To establish a point of order.

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.
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

[[Page S2930]]

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:

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.

[[Page S2931]]

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 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

[[Page S2932]]

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 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.

[[Page S2933]]

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. 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.
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

[[Page S2934]]

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.
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.

[[Page S2935]]

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, 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:

[[Page S2936]]

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.
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

[[Page S2937]]

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 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

[[Page S2938]]

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.
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.

[[Page S2939]]

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.
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

[[Page S2940]]

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.
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.

[[Page S2941]]

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 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.

[[Page S2942]]

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 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.

[[Page S2943]]

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 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:

[[Page S2944]]

(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.
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

[[Page S2945]]

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 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.

[[Page S2946]]

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:

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.

[[Page S2947]]

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 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

[[Page S2948]]

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 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.

[[Page S2949]]

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, 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 function 800 by $727 million in BA in FY 06 for election
reform requirements

[[Page S2950]]

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 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.

[[Page S2951]]

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page S2952]]

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.
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

[[Page S2953]]

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.
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

[[Page S2954]]

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 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

[[Page S2955]]

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.
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

[[Page S2956]]

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.''
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

[[Page S2957]]

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 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

[[Page S2958]]

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 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. 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

[[Page S2959]]

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. 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.

[[Page S2960]]

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.
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

[[Page S2961]]

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 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.

[[Page S2962]]

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 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

[[Page S2963]]

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 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

[[Page S2964]]

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 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

[[Page S2965]]

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
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.

[[Page S2966]]

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 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?

[[Page S2967]]

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:
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.

____________________