A bill to prohibit the use of Department of Defense funds for any study related to the transportation of chemical munitions across State lines.

Mr. President, this morning's Washington Post contains a story about yet another case of the Bush administration apparently using taxpayer dollars to try to buy favorable news coverage of their most controversial proposals.

In a column she wrote for the National Review Online, the conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher wrote that the administration's marriage initiative could ``carry big payoffs down the road for taxpayers and children.'' In fact, the big payoff so far appears to be to Ms. Gallagher herself.

According to the Washington Post, Miss Gallagher received $21,500 from the Federal Department of Health and Human Services in the year 2002 to promote the Bush administration's marriage initiative. She received an additional $20,000 from the administration for writing a report entitled ``Can Government Strengthen Marriage?''

Last year, Miss Gallagher defended the administration's proposal for a Federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in her columns, interviews, and television appearances. She also testified in favor of such an amendment before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I have her testimony.

I have attended many meetings of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It appears we will now need to ask each witness who apparently comes from the outside whether they are on the inside. Miss Gallagher was on the inside. She was such an insider that she was paid handsomely by some in the administration for her ``objective'' views on administration policies.

This is the third time in less than a month we have heard allegations of political payola by the Bush administration. It troubles me. I can recall recently being on FOX--I know you are surprised if you follow the newscast to know that I would go on FOX, but occasionally I think it is good for them to meet a Democrat--I went on Chris Wallace's Sunday show. We were joking ahead of time about Armstrong Williams. I said: Chris, before you ask me any questions on FOX, I have to ask you, Are you being paid by the administration to ask these questions? We laughed about it. But there is nothing funny when we hear about Miss Gallagher and Armstrong Williams. We learned the Federal Department of Education paid well-known conservative commentator Armstrong Williams-- get this--$240,000 to promote the administration's No Child Left Behind Act in television and radio appearances. Picture this. We come to the Senate lamenting the fact the administration does not have enough money to send to our schools to help failing children do better on tests and improve their education.

The administration says: We can't afford this; we do not have the money to help children in school. But they found almost a quarter of a million dollars

for Mr. Armstrong Williams to tout their program and do so in a way that was deceiving.

Mr. Williams, an African American, was hired by the Education Department to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show to urge other Black journalists to do the same. As part of the agreement, Williams was required to regularly comment on No Child Left Behind during the course of his broadcast, and to interview with Secretary Rod Paige from the Department of Education for TV and radio reports that aired on the show during 2004.

We learned earlier this month from the New York Times that the Bush administration is planning a new propaganda campaign. According to the New York Times, the Social Security Administration is gearing up for a marketing campaign to sell the false claim that Social Security faces dire financial problems requiring immediate action. The new campaign would support the administration's highly controversial desire to partially privatize Social Security.

There used to be a time when our Government would let the facts speak for themselves. It apparently is the position of the Bush administration that the facts in and of themselves are not articulate; you need to have people to articulate the point of view to put the appropriate political spin on that point of view so the public can understand the gravity of the issue.

The American people get this and they understand it. They know the sky is not falling when it comes to Social Security. They know, as we have proven time and time again, left untouched, without a single change, no revision in the law, Social Security as a program will make every payment it has promised to make, with a cost-of-living adjustment every single year to every Social Security recipient, and it will do so until 2042, by one estimate, or 2052 by another, 37 years of solvency in the Social Security system.

The President today said we want permanent solvency in the Social Security system. Wouldn't it be great if we could say that? The President cannot even promise that next year his budget deficit projection is going to be accurate. He wants us to say 47, 57, 87 years from now Social Security will never have a problem. We cannot do that. We do not know what is going to befall this Nation.

Who would have known in the early 1950s about a birth control pill? Who would have known about the advances in medicine in the 1960s? Who would have known that we were going to enact Medicare so seniors would live longer? Who would have known that we were going to have demographic changes in America reflecting immigration to this country?

We do not know those answers. We speculate and try to make our best guess as to where Social Security will be. If the President wants us to stand here and say with a straight face that we have guaranteed permanent solvency for the Social Security system, it can never be done. Neither can he predict with any certainty, as he has proven, what his own budget deficit will be a year or 2 years from now.

Now they start the propaganda campaign through the Social Security Administration which is supposed to line up the ad agencies to convince the American people the sky is falling on Social Security and the only cure is to take money out of the Social Security system, cut Social Security benefits, and increase the deficit in America by $2 trillion in the first 10 years. This retirement roulette which this administration is pushing says to retirees that they should take money out of Social Security and play the stock market.

Make no mistake, many Americans, including my family, invest in mutual funds and in the stock market. We are doing OK. We have good years and bad years. There is no guarantee. As they say over and over on their ads, last year's performance is not a predictor of what next year's performance will be. There is uncertainty and risk.

If we take money out of Social Security to play retirement roulette in the stock market, we leave retirees vulnerable. Assume for a second we figure out how to pay for it, which the President has not, but if the retirees guess wrong, what will happen? What if today's retiree receiving $1,200 a month from Social Security receives only $600 a month? How do they survive? If they are lucky they have savings and maybe a family to support them. But if they are not, where do they turn? They turn back to the government. They say to the government: We guessed wrong. We invested wrong.

That is what the President thinks is the way to assure the American people of the solvency and reliability of Social Security.

It appears he is not doing very well convincing Members of Congress of either political party. So they have decided they need the Social Security Administration to come up with a technical plan. This chart, which will be difficult if not impossible to read by those following this on television, lays out the objectives of the Bush administration's marketing tactical plan in the Kansas City region when it comes to the current Social Security system. The American people are not buying the President's message. He hires an advertising firm, a marketing firm, to try to convince them that what he says is true. The facts, obviously, cannot speak for themselves. This marketing firm has to convince the American people of the ability of the Social Security Program to pay promised benefits to current and future beneficiaries. The message is, necessary reforms must take place. We must address long-term solvency now. The sooner the changes are made, the more time people will have to adjust.

On and on. Staff meetings. Tactics. How to measure their success. And budget.

The Social Security Administration is no longer in the business of just telling the facts. The Social Security Administration is now in the spin business. It is supposed to color the facts, to change the story, convince the American people of something they are not believing.

My office, having obtained that, understands this is not accurate. What I have described is simply propaganda.

According to the Social Security Administration's own official numbers, the trust fund is not only solvent but running a surplus. I know that to be a fact because I happened to have served in Congress when we made a conscious bipartisan decision in the middle 1980s. President Ronald Reagan--no question about his Republican credentials-- went to Tip O'Neill, the leading Democrat in Congress, and said: Mr. Speaker, we need to get together. Baby boomers are coming and we need to be prepared. And changes were made, bipartisan changes were made. And we bought solvency and longevity for Social Security.

We did this in the mid-1980s, and our work then guaranteed that Social Security could make its payments for 57 years. That was a heavy lift, but we did it, and we did it in a responsible, bipartisan fashion. We understand that.

There is enough money in the Social Security trust fund to pay every penny until 2042, and even after that, if we did nothing, to make 73 percent of the projected payments if we make no change in Social Security.

Now, I personally believe we should make some changes, but responsible, bipartisan changes. We can make commonsense changes in Social Security that can give it an even longer life.

When I have asked the people in Illinois, what do you think we ought to do about Social Security, do you know what they say overwhelmingly? Why doesn't the Federal Government pay back into the Social Security trust fund all the money it took out? Good question. Frankly, we were on a course to do that. When President Clinton left office 5 years ago, we were running a surplus, and with that surplus we were retiring the debt of the Social Security trust fund, paying back what the Government had borrowed from it and giving even longer life to Social Security.

Well, in came the brave, new world of the Bush administration with a new economic policy. They said: If we have a surplus, then clearly that means we need a tax cut. The Government ought to give back the money it has in surplus in Washington, ignoring the obvious, that we still had the deficits in the Social Security trust fund that needed to be addressed.

So President Bush successfully pushed through a tax cut, primarily for the wealthiest people in America, and we stopped retiring the debt of the Social Security trust fund. We not only

turned that corner from surplus, we went into deficit, facing the deepest deficits in the history of the United States under the Bush Presidency. We never had larger deficits. And how do you finance a deficit? You borrow the money from the Social Security trust fund, making it even more precarious, more uncertain.

We had a plan for making Social Security strong. It was called a surplus, buying down the debt of the Social Security trust fund. The Bush administration destroyed that plan with tax cuts, with a weak economy, and with the war which is very costly not just in human terms but in terms of tax dollars.

So how do we keep Social Security solvent now facing the reality of Bush economics? Well, I think, first, we look at the obvious and we speak truth to the American people. Social Security is not in crisis. It is challenged beyond the year 2042. We need to do the right thing to make certain we meet those challenges. We do not want to misuse the resources of this program or its employees in the Social Security Administration to try to manufacture a crisis. That would be wrong, wrong to the American people.

If we cannot start the discussion on Social Security with an agreement on facts, if we cannot start with a bipartisan approach that tries to find solutions, as President Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neill did, we are not likely to have success.

The Social Security Administration's ``tactical plan'' states that the agency will ``insert solvency messages in all Social Security publications; place articles on solvency in external publications''-- the list goes on and on. This is going to be a press release mill to try to gin up a crisis. Instead of objective information, we are to receive from the Social Security Administration the political spin, the best possible spin on the President's Social Security proposal.

There are several propaganda tactics, all of which are evident in this Social Security Administration plan.

Appeal to fear--``In 2042,'' they say, ``the Trust Funds will be exhausted.'' That is not true. The trust funds will be able to make 73 percent of all payments after 2042 if we do nothing. And I have not met anybody who says we should do nothing.

Appeal to authority--``The President has said that reform is easier to implement if done far in advance.'' You cannot quarrel with that premise. What we did in the mid-1980s bought us over 50 years of solvency. What we do in 2005 can buy us even further longevity and permanency in Social Security.

Then: Glittering generalities. Here is one that is used in the Social Security Administration propaganda plan: ``Longer, healthier lives mean change is needed in long-term Social Security financing.'' Well, you cannot argue with that. If people are going to live longer, people are going to have to pay out more. But let's be honest about how much we are going to pay out.

Then: The bandwagon effect they are trying to create: ``On December 21, 2001, the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security issued its report [according to this tactical plan], which outlined three alternative models for Social Security reform.''

What the talking points the Social Security Administration wants to share with the American people fail to mention is that President Bush charged the Commission with finding a way to make privatizing Social Security work. This Commission was not given a blank slate. They were told what their goal was: Get in that room and don't come out until you have justified privatizing Social Security.

Also missing from the plan is any mention of a crucial fact: By diverting $1 or $2 trillion--with a ``T,'' trillion--away from Social Security and into private investment accounts, risky investment accounts, just in the first decade, the administration's privatization plan would actually make Social Security weaker. It would change what we have as today's challenge into a real crisis.

At the time the Armstrong Williams payoff story broke, Mr. Williams reportedly told a journalist for another publication: ``There are others.''

Well, how many columnists are on the administration's payroll? How many people will you watch on the nightly news tonight who are receiving some sort of a payola check from the administration to give you the facts ``straight,'' to be ``fair and balanced''? The honest answer is, we do not know. More are coming to light every day.

There are indications we have serious problems. In the past year, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, Congress's watchdog agency, has released two legal analyses finding that two Government agencies violated the Government's prohibition on publicity and propaganda.

The prohibition against using taxpayer dollars and Government agencies to produce propaganda was put in place in 1951, during the McCarthy era. The prohibition was intended to balance the duty of Federal agencies to provide information with the not uncommon urge to try to manipulate public opinion. We said, 50 years ago, it was wrong. It is still wrong today.

According to the GAO, the Office of National Drug Control Policy violated the publicity and propaganda prohibition when it produced and distributed fake news stories called ``video news releases'' as part of its National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. The GAO concluded that the agency's fabricated news stories were nothing less than ``covert propaganda.''

In a separate report, the GAO found that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services violated the publicity and propaganda prohibition by disseminating fake news stories touting the supposed benefits of the new prescription drug law.

The stories featured phony reporters telling viewers that ``all people with Medicare will be able to get coverage that will lower their prescription drug spending.'' That is simply not true.

The bill that is going to be introduced next week by Senators Lautenberg and Kennedy will clarify congressional intent in the 1951 law. I am happy to cosponsor this legislation.

Among other things, our bill will make it clear that any news releases that do not clearly identify the Government as their source are prohibited. No more Government propaganda masquerading as independent news.

Our bill will prohibit using taxpayers' dollars to try to buy favorable news coverage and manipulate public opinion.

Our bill will contain teeth. The agencies that violate the prohibitions will get more than a slap on the wrist. The Federal Government has a responsibility to be honest with the American people, to give them truthful information.

In the 3 years since we passed No Child Left Behind, the administration has refused consistently to fund the law. In all, the President's proposed budgets have shortchanged No Child Left Behind by a total of $26 billion.

Ask someone from Colorado, or from Florida, or from any State in the Union; the same thing is being said by school boards and school districts: Thank you for the Federal mandate of No Child Left Behind. Where are the resources to help the kids, who have fallen $26 billion short of what we planned on funding for this program?

Americans, when given the facts, understand the realities and make sensible choices.

Thomas Jefferson famously said that if he had to choose between a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, he would go with the newspapers. Jefferson understood that access to reliable, accurate information is essential to democracy. So did another one of my heroes, a former newspaperman with whom many of us had the good fortune to work.

The late Senator Paul Simon of Illinois was a great journalist and a great public servant, my closest friend in politics, my predecessor in the Senate. When he was 19 years old, he dropped out of college and bought a weekly newspaper in Troy, IL. He used his paper to tackle crime and corruption. He understood that good government and good journalism are not mutually exclusive; they are inseparable.

Americans today are faced with many serious questions, concerning the education of our children, the cost and quality of health care, whether our sons and daughters will be sent to war, and how secure our retirement will be. Government propaganda denies people the information they need to make wise choices and erodes our faith in Government.

What we need is not propaganda but a commitment to truth and faith in the

ability of the American people to make the right decisions.

I yield the floor.

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. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Sierra National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2005, the companion to legislation authored by Representative Radanovich.

This legislation would assist the Boy Scout Sequoia Council in taking ownership of part of the land on which Camp Chawanakee sits. By authorizing the transfer of ownership of part of the camp land to the Boy Scouts, we will help make Chawanakee a permanent member of the Fresno Community, and an asset that youth for generations to come can enjoy and benefit from.

Specifically, the bill would authorize a land exchange between the Federal Government and a private landowner as follows:

The landowner would receive 160 acres, 145 of which are submerged, on Shaver Lake. In exchange, the Forest Service would receive $50,000 and an 80 acre inholding that the landowner owns in the Sierra National Forest.

The Forest Service transfer to the landowner is conditional upon his conveyance of the parcel to the Boy Scouts within 4 months to benefit Camp Chawanakee.

Over the years, well over 250,000 youths and leaders from California, Nevada and Arizona have attended the Boy Scouts' Camp Chawanakee. Recently, summer camp attendance has exceeded 3,000 Scouts. While other camps in California have closed in recent years, Camp Chawanakee has grown to become one of the premier Scouting camps in the Nation.

I applaud Congressman George Radanovich's commitment to this issue and urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. I am pleased to join Senators Corzine and Kennedy as a cosponsor of the bill Ensuring College Access for All Americans that restores cuts to the Federal Pell Grant Program for millions of students nationwide.

Federal Pell grants are the cornerstone of our need-based financial aid system ensuring that all students have access to higher education.

These grants provide nearly $12.8 billion to help about 5.3 million low-income students attend college.

However, approximately 89,000 students currently eligible for a Pell grant will lose it, while an additional 1.3 million students will see their grants reduced by as much as $100 to $300 due to cuts in the Federal Pell Grant Program.

In California, nearly 150,000 low-income students will see their federal Pell grants decrease or disappear.

These cuts have a huge impact on students at California's public colleges and universities.

Within the University of California system, almost half of the 46,000 Pell grant recipients who attend one of the eight UC campuses will receive reduced grants and about 500 students who receive $400 a year will lose their grants completely.

On December 23, 2004, the Department of Education issued a proposal that will cut $300 million from the Federal Pell Grant Program.

The proposal updates State and local tax tables used to determine families' expected contribution towards college cost in a given year resulting in students and their families being expected to contribute more for college expenses.

These changes, which use Fiscal Year 2002 State and local data, reduce the credit that families receive for paying State and local taxes at a time when they are actually paying more taxes.

Senators Corzine and Kennedy's bill ensures that no student loses their Pell grant or sees a reduction in assistance under the Department of Education's proposal to update State and local tax tables.

It would simply ``hold harmless'' any student who stands to lose under the new proposal, so that no student would see a reduction in their Pell grant. Those students in the States that stand to gain would still benefit from the new tax tables.

It is imperative that cuts to this important student aid program be restored so that students can continue to receive their Pell grants that they are eligible for.

I recently received a letter from one my constituents from Chino, CA, a parent who is very concerned about the cuts to the Pell grant program. The letter said:

This would result in millions of families, many of whom

depend on financial aid including Pell grants, such as my

children in college, losing all or part of their federal

support. . . . this affects us all and our children's future.

A college student from Contra Costa County in California wrote:

The amount of my Pell grant will not cover the cost of

supplies that I need for the semester. . . . my parents

cannot take out loans themselves. . . . so now I have to take

out loans of my own, which for the amount I was approved for,

doesn't even cover a quarter of my tuition. I really felt let

down and disappointed.

There could not be a worst time for making changes that would take away or shrink a student's financial aid.

Over 500,000 low and middle-income California students rely on Pell grants for financial assistance. The maximum Pell grant has been frozen at $4,050 for 3 consecutive years, while the costs of attending a 4- year public college or private college have increased both nationwide and in California.

We must do all we can to make college education more accessible and affordable for our Nation's students.

I urge my colleagues to join Senators Corzine and Kennedy in supporting this legislation.

Mr. President, I offer today legislation to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2005 through 2011 to carry out the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP.

I am pleased to be joined on this bill by a bipartisan group of Senators, including Senators Kyl, Schumer, Cornyn, Boxer, McCain, Durbin, Crapo, Cantwell, Hutchison, Bingaman and Alexander.

This legislation is critical to ensuring that cash strapped states and localities are at least partially reimbursed for the costs of housing undocumented criminal aliens in their jails. Ultimately, were it not for the failure of the federal government to control illegal immigration, States and localities would not have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in housing these individuals in their prisons and jails.

During the 108th Congress, this bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent but stalled in the House of Representatives. This year, passage of this legislation is even more critical given that the authorization for appropriations for SCAAP in the Immigration and Nationality Act expired in 2004.

While hard numbers can be elusive when determining the actual costs to American taxpayers of illegal immigration, not many would disagree that the costs are in the billions of dollars each year. These costs go to, for instance, education, medical care and incarceration. And even if we consider the tax contributions of undocumented aliens and subtract that from the total costs, we are still left with expenditures in the billions of dollars.

The cost of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens alone is a staggering figure--millions of dollars each year. And these dollars expended by States and localities are not optional. They must be expended since incarcerating individuals convicted of committing a crime is not optional.

Since funding for SCAAP began in 1995, the amount appropriated has been as high as $565 million and as low as $250 million--and these figures only covered a portion of the costs expended by States and localities to house undocumented criminal aliens. Furthermore, every day States and localities expend other monies on undocumented criminal aliens that are not reimbursed by the federal government through SCAAP. Those expenses include public safety expenditures, expenses of trial proceedings, use of translators, cost of public defenders and the incarceration

expenses of undocumented criminal aliens for minor offenses that do not meet the standards of SCAAP.

The reality is that all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands requested reimbursement through the SCAAP program in fiscal year 2004. In that year, $281,605,292 was awarded through the program.

Congress has an obligation to reimburse States and localities for the costs of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens when the federal government fails in its responsibility to effectively deter illegal immigration.

During the 108th Congress, this bill--S. 460--passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

This year, passage of this legislation is all the more critical because authorization for SCAAP funds expired in 2004. Without funding, cash strapped states and localities are going to have to re-allocate monies from other areas within their criminal justice system to meet the costs of housing undocumented criminal aliens.

We in Congress can assist, albeit in small part, our states by supporting the ``State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Reauthorization Act of 2005''. This bill would amend section 241(i)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize appropriations at a level of $750 million for FY 2006, $850 million for FY 2007 and $950 million for FY 2008 through FY 2011.

Enacted as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, SCAAP reimburses States and localities that incur costs for incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. These aliens must be convicted of a felony or two or more misdemeanors in violation of State or local law, and incarcerated for at least 4 consecutive days.

Funding for SCAAP has been appropriated by Congress annually since 1995. The program is administered by the Office of Justice Programs' Bureau of Justice Assistance, which is located in the Department of Justice.

During FY1997 to FY2003, approximately $3.5 billion was distributed to States and localities. California has historically received the largest annual awards since the program's inception, with Arizona, Illinois, New York and Texas also consistently receiving large awards. Unfortunately, authorization for SCAAP expired in October 2004.

SCAAP was established with the belief that protecting the nation's borders from illegal immigration is the responsibility of the Federal Government and that States and localities should be reimbursed by the Federal Government for expenses relating to these duties.

It is clear to everyone in this Chamber that immigration is a federal responsibility. In fact, the Constitution gives Congress plenary power over immigration, so States are legally barred from acting on their own. SCAAP has been set up over the years to reimburse states and local government for the costs of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens.

It is based on the principle that when the Federal Government fails to enforce its laws against immigration violators, it should bear the responsibility for the financial costs of this failure.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of legislation be printed in the Record.