A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty on cases for certain children's products.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. President, what is the time situation?

Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. Therefore, it has no impact that involves actual events or activity. It expresses the sense of the Senate as to what we think we should do on something. We have had a few of those.

The attempt has been, of course, to reduce the number of sense-of- the-Senate amendments. This would be subject to a 60-vote point of order on a sense-of-the-Senate budget resolution. I will not make that point of order.

I will say this: We will probably take this sense of the Senate. This is about SCAAP. SCAAP has some serious problems. That is why it has always been looked at in a fairly suspect way, not only by the Bush administration but before that the Clinton administration had concerns about it. And the concerns are these: It essentially is a revenue- sharing event. Essentially these dollars go back to the States in very large amounts of money. They go to the border States, primarily California and Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, but primarily California and Texas are the two major beneficiaries of this program. But they go back without any strings attached.

The theory is that they are going to be spent to relieve some of the burden that is put on these States relative to incarcerating illegal aliens who are captured in those States and are detained within those States in State prison facilities. That is a legitimate purpose. We should be assisting those States in that area because we are putting pressure on those States in a unique way. Other States don't have the same pressure. But there is nothing to say the money has to be spent that way. It is literally a check which the Federal Government writes to the States of Texas, California, or Arizona. And if the Governors want to use it to build a road or use it to buy a new school or for some other activity, the Governors can do that.

I have always said let us put some language into this which makes it clear that this money is going to go to the States for the purpose of giving those States assistance with detaining illegal aliens but isn't going to end up being used, as I suspect, for primarily a basic State commitment to its own correctional system.

I think you can make a pretty good case that there is a history here of this money essentially being used to supplement efforts on the part of the States in their own correctional systems.

I hope when we reauthorize this language, which will come through the Senate's Judiciary Committee, that type of language which makes it clear this money has to be used for the purpose for which it is designated will be included. That is a debate between the authorizing committee and the appropriating committee. The Budget Committee doesn't have any direct impact on that. We don't do programmatic activity at the Budget Committee level.

I haven't read the sense of Senate yet, but I suspect we will simply accept it. After I read it, I may change my mind. That can be a mistake, as we know, around here. That is my concern and reservation about the program.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Can I ask the Chair what the status of the time is, Mr. President?

Mr. President, this proposal increases spending over the bill by approximately $30 billion. That is a fairly significant amount of money. It also raises taxes by $14 billion, which is also a significant amount of money. We are now at a point where amendments offered from the other side of the aisle increase spending by approximately $100 billion and increase taxes by approximately $60 billion. At some point you must ask the question, What is the purpose of a budget if the only purpose is to simply increase taxes and increase spending?

From my viewpoint, the purpose of the budget is to actually try to put in fiscal discipline and have some controls over spending and, as a result, have some controls over the amount of money we are taking out of people's pockets. Remember, it is their money, not our money, and spending it for them rather than allowing them to spend it themselves.

So I obviously oppose this amendment. As the Senator from West Virginia noted, I voted against the $318

billion when it came through the first time. And I do note that, yes, there were a number of people who voted for that at the time. But I do note the President, working with the Members of the Congress, has reached an agreement as to what we can afford in the area of highway funds, and that agreement is $284 billion.

Now, we put that in the budget. That is what we put in the budget. Now, some might say, well, that is not enough, but actually I think it is almost $50 billion more than where we started. I think we started at $236 billion for this highway bill, or somewhere in that range.

So there has been a fair amount of movement upward toward trying to address the issue of infrastructure in this country and making sure that highway construction is adequately funded. So $284 billion is not a small amount of change. It is a rather significant amount of money and is a very strong commitment to the highways.

There is a second amendment floating around here on the issue of highways, which is offered by the Senator from Missouri, and was discussed earlier today, which would change the way that we might add money into the highway bill. We put in the budget resolution a reserve fund which essentially said that more dollars could go into the highway bill, you could get to the number the Senator from West Virginia proposed, if you legitimately raised revenues to pay for it. And legitimately raising revenues means having proposals which actually will produce revenues as versus ones that are a lot of smoke and a lot of mirrors.

So the language is not overly restrictive, it is reasonable. But it does expect that if we raise this highway fund up, it will be done in a way that is paid for appropriately out of highway-related activity, not out of the general fund.

That is a very important point because when this highway bill was put together there was some movement of dollars from the general fund into the highway fund through basically moving around the accounting mechanism for the ethanol tax. So we put in place this reserve fund which does allow for the dollars spent on highways to go up.

I put that in because there were a lot of people here who believed $284 billion was not an acceptable number.

Now, the President says it is an acceptable number. In fact, he said he will veto anything over that number. But I believed as long as it has hard pay-fors we will consider it. And that is reasonable.

Now, the amendment that is floating around here would basically take those hard pay-fors and move them back to what I would call, not illusory because they are not that specious, but they really are not very hard pay-fors. There could be a lot of games played with the language that is being proposed relative to what the pay-fors would be, and you might end up, unfortunately, spending the money but not ever getting the revenues in to cover those costs.

So I oppose that language, too, because I do feel very strongly that if we are going to go above the $284 billion level, we need to go above it with hard pay-fors that come out of highway activity, not out of the general fund.

So these two amendments are floating around here. I guess they are going to be voted in sequence probably. I just want to point out that I think both of them do damage to this budget in the area of fiscal discipline. And the one that is before us right now would raise taxes by $14 billion and increase spending by $35 billion, which is just too much to handle in the context of this budget, where the highway number is an agreed-to number between the two bodies and the President.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time on this amendment.

The Senator may use the time.

I ask the Senator from North Dakota, through the Chair, if he would mind yielding a couple of minutes off the 7\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Kentucky to respond to the Senator's point.

Mr. President, I will yield 1 minute off of my time, if the Senator from Kentucky needs it.

Mr. President, it is not a unique procedure to use reconciliation to address the debt limit. The debt limit is something that as a Government we have to do. If the debt is run up, the debt limit has to be run up or else the bonds cannot be issued in order to set up the debt properly.

If that is not done, what happens? The Government shuts down. So in a number of instances, and I believe even in the Democratic Party, in two instances when the Democratic Party controlled the Senate, reconciliation included the debt limit. So it is the responsible thing to do to have this vehicle available.

That does not mean the Finance Committee will use it. It may be that we will not use it. But we need to have this vehicle available in order to make sure the Government continues to operate. In fact, one could argue that if this amendment were to pass, it would put in jeopardy at some point down the road the operation of the Government because the debt limit might be put in the position where it could not pass. That is not hyperbole. That is a distinct possibility and a hypothetical that could actually occur.

So the responsible thing to do is to have debt limit reconciliation instructions as one of the elements. That is why the Budget Act allows for it. Interestingly enough, this is not something we created. It was created by the Budget Act which was, of course, written under a Democratic Congress. As I mentioned, it has been used twice when the Democratic Party was in the majority. So it is a reasonable approach. It is something that needs to be included within the budget, and I would certainly hope this amendment would be rejected.

I yield back the remainder of my time on the amendment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time remaining which I have and the Democratic manager has, Senator Conrad, that we be able to reserve that time and use it at a later period in the day, during the voting.

Mr. President, I now move that we go to the first issue, which is going to be the Medicaid amendment offered by Senator Frist, the majority leader, and I yield myself a minute on that. Each side has a minute?

Mr. President, I make a point of order a quorum is not present.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when we begin to vote the order of votes will be as follows, for the initial set of amendments.

We will begin with the majority leader's amendment relative to Medicaid, which is No. 229; followed by the Bingaman for Senator Smith amendment on Medicaid, No. 204; followed by the Carper amendment on full consideration of tax cuts, No. 207; followed by the Snowe-Wyden drug pricing amendment, No. 214; followed by the Harkin vocational education amendment, No. 172; followed by the Hutchison-Ensign Border Patrol amendment, No. 218; followed by the Landrieu National Guard amendment, No. 219; followed by the Salazar-Conrad rural education and health amendment, No. 215; followed by the Dorgan runaway corporations amendment, No. 210; followed by the Lieberman-Collins first responder amendment, No. 220; followed by the Vitter port security, amendment, No. 223; followed by the Vitter Corps of Engineers amendment, No. 224; followed by the Allen, as modified, NASA amendment, No. 197; followed by the Sarbanes CDBG amendment, No. 156, followed by the Coleman CDBG amendment, No. 230; followed by the Cochran emergency retirement amendment, No. 208; followed by the Kennedy education amendment, No. 177; followed by the Baucus-Conrad amendment No. 234, agriculture; followed by the Biden COPS amendment, No. 239; followed by the Feinstein State Criminal Assistance Program, No. 188; followed by the Byrd highways amendment, No. 240; followed by the Talent highway amendment, No. 225; followed by the Conrad sense of the Senate regarding Social Security tax, No. 243; followed by the Bunning repeal of Social Security tax, No. 241; followed by the Clinton-Reid prevention first amendment, No. 244; followed by the Lautenberg debt limit amendment, No. 187.

That is the first group of amendments which we will be taking up.

Mr. President, we are going to move to the Frist amendment in a few minutes, and begin to vote.

I think the Democratic leader has made a very constructive suggestion for the process. I would be happy to accept that.

I am happy to go to 30 seconds for each side.

Mr. President, recognizing that the first amendment to be considered is the Frist amendment, are the yeas and nays ordered?

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all amendments after this amendment be 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise on behalf the majority leader, who is detained at another location. The majority leader's amendment simply accomplishes the best of both worlds in the sense that he continues the reconciliation instruction so we will move forward with Medicaid reform.

This year, he also sets up a commission which makes it very clear that Medicaid reform will not impact services to children or people who are in need but would, rather, look at how we improve this process of delivering Medicaid services without undermining the process of Medicaid services.

As I said before, if we do not move forward with reconciliation this year, we are not going to do it at all.

It is my understanding that the proponents will speak first. We will let the time run.

Mr. President, to the extent there is a Damocles sword, it is hanging over the generations to come who are going to have to pay the bills for our generation. The failure to address those bills today is going to make it virtually impossible for our children and their children to have the quality of life we have had because of the tax burden we are going to pass on. I hope people vote ``no.''

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished colleague Senator Bennett to introduce the Indian School Bus Route Safety Reauthorization Act of 2005. This bill continues an important Federal program begun in 1998 that addresses a unique problem with the roads in and around the Nation's single largest Indian reservation and the neighboring counties. Through this program, Navajo children who had been prevented from getting to school by roads that were often impassable are now traveling safely to and from their schools. Because of the unusual nature of this situation, I believe it must continue to be addressed at the Federal level.

I'd like to begin with some statistics on this unique problem and why I believe a Federal solution continues to be necessary. The Navajo Nation is by far the nation's largest Indian Reservation, covering 25,000 square miles. Portions of the Navajo Nation are in three States: Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. No other reservation comes anywhere close to the size of Navajo. To give you an idea of its size, the State of West Virginia is about 24,000 square miles. In fact, 10 States are smaller in size than the Navajo reservation.

According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, about 9,800 miles of public roads serve the Navajo nation. Only about one-fifth of these roads are paved. The remaining 7,600 miles, seventy-eight percent, are dirt roads. Every day school buses use nearly all of these roads to transport Navajo children to and from school.

About 6,400 miles of the roads on the Navajo reservation are BIA roads, and about 2,500 miles are State and county roads. All public roads within, adjacent to, or leading to the reservation, including BIA, State, and county roads are considered part of the Federal Indian Reservation Road System. However, only BIA roads are eligible for Federal maintenance funding from BIA. Moreover, construction funding and improvement funding from the Federal Lands Highways Program in TEA- 21 is generally applied only to BIA or tribal roads. Thus, the States and counties are responsible for maintenance and improvement of their 2,500 miles of roads that serve the reservation.

The counties in the three States that include the Navajo reservation are simply not in a position to maintain all of the roads on the reservation that carry children to and from school. Nearly all of the land area in these counties is under Federal or tribal jurisdiction.

For example, in my State of New Mexico, three-quarters of McKinley County is either tribal or federal land, including BLM, Forest Service, and military land. The Indian land area alone comprises 61 percent of McKinley County. Consequently, the county can draw upon only a very limited tax base as a source of revenue for maintenance purposes. Of the nearly 600 miles of county-maintained roads in McKinley County, 512 miles serve Indian land.

In San Juan County, UT, the Navajo Nation comprises 40 percent of the land area. The county maintains 611 miles of roads on the Navajo Nation. Of these, 357 miles are dirt, 164 miles are gravel and only 90 miles are paved. On the reservation, the county has three high schools, two elementary schools, two BIA boarding schools and four pre-schools.

The situation is similar in neighboring San Juan County, NM, and Apache, Navajo, and Coconino Counties, AZ. In light of the counties' limited resources, I do believe the Federal Government is asking the States and counties to bear too large a burden for road maintenance in this unique situation.

Families living in and around the reservation are no different from families anywhere else; their children are entitled to the same opportunity to get to school safely and to get a good education. However, the many miles of unpaved and deficient roads on the reservation are frequently impassable, especially when they are wet, muddy or snowy. If the school buses don't get through, the kids simply cannot get to school.

These children are literally being left behind.

Because of the vast size of the Navajo reservation, the cost of maintaining the county roads used by the school buses is more than the counties can bear without federal assistance. I believe it is essential that the Federal Government help these counties deal with this one-of- a-kind situation.

In response to this unique situation, in 1998 Congress began providing direct annual funding to the counties that contain the Navajo reservation to help ensure that children on the reservation can get to and from their public schools. The funding was included at my request in section 1214(d) of TEA-21. Under this provision, $1.5 million was made available each year to be shared equally among the three States. The funding is provided directly to the counties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah that contain the Navajo reservation. I want to be very clear: these Federal funds can be used only on roads that are located within or that lead to the reservation, that are on the State or county maintenance system, and that are used by school buses.

This program has been very successful. For the last six years, the counties have used the annual funding to help maintain the routes used by school buses to carry children to school and to Headstart programs. I had an opportunity in 1998 to see first hand the importance of this funding when I rode in a school bus over some of the roads that are maintained using funds from this program.

The bill I am introducing today provides a simple 6-year reauthorization of that program, for fiscal years 2005 through 2010, with a modest increase in the annual funding to allow for inflation and for additional roads to be maintained in each of the three States. The text of the bill is identical to that passed last year by the full Senate in H.R. 3550, the SAFETEA bill.

I believe that continuing this program for six more years is fully justified because of the vast area of the Navajo reservation--by far the Nation's largest--and the unique nature of this need that only the Federal Government can deal with effectively.

I don't believe any child wanting to get to and from school should have to risk or tolerate unsafe roads. Kids today, particularly in rural and remote areas, face enough barriers to getting a good education. The Senate already passed this legislation last year. I ask all Senators to join me again this year in assuring that Navajo schoolchildren at least have a chance to get to school safely and get an education.

I am pleased that Congressmen Tom Udall of New Mexcio, Rick Renzi of Arizona, and James David Matheson of Utah are introducing a companion bill today in the House. I look forward to working with them this year and with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate this legislation once again into the comprehensive 6-year reauthorization of the surface transportation bill.

I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will enhance the future economic vitality of communities in Otero, Lincoln, Torrance, Guadalupe, and Quay Counties.

The purpose of this legislation is to focus attention on the need to upgrade U.S. Highway 54 to four lanes. I believe improving the transportation infrastructure will help attract good jobs to South, Central, and Eastern New Mexico.

I am honored to have my good friend and colleague, Senator Roberts, as the lead cosponsor of the bill. I am also pleased to have Senators Inhofe as an original cosponsor. In addition, Representatives Udall (NM), Lucas, and Pearce are introducing this bill today on the House side.

Our bill designates U.S. Highway 54 from the border with Mexico at the Bridge of the Americas in El Paso, TX, through New Mexico, and Oklahoma to Wichita, KS, as the Southwest Passage Initiative for Regional and Interstate Transportation, or SPIRIT, corridor. Congress has already included Highway 54 as part of the National Highway System. This bill adds the SPIRIT Corridor to Congress's list of High Priority Corridors on the National Highway System.

About half of the 700-mile-long SPIRIT corridor is in New Mexico and another 200 miles of it are in Kansas. Our goal in asking Congress to designate SPIRIT as a High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System is to help focus attention on the need for a complete four-lane upgrade of the route from El Paso to Wichita. When completed, the route will link rural areas in the four States to major market centers.

I continue to believe strongly in the importance of highway infrastructure for economic development in my state. Even in this age of the new economy and high-speed digital communications, roads continue to link our communities together and to carry the commercial goods and products our citizens need. Safe and efficient highways are especially important to citizens in the rural parts of New Mexico.

It is well known that regions with four-lane highways more readily attract out-of-state visitors and new jobs. Truck drivers and the traveling public prefer the safety of a four-lane divided highway.

In New Mexico, U.S. 54 is a fairly level route, bypassing New Mexico's major mountain ranges. The route also traverses some of New Mexico's most dramatic scenery, including three of the state's popular Scenic Byways. One is the Mesalands Scenic Byway in Guadalupe, San Miguel and Quay Counties, incorporating the beautiful tablelands known as El Llano Estacado. Another is the State's newest byway, La Frontera de Llano, which follows highway 39 from Logan to Abbott in Harding County, including the spectacular Canadian River Canyon and the Kiowa National Grasslands. The third byway is the historic Route 66, which crosses Highway 54 from Santa Rosa to Tucumcari.

The SPIRIT corridor passes through Alamogordo, home of the New Mexico Museum of Space History and gateway to the stunning White Sands National Monument.

Highway 54 is also important to our Nation from the perspective of national security. The route directly serves Fort Bliss, the White Sands Missile Range, and Holloman Air Force Base. It also passes through the Nation's breadbasket as well as some of the Nation's most important oil and gas fields.

The route of the SPIRIT corridor starts at Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, home of one the largest concentrations of manufacturing in the border region. As a result of increased trade under NAFTA, commercial border traffic is now much higher at the border crossings in El Paso, Texas, and Santa Teresa, New Mexico. In New Mexico, truck traffic from the border has risen to over 1000 per day and is expected to triple in the next twenty years.

The SPIRIT corridor is perfectly situated to serve international trade and promote economic development along its entire route. The route provides direct connections to four major Interstate Highways: I- 10, 1-35, I-40, and 1-70. SPIRIT is also the shortest route between Chicago and El Paso shaving 137 miles off the major alternative.

Though much of U.S. 54 is currently only two lanes, traffic has been rising dramatically along the entire route since NAFTA was implemented. In New Mexico, total daily traffic levels are nearing 10,000 and are projected to rise to 30,000, with trucks making up 35 percent of the total. In Oklahoma, traffic levels are up to 6,500 per day--40 percent of which are commercial trucks. These traffic statistics clearly reflect the SPIRIT corridor's attraction to commercial and passenger drivers.

New Mexicans recognize the importance of efficient roads to economic development and safety. I have long supported my State's efforts to complete the four-lane upgrade of U.S. 54. The State Department of Transportation rates the project a high priority for New Mexico. The four-lane upgrade of the first 56-mile segment from the Texas border to Alamogordo was completed in 2002. Two more sections in New Mexico remain to be upgraded: 163 miles from Tularosa, north through Carrizozo, Corona, and Vaughn, to Santa Rosa and 50 miles from Tucumcari to the Texas border near Nara Visa in Quay County. This corridor is currently a two-lane facility with no shoulders, no passing zones and various deficient areas. The cost to four-lane these two segments is estimated at $420 million.

I am pleased Governor Richardson has set aside over $130 million as part of the New Mexico's GRIP initiative to upgrade key portions of the route between Tularosa and Santa Rosa. I am committed to working with State to secure the funding required to complete New Mexico's four-lane upgrade as soon as possible. I am pleased the other states are also moving quickly to four-lane their portion of the route.

Once the SPIRIT corridor is designated, New Mexico will have four high-priority corridors on the National Highway System. The other three are the Ports-to-Plains corridor, the Camino Real Corridor, and the East West Transamerica Corridor. These four trade corridors, as well as our close proximity to the border, strongly underscore the vital role New Mexico plays in our Nation's interstate and international transportation network.

The SPIRIT project has broad grassroots support. Most of the cities, counties, and chambers of commerce all the way from Wichita to El Paso have passed resolutions of support for the four-lane upgrade of U.S. 54 along the entire corridor.

I do believe the four-lane upgrade of Highway 54 is vital to the continued economic development for all of the communities along the SPIRIT corridor in New Mexico. I again thank Senators Roberts and Inhofe for cosponsoring the bill, and I hope all senators will join us in support of this important legislation. It is my hope that our bill can pass quickly this year or be included when the Senate again considers the reauthorization of a six-year surface transportation bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Equity Act of 2005. This bill is a major step forward in making our military's Survivor Benefit Program fairer, more equitable, and more in keeping with our Nation's promise to our service members and their families. The bill combines two important fixes to the SBP. The first corrects a serious inequity in SBP that currently requires over a hundred thousand older military survivors to pay extra into the system for the same benefits as more recent enrollees. I have been fighting to fix this problem since the last Congress and am confident that this year we will succeed in providing basic fairness to these survivors.

This bill also eliminates the dollar-for-dollar deduction of the dependency indemnity compensation, DIC, which the VA pays to survivors, from SBP annuities. This policy is effectively a tax on military survivors at a time when so many of our brave men and women in uniform are dying in Iraq and their families are struggling to get by. Senator Nelson has long fought to eliminate this unfairness, and I am proud to stand with him today in introducing this comprehensive legislation.

The legislation that I introduced in the last Congress and which is included in this bill eliminates a major inequity in the SBP arising from a 1999 congressional act limiting the time required to pay into the plan. That act deemed retirees who are at least 70 years old and have already been paying into SBP for at least 30 years to be fully ``paid up'' for the purpose of receiving benefits. This was an important piece of legislation, but, unfortunately, Congress only made it effective in 2008. The result was that earlier enrollees--those who enrolled between 1972 and 1978--were forced to pay into SBP longer than enrollees from 1978 or later, up to 6 extra years of premiums. In other words, they had to pay in longer for the same benefits.

This inequity was further magnified by the fact that those earlier retirees paid much higher SBP premiums--10 percent of retired pay--for two full decades, until 1992, when the premium was reduced to 6.5 percent of retired pay.

This bill, by making the ``paid up'' provision effective this year, will finally grant these survivors--the widows and widowers of the Greatest Generation--the same benefits of those who enrolled in SBP in subsequent years. It will provide basic fairness to 135,000 survivors and allow us to honor their sacrifice and that of their loved ones.

This bill also eliminates the dollar-for-dollar reduction of SBP benefits by the amount received in dependency and indemnity compensation. Under current law, the surviving spouse of an active duty or retired military member who dies from a service-connected cause is entitled to $993 a month--for a survivor without children--from the Department of Veterans Affairs. However, the surviving spouse's SBP annuity is reduced by the amount of DIC.

SBP and DIC payments are paid for different reasons. SBP, in most cases, is elected and purchased by the retiree to provide a portion of retired pay to the survivor. DIC payments represent special compensation to a survivor whose sponsor's death was caused directly by his or her uniformed service. To offset DIC--which we provide to the families of those who have lost their life in the service of their country--from annuities earned and paid for, is blatantly unfair.

This bill has the broadest possible support among organizations representing our troops and their families, including Air Force Association, Air Force Sergeants Association, Air Force Women Officers Associated, American Logistics Association, AMVETS, Army Aviation Association of America, Associations of Military Surgeons of the United States, Association of the U.S. Army, Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service, CWO and WO Association U.S. Coast Guard, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the U.S., Fleet Reserve Association, Gold Star Wives of America, Jewish War Veterans of the USA, Marine Corps League, Marine Corps Reserve Association, Military Officers Association of America, Military Order of the Purple Heart, National Association for Uniformed Services, National Guard Association of the U.S., National Military Family Association, National Order of Battlefield Commissions, Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, Naval Reserve Association, Navy League of the U.S., Noncommissioned Officers Association of the United States of America, Reserve Officers Association, Society of Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces, Military Chaplains Association of the USA, Retired Enlisted Association, United Armed Forces Association, USCG Chief Petty Officers Association, U.S. Army Warrant Officers Association, VFW, and Veterans' Widows International Network. The Military Coalition has described this bill as a top legislative goal, and it is my expectation that it will have strong support in the Senate.

It is vital that we keep faith with the men and women who serve in our military as well as their families. The widows and widowers of our service members, those who are serving now and those who served us in earlier times, are owed our deepest gratitude. But in the face of their sacrifice, there is more that we should do. We cannot ever fully compensate them for their loss. But we can ensure that the benefits that they have earned are fair and just.

Mr. President, I join with Senators Kennedy and Smith and twenty-seven of our colleagues today in introducing a very important piece of legislation, the Ensuring College Access for All Americans Act.

This bill would prevent any student from seeing a reduction in the Pell grants under recent changes by the Bush administration to the formula used to calculate student aid eligibility. On December 23, 2004--just 2 days before the Christmas holiday, I might note--the Department of Education published updates to the allowance for state and other taxes that is used by students and their families to calculate their expected family contribution, or EFC, to college tuition. The EFC is the amount that students and their families are expected to contribute towards college in a given year.

Changes in a student's ``expected family contribution'' have a direct impact on that student's eligibility for a variety of types of financial aid. Simply put, as a student's expected family contribution goes up, their eligibility for financial aid goes down.

The Administration's changes to the tax tables have the effect of cutting $300 million from the successful Pell grant program, upon which more than five million students nationwide rely. It is projected that, as a result of these cuts, 1.3 million students will see a reduction in their Pell grants and another 89,000 will become ineligible for Pell grant assistance.

Not only will these changes drastically affect Pell grant eligibility and aid, but because the EFC formula is used to calculate eligibility for other forms of Federal aid, including federal student loans, as well as private institutional and state aid, these changes will cut practically all forms of student aid. Unfortunately, the Department's changes to the state and local tax allowance will increase the EFC for nearly all American families and students. While no New Jersey students are projected to lose assistance under this year's proposed cuts, they were projected to lose assistance under similar cuts proposed in 2003. I am very concerned that New Jersey students could be hurt going forward if the administration continues to update the tax tables based on outdated tax information.

Certainly, I do not disagree that the tax tables used to determine EFC, which have not been updated since 1988, may need to be revised to reflect current state and local tax burden. However, the administration's proposal does not reflect current tax levels. The updates reduce the credit that families receive for paying state and local taxes at a time in which they are actually paying more taxes. For example, the administration's new tax tables are based on Fiscal Year 2002 state tax information. According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, though, since FY 2002, states have enacted $14.1 billion in tax and fee increases. Again, because the administration's proposal is based on outdated tax information, it does not take into account these substantial increases in State tax burden.

In fact, the General Accounting Office issued a report last week that found that the Department of Education's procedures for revising the tax tables and the formula the Department used are seriously flawed. The GAO report, entitled Student Financial Aid: Need Determination Could be Enhanced through Improvements in Education's Estimate of Applicants' State Tax Payments, states, ``Education could not provide us with written procedures guiding staff on the routine steps necessary to update the tax allowance, nor did it maintain detailed records of its efforts to obtain data.'' The report goes on to say of the data the Department used to revise the tables,

As a result of certain limitations of the SOI [statistics

of income] dataset for the purpose of calculating the

allowance and problems with how Education uses this dataset,

the current state and other tax allowance may not fully

reflect the amount of taxes paid by students and families.

The dataset itself is not ideally suited for calculating the

allowance because it is limited to financial data from those

who itemize their taxes, does not include state and local

taxes, and is several years older than the income information

reported by students and families on the FAFSA.

The report further notes that because the SOI compiles data only for those who itemize their tax deductions, who may pay different tax rates than non-itemizers, the data is further flawed. The GAO goes on to suggest improvements to the Department's calculations and the data they use.

These changes also come at a time when tuition is rising dramatically at double digit rates, and students and working families are straining to provide the financial wherewithal to access America's promise of education. According to the College Board, tuition, room, and board at a four-year public university costs an average of $11,354, $824 more than last year and $1775 more than 2 years ago. In other words, tuition at public institutions has been increasing by almost ten percent a year. In fact, according to the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, tuition and fees at public institutions in New Jersey has increased by more than 40 percent since the 1999-2000 school year. In some states they've increased by more than 60 percent in the last five years.

To really understand these numbers, though, it's necessary to look at the people who are struggling to afford to go to college. To that end, I would like to read a couple of personal stories about the importance of the Pell grant program to a college-bound student and a student struggling to afford college now.

One student writes,

I am lucky enough to be attending a top-rate University and

receiving a quality education, but I rely on many federal

loans and aid, including a Pell Grant, in order to remain

where I am. When President Bush decided not to fully fund

Pell Grants, he left me and many others in a precarious

position. My Pell grant is still pending and I really am

counting on it to cover some of my basic expenses; it will be

a hardship until it comes--or worse if it doesn't come in

full. The President says he's an advocate for young people

with his dubious social security plans, but he leaves us

behind with his non-commitment to higher education.

A mother who fears she will no longer be able to afford to send her son to school writes,

I've saved money from the day my son was born so that he

may attend the college of his dreams. He is a gifted musician

and was awarded scholarships to attend Berklee in Boston.

With the help of the Pell Grant and other student loans, he

is now a freshman there and I'm proud to say is doing very

well. However, I am worried that with Bush having lowered the

income standard for Pell, Timmy may lose his grant and there

won't be enough money saved for him to stay in school. I

would like to give him the opportunity to pursue his dreams

and let his talent take him where it may. I see Bush cutting

programs from the have nots to give to the haves. How many

dreams is he going to destroy and how many more programs is

he going to cut?''

It's wrong, to cut $300 million--a small price to pay to ensure that low-income families can afford to send their children to college--from this program. And it's even worse to cut aid to 1.4 million families based on faulty calculations.

A college education today is essential to survival in our competitive marketplace. Not only does our economy thrive on an educated workforce, but also those who are educated and as a result are gainfully employed contribute enormously to our tax base. I am willing to venture that the costs of the Pell grant program are more than paid back by those who were able to go to attend college because of a Pell grant and today are productive, tax-paying citizens.

The Senate must prevent these cuts from becoming a reality. Thirty Senators stand behind the legislation I introduce today a bipartisan group of thirty Senators, I might add.

I hope that we can put politics aside and pass this legislation immediately to prevent any student from losing Pell grant assistance. Finally, I strongly urge the administration to take a close look at the GAO report and to reform the flawed system they have used to revise the tax tables.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to discuss a bill Senator Dodd and I are introducing today. This is a bill about children, and it covers an issue that is difficult to think about or talk about, but one that is critical to many children and their families in our Nation.

What I am talking about is what we can do when a child develops a life-threatening or terminal illness. How do we make sure we do everything in our power to make a sick child as comfortable as possible and as happy as possible--everything in our power to ease their suffering--when that child is terminally ill. We have a pressing need for comprehensive, compassionate, continuous care for children who are facing death as a result of serious illness.

No parent or family member ever expects a child to die. With today's modern medicine and research advances, it is easy to think that only older people die, but, tragically, we all know that is not the case. That is why today we are introducing the Compassionate Care for Children Act, a bill we introduced previously in the 108th Congress along with Representative Deborah Pryce in the House. This legislation is an effort to help ensure that very sick children receive a continuum of care and that young lives do not end in preventable pain or fear or sadness.

Every year, over 55,000 children die in the United States. Some children will die suddenly and unexpectedly--in a car accident, by drowning, or fire, or by choking. Some may even be murdered. Others, though--thousands of children, actually--will be diagnosed with life- threatening illnesses or diseases that might eventually, over a period of time, take away these children's lives. Children with such illnesses are in and out of hospitals and clinics. They receive chemotherapy and radiation treatments. They might undergo multiple surgeries. They might have nurses and doctors poking and prodding at them nearly all the time. Some of these children are old enough to realize that they might die if the treatments for their diseases don't work. Others are too young to understand that reality.

One little girl--Liza--knew she was going to die. Shortly after her fourth birthday, she was diagnosed with a form of leukemia. For the next year, Liza's parents explored every possible medical option for her and every possible treatment. They took her to doctor after doctor after doctor, and they had access to the most cutting-edge therapies available to treat Liza's disease. Nothing seemed to work. At the age of five, Liza began to ask her mother what would come next, and whether she would soon die after her bone marrow transplant--her last chance for a cure--had failed.

Once the medical treatments had failed, doctors had little else to offer Liza. There was no discussion, tragically, about end-of-life care at the hospital for this little child. No one wanted to admit that they were out of

treatment options--that there was no cure--that she wasn't going to get better, have her life restored and her health restored--that she wasn't going to grow up and become an adult and have her own children someday. There was no discussion of that. No one in that hospital wanted to talk with Liza about death, even though this little girl pleaded with them to do so.

Liza's mother told the Washington Post that Liza asked her oncologist to tell her when death was near. This little five-year-old girl asked her doctor to tell her when she was going to die. Yet, on the final night of her life, as this little child lay dying in her mother's arms, near her father and her older sister, Liza asked, ``Why didn't the doctor call to tell me?''

Liza's parents were able to get some hospice care for their daughter during the last three months of her life. Tragically, fewer than 10 percent of children who die in the United States ever receive any sort of hospice care. When children like Liza are terminally ill, parents are forced to make decisions for their children under extremely emotional and stressful conditions. The decisions that confront these parents are ones that they never, of course, expected to have to make. Parents want what is best for their children. They want their children to get better and be healthy. They want their children to be pain free. They want their children to receive comfort and care when they are sick.

God forbid that parents find out their children are very sick--so sick they are never going to get better--so sick there are no more treatments and no more cures--and so sick they know their children are going to die. Those parents will try to do everything imaginable and everything possible in their power to help their children and make them comfortable--pain-free and happy in their remaining days.

Mr. President, we have an obligation to help those parents. Children with life-threatening diseases and illnesses require special medical attention to make their shortened lives more comfortable. We know that. Yet, despite that knowledge, the fact is, current federal law and regulations do not take into consideration the special care needs of a gravely ill or dying child. In fact, these federal laws and regulations get in the way of taking care of these children.

The legislation we are introducing today would help correct the deficiencies in current law and help sick children facing possible death live more comfortably and live with dignity. It would help them receive the comprehensive care they deserve and the comprehensive care we would expect for our own children.

Let me take a few moments to explain what our bill actually does. First, it offers grants so doctors and nurses can receive training and education to enable them to better understand these issues and to help them provide end-of-life care for these kids. The goal of these grants is to improve the quality of care terminally ill children receive. One of the ways we do this is to make sure doctors and nurses truly understand these issues so they can provide the care and be better informed. Our bill also provides money for the National Institutes of Health to conduct research in pain and symptom management in children. This research is critically important to improving the type of care that dying children receive.

An article in the New England Journal of Medicine stated that 89 percent of children dying of cancer die experiencing ``a lot or a great deal'' of pain and suffering. This does not have to happen. We can change that, and we must. This is simply not acceptable. Research has to be done so that children will not suffer needlessly.

In addition to grants, the second piece of our bill changes the way care is delivered to children with life-threatening illnesses. Right now, doctors, hospitals, and parents have to overcome significant insurance and eligibility barriers to enroll a dying child in hospice. First, to qualify for hospice, a doctor must certify that a child has six months or less to live. The problem with this ``six-month rule'' is that it is harder for a doctor to determine the life expectancy of a sick child than it is to determine the life expectancy of a sick adult or elderly person. A child dying of cancer, for example, may die in six months or six years, making that child ineligible for hospice care that would ensure a comfortable life while that child is alive. It is very difficult many times to estimate how long that child is going to live. This very rigid six-month predictability rule, which denies care, is very inhumane for these kids. It is wrong, and we have to change that rule.

According to Dr. Joanne Hilden and Dr. Dan Tobin, ``Sick children are still growing, which is a biological process very much like healing. So, when a child is diagnosed with illness, such as cancer or heart disease, he or she is much more likely to be cured than an adult.'' Simply put, diseases progress differently in children than adults, and children with terminal diseases get lost in the health care system designed for adults--a health care system that does not take into consideration the special needs of children.

Furthermore, the current system does not allow a patient to receive curative and palliative care simultaneously. In other words, current law does not allow doctors to continue trying life-prolonging treatments--treatments that could cure an illness or extend a life--and also at the same time provide palliative care to that patient. That means that current law does not allow the doctors to go in to provide typical hospice care where you make that child comfortable and do all the things to alleviate the pain and at the same time try to save the child's life.

That is wrong. That is simply wrong. That presents a parent with a horrible choice--a choice that no parent should ever have to make. That is tragic. Palliative care offers a continuum of care--care that involves counseling to families and patients about how to confront death--care that involves making the patient comfortable in his or her sickest hours--care that acknowledges that death is a real possibility.

Federal law requires a person who wishes to receive end-of-life care to discontinue receiving curative or life-prolonging treatment. This should not be an either/or decision for parents. I don't know of any parent who would give up trying to cure a sick child when there was any chance that child might be saved. They should not be put in this position.

Current law places parents in impossible positions. We simply must fix this. End-of-life care should be integrated with curative care so that parents, children, and doctors have access to a range of benefits and services. As I said earlier, palliative care should not be confined to the dying. It should be available to any child who is seriously ill.

That is why our bill creates Medicare and private market demonstration programs to remove these barriers, making it simpler and easier for doctors and parents to make end-of-life decisions for children. The demonstration program would allow children to receive curative and palliative care concurrently. This means children can continue to receive treatment and life-prolonging care while receiving palliative care at the same time. The demonstration program also removes the six-month rule so children can receive palliative care benefits at the time of diagnosis.

I would like to take a moment to tell my colleagues about another girl--Rachel Ann. Rachel Ann was a little girl who did receive palliative care from the time she was diagnosed with a grave heart problem. Rachel Ann had a heart that doctors describe as ``incompatible with life.'' Most babies with heart malformations like Rachel Ann die within a matter of days after birth. Rachel Ann's parents were devastated and distraught to see their tiny baby connected to a sea of wire and tubes, clinging to life.

Rachel Ann's parents were referred to a pediatric hospice and decided to bring their daughter home from the hospital so she could experience life with her family, surrounded by parents, brothers, relatives, and friends at home. Rachel Ann's parents say she seemed truly happy at home. She smiled and wiggled in response to voices and being held. Her brothers doted on their baby sister.

Rachel Ann was able to spend her life at home in comfort with her family. She lived for 42 days and her family was able to make every single moment count. On Christmas day, after spending the morning with her family, Rachel Ann passed away.

Fortunately, Rachel Ann and her family were able to spend as much time

together as possible with Rachel Ann as comfortable as possible. Her brothers were able to know their sister and to talk with hospice professionals about what was happening to her. Rachel Ann's parents and grandparents also were able to talk about her condition with hospice professionals and maintained an active role in her care. There was a support system in place for this family.

The terminal illness of a child is an incredibly difficult thing to confront for a parent and family. No one wants to think about children dying. No one wants to believe that children suffer, especially in this age of great medical advances. It is a horrible situation. But, it is one that we must face. We can always do more to improve the care that our children receive. We should continue to support research and finding cures for the diseases and illnesses from which children suffer. But, until those cures are found, and as long as children die from these diseases, we must provide care and support for a dying child. We have an obligation to provide that care and that support.

The bill we are introducing today will be an important step in this direction. It will provide tools and support networks to help grieving families in their time of need. It is the right thing to do, and I encourage my colleagues to join us in co-sponsoring this important piece of legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar, as well as the subcommittee leadership for their hard work in crafting the underlying legislation. However, I offer my support for the manager's amendment that seeks to incorporate very important initiatives that were contained in some of the amendments that were made in order by the Committee on Rules.

While the underlying bill before us proposes to provide $620 million for some 175 high priority projects in the State of Texas, there remain issues that will pose significant problems for Houston and for Texas unless this body offers its commitment to address in the future.

Toll credits are a significant resource for transit providers because they can use them in lieu of obtaining a Federal match--thereby greatly expediting the development of major projects that serve the communities. This amendment will cripple the value of the toll credit program.

Without the revenue from toll credits, Texas will have less funding for the reduction of congestion and the improvement of air quality. In reducing an otherwise viable revenue stream, this amendment would restrict local governments like Houston from choosing the best tool to respond to local conditions and priorities. I would have voted against the amendment that would prohibit the tolling of new interstates, including the I-69 Corridor, which lacks an alternate source of financing.

I ask that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure continue its efforts to provide funds to complete the Interstate 69 Corridor. The termination of the Interstate Program in 1995 left no mechanism to finish the Nation's few remaining incomplete Interstates such as I-69. Currently, there is no program to fund major projects which benefit the Nation as a whole but whose costs exceed States' apportioned funds. Based on these needs, I ask my colleagues to include the National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program and the Projects of National and Regional Significance provisions in the bill underlying today. Furthermore, I ask that the committee include them at a funding level equal to those included in H.R. 3550.

The Greater Houston area is subdivided into 6 counties: Chambers, Fort Bend, Liberty, Montgomery, Waller, and my District, Harris. Harris County contains the city of Houston and the largest concentration of people. In the year 2000, approximately 3.5 million people lived in Harris County alone--by far the most populous area. Over the next 20 years, the population of the Houston region will continue to grow.

The historic Fourth Ward in Houston is long overdue for major transportation improvements. Within the underlying bill we have before us today are projects that propose to make critical improvements to the Main Street Corridor. The Fourth Ward emerged as Houston's most prominent African-American neighborhood when thousands of freed slaves flooded into the city after emancipation. These newcomers settled on the fringes of the Third, Fifth, and Fourth wards. The Freedmentown area north of San Felipe and the streets west of downtown not only attracted the largest number of the new black residents but also housed the first black churches, schools, and political organizations. Several factors combined to facilitate the subsequent growth of the Fourth Ward's black community. I would ask that my colleagues take these requests under strong consideration after passage and leading into the conference report.

Improvements to Houston's and Texas' infrastructure will be the priority for me and for my colleagues. Statistically, Houstonians travel more miles per day than there are miles between the earth and the sun. The distance between the earth and the sun is about 93 million miles. Houstonians drive about 156 million miles per day.

The manager's amendment proposes key technical and program improvements to the underlying bill language. In particular, I support the changes to the calculation of ``Revenue Aligned Budget Authority,'' RABA; re-establishment of budgetary firewalls for highways and transit programs; reauthorization of the Swift Rail Act at $100 million per year, title IX of the bill; and extension of revenue provisions approved by the Ways and Means Committee.

Moreover, I support the improvements to the bill proposed in the manager's amendment. In particular, due to the tremendous bipartisan efforts of my colleagues, the amendment now includes language to guarantee that TEA 21's 90.5 percent minimum guarantee is protected, with a scope defined as no less than 92.6 percent of the highway program funds in the bill. This is a significant improvement over the bill passed by the House last year. I thank the distinguished majority leader for his work in ensuring that this measure will protect these provisions, allowing the House to move into conference in a stronger negotiating position toward achieving a higher MG above 90.5 percent. The manager's amendment makes this a better bill for Houstonians and for Texans.

I would like to offer my support for the amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Virginia that will ensure that tolls are applied equally to all users of toll facilities. This amendment would eliminate language in the underlying bill that requires lower tolls to be charged to low income drivers. Since the administration of differential tolls may be challenging for our existing and future toll authorities, this amendment will make important adjustments to the underlying bill.

Secondly, I support the Burgess amendment, which would change the calculation for transportation development credits to ensure that Texas and other States with toll facilities are able to take full advantage of these credits for the benefit of our transit, highway, and highway safety programs. This proposal is vital to the provision of a pro rata calculation of the credits so that we are not penalized for using Federal dollars in our transportation development projects. I support this amendment and ask that my colleagues join me as the Gentleman brings this proposal to the floor.

Furthermore, I support the proposal of Mr. Pitts that would provide a temporary transition period for transit entities, including three in Texas, that, under the most recent census, are now subject to the over 200,000 population prohibition on the use of transit formula dollars for operating expenses. The Pitts amendment would allow those small transit entities in this new situation to use up to 50 percent of their formula funds for operating expenses for fiscal years 2005 through 2007 and up to 25 percent of the formula funds for operating expenses in fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

In addition, I join my colleague from Texas, Mr. Barton in the initiative of his amendment to require studies and assessments of risks to human health or the environment to use sound and objective scientific practices.

Due to the short time allotment given to the floor debate on this measure, I was unable to engage the distinguished ranking member from Minnesota in a colloquy. I wanted to discuss two very specific and very significant issues that relate not only to Houston, but to Texas and many other States that have developing infrastructure and economic cores.

I would have asked the ranking member for his assistance in maintaining the issues that I underscore here as priorities as he and his fellow conferees move closer to finalizing negotiations on this measure. These issues speak to (1) the need for increased transit- related funding in future authorizing and appropriating measures, and (2) the need to maintain Federal oversight of the way in which States and localities regulate the flow of interstate traffic. The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, METRO, is the agency charged with the public transportation and transit needs. METRO has worked over the past 2 years to create a long-range plan for mass transit in the Houston area. After having worked with the community to receive input, the METRO board of directors adopted a blue-print for its long-range plan called ``METRO Solutions.''

The METRO Solutions plan includes: (1) 50 percent increase in METRO's bus service, including approximately 44 new local, signature express, express, and Park & Ride bus routes, (2) nine new Transit Centers and nine new Park & Ride lots, as well as expansion and upgrading existing facilities, (3) expansion of the METRO Rail line and commuter line components, including an overall plan with 72.8 miles of rail, and (4) extension of the payments to local governments for street and other mobility improvements for five additional years, 2010-2014. Texas has a transportation code and it is authorized to act in this field of local government through METRO.

I believe that long-term and comprehensive projects such as that of Houston METRO should be given full Federal support? I would add that the authorization process should allow for innovative financing options to allow projects such as METRO's Advance Transit Plan, ATP, and METRO Solutions.

I would ask that the appropriators and authorizers remain open-minded in crafting measures such as H.R. 3 to the transit needs that exist in areas like Houston, the fourth largest city in the Nation. The distinguished majority leader has been cited as advocating the need for more innovative financing to build infrastructure and to foster economic activity.

Given the situation that Houston METRO and other similar entities face with administrative delays that stem from a very lengthy funding process, I ask that our colleagues follow

the leadership of the majority leader from Texas.

We should go to conference and continue to work with the committee to maintain the need for innovative financing for major transit infrastructure.

We should remain committed to maintaining the need for financing options for transit projects that promise to foster economic activity as a priority. Also, with respect to the issue of the need to maintain Federal oversight of the way in which States and localities regulate the flow of interstate traffic, a program called ``SAFE Clear'' has been initiated in the city of Houston and is in the city ordinance.

I congratulate the mayor and city council on the vigorous work that its Office of Mobility has done to improve transportation throughout the city of Houston and remain eager to collaborate with them to facilitate this endeavor from the Federal level.

However, I must make my colleagues aware that, through feedback that I have received from my constituents, the program has disproportionately affected certain groups of motorists, particularly those of lower socio-economic status and those who are or who primarily transport the elderly. While the proposed improvements to the ordinance that provide a ``free tow'' could serve our goals well, motorists who do not qualify for a ``free tow'' will possibly suffer from the disparate effects of the ordinance complained of by constituents.

I ask that the Transportation Conference ensure that provisions are included in this measure and measures in the future that maintain Federal oversight over the regulation of interstate travel. The potentially disparate overall effect of the ordinance merits further analysis, research, and oversight.

I hope we will continue to provide oversight over programs such as this through the legislation that is crafted in committee.

Mr. Chairman, for the foregoing reasons, I support the drafters of this legislation for their efforts to fund priority projects and urge my colleagues to do the same.