Sanctity of Life Act of 2005

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.

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.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

Is the amendment at the desk?

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.

This will be a 10-minute vote, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I yield a minute to the Senator from California to make a comment on her amendment.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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. 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. President, the next amendment will be from the Senator from Wisconsin for 30 seconds.

Amendment No. 258

I suggest a voice vote on this amendment.

Mr. President, the next amendment is an amendment from the Senator from Vermont.

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.

Mr. President, the next amendment will be offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Is this the Allen amendment relative to NASA?

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.

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?

Mr. President, I reserve my time.

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.

I suggest we have a voice vote on this amendment.

Mr. President, I suggest a voice vote on this amendment.

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.

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.

I would suggest that this be a 10-minute vote since we had a break in the voting.

We can in probably just a few minutes, yes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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.

Yes.

That is correct.

I thank the Senator. That is very helpful.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment by Senator Kohl dealing with juvenile accountability block grants, No. 217, be agreed to.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask that the previously agreed-to Bayh and Gregg amendments be modified with the modifications which are at the desk.

I ask that it also apply to the Clinton amendment No. 154.

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.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I ask unanimous consent the amendment be accepted.

Mr. President, if the Senator from Arkansas wants to proceed.

I ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.

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. President, I suggest the Senator from Michigan has an amendment.

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.

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

Mr. President, I send to the desk, on behalf of Senators Grassley, Baucus, Enzi, and Kennedy, an amendment and ask for its consideration.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Ohio.

Amendment No. 161, As Modified

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. 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. 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

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.

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. President, I rise today in strong support of the Snowe- Wyden amendment. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment to allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate for the lowest prescription drug prices in Medicare.

Americans pay the highest drug prices in the world. Americans pay, on average, two-thirds more than the Canadians, 80 percent more than the Germans, and 60 percent more than the

British. While drug companies argue that they need high prices in America in order to fund research and development for new drugs, drug companies spend more on marketing, advertising, and administration than they spend on research.

Our seniors deserve a Medicare prescription drug benefit that gets the best prices for their medication. But the Medicare prescription drug law actually prohibits the Federal Government from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices. This is a missed opportunity and a waste of taxpayers' dollars.

In light of the growing concerns over the rising cost of this benefit--$57 billion more than originally expected--every effort should be made to save our seniors and taxpayers dollars.

This amendment requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to use the tremendous purchasing power of the 41 million Medicare beneficiaries to assist the private drug plans in getting the lowest price for seniors. The savings provided by this amendment would go to pay for deficit reduction.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense effort to lower prescription drug prices and reduce the deficit.

amendment no. 172

Mr. 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.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 243

Mr. President, I send modified amendment numbered 288 to the desk for immediate consideration.

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.

This is now a sense of the Senate.

Mr. President, for the second year in a row, the President proposes to completely eliminate the Advanced Technology Program, ATP. Last year, Congress wisely chose to

fund the ATP program at $142.3 million. The bottom line is that the ATP promotes the development of new, innovative products that are made and developed in the United States, helping American companies compete against their foreign competitors and contribute to the growth of the U.S. economy.

I hope Congress will continue to fund this important program in fiscal year 2006. Doing so will help strengthen the technological and economic leadership of America's high technology manufacturing companies that is necessary for them to remain competitive in today's global marketplace. It will also help 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. President, this budget, like the President's budget, reflects the wrong priorities. This budget short changes public services such as education and health care for all Americans in order to further cut taxes mainly for the wealthiest Americans. This budget resolution is starkly out of touch with the vast majority of working families in Michigan and across the United States. The American people deserve better.

To create the impression that the budget cuts the deficit in half over the next 5 years, it simply leaves out several major expenses. These omissions include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the cost of the personnel added to the Army and Marines and the cost of reforming the alternative minimum tax. Leaving these costs out of the budget paints an incomplete picture of the deepening Federal deficit and the damage being done to the Nation's fiscal outlook.

If the deficit continues to expand at its current rate, by 2015, each American's share of the debt will be at least $30,000. The bigger the deficit grows, the more likely it is that we will face rising long-term interest rates and slower economic growth. This will make it more expensive to buy a house, pay for college or pay off credit card debt. This is an unfair burden to pass on to our children and grandchildren.

The President's tax cuts are a major cause of our Nation's swing from a record budget surplus into an increasingly deep deficit ditch. Yet this resolution seeks $71 billion in additional tax breaks most of which are for the wealthiest Americans. The cornerstone of these proposed tax cuts is the extension of the capital gains and dividend tax cuts. These tax cuts would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest among us.

Largely as a result of its reckless tax cuts, this budget would actually increase, rather than decrease, the deficit. But this budget resolution, such as the President's budget, attempts to conceal the damage it is doing to the Nation's fiscal outlook by using 5-year projections instead of the customary

10-year numbers. Hidden just beyond the 5-year budget window is the exploding cost of the tax cut proposals and its growing effect on the deficit.

I am disappointed that the Senate did not adopt the Feingold-Chafee amendment to reinstate pay-as-you-go rules that would require both entitlement spending increases and tax cuts to be fully paid for or face a 60-vote point of order in the Senate. The pay-as-you-go rule, like the one which was successful in the 1990s, would have helped restrain the deficit without unduly harming critical public services.

I am pleased that the Senate rejected severe cuts to the Medicaid Program in a crucial vote earlier today. This is a victory for the 53 million children, pregnant women, elderly and disabled who rely on Medicaid to meet their health care needs. It is also a victory for the people that make our health care delivery system work.

Still the budget plan which is before the Senate today fails to address some of our Nation's most pressing problems, such as the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs, cuts in education funding, and environmental protection.

I am also saddened that the Senate rejected an amendment to continue to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We have a responsibility to promote a balanced energy plan that invests in America's future and protects our environment, not one that damages our protected lands. Rather than drilling in our pristine wilderness, the United States should be investing in alternative sources of power, renewable energy programs and fuel efficient automotive technology to improve fuel economy without harming our environment.

This budget slashes funding for vital programs for working families in order to extend massive and fiscally irresponsible tax cuts that significantly lower the Nation's revenue and explode the deficit. These are the wrong priorities for America. I cannot support it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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.

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. President, I rise today to speak to an amendment with my good friend and colleague, Senator Grassley, expressing the sense of the Senate on the High Intensity Drug Trafficking area, or HIDTA, program. My amendment assumes that the HIDTA program will be fully funded at $227 million in fiscal year 2006 and that the HIDTA program will remain with the Office National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, where it was last authorized by Congress to be. Additional cosponsors are Senators Leahy, Bingaman, Murray, and Talent. I would also like to add Senators Gordon Smith and DeWine as cosponsors to this amendment. I thank my colleagues for their strong support.

I am proud to offer this much-needed amendment. The proposed budget would cut the HIDTA program by 56 percent, assuming only $100 million for HIDTA. The President's Budget also proposes to shift the program from ONDCP to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force program within the Department of Justice. Both of these proposals could derail the highly successful HIDTA program.

As many of my colleagues know, methamphetamine is a powerful and highly addictive central nervous system stimulant that is associated with violence and crime. It can cause paranoia, aggression, and mood swings. The byproducts of making meth are highly toxic and flammable and require costly clean ups. They also endanger many children who are exposed when their parents cook meth within the home. Since its inception in 1990, HIDTA has become one of the most effective and comprehensive programs we have to fight meth.

Specifically, a HIDTA designation provides states like Montana with increased resources, information and intelligence to fight methamphetamine use and production. The Federal funding and increased cooperation among Federal, State and local law enforcement frees up state resources that allow, for example, the Montana Department of Justice to better support Montana's rural communities. It provides law enforcement officials with new technology to coordinate their efforts at the local, State, and Federal level.

Montana fought hard and successfully to join the Rocky Mountain HIDTA in 2002. Since that time, Montana has successfully cut the number of meth labs it busts in half. I have been told by law enforcement across my State that the proposed cuts to HIDTA, combined with cuts proposed by the President to other Justice assistance programs like the Byrne and COPS programs, would be a disaster for Montana. It would effectively end drug enforcement in rural Montana and would set the clock back years in our efforts to fight the rapid spread of meth in our state.

Yesterday, I was proud to cosponsor and support Senator Stabenow's amendment to restore funding for our first responder programs, Byrne and COPS. Sadly, that amendment failed. I also proudly supported Senator Biden's amendment to fully fund the COPS program. That amendment unfortunately also failed. We must do everything we can to make sure these programs survive and so far Congress is not holding up their end of the bargain.

Although my amendment specifically focuses on the HIDTA program, let me list again what the Montana Board of Crime Control has told me would happen to Montana if the President's fiscal year 2006 budget is enacted:

1. Montana will lose its multi-jurisdiction drug enforcement capacity, including seven multijurisdictional drug task forces. This means that already stretched local law enforcement agencies will have to do what they can to address drug enforcement at the local level, without broader support from the drug task forces.

2. Montana will lose 33 drug enforcement offices throughout the State.

3. Montana will experience a significant increase in drug availability, manufacturing and trafficking and drug-related crime.

4. Montana would experience an increase in clandestine labs that manufacture methamphetamine.

5. Montana would experience a reduction in the amounts of illegal drugs and guns removed from our communities.

6. Montana would experience the elimination of funds for rural law enforcement agencies' manpower, equipment and training.

Again, the above scenario is only the tip of the iceberg. The manufacturing, 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