Gregg on crafting a strong budget and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the 
concurrent budget resolution presently before the Senate.
  I want to start by congratulating Senator Judd Gregg, the new 
chairman of the Budget Committee, along with the other members of that 
committee, for accomplishing the difficult task of putting together and 
reporting to the Senate a budget resolution that begins to address our 
spending and deficit challenges in a modest yet significant way.
  As with many of my fellow Utahns, I am very concerned about the large 
and persistent deficits with which our Federal Government still 
wrestles. I continue to hear from constituents who seem discouraged 
that the Government has not been able to find more success in bringing 
the budget into balance, particularly after the several years of 
surplus we enjoyed in the latter part of the last decade.
  Many Utahns have written to me to express their concerns that this 
generation is leaving a huge and growing burden on our children and 
grandchildren, one that perhaps will be too onerous for them to bear. 
As a long-time advocate of fiscal responsibility in families and in 
Government, I understand and agree with these concerns. The deficit and 
the mountain of public debt owed by the Federal Government do matter, 
and will make life harder for Americans in the future.
  And so, those of us from Utah share a collective frustration that 
this budget does not make more progress toward cutting the deficit.
  As I examine the budget resolution, however, I am struck by the fact 
that we, as a nation, are still facing turbulent conditions that seem 
to defy our best efforts to control our fiscal destiny. As we get 
farther and farther from the monumental events of the early part of 
this decade that have shaped our current landscape in so many ways, 
perhaps it is becoming easier to think that things are slowly returning 
to normal in our country.
  But we need to remember that this Nation is still at war, and we 
still face tremendous challenges in protecting our homeland from 
further terrorist attacks. These needs are paramount and eclipse even 
the importance of balancing the budget. This budget resolution reflects 
these facts and provides for increases, although a relatively modest 
4.1 percent growth in defense and homeland security spending.
  At the same time, the budget places a virtual freeze on the growth of 
the remainder of discretionary spending accounts. This is in stark 
contrast to recent years, where such spending has grown at a relatively 
high rate. I believe this nondefense/homeland security freeze is a very 
important feature of this budget. Even though this restraint is rather 
modest, it is being met with a great deal of concern from many who had 
hoped to see more growth in the programs that fall under this category.
  The budget also makes some small progress in bringing mandatory 
spending under control. Over the 5-year budget period provided by this 
resolution, this type of spending growth is cut by $32 billion. 
Although this is just a fraction of the growth in entitlement spending 
projected over this period, it is significant that this budget 
represents the first attempt to cut mandatory spending growth since 
1997.
  The results of these changes on the deficit are not dramatic, but 
they are noteworthy. The President set a goal last year to cut the 
deficit for fiscal year 2004, which was $521 billion, or 4.5 percent of 
GDP, in half within 5 years. The budget resolution before us projects 
this goal being met in fiscal year 2008 with a deficit of $258 billion 
that year, and falling to $208 billion by 2010. In relative terms, the 
deficit is projected to be 1.8 percent of GDP by 2008 and just 1.3 
percent by 2010. While still too large, these deficits are certainly 
more manageable than those of recent years.
  To meet these goals, the resolution provides some pretty tough 
discretionary spending caps for the next three fiscal years, and 
retains the pay-as-you-go rule from the fiscal year 2004 budget 
resolution.
  Some of my colleagues are questioning the need for the budget to 
provide for approximately $70 billion in tax relief over the next 5 
years. We need this money set aside to prevent tax increases that would 
be damaging to our growing economy.
  Specifically, two provisions that have shown to be very important to 
increasing Federal revenue growth and helping the economy to recover 
are set to expire at the end of 2008. These are the reduced tax rates 
for dividend income and capital gain income that were enacted as part 
of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.
  If Congress allows these lower tax rates to expire, we would, in 
effect, be placing a significant tax increase on the economy. Capital 
gains rates would increase from a maximum of 15 percent to 20 percent, 
and the tax rate on dividends would leap from 15 percent to as high as 
35 percent.
  There is no doubt that these tax rate reductions, combined with the 
other tax cuts we passed in 2001, 2002, and 2003 have contributed to 
the recovery of the economy. After declining for 3 years, 2001-2003, 
Federal collections began increasing again in 2004, rising by 5.5 
percent that year. For the current fiscal year, 2005, revenues are 
projected to jump by an impressive 9.4 percent. Moreover, revenues are 
expected to increase by an average of 6.4 percent each year until the 
end of the decade. This demonstrates to me the wisdom of our earlier 
decisions to cut taxes to get the economy growing again.
  Allowing tax rates to increase might seem to some to be a smart way 
to fight the deficit, but I believe these revenue trends illustrate 
that such a move would be counterproductive and exactly the wrong thing 
to do. Therefore, it is very important that this budget include the 
reconciliation instructions that provide the opportunity for the 
Finance Committee to report the legislation that will prevent these tax 
cuts from expiring.
  I look forward to working my colleagues on the Finance Committee in 
crafting a bill to extend both the dividends and capital gains tax rate 
reductions, as well as extending other important tax provisions that 
expire later this year.
  While this budget resolution perhaps does not go as far as I would 
like to see in reducing the deficit and addressing spending growth, it 
is probably as strong as we can make it. I also recognize that this 
resolution has to garner a majority of votes in both the Senate and the 
House for it to take effect. Each one of my colleagues also has his or 
her own ideas of what would be the best combination of spending 
priorities for this coming fiscal year. In the end, what counts is what 
we can get a majority of us to agree upon the lowest common 
denominator.
  Given the circumstances, the balances achieved in the budget 
resolution may well be the best we can do. It is not perfect, but it is 
a start, and it deserves our support.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, for the past few years I have been 
advancing a concept that embodies fiscal responsibility, a concept 
that--if enacted--would be a sure sign to hard-working Americans that 
the Federal Government is serious about fiscal discipline.
  Federal spending is at an all time high, now topping $20,000 per 
household, and that does not include spending from state and local 
taxes. This is the highest level of federal spending since World War 
II.
  The Federal Government is now spending $2,292,000,000 per year on 
discretionary and mandatory spending, including Social Security.
  Mr. President, $2.292 trillion is a lot of money. My Kansas 
constituents often say: ``I don't mind paying my taxes, but make sure 
my hard-earned money gets spent wisely.''

[[Page 5250]]

  Does Federal spending need to be so high? We would all agree that the 
Federal Government has an essential role to play in various capacities, 
but are taxpayers getting the most out of every dollar sent to 
Washington? Again, I ask, does the Federal Government really need 
$20,000 per American household in order to operate?
  And what real safeguards do we have in place to ensure that these 
$2.292 trillion are being spent wisely?
  I am proud to have been elected to serve my constituents on a 
platform of reducing wasteful Federal spending and reforming 
Government. After 10 years though, I can testify that it takes a great 
deal of effort to keep a positive attitude. Balancing the budget, 
reducing Federal spending and returning taxpayer dollars to the 
families that earned them is hard work.
  The reason for the difficulty in achieving success, in what would 
seem to be an obvious thing to do--reducing government waste and 
prioritizing spending--is that the specific interests trump the general 
interest on Capitol Hill.
  For instance, there is a general interest to discourage smoking, and 
we spend many taxpayer dollars both to this end and on the treatment of 
lung cancer; however, taxpayer dollars are also still spent to 
subsidize tobacco because there is such specific interest pressure to 
keep tobacco subsidies alive.
  The budget we are debating cuts the deficit in half in 5 years. I 
think we should balance the budget in seven years, but to be effective, 
we must work within the parameters of the system.
  Systems matter, and to get solid reform accomplished you must have an 
approach that recognizes this reality. The problem with our current 
system--with the specific interest crowding out the general--is that it 
makes reform very difficult. Former Senator Phil Gramm taught me this 
truth in the Senate.
  I believe that we need a new systematic approach to spending in 
Congress. This whole week, amendment after amendment has been offered 
on the Senate floor; generally speaking, each one of these amendments 
has the voice of a particular specific interest behind it. After all of 
the specific interest issues are raised, I will be happy if we can just 
cut the deficit in half in five years.
  We need to create another mechanism, which will allow for the general 
interest to overcome the specific. Therefore, I put forward a new 
systematic approach.
  Over the last few years, I have developed the Commission on the 
Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies, CARFA Act, which is a 
systematic approach.
  Last year, we had a bipartisan hearing on the measure, in which all 
witnesses supported this new concept. In this year's version of the 
bill, we are incorporating some of the suggestions made at that 
hearing.
  CARFA would take all of the Federal Government agencies and programs 
and put them under the review of a bipartisan commission--the members 
of which are appointed by both Congress and the White House.
  The commission would review Federal agencies and programs, and 
present draft legislation to the Congress to realign or eliminate 
duplicative, wasteful, outdated, and failed agencies and programs.
  Each house of Congress would get one vote on the bill--up or down--
without amendment.
  For example, if the commission finds 563 programs that are 
duplicative, wasteful, or already have accomplished their purpose and 
recommends their realignment or termination, then the Congress would 
vote--up or down--without amendment to realign or eliminate all of them 
or keep all of them. And you get only one vote--one vote in the House 
and one vote in the Senate--to send it forward to the President.
  It is a systematic approach to address the specific interests 
dominating the debate in Washington.
  The CARFA approach tries to get at the issue and create a systematic 
approach by giving the general interest a voice in the system. So now 
you have these 563 or 284 programs, and people come up to me and say: 
``Well, what if you've got an agriculture program that has some benefit 
to Kansas, that you want to help and keep?''
  Then, I look at the program and see that it does help Kansas, but I 
only get one vote and there are all of these other programs that I 
really do think need to be eliminated. And it makes the overall goal of 
balancing the Federal budget more achievable.
  I am pleased that, once again this year, the chairman of the Budget 
Committee has seen the need for this measure and recognized how vitally 
important it is, as he has included a sense of the Senate calling for a 
commission along the lines of CARFA.
  It is my hope that we will be able to work with the leadership this 
year and see the new CARFA systematic approach become a reality.
  Mr. STEVENS. The amendment to strip development in ANWR from the 
budget yesterday ignores the outlook for the global consumption of oil. 
I am pleased that the Senate took a proactive approach to our current 
energy crisis, and voted to keep ANWR in the budget.
  After listening at length to the statements of those opposed to 
responsible development on Alaska's North Slope, I was struck by the 
lack of concern over the national security implications of our 
dependence on foreign oil.
  The global outlook for oil consumption is sobering, and it validates 
our decision yesterday to increase our domestic production by opening 
ANWR. One of the most serious areas of concern is the projected 
increase in China's oil consumption, which is set to grow at staggering 
rates.
  China's economy is doubling every 8 to 10 years. This level of growth 
is expected to continue for at least 25 years.
  To do this, China will need access to an increasing supply of oil. 
Milton Copulos, the President of the National Defense Council 
Foundation, told our House colleagues yesterday that fueling this 
economic growth will require ``so much oil . . . that the ability of 
current suppliers to produce it may be stretched to the breaking 
point.''
  Jeffery Logan, Senior Energy Analyst and China Program Manager for 
the International Energy Agency, testified that, the average Chinese 
citizen consumed only one fourteenth of the oil consumed by the average 
American in 2004, but Chinese consumption is poised to increase 
rapidly.
  Mr. Logan noted that in late 2003 China surpassed Japan to become the 
world's second largest petroleum consumer. He said:

       In 2004, Chinese demand expanded nearly 16 percent to 6.83 
     million barrels per day . . . [but] Domestic crude output in 
     China has grown only very slowly over the past five years . . 
     . Imports now account for 40 percent of Chinese oil demand.

  To put this in perspective, Chinese oil consumption was responsible 
for 40 percent of the growth in global oil demand over the past four 
years. This trend will continue and China's consumption is projected to 
rise from 5.56 million barrels per day in 2003 to 12.8 million barrels 
in 2025.
  Mr. Logan told the subcommittee that eventually China's ``import 
dependency'' will reach 75 percent stressing an already tenuous world 
oil supply.
  Milton Copulos explained the consequences of this increase in Chinese 
consumption. He said:

       Under the best circumstances, the competition for oil 
     generated by the explosive economic growth in Asia will serve 
     to put a tremendous upward pressure on prices, driving them 
     well above the current $50 plus per barrel average. OPEC 
     officials have said oil prices could rise to as much as $80 a 
     barrel and they may well be correct.
       Under the worst circumstances, . . . the competition for 
     oil could lead to armed conflict--particularly with China.

  I remember well the days of the 1970's oil embargo, and I agree with 
Mr. Copulos that, ``America is heading head-long into a disaster. Today 
our situation is far worse in 1973.''
  I also agree with his assessment that:

       The simple truth is that America's energy endowment is more 
     than sufficient to provide for all of our needs, both today 
     and in the future. The only real shortfall that we have is a 
     shortfall of the political will to find

[[Page 5251]]

     innovative ways to fully utilize the resources we are blessed 
     with.

  Mr. Copulos discussed several areas where having the political will 
to take action could help turn our situation around. As an Alaskan, I 
am proud that our state can play a key role in the solutions he 
proposed.
  The reality that some people do not want to face is the world is 
changing. China's economy is growing at a staggering pace, and without 
new domestic production, our country will face unimaginable competition 
for oil. ANWR is part of the solution to this looming crisis, and I am 
pleased Congress has finally had the political will to face this 
challenge and take proactive steps to prevent it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this budget, like the President's budget, 
reflects the wrong priorities. This budget short changes public 
services such as education and health care for all Americans in order 
to further cut taxes mainly for the wealthiest Americans. This budget 
resolution is starkly out of touch with the vast majority of working 
families in Michigan and across the United States. The American people 
deserve better.
  To create the impression that the budget cuts the deficit in half 
over the next 5 years, it simply leaves out several major expenses. 
These omissions include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
the cost of the personnel added to the Army and Marines and the cost of 
reforming the alternative minimum tax. Leaving these costs out of the 
budget paints an incomplete picture of the deepening Federal deficit 
and the damage being done to the Nation's fiscal outlook.
  If the deficit continues to expand at its current rate, by 2015, each 
American's share of the debt will be at least $30,000. The bigger the 
deficit grows, the more likely it is that we will face rising long-term 
interest rates and slower economic growth. This will make it more 
expensive to buy a house, pay for college or pay off credit card debt. 
This is an unfair burden to pass on to our children and grandchildren.
  The President's tax cuts are a major cause of our Nation's swing from 
a record budget surplus into an increasingly deep deficit ditch. Yet 
this resolution seeks $71 billion in additional tax breaks most of 
which are for the wealthiest Americans. The cornerstone of these 
proposed tax cuts is the extension of the capital gains and dividend 
tax cuts. These tax cuts would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest 
among us.
  Largely as a result of its reckless tax cuts, this budget would 
actually increase, rather than decrease, the deficit. But this budget 
resolution, such as the President's budget, attempts to conceal the 
damage it is doing to the Nation's fiscal outlook by using 5-year 
projections instead of the customary 10-year numbers. Hidden just 
beyond the 5-year budget window is the exploding cost of the tax cut 
proposals and its growing effect on the deficit.
  I am disappointed that the Senate did not adopt the Feingold-Chafee 
amendment to reinstate pay-as-you-go rules that would require both 
entitlement spending increases and tax cuts to be fully paid for or 
face a 60-vote point of order in the Senate. The pay-as-you-go rule, 
like the one which was successful in the 1990s, would have helped 
restrain the deficit without unduly harming critical public services.
  I am pleased that the Senate rejected severe cuts to the Medicaid 
Program in a crucial vote earlier today. This is a victory for the 53 
million children, pregnant women, elderly and disabled who rely on 
Medicaid to meet their health care needs. It is also a victory for the 
people that make our health care delivery system work.
  Still the budget plan which is before the Senate today fails to 
address some of our Nation's most pressing problems, such as the loss 
of millions of manufacturing jobs, cuts in education funding, and 
environmental protection.
  I am also saddened that the Senate rejected an amendment to continue 
to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We have a 
responsibility to promote a balanced energy plan that invests in 
America's future and protects our environment, not one that damages our 
protected lands. Rather than drilling in our pristine wilderness, the 
United States should be investing in alternative sources of power, 
renewable energy programs and fuel efficient automotive technology to 
improve fuel economy without harming our environment.
  This budget slashes funding for vital programs for working families 
in order to extend massive and fiscally irresponsible tax cuts that 
significantly lower the Nation's revenue and explode the deficit. These 
are the wrong priorities for America. I cannot support it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this budget does not adequately protect 
children. That is why I filed an amendment to help lift millions of 
children out of poverty. I will plan to offer this amendment at the 
next appropriate time.
  In the last 4 years, over 4 million of our fellow citizens have 
fallen into poverty. Nearly 36 million Americans live below the poverty 
line; 3 million more Americans live in hunger or on the verge of hunger 
today than in the year 2000.
  Today, nearly 13 million children live in poverty in the United 
States. It is shameful that in the richest and most powerful nation on 
Earth, nearly a fifth of all children go to bed hungry at night. 
Poverty is a moral issue, and we have a moral obligation to address it.
  Current policies are failing, and it is time to take a stronger 
stand. We should set a national goal of reducing child poverty by 50 
percent within a decade and to eliminate it entirely as soon as 
possible after that. To help meet this commitment, we should enact a 
one percent surtax for income over $1 million. This surtax, paid by our 
wealthiest citizens, will raise $3.5 billion this year, and more in 
subsequent years, to meet the needs of our most vulnerable citizens.
  The amendment will create a child poverty elimination fund with a 
board to oversee the fund, and design the child poverty elimination 
plan.
  We know how to achieve this goal. All it requires is the will, and 
the leadership, to do it. Prime Minister Tony Blair made a commitment 
to do so in Britain, and they have begun to reach the goal. Their 
approach is to support both parents and children. They have pledged to 
increase employment opportunities, raise incomes for those who work, 
increase support for those who cannot work, and improve public services 
for children and families.
  It is time for America to make a similar commitment, and give real 
hope, real opportunity and real fairness to children and families mired 
in poverty in communities in all parts of our country.
  We cannot continue to look the other way while millions of our fellow 
citizens work hard, play by the rules, and still cannot escape a 
lifetime in poverty.
  Everywhere we look, the current budget is a nightmare for those who 
need our help the most. It cuts the Women, Infants, and Children 
Program, which provides health information and nutritious meals to low 
income pregnant women and their children. It cuts food stamps. It cuts 
Medicaid. It cuts low-income housing. It cuts low-income education. 
That is unacceptable. And yet the White House pretends it has an anti-
poverty agenda. Nonsense. This budget is not antipoverty, it is anti-
poor.
  As the wealthiest country on Earth, we are blessed with great 
abundance. In the powerful words of the Gospel, ``To whom much is 
given, much is required.'' That should be our national commitment to 
every American living in poverty today. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a program very 
important to the children and families of Hawaii, as well as those who 
reside in other parts of the United States, the 21st Century Community 
Learning Centers Program. This program provides funding through a 
competitive grant process to fund ``centers that provide extended 
learning opportunities for students and related services to their 
families.''
  The afterschool hours, those from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m., are a venturesome 
time for the youth of our country. Many

[[Page 5252]]

school age children are unsupervised during these 3 risky hours. Many 
of them lack constructive activities such as sports or other school or 
community sponsored programs. Those who lack such activities become 
vulnerable to mischief or even danger whether they are the victim of a 
crime or the perpetrator. Whether they are considering the use of 
tobacco, alcohol or drugs, or doing a myriad of other activities 
detrimental to their well-being, they would be better served in 
supervised afterschool activities, the kind of activities supported by 
the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program.
  According to FightCrime, an organization of law enforcement 
professionals representing all 50 states, ``Being unsupervised after 
school doubles the risk that 8th graders will smoke, drink alcohol or 
use drugs.'' They also report a study in Hawaii which noted an 84-
percent drop in criminal convictions among school-aged males involved 
in quality afterschool programs funded by the 21st Century Community 
Learning Centers Program.
  Afterschool programs can provide a critical link to positive growth 
for many of these students. The academic support and socialization 
provided by them will help many at-risk youth. These programs can 
provide that extra bit of help to enable children to succeed, in 
academics, and in life. This is what we are talking about, and this is 
just what this program provides.
  The President's own evaluation system, the PART analysis, says that 
this program gets ``high scores for purpose, planning and management.'' 
This program was part of the President's signature education 
initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act, and is authorized at $2.25 
billion for fiscal year 2006. Sadly, the President's fiscal year 2006 
budget funds afterschool programs at the level-funded amount of $0.999 
billion, less than 45 percent of its authorized level. In my own State 
of Hawaii, this underfunding results in more than 8,800 school-age 
children not being able to take advantage of programs to help with 
their education, character development or physical fitness, nor provide 
programs to ensure a safe environment during the afterschool hours.
  The Dodd amendment to S. Con. Res. 18 attempts to address this 
funding shortfall. I am glad to be a cosponsor, and I thank him and the 
other members of the Afterschool Caucus, of which I am a part, for the 
leadership in trying to restore funding for this essential program.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, a Federal budget is about setting 
priorities, and the priorities contained in this budget are all wrong.
  About a year ago, Tom Friedman of the New York Times, described the 
President's budget as ``faith-based.'' Faith-based tax cuts were going 
to generate faith-based revenues, and we were all going to be better 
off. Well, the deficit is skyrocketing, interest rates are going up, 
and additional revenues haven't magically appeared.
  If the budget before us were to pass unchanged, the deficit would 
increase each and every year for the foreseeable future. Vermonters 
understand that this is a burden we don't want to pass on to our 
grandchildren. We have fallen into a borrowing pattern that makes this 
Yankee cringe.
  But let me emphasize that the deficits that we are now facing are 
primarily caused by a drop in revenues, not by wasteful spending on 
such things as education, veterans' benefits, and Amtrak. We could 
eliminate all of the Federal Government's discretionary spending 
outside of defense and we would still have a deficit.
  On the mandatory side of the budget, I agree that we need to get a 
handle on increases in Medicaid spending and the pressures on Social 
Security due to the aging baby boom generation. But this budget fails 
to confront these challenges and in the case of Social Security 
pretends there is no problem.
  How can we pass a budget that ignores the cost of the Iraq War after 
September 30? How can we pass a budget that includes more tax cuts for 
the few, but doesn't budget for the reform of the alternative minimum 
tax or the President's own Social Security proposal?
  How can we pass a budget that forces us to ``pay for'' any increases 
in programs for our neediest citizens but doesn't require us to ``pay 
for'' tax cuts for the well-to-do? If we are to reinstate the pay-as-
you-go rule, then it should, as it always has, include paying for both 
new spending and new tax cuts.
  Speaking of tax cuts, I have grown very tired of the economic 
doublespeak now in fashion. If tax cuts were the policy of choice when 
we had large surpluses, and they are still the policy of choice when we 
now have large deficits, when if ever are tax cuts not the appropriate 
policy? Perhaps the families in Vermont who used up their heating 
assistance funds before winter was over, or the veteran on a waiting 
list for a medical procedure at a VA hospital, would prefer an increase 
in government spending to a tax cut.
  Priorities, it is all about priorities.
  We are 2 years into a war. American service men and women continue to 
come home with horrific wounds, both physical and mental. While the 
Department of Defense is keeping wounded soldiers in its medical system 
for longer periods of time and is shouldering a greater share of the 
costs, the long-term costs of health care and rehabilitation still fall 
heaviest on the Veterans Administration.
  This budget responds by underfunding the VA by almost $16 billion 
over the next 5 years. How can we do this in the midst of a war? How 
can the President in good conscience insist on maintaining large 
numbers of troops in Iraq, and yet refuse to provide for the health 
care needs of veterans? This is unacceptable.
  This budget drastically cuts the Community Development Block Grant, 
CDBG, program and other programs that our communities rely on. These 
programs now benefit so many Vermonters who struggle to make ends meet. 
This budget would consolidate 18 programs, including the CDBG, and 
slashes their funding by 34 percent. In Vermont, this budget would most 
harshly affect middle and low-income citizens by making safe and 
affordable housing unattainable, ending quality childcare programs, and 
compromising nutrition assistance. Funding for these important economic 
development programs must be restored.
  I am very concerned that agriculture, conservation, and food 
assistance programs are faced with drastic cuts in funding. The Milk 
Income Loss Contract Program, MILC, which the President saw fit to 
include in his proposed budget, has been left out of this budget 
resolution. The MILC Program is necessary to help family farmers 
through tough times when milk prices are low.
  This budget would also seriously compromise conservation programs 
that are used to restore our land and clean our water. Perhaps most 
unsettling will be the cuts to food assistance and nutrition programs, 
including food stamps. In Vermont, 30 percent of children live in low-
income households that depend on food stamps for their basic needs and 
the medical safety net for their healthcare.
  Vermont, together with States throughout the Nation, is facing a 
serious budget shortfall in providing the most basic level of 
healthcare to our most vulnerable citizens. Instead of facing that fact 
and providing temporary fiscal assistance to the States, the President 
called for billions of dollars in cuts in the Medicaid program, which 
the Senate fortunately rejected.
  I am most disappointed that the Senate did not vote to provide 
additional funding for the Nation's water infrastructure. Spending on 
environmental programs from the national parks to programs that keep 
our water, land, and air clean will have to be reduced if this budget 
is enacted.
  Priorities, it is all about priorities.
  Even though education amendments passed, which I supported, that 
added money back to the Senate budget proposal, that is still 
insufficient to adequately fund important Federal education 
initiatives. I remain concerned that the budget resolution will 
eliminate funding for several key education programs, such as the $1.3 
billion Perkins Career and Technical Education Act. This is especially 
depressing since

[[Page 5253]]

just last week the Senate, on a vote of 99-0, passed the Perkins bill. 
Then just a few days later, no funding is provided in the budget to 
carry out the program that was just passed.
  In addition, the budget proposal does not provide the meaningful 
increases necessary to carry out the 4-year-old No Child Left Behind 
Act and the updated IDEA law that was enacted last December.
  President Bush often mentions that education is a priority. He and I 
obviously define priority differently. To me, priority means you pay 
for the promises you make. I do not believe priority means you sign 
laws requiring more accountability to improve student performance, and 
then, in the next breath, send up a budget that doesn't provide the 
dollars needed to carry out the purposes of those laws.
  I have spent a substantial part of my career calling for the full 
funding of special education. When the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act was enacted in 1975, Congress promised to pay 40 percent 
of the cost. In the current fiscal year, Congress will finance only 19 
percent of the program, forcing States and localities to make up the 
difference.
  I have tried to fulfill this promise in each of the last few years by 
making IDEA funding mandatory. The President and his allies have said 
that mandatory funding is not necessary, that we can meet the promise 
of IDEA by increasing funding by $1 billion each year. In this budget, 
IDEA funding is increased by only half of that amount.
  This budget tells our children, their parents, and our local 
taxpayers that they are not a priority, and that we will not keep our 
word.
  There is no question we are living through difficult budgetary times 
and savings must be sought at every opportunity. But we must not delude 
the American people into thinking that we can cut taxes, fight wars 
overseas, improve education, take care of our environment, and repair 
the Nation's transportation and water infrastructure all at the same 
time.
  I cannot support the budget resolution because it does not adequately 
fund important domestic programs and promote tax cuts to the detriment 
of other priorities. At the same time, it does little to put our 
Nation's fiscal house in order.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am in strong opposition to this budget. As 
I have listened to the arguments of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle in favor of the budget, I am reminded of the Indian parable 
of the blind men and the elephant. Each could feel only one portion of 
the elephant, so each came to wildly different--and wildly inaccurate--
conclusions as to what it was.
  Similarly, it is hard for me to believe that those who are supporting 
this budget are looking at the whole picture. How can they call this 
budget fiscally responsible, when it would increase deficits $130 
billion over where they would be if we did nothing at all? How can they 
brag that the budget tackles the difficult issue of entitlement reform, 
when nowhere is there mention of Social Security and Medicare, our two 
largest entitlement programs?
  How can they refer to this as a blueprint for Congressional action, 
when it leaves out major spending and tax initiatives that we know the 
leadership wants to pursue: funding for the Iraq war beyond 2006; the 
cost of fixing the alternative minimum tax; the multitrillion dollar 
cost of the President's plan to privatize Social Security?
  No one can defend this budget as a reasonable or complete response to 
the serious fiscal challenges this country faces. No one can defend 
this budget as accurately reflecting the priorities of our nation--for 
on those grounds, it is indefensible.
  The President--along with Alan Greenspan and countless other wise 
pundits--have focused our attention on the severe budgetary 
consequences of the coming retirement of the baby boomers. Entitlements 
are growing at an unsustainable rate--and the time to address their 
growth is now.
  Congress should act to strengthen Social Security now, rather than 
wait for the moment of crisis. Social Security can pay full benefits 
for another 40 or 50 years. After that--even if nothing is done--Social 
Security could still pay 70 to 80 percent of promised benefits. But if 
we act sooner rather than later, Social Security's long-term financial 
imbalance can be fixed through relatively modest adjustments. At the 
same time, we need to recognize that growing budget deficits will 
strain our ability to sustain not just Social Security, but other 
important programs like Medicare and Medicaid. We need to look at the 
entire Federal budget and act to bring these deficits under control so 
we can preserve programs that will put a strain on our budget in coming 
years.
  How--given the President's crusade to ``save'' Social Security with 
private accounts, given the coming retirement of the Baby Boom--can 
this budget ignore Social Security and Medicare? Not a dollar assumed 
saved from either. Not a penny paid back to the Social Security trust 
fund. Not even an acknowledgement of the huge cost of the President's 
plan to divert Social Security payroll taxes into private accounts. 
Either this budget is incomplete or it is insincere.
  I suppose we should be relieved not to see any provision made in the 
budget for the President's proposed private accounts. The President has 
chosen to make Social Security his top domestic priority, but so far he 
has only proposed the idea of private accounts, which he admits would 
do absolutely nothing to improve Social Security's finances. Borrowing 
to pay for the transition cost would add up to $5 trillion to the 
national debt. And because the President has taken all other options 
off the table, the private accounts would require massive benefit cuts 
to achieve solvency.
  Obviously, Social Security reform--or entitlement reform in general--
is not a priority to those who support this budget. And obviously, 
continued tax cuts financed with reductions in important government 
programs and with debt are. The budget puts on the fast track $70 
billion in tax cuts--and not one penny of offsets. In fact, the Senate 
rejected Senator Feingold's amendment, which I supported, that would 
have prohibited using debt to finance this sort of raid on the 
Treasury.
  Instead, the Senate chose to expedite tax cuts that would 
disproportionately affect the wealthy. The budget facilitates the 
extension through 2010 of tax cuts on capital gains and dividend 
income. Nearly half of this will benefit households with incomes in 
excess of $1 million; in contrast, only 12 percent of the cuts will 
benefit families with incomes under $100,000. It is fiscal 
irresponsibility in truest form, to speed tax cuts through the Senate 
that will directly add to our growing deficit. In addition, the $70 
billion figure includes permanent estate tax repeal. This provision, 
despite the fact that its true effect won't be felt until 2011, carries 
with it a price tag of more than $9 billion--$9 billion that will truly 
benefit the wealthiest Americans.
  And while the budget finds plenty of room to reward millionaires with 
billion dollar tax cuts, it nickels and dimes the government programs 
the average American family relies on.
  American seniors pay the highest drug prices in the world. Our 
seniors deserve a Medicare prescription drug benefit that gets the best 
prices for their medication. But the Medicare prescription drug law 
actually prohibits the Federal government from negotiating with drug 
companies for lower prices. This is a missed opportunity and a waste of 
taxpayers' dollars. Now, in light of the growing concerns over the 
rising cost of this benefit--more than $57 billion than originally 
expected--every effort should be made to save our seniors and taxpayers 
dollars. We missed a golden opportunity in the Budget today to accept 
an amendment that I was proud to cosponsor and require the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services to use the tremendous purchasing power of the 
41 million Medicare beneficiaries to assist the private drug plans in 
getting the lowest price for seniors. The savings provided by this 
amendment would have gone to pay for deficit reduction.

[[Page 5254]]

Unfortunately, this commonsense effort to lower prescription drug 
prices and reduce the deficit was rejected.
  However, I do applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 
having the courage to stop the proposed $15 billion cut to Medicaid. 
Stopping these drastic cuts will ensure that thousands of poor 
families, disabled Americans and the elderly get the proper medical 
care they need. The proposed $15 billion Medicaid cut would have 
translated 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 53 
million Americans depend on. Now, there should be a thorough discussion 
about how Medicaid can work better to serve low-income Americans. But 
we should never 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 
millions 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 am pleased to have cosponsored the 
amendment that passed the Senate to protect Medicaid from these drastic 
cuts.
  We have a continuing responsibility to meet the health care needs of 
our children, families, and elderly. But--even with the improvement in 
the Medicaid policy, the cuts proposed in this budget do not match 
those needs. Older Americans Act programs are level funded even as our 
population ages and the need for services grows. LIHEAP funding is cut 
by $182 million as more families and seniors face higher energy costs. 
Funding for health professions training has been reduced by 64 percent 
at a time when we face health care workforce shortages. And funding for 
rural health programs has been slashed by 80 percent when rural areas 
are in desperate need of adequate health resources.
  Perhaps the worst failure of this budget--it fails our nation's 
children. This budget proposes the first cut in education spending in a 
decade. Yet again, this budget fails to fully fund No Child Left 
Behind, leaving the Act underfunded by $39 billion since enactment. It 
fails to set special education on a glide path to full funding--it is 
slated to be nearly $4 billion short of what was authorized four months 
ago. This budget should reflect our values and needs in education. It 
clearly does not.
  This budget still fails to fulfill our commitment to our veterans. 
The American people made a promise to our men and women in uniform that 
when they had completed their service, the Veterans Administration 
would be there to help them meet their health care needs. When we made 
that commitment, it was not conditional, and it did not involve high 
fees. Today we seem to be slowly changing the terms of service. We now 
say to our veterans that they will have to wait months for an 
appointment, and some veterans are of such low priority to the system 
that they may never receive care at all. I supported an amendment that 
would have bridged the funding gap between the President's budget and 
the funding level that the veterans' groups believe is necessary. 
Unfortunately, Senator Akaka's amendment was not agreed to. With that 
``no'' vote, the Senate made a decision that some veterans did not 
deserve the benefits they had been promised.
  I am also disappointed over the funding levels for transportation in 
this bill. I am especially disappointed that the Senate did not remedy 
the shortfall in funding for Amtrak. I was proud to cosponsor an 
amendment that would have fully funded Amtrak's basic needs at a level 
of $1.4 billion. The President's budget zeroed out funding for Amtrak, 
providing only $360 million to the Surface Transportation Board--and 
that would only be provided if Amtrak is forced to shut down in the 
Northeast Corridor. What the Administration fails to recognize, is that 
ridership in other areas of the country has increased; in Wisconsin, 
this means that 540,000 used Amtrak this past year. To force these 
540,000 people onto our overcrowded roads and airports would be 
irresponsible, and I hope the Senate will reconsider before the end of 
the fiscal year.
  While I am glad that we put the Senate on record opposing cuts to the 
Community Development Block Grant program, it is up to the 
Appropriators to decide whether to reverse the $2 billion cut in this 
vital program. CDBG and the 17 other federal community and economic 
development programs which the Administration proposed consolidating in 
the Commerce Department provide funds that are critical to meeting the 
needs of distressed and underserved communities. In my state of 
Wisconsin, at least 19 entitlement communities and many other smaller 
communities across the state are slated to lose millions of dollars if 
we do not stand firm and reverse this proposal.
  I also regret that the Senate has decided to open up the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. In the past bipartisan group 
of senators came together to protect this fragile ecosystem, but this 
year we failed to beat back drilling. By using the budget rules in a 
new, and some would say questionable, way a place that had been set 
aside as too valuable to be spoiled by drilling was opened to potential 
environmental degradation. The real tragedy here is that the oil we get 
from ANWR will have no impact on the price of oil. There is simply not 
enough oil in Alaska to have any real impact on the worldwide price. We 
have decided to risk irrevocable environmental damage but gained no 
additional control over our thirst for foreign oil. Until we 
aggressively address our domestic demand for oil, we will never be able 
be able to end our dependence on OPEC.
  Following the administration's lead, the Senate Budget Committee 
allocated $187 million to the Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention, OJJDP, budget, which is about $173 million less 
than what we appropriated last year. I am particularly disturbed that 
the Senate Budget Resolution assumes complete elimination of the 
Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program, JABG, which received $55 
million last year. JABG provides funding for intervention programs that 
address the urgent needs of juveniles who have had run-ins with the 
law.
  The same is true of Title V Local Delinquency Prevention Program, the 
only federal program solely dedicated to juvenile crime prevention. The 
Senate budget assumes a $50 million cut to Title V--penny pinching now 
that will cost us dearly in the future. According to many experts in 
the field, every dollar spent on prevention saves three or four dollars 
in costs attributable to juvenile crime. And who can put a dollar value 
on the hundreds, even thousands of young lives turned from crime and 
into productive work and community life by the juvenile crime 
prevention programs supported by Title V?
  Following the President's lead, the Senate Budget Committee also 
drastically cuts the programs most important to state and local law 
enforcement. Congress appropriated a little more than $700 million last 
year in both discretionary and formula funds for the Byrne Justice 
Assistance Grant Program. The Budget before us assumes no funding for 
this program at all. Byrne grants pay for state and local drug task 
forces, community crime prevention programs, substance abuse treatment 
programs, prosecution initiatives, and many other local crime control 
programs.
  The COPS program is another victim of this budget. The Budget assumes 
$118 million for the COPS program--that is down from $388 million last 
year. What's worse is that, within the COPS program, popular 
initiatives like the COPS Universal Hiring Program and the COPS 
Technology Grants Program are zeroed out entirely. We should remember 
that just three years ago, the overall COPS program received more than 
a billion dollars. Of that amount, $330,000,000 was for the hiring 
program and roughly $154,000,000 for the COPS technology program that 
helped fund critical communications upgrades in cities--like Milwaukee 
and Madison--and many other towns--like Ashland and Onalaska--across 
Wisconsin and the nation.

[[Page 5255]]

  Finally, the Senate budget assumes cuts in the High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Areas, HIDTA, program from $227 to $100 million. The HIDTA 
program is a vital collaboration between federal, state and local law 
enforcement to combat drug trafficking through intelligence-gathering 
and cooperation. This proposed cut in the overall HIDTA program 
threatens the future of smaller HIDTAs like the one in Milwaukee--a 
program that has been extremely successful in stemming crime.
  The downward spiral of juvenile justice and local law enforcement 
funding is a disturbing budget trend with ugly real world implications. 
As a result of the Byrne, COPS, JABG, HIDTA and Title V programs, we 
have enjoyed steadily decreasing crime rates for the past decade. But, 
if we do not, at a minimum, maintain funding for crime fighting, we 
cannot be surprised if crime again infests our cities, communities, and 
neighborhoods.
  That is why I offered an amendment with Senators Hatch and Biden to 
restore this dramatic loss of juvenile justice and local law 
enforcement funding. Cuts to these programs total more than $1.2 
billion. Our amendment restores $1 billion of that--not enough to make 
these important crime fighting programs whole, but enough to keep them 
functioning and working to keep our communities and families safe.
  For rural America, this budget leaves so much to be desired that it's 
hard to know where to begin. If you assume the President's vision on 
discretionary spending is carried out, as this budget proposes, basic 
agricultural research will be slashed beyond recognition. Rural 
housing, rural development and conservation will suffer. Nutrition for 
kids and food stamps for the working poor will be on the chopping 
block. And the fundamental fabric of rural America will be put at risk.
  A budget is a statement of who we are as a nation. I do not believe 
we are a country that takes from the poor and sick to make the rich 
richer. I do not believe we are a country that steals from our 
children's future to indulge ourselves today. I do not believe we are a 
country that ignores threats to our prosperity and stability. I do not 
believe we are who this budget says we are, and I will vote against it.
  Let me make one final point. Often, we hear that it would be 
irresponsible for Congress to reject a budget. Not this year. If we 
reject this budget,--if we do nothing at all--deficits will be $130 
billion less than had we acted. A vote against the budget is a vote for 
deficit reduction. It is also a vote for responsible accounting, for 
honoring our commitments to our seniors and our children, for 
compassion towards those who are hungry, sick, or just struggling to 
raise a family in an uncertain world. For that reason, I will vote 
against this budget, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, to govern is to choose. Nowhere are our 
priorities and our values made clearer than in the budgets we write 
here every year.
  In these times, we face many tough choices. This budget ducks them 
all. It chooses the powerful over those without a voice. It chooses to 
reward wealth instead of work. It chooses the present over the future. 
It chooses debt and borrowing over sound finance.
  This budget rejects the very rules that brought our budget into 
balance just a few years ago. It ducks our duty to take responsibility 
for our choices, and sends the bill to our children and grandchildren.
  I will vote against this budget, and I urge my colleagues to reject 
it, too.
  Just 4 years ago we were considering the first budget of the new Bush 
administration. At that time, we could look forward to a decade of 
budget surpluses, totaling $5.6 trillion.
  We were paying down the national debt, and with every dollar 
accumulating in surplus, we were making our future stronger. Social 
Security funds were not being spent, as they are today, to fund the 
other functions of Government. Interest payments on the debt were 
shrinking, not growing.
  With the impending retirement of the Baby Boom generation, with the 
need to educate and train a workforce to take on the world of the 21st 
Century, we were doing the right thing--saving for challenges we could 
see coming.
  But instead of seeing those surpluses as an opportunity to get our 
house in order, instead of increasing our national savings by paying 
down the debt, the incoming administration insisted on a course that 
has resulted in the most dramatic reversal in our Nation's finances in 
our history.
  The record at that time is full of warnings that tax cuts of that 
magnitude would make it difficult, if not impossible, to meet the known 
challenges ahead, much less any surprises that history could throw at 
us.
  We were assured that the surpluses had to go, that we had all the 
money we needed to deal with recession, national security threats, 
natural disasters--anything we might have to face. We would be able to 
balance the budget, put money away for the surge in retirees, and meet 
every threat and challenge.
  A lot of us did not buy it. The record is full of warnings about the 
long-term damage of massive tax cuts without regard for our future 
obligations.
  But those tax cuts were passed. And more tax cuts followed every 
year, in time of economic boom, in time of recession, in peacetime, in 
wartime, when our budget was in surplus, and increasingly, as our 
budget deficits grew. Regardless of the situation, regardless of the 
facts, more tax cuts.
  In the face of all the challenges we face, we are now running our 
Government on a level of revenue not seen since the 1950s. A 21st 
Century superpower, on a 1950s budget.
  By the time they expire, the tax cuts we have put into law over the 
last 4 years will cost almost $2 trillion.
  But we will be asked to extend those cuts past their expiration. Not 
to do so, we are told, would be a tax increase. But those expiration 
dates were chosen to make the tax cuts look smaller. Extending those 
cuts will raise the total cost to over $5 trillion through 2015.
  That should cause serious people to stop and think. We are now 
engaged in an open-ended global war on terror, in a shooting war and 
reconstruction in Iraq. Security challenges from domestic threats to 
nuclear proliferation will continue to demand additional resources.
  Medicare and Medicaid are facing real crises, driven by an aging 
population and rising health care costs. Social Security has a long 
term funding problem that will have to be confronted, the sooner the 
better.
  As the global economy brings billions of new workers and customers 
into its scope, our country is in a real fight to protect and create 
good-paying jobs. That means strengthening our schools and 
universities, increasing research and innovation, investing in 21st 
Century infrastructure. All of that takes money.
  This budget chooses to ignore those priorities. In fact, it cuts the 
resources we need to meet those challenges.
  But it does not touch a dime of the $5 trillion the tax cuts will 
cost if they are all extended. Not a moment's pause, not a penny 
reconsidered.
  The President constantly reminds us that the world has changed 
profoundly in the past four years. That is true. He tells us that we 
face unprecedented challenges. That is also true.
  But his budget, the budget before us today, ignores those truths. It 
continues the most reckless budget policies I have seen in my 30 years 
in the Senate. Those policies have taken us from the strongest fiscal 
position we have known to the brink of the abyss. There is no way under 
these policies that we will ever get out of debt again.
  We are now debating the most basic priorities of our Government. The 
budget document we will vote on today will be the statement of this 
Senate on what we value, and what I we do not value.
  I am sorry to say that the most basic premise of this budget, is 
wrong. This budget protects tax cuts for those who need them least, and 
cuts the health care, housing, and education of those who need the 
most.
  It protects the largest tax cuts in our history, in the face of the 
largest deficits we have ever seen.
  The priorities in this budget are wrong. I do not think they are the 
priorities of the vast majority of people in

[[Page 5256]]

this country. I know that they are not my priorities.
  Time and again during the week of debate, we have tried to provide 
funding for some priorities, and to reduce the money going to others.
  During this debate, I offered an amendment to restore money for the 
COPS program that has put 100,000 policemen on the streets of our 
country. To cover those costs, I proposed closing loopholes used by 
corporations who move overseas to avoid paying taxes. But that 
amendment was voted down. Cops versus corporate tax breaks. Cops lose.
  I voted to provide money for our veterans' health care, so sorely 
needed in these times. To pay for that, I was ready to close tax those 
tax loopholes. That amendment was voted down. Veterans versus corporate 
tax breaks. Veterans lose.
  I voted to increase funding for first responders, our first line of 
defense against terrorism here at home. It was paid for by closing 
those loopholes. That amendment was rejected. Fighting terrorism versus 
corporate tax breaks. First responders lose.
  I voted restore money for our national passenger rail system that 
carries 25 million people a year, for which not a dime has been put 
into this budget. But that amendment was voted down. Passenger rail 
versus corporate tax breaks. Passenger rail loses.
  These and many other examples reveal the real priorities of this 
budget. Nothing makes that clearer than the outright rejection of the 
kind of common sense budget rules that helped us balance the budget 
during the 1990s.
  Facing deficits of historical size, with no end in sight, most folks 
would consider it just common sense to set up some rules to rein this 
problem in. If you want to cut taxes, then cut spending to match. If 
you want to increase spending, you have to raise taxes to match.
  Pay-as-you-go rules would require us to make tough choices, to take 
responsibility for our choices, and not just add to the mountains of 
debt we will dump on our children.
  But not only does this budget reject those rules, it actually makes 
it easier to go deeper into debt, by protecting tax cuts, in time of 
record deficits. Senator Feingold and Senator Carper both offered 
amendments to correct that, and both amendments were rejected.
  This budget is not just irresponsible, it is openly hostile to any 
attempt to make us live within our means.
  This budget fails to address our most basic needs in these difficult 
times. It ducks our responsibility to pay for our own decisions. It 
does not reflect our Nation's priorities.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting it.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I rise to express my views on our 
budget and the priorities and ideas I believe we must focus on as a 
nation. First, I want to reiterate my extreme disappointment in 
President Bush's budget with respect to how it affects our rural 
communities. While reducing our Nation's historic deficit is essential, 
the burden and sacrifice shouldn't rest disproportionately on the backs 
of rural America--all Americans should share the burden. In my opinion, 
the President's budget relies too heavily on working families in rural 
America to make sacrifices while the President continues to advocate 
additional tax cuts for the ultrawealthy.
  We have to find a responsible way for all Americans to share in this 
burden, and I think that my constituents stand ready to accept their 
share of that sacrifice. However, I am not going to ask the working 
families of this country to shoulder the entire burden. Rural programs 
are often the first programs on the chopping block, yet these are among 
the most important to our local communities and the economies they 
support. Our spending cuts must be balanced even if it requires rolling 
back the tax cuts for the ultrawealthy.
  I have a long standing commitment to rural America and our Nation's 
farmers and I understand the challenges they face to maintain and 
strengthen their way of life. That is why I am so disappointed that 
this President has decided, through his budget, that our farmers and 
our rural communities are no longer a priority for him and his 
Administration.
  I would like to take a few moments to focus on five areas where I 
believe the President failed rural America. The first area that the 
President's budget has come up short is with respect to rural law 
enforcement.
  The President's budget cuts close to $1.9 billion in funding for 
local and state law enforcement and first responders. These cuts will 
be particularly crippling to rural law enforcement and inhibit a wide 
range of services including their ability to combat Arkansas' growing 
methamphetamine problem.
  The President's budget includes a 27 percent cut, totaling 
approximately $455 million, in first responders funding. These cuts 
would hinder critical state and local efforts to protect our 
communities by making less funding available for the preparedness of 
first responders and citizens, public health, infrastructure security 
and other public safety activities. I am particularly concerned with 
how these cuts would affect the amount of federal Homeland Security 
funding provided to small and rural states such as Arkansas.
  The President's budget includes a $215 million cut which would force 
rural fire departments to cut back on equipment purchase, safety 
training, fire prevention programs, and the purchase of new vehicles. 
These grants are especially important to Arkansas' rural and volunteer 
fire departments. Since 2001, the FIRE Act grant program has provided 
vital resources to many of Arkansas' 900 fire departments, 85 percent 
of which are voluntary. Since last Spring, more than 180 awards have 
been granted to Arkansas fire departments, totaling over $12 million.
  Also, the President's budget proposes eliminating the Edward Byrne 
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which was budgeted at $536.5 
million last year. I am deeply concerned with the elimination of this 
important program because it would significantly impact the ability of 
Arkansas law enforcement to combat the state's growing meth problem. 
The existence of 19 Drug Task Forces, funded by the Byrne Grants, are 
especially crucial in a state like Arkansas, which was recently ranked 
third in the nation, per capita, in terms of the number of meth labs 
seized and has recently seen the number of labs seized per year exceed 
1,200.
  The President's budget includes an 80 percent cut, totaling 
approximately $489 million, in COPS funding. Since Congress created 
this successful initiative with my support in 1994, the COPS Programs 
has assisted Arkansas law enforcement agencies in reducing violent 
crime across the state. In doing so, it has helped counties throughout 
Arkansas hire additional officers for community policing and homeland 
security activities by helping provide for their salaries and benefits. 
Since 1998, the Drug Enforcement Administration has used COPS funds for 
the training and certification of 379 state and local law enforcement 
officers as of June, 2004.
  I want to make a special note of the fact that this budget cuts the 
COPS Methamphetamine Enforcement and Clean-Up by $32.5 million. These 
cuts would be greatly felt in Arkansas, where the use of 
methamphetamine is growing and has become the #1 priority for my 
state's drug law enforcement. COPS funding provided for the clean up 
and disposal of hazardous wastes found at 810 meth lab sites seized by 
Arkansas state and local law enforcement in 2003, and funded the cost 
which totaled more than $1.39 million.
  The President's budget includes a 49 percent cut, totaling 
approximately $186 million, in Juvenile Justice Programs. These cuts 
would dramatically weaken the Juvenile Justice System, whose funds 
support state and local efforts to prevent juvenile delinquency and 
address juvenile crime. The President also seeks the elimination of the 
Juvenile Accountability Block Grants, JABG, which was funded by 
Congress in FY 2005 at $55 million. All of these cuts will 
significantly hamper rural law enforcement.
  The second area where this President's budget short changes rural 
America is in hea1thcare. At a time

[[Page 5257]]

when 45 million Americans are uninsured, the President's budget 
eliminates 28 important health programs, which total $1.369 billion. 
Two of the most important programs for rural health are Medicaid and 
the Area Health Education Centers or AHECs.
  With respect to Medicaid, Arkansas will lose more than $560 million 
in Medicaid dollars over the next 10 years under the President's cuts. 
In 2010, Arkansas will lose more than $55 million. Mr. President, these 
cuts would cause more than 5,700 Arkansas seniors and 22,000 children 
to lose their healthcare coverage.
  One of the most devastating cuts affects Arkansas' Area Health 
Education Centers. Arkansas has six such centers. The President's 
budget would eliminate these vital centers for health and health 
education.
  The third area where this budget fails rural America is in regard to 
education. The President has proposed cutting education funding by $530 
million nationwide. Such a funding cut would hurt rural school 
districts in Arkansas that rely on federal dollars such as Title I, 
which provides services to low income students. The President's cuts to 
Title I could affect more than 28,000 Arkansas children.
  Arkansas school districts are already struggling to meet the demands 
of the new No Child Left Behind law, which the President has never 
fully funded, so now is not the time to cut such vital funding. I note 
with special interest that the President's budget proposes extending 
the No Child Left Behind law to high schools at the expense of 
eliminating 48 programs, including all the vocational and technical 
education programs, education technology state grants, GEAR UP, Safe 
and Drug-Free Schools initiatives and the Communities State Grants, 
TRIO Talent Search and Upward Bound programs.
  This budget proposes funding Arkansas' program at $128 million, 
nearly $90 million less than what the No Child Left Behind Law calls 
for. This budget proposes funding Arkansas' After School program at $12 
million below what No Child Left Behind mandates. This could affect 
more than 15,000 Arkansas children. On top of that the President's 
budget cuts IDEA funding by more than $37 million.
  The fourth area where this budget fails rural America is in relation 
to economic development. The President's budget would drastically cut 
economic initiatives relied on by Arkansas' rural communities. The 
economic development initiatives specifically benefit communities in 
Arkansas of 3,000 or fewer residents.
  The President's budget restructures how Community Development Block 
Grant (CDBG) Program grants are allocated. Last year, CDBG alone was 
funded at $4.8 billion. The President proposes to consolidate CDBG with 
17 other local assistance programs and fund the entire group at $3.71 
billion. This would make it more difficult for Arkansas' Department of 
Economic Development to compete for this type of funding. These cuts 
could severely impair the state's ability to provide grants to 
Arkansas' rural communities. In addition, this move would directly 
impact the 14 entitlement cities that receive CDBG funds (cities 
include: Bentonville, Conway, Fort Smith, Jonesboro, Rogers, Texarkana, 
Fayetteville, Hot Springs, Jacksonville, Little Rock, North Little 
Rock, Pine Bluff, Springdale, and West Memphis). CDBG funds have been 
used for a variety of projects in Arkansas, including senior citizen 
centers, public health facilities, childcare facilities, affordable 
housing rehabilitation and construction projects, and rural fire 
stations.
  The fifth area where this budget fails rural America is with respect 
to agriculture. The fine print of the President's budget includes 
drastic cuts in farm and commodity programs that are vital to Arkansas' 
farmers. The President's proposed cuts would break a firm promise the 
Federal government has made to American farmers and ranchers. 
Furthermore, the President's proposed cuts in Food Stamps will severely 
impact rural Arkansans.
  The President did not have to propose cuts in these programs. The 
entire farm bill is one-half percent of the Federal budget. Yet, he 
chose these cuts that endanger entire communities in rural America. He 
chose to protect tax cuts for the ultra wealthy above our working farm 
families who are the backbone of rural America.
  This should be a wake up call to the heartland of this country--many 
of whom supported President Bush's re-election. These programs have 
huge impacts on the quality of life in our rural communities. From his 
recent proposal to privatize Social Security, to these devastating cuts 
in his budget--the President has made it abundantly clear that he's 
going after working families in rural America.
  Unfortunately, the FY 2006 Senate budget resolution we are debating 
today is only marginally better than the President's request. In my 
opinion, this resolution doesn't reflect the values and priorities of 
my state or the nation. The proposal before us ignores critical needs 
in my state and in rural communities across our nation. Specifically, 
the resolution, like the President's budget, would cut funding for 
Veterans, for education and training, for local law enforcement, for 
transportation and for agriculture and nutrition programs.
  I am pleased we have made some improvements in the budget presented 
by the President during consideration in the Senate but unfortunately I 
believe the burden imposed by this budget still falls 
disproportionately on the backs of working families, especially those 
in rural communities throughout Arkansas and the nation.
  Even though I am compelled to oppose the budget before the Senate 
today, I will continue to stand up for the priorities that are critical 
to the citizens of my state during the appropriations process ahead.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the President is setting a course that 
jettisons sound stewardship of fiscal policy and that ignores America's 
real needs, from education to first responders, and this budget 
resolution largely facilitates that reckless course.
  Iraq's needs fare well in the President's spending priorities, but 
America's needs deserve to fare better. In record time, the 
administration's policies already have converted record surpluses into 
record deficits, and if these new policies are enacted, the worst is 
yet to come. More tax cuts for the wealthy, more borrowing, more 
deficits, and fewer investments in the priorities that really count in 
the everyday lives of America's families and communities.
  We hear a lot in this town about ``compassionate conservatism.'' We 
hear speeches about declining family values and the breakdown of the 
traditional family. And we hear about streamlining Government and 
making it run more like a business based on cost-benefit analysis.
  But the truth is, this budget before the Senate today is neither 
compassionate nor conservative. On the one hand it slashes, freezes, or 
totally eliminates funding for programs that help the poorest and the 
most vulnerable Americans, and on the other it uses smoke and mirrors 
to conceal the creation of a federal deficit larger than any other in 
our Nation's history.
  This is a difficult time for many Americans, and this budget will 
only make things worse. Fifteen million American households cannot find 
affordable housing, yet this budget would force housing costs onto 
state and local governments.
  Forty-four million Americans do not have health insurance, yet the 
budget that was brought to the floor would force the costs of Medicaid 
right back onto our cash-strapped State and local governments. I am 
pleased that we were able to soften this crushing blow to our states' 
Medicaid programs--for now--with a successful amendment. But there will 
be determined efforts to undo that vote at every step of the 
legislative process that lies ahead.
  At a time when American companies are forced to hire from abroad 
because the students here lag behind in math and science skills, this 
budget would eliminate education programs by the dozen and severely 
underfund No Child Left Behind programs and funding for low-income 
schools. Perhaps most disturbingly, as we see more and more

[[Page 5258]]

young troops coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan in need of long term 
medical and psychological care, this budget would dramatically reduce 
benefits and services to veterans.
  I recently received a letter from a charitable organization that I 
believe does great work, Catholic Charities USA, describing their views 
on the proposed budget. I think it will surprise many members what they 
say. I ask unanimous consent that March 8, 2005, Catholic Charities 
letter addressed to me be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    March 8, 2005.
     Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
     U.S. Senate, 433 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: On behalf of Catholic Charities USA, I 
     urge you to support budget priorities for FY2006 that will 
     strengthen the capacity of states, localities, and private 
     agencies to protect and assist the poorest and most 
     vulnerable members of our society.
       Although our economy has recovered somewhat from the 
     economic recession that began in late 2000, increasing 
     numbers of Americans ate facing significant hardship. 
     Unemployment remains high, as over 9 percent of the working 
     population is either unemployed or underemployed, according 
     to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Poverty rates are rising 
     again, and 35 million people--including 12 million children--
     are now living under the federal poverty line.
       For millions of families, the difficulties presented by the 
     weak economy have been exacerbated by other challenges. 
     Fifteen million American households cannot find affordable 
     housing, while forty-four million people in the U.S. lack 
     health insurance. High housing costs, unexpected health 
     costs, chronic illnesses aggravated by inconsistent health 
     care--these and other factors contribute to the economic 
     instability experienced by many families.
       We at Catholic Charities USA are witness to the human toll 
     of the failure to address these problems adequately. For 
     instance, our agencies, which provide food, shelter, and 
     other forms of emergency assistance to 4.5 million people 
     annually, are reporting strong increases in requests for 
     emergency assistance, especially among families with 
     children. According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, our 
     experience is not unique. Their 2004 survey of 27 cities 
     revealed that requests for emergency food and shelter 
     increased 14 and 6 percent, respectively.
       We therefore urge you to produce a budget that will protect 
     funding for critical services and supports to help the 
     millions of families struggling to achieve stability and 
     self-sufficiency. Every decision of economic policy, 
     including the setting of national budget priorities, must be 
     judged in light of its impact on those who do not share in 
     the abundance of the American economy. At a time when the 
     United States is spending more on defense and homeland 
     security, a question arises about who will pay for it. It 
     should not be our nation's poorest citizens. We therefore ask 
     you to support the following budget priorities:
       Place a priority on investments in federal programs that 
     protect and support low-income families and other vulnerable 
     populations. Funding for many poverty programs was already 
     cut or frozen in 2005. Others, such as Temporary Assistance 
     for Needy Families (TANF), the Child Care and Development 
     Block Grant (CCDBG), and the Social Services Block Grant 
     (SSBG) have been frozen since 1996. Congress should address 
     the budget deficit in a fair and balanced way maintaining 
     investments in our children, protecting programs assisting 
     seniors and persons with disabilities, and enhancing our 
     national security.
       Oppose the inclusion of Medicaid cuts in fiscal year 2006 
     budget reconciliation: Medicaid provides essential health 
     coverage to over 50 million of our most vulnerable low-income 
     children, working families, seniors, and people with 
     disabilities. Neatly every state has already enacted painful 
     cuts to its Medicaid program, including eligibility levels, 
     services, and provider payments, and many states are facing 
     deep Medicaid cuts again this year. Federal funding 
     reductions would force states to implement even deeper cuts 
     further restricting eligibility, eliminating or reducing 
     critical health benefits, and cutting or freezing provider 
     reimbursement rates. As a result, state Medicaid funding cuts 
     could add millions more people to the ranks of the uninsured 
     who would go without care, endangering their own health and 
     public health.
       The budget resolution should not place arbitrary caps on 
     discretionary spending. The Administration has proposed 
     statutory rules to cap discretionary spending over the next 
     five years at its proposed 2006 spending levels. Such caps 
     would require cuts of $200 billion in spending for domestic 
     programs over the next five years, including funding for 
     education, veterans' health care, rental assistance, utility 
     assistance, and childcare. Such cuts would have a devastating 
     impact on agencies and communities that are already 
     struggling to meet the basic needs of vulnerable citizens.
       We ask that Congress not attempt to balance the federal 
     budget through reductions in discretionary programs assisting 
     low-income families. Because domestic discretionary spending 
     constitutes only 16 percent of the federal budget, even deep 
     cuts in these programs would offer little help with the 
     federal deficit, while sharply reducing assistance to 
     families struggling to meet their basic needs.
       If Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) rules are included in budget 
     reconciliation, they should be balanced. If Congress chooses 
     to reinstate PAYGO provisions, we urge that they be 
     implemented in a neutral manner that does not encourage 
     revenue reductions at the expense of critical programs 
     serving the nation's most vulnerable families. Under the 
     President's proposed PAYGO rules, entitlement program 
     increases would have to be offset by entitlement reductions 
     elsewhere. In contrast, tax reductions would require no 
     offsets in the federal budget. This unbalanced policy would 
     unfairly burden programs such as Medicaid that provide 
     families with critical assistance, and would likely fail to 
     achieve significant deficit reductions.
       We recognize that Congress is faced with many difficult 
     choices. In your deliberations, please remember those who 
     have the fewest choices.
           Respectfully,
                                                 Fr. Larry Snyder.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what does this charitable religious group 
ask? Less funding for family planning efforts? No. More tax cuts for 
the wealthy? No. Tougher bankruptcy standards to help credit card 
companies? No. Class action relief for big corporations? No. Yet those 
have been the White House's and the Congress's priorities so far this 
year, and those are their priorities in this budget. But what this 
charitable religious group convincingly asks that we do is far 
different. They ask for the following: They ask Congress and the 
President to make a higher priority in the budget of federal programs 
that protect and support low-income families and other vulnerable 
people in our society. Oppose the inclusion of Medicaid cuts in Fiscal 
Year 2006 budget reconciliation. The budget resolution should not place 
arbitrary caps on discretionary spending. And if pay-as-you-go rules 
are included in budget reconciliation, they should be balanced.
  Now, these sound like reasonable proposals that would help the 
neediest among us. Those sound like priorities that would benefit the 
35 million people--including 12 million children--now living below the 
federal poverty line. These proposals truly sound compassionate.
  Some claim that the cuts in this budget are steps toward fiscal 
responsibility. But anyone who looks closely at this budget will see 
that any semblance of fiscal responsibility is lost because this budget 
leaves out a number of Governmental costs in the outyears. It leaves 
out the costs of ongoing U.S. responsibilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
It leaves out the cost of any repair of the alternative minimum tax 
system. It leaves out the cost of extending the President's tax cuts. 
And most incredibly, it leaves out any of the expected $4.5 trillion in 
costs for the President's plan to privatize Social Security. With these 
costs factored in to the equation, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office predicts that by 2012, the United States deficit will reach $527 
billion, making each family's share of the debt an astonishing $85,967.
  I take very seriously this warning from the Government Accountability 
Office in their February 2005 report titled ``21st Century Challenges: 
Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government:''

       Absent significant changes on the spending and/or revenue 
     sides of the budget, these long term deficits will encumber a 
     growing share of federal resources and test the capacity of 
     current and future generations to afford both today's and 
     tomorrow's commitments. Continuing on this unsustainable path 
     will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, 
     our standard of living and ultimately our national security.

  This budget will plunge the United States into red ink as far as the 
eye can see. We have an obligation to be honest about the true costs of 
our budget to the people who are paying for it. If we continue to 
follow this path of fiscal irresponsibility, we will be leaving our 
children and grandchildren with a debt that they cannot possibly begin 
to afford. We need to turn around

[[Page 5259]]

the massive loss in total revenues that we have seen during the Bush 
years. We need to strengthen our current Social Security system so that 
less money is drained from the trust fund. And we need to realign our 
budget priorities with the real needs of the American people and 
discard these politically motivated budget cuts.
  I may be seen in this town as a progressive Senator from Vermont, but 
I have a conservative message for my colleagues today. We cannot 
continue down this reckless path of financial irresponsibility that we 
have been led down for the past four years. We need to get our fiscal 
house in order. Foreign investors are growing weary of our record debt. 
Our sons and daughters in uniform--including those in our National 
Guard and Reserves--are in harm's way overseas and need to be properly 
equipped and to have the health insurance they deserve. And essential 
programs for disadvantaged people across the country are being slashed 
to squeeze out more money for tax cuts to the wealthiest among us. This 
is not the American way. We are a more compassionate people than this 
budget resolution assumes we are.
  The American people deserve better than fiscal and budget policies 
such as these, and I will vote against this budget resolution.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, much to my amazement, and I suspect that of 
the Senator from North Dakota, we are at the end of this exercise.
  I will yield to the Senator from North Dakota for a closing comment. 
Before I do that, I want to thank the staffs on both sides, the 
majority staff and the Democratic staff. They have done exceptional 
work under extremely intense, very difficult conditions. They have 
worked night and day for weeks on this, and now in the last few days 
they have been going 24 hours a day.
  I also thank the members of the staff of the Senate for their extreme 
courtesy and extraordinary professionalism. Amendments have been thrown 
at them in an aggressive way, and they have handled it well. We thank 
them for their professionalism.
  I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, very briefly, I thank Senator Gregg for 
the tone he set not only in committee, but on the floor. I thank his 
staff for their professionalism and cooperation. We have gotten to know 
them and have worked closely with them and have enjoyed the experience.
  I thank Members of the Senate who worked cooperatively. Just hours 
ago, we could have been faced with being here until 3 o'clock in the 
morning. Senators on both sides of the aisle really cooperated to allow 
us to complete business at this hour.
  With all of that said, I urge Members to oppose this budget 
resolution. As I read it, this budget would increase the deficit by 
over $200 billion over and above what would happen if we just put this 
entire Government on autopilot. In addition, as I read this budget, it 
increases the debt each and every year by over $600 billion.
  Mr. President, this is at a time when we already have record deficits 
and soaring debt and are increasingly vulnerable to the decisions of 
foreign central banks, as we have increased our borrowing from them by 
nearly 100 percent in just 3 years.
  Finally, I don't think this budget has the right priorities for 
America. This has a dramatic cut in the COPS program, virtually 
eliminating it. It has cuts in things like firefighters grants and, at 
the same time, substantial tax cuts for the very wealthiest among us, a 
tax cut of more than $35,000 for millionaires in 2006 alone. That is at 
a time when we are reducing funding for a whole series of national 
priorities, including veterans and education beyond what was 
authorized.
  Again, let me conclude by thanking colleagues on both sides for the 
professionalism with which this debate has been conducted.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, let me add a note of appreciation to the 
majority leader and the assistant leader on our side and the Democratic 
leader and his assistant leader. They have done an exceptional job of 
helping us on the bill.
  Let me especially thank the Senator from North Dakota for the 
expeditious and fair way this bill was handled. It was, in large part, 
due to his extraordinary effort. I thank him for that. I thank his 
staff, led by Mary Naylor, and I thank Scott Gudes of my staff and the 
extraordinary team I have for the great work they have done.
  This is not the perfect bill, not the bill I would choose had I 
controlled the magic wand. But it is a bill that is in the middle of 
the process, and, hopefully, it will evolve into a better bill as we go 
through the process.
  I hope colleagues will join in passing it, as it is our obligation as 
a Government that we have a budget in order to guide the Government as 
we go forward.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. We will not end until the leader has worked things out, 
but the chairman was concluding his statement.
  Mr. GREGG. My verbosity obviously got the best of me. I was 
concluded, and I thought it was an excellent conclusion. I appreciate 
the input of the Senator from Nevada. He brought it to an end at the 
appropriate time. I hope we can move forward.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my staff very much for an 
extraordinary effort. Thank you very much.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we cannot leave until the majority leader 
gets on the floor. We have to find out what we are going to do when we 
get back here.
  Mr. BIDEN. We can check the Record. Let's vote.
  Mr. REID. Does the leader have an idea what we are going to do when 
we get back?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, through the Chair, we are going to have a 
busy session when we get back. I would love to continue our discussion. 
We have a number of issues such as patient safety, and we have a couple 
of district judges that we need to do. We will see how far we get with 
welfare reform. We can have a busy 3 weeks.
  Mr. REID. Tuesday will be our first vote?
  Mr. FRIST. Tuesday would be our first vote, if we vote Tuesday. We 
would not vote on the first Monday back.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I inquire of the distinguished majority 
leader, will there be a session tomorrow?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I have not had a full discussion with the 
Democratic leader about a session tomorrow. We can either have a 
discussion now or during the vote. We will discuss during the vote 
whether or not we will have a session.
  Mr. BYRD. If we are not going to have a session, my first inquiry 
would be, how many days will the Record remain open for statements?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, through the Chair, in response to how many 
days the Record will be open, we will work that out as well during the 
vote.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, upon the 
conclusion of the vote, I may be recognized to make some statements for 
the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the concurrent resolution, as amended.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint

[[Page 5260]]


     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Voinovich
     Wyden
  The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 18), as amended, was agreed 
to.
  (The concurrent resolution will be printed in a future edition of the 
Record.)
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the narrow 51-49 vote on the budget 
resolution we just passed reveals the delicate balance that our 
leadership forged between spending restraints and the funding 
priorities of the American people. On the one hand, there is a clear 
need to dry up the red ink which threatens to plague our children, 
their children and generations to come. As the author of the Balanced 
Budget Constitutional amendment I am clearly aware of the need to 
maintain fiscal discipline.
  At the same time, I also have a responsibility to the citizens of UT 
to make certain that important programs in our state receive the 
funding they need to operate on a sound basis.
  Today, we cast many difficult votes which forced us to choose between 
those two competing priorities. One of those votes was on the Smith 
Medicaid amendment. I am extremely concerned about the $60 billion 
reduction in proposed spending growth for Medicaid in the President's 
budget. At the same time, it is important to note that even under the 
President's budget, Medicaid is projected to grow about 7 percent per 
year.
  I feel that it is incumbent upon the Finance Committee and its 
members, Secretary Mike Leavitt and the President to work with States 
and communities to ensure that we preserve the safety net Medicaid 
offers to the elderly, the disabled and the low income. I have pledged 
to Chairman Chuck Grassley and Secretary Leavitt that I will work with 
them to ensure that there is adequate funding for this vital program. I 
am very concerned that we do right by this program which helps so many, 
many Utahns each year. We can't allow it to be torn apart.
  Another difficult amendment facing the Senate today was the amendment 
offered by Senator Norm Coleman to restore funding in the budget for 
the Community Development Block Grant program, CDBG. As my colleagues 
are aware, I wrote to the Budget Committee and urged strongly that they 
include adequate room for the appropriators to fund the CDBG program. I 
was very disappointed that funding was not reflected in the budget 
reported by the Senate Budget Committee.
  I consider the Community Development Block grant program to be an 
effective tool and an extremely important program for communities 
throughout the State of Utah. I feel it is important to note that the 
purpose of the Budget Resolution is to set out the framework for the FY 
2006 priorities which will determine the allocations provided to each 
of the Appropriations Subcommittees. We all know it is very difficult 
to begin the appropriations process without having a budget in place to 
guide our work. Whether or not the final budget agreement which emerges 
from the House-Senate conference includes an explicit funding reference 
for the CDBG or not, action will turn to the Appropriations Committee 
which has the full authority, and indeed the responsibility, to provide 
funding for this program.
  Let me make it perfectly clear to the communities in Utah that I will 
not drop my fight to secure adequate funding for the CDBG.
  I want to assure my colleagues that my votes on the budget today do 
not reflect any lessened commitment on my part to the CDBG, Medicaid or 
other vital programs in UT.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the budget 
resolution that the Senate just voted on. This budget is irresponsible 
and takes the country in the wrong direction. It adds to our Nation's 
debt, continues to slash taxes for those in our Nation who least need 
tax breaks, and would enact massive cuts in critical domestic 
priorities. And it is for these reasons that I was unable to support 
this budget resolution.
  The budget of the United States is a declaration of our Nation's 
moral priorities. It is a statement of where our Nation is now, and 
where we aim to be, years down the line. On all of these counts, this 
budget fails to reflect this Nation's values.
  I know that Members of this body have strong differences on our 
budget priorities, but I think that we can all agree on the following 
two items. First, that our Nation is currently experiencing record-high 
deficits.
  Second, that these deficits are impeding our ability to meet our 
needs in education, transportation, communication, health care, 
national security, and homeland security. There are strong views on 
both sides on how we got here. I believe that our change from record 
surpluses to record deficits was not an accident, nor was it a product 
of unforeseen events, but was a direct result of the fiscal policies 
pursued by the current administration. This result was not unforseen, 
not unexpected, and in some corridors even desired since there are 
those who have told us that deficits are ``good'' on the theory that 
chronically high deficits will preclude what they consider to be unwise 
and wasteful government spending, by which they mean spending on 
education, transportation, research and development, among other 
priorities.
  Unfortunately, the budget that just passed does not in good faith 
address our record deficits. In fact, it worsens our Nation's fiscal 
health. This budget is a continuation of the reckless and unfair 
policies that have been pushed forward by this administration since its 
first days in office, and by its supporters in Congress. The majority's 
budget resolution would make deficits and debt worse, not better as 
they have claimed. Over the next 5 years, this budget proposal would 
increase deficits by $130 billion over what they would be under current 
law. And while the majority claims to be cutting the deficit in half 
with this budget resolution, I am afraid that that this assertion is 
false. This budget resolution actually leaves out large and significant 
costs, and in so doing masks the true size of the deficit.
  The reality of the fact is that when omitted costs are factored in, 
such as the 10-year cost of AMT reform, $770 billion, and ongoing war 
costs, $380 billion, the operating deficits will remain above $500 
billion and climb to $569 billion in 2010. These figures do not include 
the President's Social Security privatization plan, which would likely 
add an additional $4.4 trillion over 20 years to the national debt.
  To make matters worse, by failing to provide estimates of the effects 
of its proposals beyond 2010, this budget resolution, obscures the fact 
that its tax cuts would increase the deficit by a much larger amount in 
the second 5 years--2011 through 2015--than in the first 5 years--2006 
through 2010. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the tax 
cuts proposed in the budget would increase the deficit by another $1.4 
trillion from 2011 through 2015.
  The national debt would continue to skyrocket under this budget 
resolution. In 2001, when President Bush took office we were actually 
having serious conversations about paying off the national debt by 
2008. Under this budget resolution, including the costs of AMT

[[Page 5261]]

reform and ongoing war costs, we will see the publicly held debt go 
from its current level of $4.3 trillion to at least $5.9 trillion by 
2008. In 2001, this would have seemed inconceivable. This budget 
resolution also includes a reconciliation instruction for a $446 
billion debt increase which means that a debt increase could happen in 
an expedited manner without affording the Senate full and proper 
consideration. While there was an amendment to remove the 
reconciliation instruction on the debt increase, it unfortunately did 
not pass.
  Over the past few years, the administration has told us that figures 
like the deficit and the national debt are merely numbers that have 
little impact on Americans' lives. This is yet another reflection of an 
administration out of touch with reality.
  What will be the ultimate result of our record budget and trade 
deficits? Higher interest rates on small business loans, families' 
mortgages, and education loans. These amount to a tax hike on working 
families and small businesses.
  Americans may wonder, how does their government finance these 
deficits? The answer is that our government does much what many 
families or businesses do when faced with bills they can't pay--we 
borrow money. The money our government spends has to come from 
somewhere--and with each passing year, more and more of it comes from 
foreign nations.
  Since President Bush took office, foreign debt holdings have 
increased almost 100 percent. We now owe $700 billion to Japan, $200 
billion to China, and $69 billion to South Korea. This makes us more 
vulnerable to the decisions of foreign central bankers since they can 
decide that it's time to collect their debt--and we will have to pay 
up. If this were to happen, the implications for our economy would be 
catastrophic.
  The majority had an opportunity this week to truly tackle the 
skyrocketing deficit--by restoring a strong pay-as-you-go rule, PAYGO, 
that would require any new mandatory spending or tax legislation to be 
paid for, or require 60 votes to pass. In 1983, I was one of the first 
Senators to offer a pay-as-you-go budget. It is smart budgeting; it 
works. One major reason why we were able to move from deficit to 
surplus in the 1990s is because we had a strong PAYGO rule. 
Unfortunately, the majority refused to support this important amendment 
this week, thereby sending a message that it is okay that we continue 
to drown in deficits.
  As I said at the outset, the budget that the Senate just passed is 
not just a fiscal document. It is a statement about the majority's 
values. And just as this budget is fiscally irresponsible, it is also 
morally irresponsible.
  This budget will cause pain and debilitation to working families 
throughout our country. In essence this budget tells working families 
that they need to do more with less. This budget tells them that as a 
nation we just do not have money to buy new computers for schools, to 
provide better health care, to provide services to the poor, the sick, 
the frail, and the elderly. This is appalling, but what makes it even 
more so is that at the same time, this budget turns around to the 
affluent of this country and gives more to them. This budget finds room 
to include tax cuts for millionaires, but does not have enough for the 
needs of middle-class families.
  Despite record deficits and debt, and despite our efforts to address 
this, the budget before us provides for another $70 billion in tax cuts 
over 5 years using the ``reconciliation'' process which is a fast-track 
process that ensures that such legislation would need 51, rather than 
60 votes to pass. ``Reconciliation'' was originally established to 
ensure fiscal responsibility, and here the majority is now using it to 
extend the tax cuts on dividends and capital gains. These tax breaks, 
which would average $35,000 a year, would disproportionately go to 
households that have incomes in excess of $1 million, a group that 
constitutes only 0.2 percent of all households.
  Such policies will bankrupt the country and unfairly place the burden 
on the backs of middle-class workers. I strongly believe that this 
budget sets us on a dangerous course when we consider the challenges we 
face in the coming years.
  In the global economy of the 21st century, America faces ever-
increasing competition from foreign nations. How we fare in that 
competition will be a direct consequence of our willingness to make 
concrete investments in the capabilities of our greatest and most 
abundant resource: the American people.
  Investing in the American people begins with ensuring each and every 
American receives a quality education. A quality education--beginning 
when a child is only a few years old, and continuing through college 
and beyond--is the key that opens the doorway to a lifetime of 
opportunity. Our competitors--nations like India and China--have 
realized that. They are making serious investments in the intellectual 
capacity of their citizens.
  What are we doing?
  One in every three programs slated for elimination in the President's 
budget are education programs. Aside from the eliminations, No Child 
Left Behind is underfunded by $12 billion, special education is 
underfunded by $3.6 billion, and afterschool programs are underfunded 
by $1.25 billion. How does the administration expect schools to raise 
the level of achievement for students without the resources needed to 
do it?
  In today's global economy, we can ill afford to give our children any 
less than the best education available. As I have said many times 
before, education may be expensive but ignorance costs even more.
  I was also appalled when I saw how little this budget provides for 
concrete investments in scientific progress.
  In real terms, the total Federal R&D portfolio would decline for the 
first time since 1996. Total Federal support of research--basic and 
applied--would fall 0.6 percent to $54.8 billion.
  The proposed Federal Research and Development portfolio in fiscal 
year 2006 is $132.3 billion, 0.6 percent or $733 million above this 
year's funding level, far short of the $2.2 billion increase needed to 
keep pace with inflation.
  In many respects, I feel as if those who wrote this budget have 
forgotten the lessons of history. If we look at the groundbreaking 
scientific innovations over the past two centuries, we learn that an 
overwhelming number of them have been inextricably linked to real 
investments this Nation has made in research and development.
  Where will we see the next great scientific achievement? Will it be 
here in the United States? Or will it be in China? Or England? Or 
Japan? Or Italy? The answer to that question lies in our willingness to 
make the right choices. Unfortunately, this budget does just the 
opposite.
  While the budget contains an overall shortfall in R&D funding, I am 
pleased, however, that an amendment that was introduced by our 
colleague Senator George Allen and myself was accepted and included in 
the budget resolution. The budget had proposed to cut over $700 million 
out of NASA's Aeronautics budget over the next five years. Our 
amendment increases subsonic and hypersonic aeronautics research and 
development funding by $1.58 billion over 5 years, with an offset.
  Aerospace and aviation are important assets for America and for my 
home State of Connecticut. In addition to its obvious national security 
benefits, the aeronautics industry makes a critical contribution to our 
Nation's economic growth and standard of living. We cannot continue to 
just give the minimum to aeronautics research and development if we 
want to be able to effectively compete in aeronautics and in the world 
economy. Acceptance of this amendment is a step forward in 
demonstrating that the United States is committed to our aviation and 
aeronautics industry and innovation.
  If I listed every area in which this budget fails our Nation, I would 
be here much longer than my allotted time. But I would like to quickly 
outline just a few more of the critical priorities that this budget has 
shortchanged in order to provide tax cuts for millionaires:

[[Page 5262]]

  Veterans funding would by cut by $14.5 billion. This administration 
constantly preaches the rhetoric of supporting our troops, yet it has 
consistently come up short when it comes to meeting the needs of those 
who have made great sacrifices for our freedoms.
  Just as this budget fails those who protected our freedoms abroad, it 
endangers those who keep us safe here at home. It cuts firefighter 
assistance grants--grants that have helped fire departments buy new 
trucks, safety equipment, radios, hazmat suits--by 31 percent. It cuts 
funding for the COPS program--which supports police officers throughout 
our nation--by 96 percent.
  We have known since the first roads of the Roman Empire that the fate 
of nations hinges in many respects on their ability to move people, 
goods, and services as efficiently as possible. Yet this budget cuts 
$15.9 billion in transportation funding.
  Reductions in natural resource and environmental programs would total 
$29 billion over five years. This budget also fails to protect the 
Arctic refuge from drilling.
  The budget also cuts child care assistance for 300,000 children 
through 2009. It is absurd to be cutting child care assistance for 
struggling parents at the same time that the President proposes that 
more low-income parents work longer hours. It is not just absurd, it is 
irresponsible. If you want welfare reform, you simply must have child 
care, as well.
  This budget would terminate the Community Services Block Grant, 
leaving working poor families affected by the President's budget cuts 
with nowhere to turn for assistance.
  I know that we can do better than this budget. Actually, we must do 
better, so that we can truly move our country forward, and do what is 
best for families everywhere.

                          ____________________