A bill to require the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation to use dynamic economic modeling in the preparation of budgetary estimates of proposed changes in Federal revenue law.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I understand the chairman's request, it is to get 4 minutes of additional time on their side. I ask unanimous consent, then, for an additional 4 minutes on our side for comment only.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3677

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3819

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3860

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3592

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3729

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3761

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3805

Mr. President, as we gather this morning, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan need our support, families on the gulf coast need help rebuilding their lives, and communities all across this country need help moving forward. And now it is down to us. Will we provide that support? Will we provide that critical help? Or will we leave our troops unfunded, our gulf coast in ruins, and our communities stalled? This is the bill that determines whether we move forward as a country or whether we make it harder for our troops, for hurricane victims, and for American families to make progress. That is the choice before us.

I am on the floor this morning--as I have been all week--saying we need to move our country forward by passing this emergency supplemental bill. I do want to address some of the concerns that have been raised about this bill.

For years, this White House has been playing games to hide the cost of war. We know we have tremendous expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan. Everyone knows that. But when it's time to write the budget--suddenly this White House develops amnesia. It somehow ``forgets'' to include the cost of war in the regular budget process. On the day the administration sends us its budget--the ongoing cost of war is somehow unknowable. But a few weeks later--when it sends up an emergency supplemental--suddenly we have got this huge document that lists the costs of war. It is a fiction, a sham, a game. And for too long--this Congress has been going along with it. We don't include the war in the budget. We don't fund the war through the Defense Appropriations bill, we just expect to pay for it through emergency supplementals, and that is not honest. Moreover, it means that real emergencies--unanticipated natural disasters and our own homeland security needs--are pushed aside and rendered ``less important'' than ongoing war costs.

All year I have been on the floor saying that if we are not realistic with our budgets, we are going to have to make up the difference in emergency spending--and that is where we find ourselves today.

Mr. President, I want to walk through how the size of the supplemental has changed to remind my colleagues that it didn't just grow mysteriously. Members of both parties added critical priorities to the supplemental, and members have stood up for those critical investments.

When the Senate Appropriations Committee gathered in early April to mark up this bill, several amendments were adopted that added to the cost of the bill. They included bipartisan amendments to address the agricultural disasters that we have witnessed across the country. That amendment was championed by Senator Dorgan and Senator Burns.

Senator Harkin added an amendment to make sure that there will be adequate funds to finance the administration's preparations to deal with a pandemic flu outbreak.

With the support of Senator Bond, I added an amendment to address the backlog of claims for highway emergency relief that still haven't been paid for recent declared disasters across the country; including: Hurricane Ivan, Hurricane Dennis, the San Simeon Earthquake, Hurricane Ophelia, Tropical Storm Gaston, and the tragic

floods in Hawaii that we debated yesterday evening.

The gulf coast Senators on the committee, including Senators Hutchison, Shelby, Landrieu, and, of course, Chairman Cochran, also presented amendments to better address the needs of the gulf coast region in its efforts to recover from Hurricane Katrina and the other gulf coast hurricanes.

These amendments were all offered to address the real needs of our communities here at home.

The Appropriations Committee reported this bill to the Senate Floor by a vote of 27 to 1. When we brought the bill to the floor, we received a statement of administration policy from the Bush white house. That statement said that the President would veto any bill that exceeded the level of $94.5 billion. Soon after, the Senate was given an opportunity to vote on the President's position.

My friend, Senator Thomas of Wyoming, offered an amendment to delete all of the provisions that were not in the administration's original request--thus bringing the size of the bill down to the level acceptable to the President. That amendment failed overwhelmingly, by a veto-proof margin of 72 to 26.

Just hours later, my friend from Nevada, Senator Ensign, made a motion to recommit the bill back to the Appropriations Committee with instructions that it be cut back to the level President Bush said he would support. That amendment also failed by a veto-proof margin of 68 to 28.

Why did those amendments fail, even in the face of the President's veto threat? Because Senators from across the country on both sides of the aisle recognized that the investments that this bill makes here in America are needed.

Indeed, in the face of those embarrassing votes, the Senate Republican leaders frantically scurried around to get enough signatures on a letter to the President saying they would uphold the President's veto. They were desperate to get that letter out to the media because it was clear from the votes on the Senate floor that the Members of the Senate--Republican and Democrat alike--were not prepared to ignore our needs here at home, even if President Bush is prepared to do so.

That is how this supplemental developed--one amendment at a time-- Senators from both parties voted to address critical needs. Senators have stood by those investments, and now it is time to pass this bill.

Mr. President, we have critical needs in our war effort and here at home that we must address. Those needs have not been addressed through the regular budget, so we must address them through this bill. Let's pass this supplemental and make sure our troops and our communities have the support they need. And as we move forward--let's get real about the budget process--let's get real about the cost of war--or we are going to find ourselves back here time and again passing emergency spending.

We have heard a lot about the size of the bill, and I want to address that. This supplemental is big because the budgets we have passed over the years have been unrealistically small.

Let me say that again: This bill is big because the budgets we have passed have been unrealistically small. Time and again, the White House has proposed budgets that do not come close to meeting our domestic needs--and that completely ignore the costs of war. Those budgets have been works of fiction. And if we are not going to be realistic in the regular budget process--if we are not going to include the cost of war in the regular budget, we are going to have to face reality during this supplemental.

That is where we find ourselves today. So any Member who is troubled by the size of this bill should tell the White House it is time to get real and send us budgets that include the cost of war and that address our domestic needs--or we are going to find ourselves dealing with emergency spending time and time again.

But we can't miss the big picture--either we pass this bill and help our troops an our country, or we make it harder for America to move forward. Let's have the wisdom to make the right choice.

Before I go any further, I want to acknowledge the tremendous leadership that Senator Byrd has provided throughput this process. He knows this body better than anyone. And, more importantly, he brings with him a deep commitment to doing the right things not only for the Senate, but for the country, and for the families we all represent.

I also want to thank Chairman Cochran for his leadership and hard work on this bill. He has shown extraordinary patience throughout this debate, and I appreciate how he has worked with all of us to keep this bill on track.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, we have no objections on this side.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is the amendment that has been sent to the desk the modified amendment?

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Change of Vote

Mr. President, I wanted to take a minute to express my deep gratitude to Chairman Cochran who, as I stated earlier, has demonstrated extraordinary patience over the past 2 weeks we have been debating this supplemental bill.

I also want to express my thanks to the ranking member, Senator Byrd, who has continued to demonstrate his strong and resolute leadership on this bill.

I also want to thank the many members of our Appropriations Committee staff who have worked very hard.

First and foremost, I thank our staff director and deputy staff director on our side, Terry Sauvain and Chuck Kieffer.

I also thank the majority staff director, Keith Kennedy, and his staff, Clayton Heil and Les Spivey.

I want to make special mention of the extraordinary hard work of B.G. Wright, Kate Fitzpatrick, and Rachael Taylor. They have been keeping us all on track on this side as to which of the hundreds of filed amendments have been cleared and which have not.

Finally, I thank Peter Rogoff who has dedicated his life on the Senate floor for the last 2 weeks above and beyond the call.

I thank all our staff and floor staff for being here many long hours for the completion of this bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues Senator Kennedy, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator Clinton, Senator Durbin, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Leahy, Senator Akaka, Senator Boxer, and Senator Corzine, to introduce the ``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act.'' Today marks the 12th anniversary of the enactment of the Family and Medical Leave Act. This landmark legislation was nearly a decade in the making, but today, more than 50 million Americans have taken leave under FMLA.

Despite the many Americans the Family and Medical Leave Act has helped, too many continue to be left behind. Too many continue to have to choose between job and family. The facts are clear: millions of Americans remain uncovered by the Family and Medical Leave Act. And too many who are eligible for the Family and Medical Leave Act cannot afford to take unpaid leave from work. The ``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act'', which we are introducing today addresses both these problems.

The ``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act'' would expand the scope and coverage of FMLA. It would fund pilot programs at the state level to offer partial or full wage replacement programs to ensure that employees do not have to choose between job and family.

Times have changed over the years. More and more mothers are working. While decades ago only a tiny fraction of mothers with infants under one year of age were working, in 2004 about 55 percent of mothers with infants were working. Even as employment rates within this group rises, family responsibilities remain constant, a reality that lies at the core of the FMLA. According to an employee survey by the Department of Labor, about one-fifth of U.S. workers have a need for some form of leave covered under the FMLA, and about 40 percent of all employees think they will need FMLA-covered leave within the next 5 years.

According to a Department of Labor study in 2000, leave to care for one's own health or for the health of a seriously ill child, spouse or parent, together account for almost 80 percent of all FMLA leave. Approximately 52 percent of the leave taken is due to employees' own serious health problems, while 26 percent of the leave is taken by young parents caring for their children at birth or adoption.

The FMLA requires that all public sector employers and private employers of 50 or more employees provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for medical and family care reasons for eligible employees. About 77 percent of employees in the private and public sector currently work in FMLA-covered sites, although only 62 percent of employees are actually eligible for leave.

However, only 11 percent of private sector work sites are covered under FMLA. Individuals working for smaller private employers deserve the same work protections afforded to other employees. As a step toward expanding protection to more hard-working Americans, this bill would extend FMLA coverage to all private sector worksites with 25 or more employees within a 75-mile radius. This would mean that an additional 13 million Americans would be eligible for leave under the Act--roughly 240,000 in my own State of Connecticut.

Mothers and fathers, adult sons and daughters have the same family responsibilities and personal health problems, regardless of whether they work for the government, a large private enterprise, or a medium- sized private business. Expanding the FMLA to businesses with 25 or more employees is a crucial acknowledgment of this reality.

The bill recognizes the enormous physical and emotional toll domestic violence takes on victims. The bill expands the scope of FMLA to include leave for individuals to care for themselves or to care for a daughter, son, or parent suffering from domestic violence.

Expanding the scope and coverage of FMLA is a positive step for many Americans. But, alone, it is not enough. According to a Department of Labor study, 3.5 million covered Americans needed leave but--without wage replacement--could not afford to take leave. Over four-fifths of those who needed leave but did not take it said they could not afford unpaid leave.

Others cut their leave short, with the average duration of FMLA leave being 10 days. Of those individuals taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, nearly three-quarters had incomes above $30,000.

While the financial sacrifice is often enormous, the need for leave can be even more so. Every year, many Americans bite the bullet and accept unpaid leave. As a result, nine percent of leave takers go on public assistance to cover their lost wages. Almost twelve percent of female leave takers use public assistance for this reason. These individuals are far from being unwilling to work. Instead, they are trying to balance work with family--often during a crisis, too often with inadequate means to get by.

Other major industrialized nations have implemented policies far more family-friendly to promote early childhood development and family caregiving. At least 128 countries provide paid and job-protected maternity leave, with an average of sixteen weeks of basic paid leave. In 1992, before we enacted the Family and Medical Leave Act, the European Union mandated a paid fourteen-week maternity leave as a health and safety measure. Among the 29 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, the average childbirth- related leave is 44 weeks, while the average duration of paid leave is 36 weeks.

Compared to these other developed nations, the United States is far behind in efforts to promote stronger families and worker productivity. The ``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act'' builds on current law to provide pilot programs for States and the federal government to provide for partial or full wage replacement for at least 6 weeks. At a minimum, this will ensure that parents can continue to make ends meet while taking family and medical leave.

When we talk about a more compassionate America, nowhere is that more evident than in our caregiving leave policies. No one should have to choose between work and family. Women and men deserve to take leave when family or health conditions require it without fear of losing their job or livelihood. We must not simply pay lip service to family integrity and the promotion of a healthy workplace.

We talk often of our need to strengthen family values. We cite studies about the importance of the first few months of a newborn's life. This bill offers more parents the opportunity to spend time with their families when their families most need them.

I urge my colleagues to support the ``Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act'' to promote our family values and to ensure the welfare and health of hard-working Americans.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a brief summary of the Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise and am joined by my colleagues Senators Mikulski, Jeffords, Murray, Lieberman, Sarbanes, Landrieu, Dayton, Levin, Lautenberg, Inouye,

Corzine, Durbin and Akaka to introduce legislation to amend the Higher Education Act to improve access to higher education for low- and middle-income students by raising the authorized maximum Pell Grant to $11,600 within five years. This bill has the strong support of the Student Aid Alliance, whose 60 organizations represent students, colleges, parents, and others who care about higher education.

Pell Grants were established in the early 1970s by our former colleague, I Claiborne Pell, of Rhode Island. They are the largest source of Federal grant aid for college students. For millions of low- and middle-income students they are the difference between attending or not attending college. But, unfortunately, they don't make as much of a difference as they used to.

In 1975, the maximum appropriated Pell Grant covered all of the average student's tuition, fees, room, and board at community colleges. It covered about 80 percent of those costs at public universities and about 40 percent at private universities. In 2003, the average Pell Grant covered 32 percent of tuition, room and board at community colleges, 23 percent of the total charges at public universities, and 9 percent of total charges at private universities. That's not just a drop, it's a free-fall.

For low- and middle-income families, the cost of college also has increased significantly as a percentage of income. College is getting farther and farther out of reach for an entire generation of students.

As a result of all this, low- and middle-income students who want to attend college are forced to finance their education with an ever- increasing percentage of loans as opposed to grants. This increases the cost of attendance for these students even more, and in many cases, keeps them from going to college at all.

For four years now, the Administration has not raised the maximum Pell Grant. On top of leaving millions of children behind by failing to meet the bipartisan promises of the No Child Left Behind Act, they have left even more children behind who work hard and do well in school and want to go on to college. If we're serious about leaving no child behind, if we're serious about having a society where equal opportunity for all is more than just rhetoric, then we need to reinvigorate the Pell program.

It has been said that investing in a student's future is investing in our Nation's future. We can start investing in our Nation's future by supporting this bill to increase the maximum appropriated Pell Grant to $11,600. This bill won't bring the Pell Grant's purchasing power back to where it was in 1975, but it is a critical first step, and I intend to continue my efforts on this matter throughout this Congress. I hope that my colleagues will join me.

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

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator Thune's amendment and to set the record straight on my ongoing and passionate support for AmeriCorps and the National Civilian Community Corps, NCCC. The Senator from South Dakota said that I described the overall AmeriCorps program as, ``It's like Enron's gone nonprofit.'' Senator Thune was absolutely wrong to say that is the way I describe AmeriCorps. I love AmeriCorps. I love what they do for communities. I love what they do for America.

Senator Thune took that quote totally out of context. I made that statement back in 2002 when a bureaucratic boondoggle led to the overenrollment of 20,000 volunteers. When that happened, I led the efforts to organize the national service groups and to strengthen AmeriCorps. Along with Senator Bond, I introduced and passed the ``Strengthen AmeriCorps Program Act of 2003'' which established new accounting procedures for AmeriCorps. I urged the President to appoint a new CEO for the Corporation of National Service--a CEO with the management skills necessary to restore confidence in the Corporation's abilities to make a real difference to our volunteers--and in our communities. I also asked for a reinvigorated Board of Directors that would take greater oversight and responsibility and I have consistently called for increased funding so that AmeriCorps could support 75,000 volunteers each year.

AmeriCorps is stronger than ever. Since its creation, over 300,000 volunteers have served in communities and earned education awards to go to college or to pay off student debt. To date, 7,500 Maryland residents have earned education awards. The NCCC program, which has a campus in Perry Point, MD, is a full-time residential program for 18 to 24 year olds designed to strengthen communities and develop leaders through team-based service projects. Each year, approximately 1,100 participants reside in its five campuses nationwide. The Perry Point campus houses 200 AmeriCorps members every year, and since 1994 its residents have logged more than 350,000 service hours. Most recently, NCCC members have provided more than 250,000 service hours valued at $3.8 million to projects in the Gulf Coast region, which reflects their critical service during every American natural disaster since the program started.

The funds that Senator Thune wants to cut are specifically dedicated to support volunteer recovery activities in the gulf and would pay for 800 NCCC members who will provide more than 1.2 million hours of service in the gulf coast hurricane recovery effort. These teams will rebuild schools and community centers, remove debris, and help senior citizens rebuild their homes and lives. This funding demonstrates the Senate's commitment to keeping this valuable program alive, despite President Bush's efforts to cut the Federal funds it needs to survive.

I fought to create AmeriCorps, I fought to strengthen AmeriCorps, and I will fight to save AmeriCorps. Today's Federal investment, like these fine volunteers, are needed now more than ever. I strongly encourage my Senate colleagues to make sure this money is included as a part of this emergency spending package, and I urge them to oppose Senator Thune's amendment which would divert these critical funds away from NCCC.

Mr. President, I support our troops and their families. I am behind them 100 percent. They deserve our gratitude, not just with words but with deeds. We must do right by our troops and their families. This strong emergency supplemental appropriations bill helps us do just that. This supplemental also provides needed funds to the victims of the devastating hurricanes that hit our gulf coast last summer.

In this bill we have provided $15.6 billion to fix or replace equipment that has been damaged during combat operations and to buy additional force protection equipment desperately needed by our brave men and women on the battlefield.

To help protect our troops from deadly improvised explosive devices, IEDs, this bill creates the joint improvised explosive device defeat fund and provides the fund with nearly $2 billion to develop and field the necessary tactics, equipment, and training to defeat these deadly weapons.

Another way we can support our troops is to make our intentions in Iraq clear to the Iraqis and the international community. To this end, I supported the amendment introduced by Senator Biden that prohibits the building of any permanent military bases in Iraq. This will send a clear message to the Iraqi people--we are committed to withdrawing our troops once their mission is accomplished.

To ensure that we do all we can to care for soldiers when they are injured, this bill includes an additional $1.15 billion for the defense health program. This money ensures that we can continue to provide world-class services including rapid aero-medical evacuation to our most severely wounded soldiers.

The veterans health care system is stretched to the limit at a time when more and more veterans are turning to VA. That is why I cosponsored an amendment by Senator Akaka to increase veterans funding by $430 million to meet the health care needs of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and other war veterans.

The rank-and-file employees of the Federal Government are the unsung heroes of this country. Unfortunately, they are often required to work in substandard or often hazardous conditions. It was recently reported that employees within this very building are forced to enter tunnels full of asbestos and on the verge of collapse. That is why I cosponsored an amendment by Senator Allard that provides over $27 million for critical emergency structural repairs to the Capitol Complex utilities tunnels. I will continue to fight for our Federal workforce to ensure they have safe working environments and proper safety equipment.

We know that nearly 40 percent of the soldiers deployed today in Iraq and Afghanistan are citizen soldiers who come from the National Guard and Reserves. More than half of these will suffer a loss of income when they are mobilized, because their military pay is less than the pay from their civilian job.

Many patriotic employers and State governments eliminate this pay gap by continuing to pay them the difference between their civilian and military pay. The reservist pay security amendment, which I worked on with Senator Durbin, will ensure that the U.S. Government also makes up for this pay gap for Federal employees who are activated in the Guard and Reserves.

Mr. President, last year, we provided emergency relief for the victims of the horrible tsunami in Asia. Today with this bill, we are providing over $27 billion in support to our own citizens so badly hurt by the devastating hurricanes that hit the gulf coast last year. This money will not only help with the rebuilding of New Orleans, but will provide a host of economic incentives and subsidies to help the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Alabama get back to work and rebuild their lives following the destruction of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Additionally, this bill provides emergency funding to help immediately rebuild the levees and install flood control equipment that will help prevent another terrible tragedy from occurring when this year's hurricane season arrives in less than 4 weeks.

After 9/11 we realized that our borders were not secure. Since then, we have waged the war on terror and made great strides at protecting our homeland. We have made significant investments in law enforcement and security; however, the infrastructure that supports our border security has been allowed to crumble. To counter this, I supported an amendment proposed by Senator Gregg which adds $2 billion for border security initiatives to include buying additional vehicles, airplanes, helicopters, and ships. It also builds state of the art facilities for use in ensuring the security of our borders.

We have all seen the devastating effects of natural disasters and terrorism and are working hard to prevent future occurrences from affecting our Nation and the world. We have recently learned of another potential threat: a worldwide flu epidemic that could cost millions of lives if we are unprepared. In response to this threat, this bill provides $2.3 billion to prepare for and respond to an influenza pandemic. Making this money available now will help expand the domestic production capacity of influenza vaccine, and will help develop and stockpile the right vaccines, antivirals, and other medical supplies necessary to protect and preserve lives in the event of an outbreak.

Because it is just as important to support our communities at home as it is to support our troops in the field, I will continue to fight for responsible military budgets. For that reason, I joined Senator Byrd's call for the President to fund our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the regular budget and appropriations process. After 4 years in Afghanistan and 3 years in Iraq, we should not be funding these operations as if they were surprise emergencies.

Mr. President, this bill is a Federal investment in supporting our troops and their families and providing relief for those impacted by the devastating hurricanes.

We support our troops by getting them the best equipment and the best protection we can provide. We support them by making it easier for our citizen soldiers in the National Guard and Reserves to serve their country. And we support them by ensuring they are cared for with the best possible medical system when they are injured or ill.

With this bill, we are also helping our neighbors rebuild their homes, their communities, and their lives, and I am proud to give it my support.

Mr. President, over the March recess, I joined the leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John Warner of Virginia and Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, on a trip to Iraq to hear the on-the-ground perspective of our military leaders, our troops in the field, and Iraqi officials. I returned to the United States as always overwhelmed by my pride and admiration for our service men and women, who continue to work with commitment and professionalism even in the most difficult circumstances. I cast my vote in support of this supplemental package before us because I am completely committed to providing our men and women in uniform with the support they need to continue their excellent work. Toward that end, I am very pleased that an amendment I authored calling for regular reports on the Pentagon's efforts to train our troops in methods of detecting and defeating improvised explosive devices has been added to this bill.

I also cast this vote today because when it comes to funding our service men and women, right now this supplemental is the only game in town. And because the administration refuses, year after year, to incorporate the costs of ongoing operations in Iraq into the regular budget, we have no choice but to fund these efforts through these emergency supplementals--essentially putting hundreds of billions on our national tab. The Senate voted overwhelmingly in support of Senator Byrd's amendment urging the administration to stop these irresponsible budget games. I hope the President heeds that message.

In addition to reaffirming my admiration for our military, my recent trip to Iraq also gave me a deeper understanding of the importance of success in Iraq and the truly daunting nature of the challenges ahead.

In addition to the extremely serious fiscal issues confronting us, we have the even more serious policy issue to consider--how should U.S. policy proceed in Iraq?

A failed Iraqi state would threaten our national interests, destabilizing an already volatile region and creating a lasting haven for terrorists. Our national security imperatives mandate our commitment to Iraq's success.

Success in Iraq is dependent on several factors: controlling violence, creating a stable government of national unity, delivering basic services and the promise of economic development to the Iraqi people, and establishing strong and supportive relations between Iraq and its neighbors in the region. If any of these pillars are missing, Iraq's future becomes uncertain and unstable.

America can help, but ultimately the Iraqis must achieve these goals on their own. The Iraqi people and Iraqi security forces have made significant strides, but much more remains before Iraq can govern and protect Iraqis. And Iraq's neighbors, who know the region best and will suffer most from a failed state in their midst, must step up to the plate to help end the political deadlock in Iraq.

We all recognize that U.S. forces cannot and should not remain in Iraq indefinitely. The U.S. military presence in Iraq should depend upon Iraqi leaders promptly making the compromises necessary to achieve the broad-based, sustainable, political settlement necessary to form a government of national unity and defeat the insurgency. We need partners within Iraq and outside its borders who are committed to stability and sharing power in order to achieve the mission of a truly democratic Iraq, and to share in that success with Iraq's people.

We also need to ensure that the magnitude of the challenge before us in Iraq does not distract all our attention from the vitally important, ongoing mission in Afghanistan. This bill also provides much needed support for that mission. We have made tremendous progress, working with the Afghan people, in helping to turn Afghanistan from a state sponsor of terrorism to a stable, responsible member of the international community. But our work is by no means complete, and the American troops and Afghani leaders I met with in Kabul just weeks ago underscored how important it is that we continue our strong support for the stabilizing mission.

This bill also provides support for the communities devastated by last year's hurricane season. I am afraid that, thus far, the story of the Government's response to Katrina has been a story of failure not only in the preparations for the storm and in the midst of the crisis but also in the recovery effort. Too many promises have not been kept, and too many American families continue to live in an atmosphere of uncertainty. The provisions in this bill will help, but our commitment does not end here. Congress needs to make sure that the gulf region has the necessary resources to recover from last year's hurricanes and respond to future storms, but it must also make sure that the administration has fixed the incompetence at FEMA and DHS which disturbed so many Americans. I look forward to continuing to work on these important issues in the upcoming months.

Over the past 6 years, Colorado has suffered from ongoing natural disasters including drought. Unfortunately,

many areas in Colorado continue to suffer from ongoing extreme weather conditions including drought, hail, and frost. In particular, Colorado wheat producers are estimating that this will be the fifth below- average wheat crop in 6 years.

In addition, many Colorado farmers and ranchers are suffering from economic losses due to continually rising gas prices. And what is true in Colorado is true in many other States across the country. That is why I am an original cosponsor of Senator Conrad's emergency agriculture disaster assistance package, and I am so pleased that it was included as part of this supplemental bill. Toward that end, I especially thank Senators Conrad and Cochran, who worked very hard on these important provisions. I am so pleased that the Senate has voted to provide immediate assistance to producers across the country who have been devastated by a variety of natural disasters.

While, overall, we are lucky in Colorado that this has been a better year for many of our farmers and ranchers who have suffered from continuing natural disasters over the past several years, many producers in southern and eastern Colorado have been hit by drought conditions once again.

It has been downhill for the 2005 Colorado winter wheat crop since last May. In fact, estimates show that it will be the fifth below- average winter wheat crop in 6 years--with potential losses to producers of over $60 million.

In addition, increasing gas prices have hit our rural communities hard, making it virtually impossible for many producers to cover the unexpected additional costs. During harvest, agricultural producers are some of the largest fuel consumers in the United States and producers are facing enormous fuel costs. Farm fuel has increased by 79 percent from $1.40 per gallon in September of 2004 to around $2.60 per gallon in September 2005. Colorado wheat producers have told me that it would take a 40-bushel average yield per acre and an average price of $4.00 per bushel to cover all of these additional costs and break even. Unfortunately, the average yield in 2005 was 24 bushels per acre, and the average price is projected at $3.34 per bushel.

Finally, Mr. President, I wish to express again how pleased I am that the Senate adopted my amendment to provide an additional $30 million to reduce the risk of catastrophic fires and mitigate the effects of widespread insect infestations throughout the entire National Forest System. In the West, the seasonal wildfire potential outlook map shows above-normal fire danger across the Western United States and several Southern States, too, have increased fire dangers. One of the most alarming factors in the wildfire outlook this year is insect infestation. For example, my State of Colorado has over 1.5 million acres that have been infested by bark beetles. After these infestations come through a forest, they leave behind entire stands of trees-- sometimes thousands of acres--that are more susceptible to fire due to the dried-out conditions and increased fuel loads in those forests. Just today, I learned from the U.S. Forest Service that Colorado has 280,000 acres of approved hazardous fuel reduction projects that are awaiting treatment, with Forest Service funding only sufficient to conduct about a quarter of those projects under the best circumstances. This situation represents a true emergency, and I am relieved that we were able to address it in this bill.

Mr. President, in the past week, the Senate has voted to reduce the overall cost of H.R. 4939, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006, now totaling nearly $110 billion by a mere $15 million. I am delighted that President Bush has pledged to veto this bill because Congress has, once again, been unable to resist the temptation to load up a must-pass bill with pork.

I offered several amendments to eliminate nonemergency items in this bill. I appreciate the patience of my colleagues. I am very pleased and encouraged that this body is increasingly willing to depart from our business-as-usual practices.

That is good because the American people are paying attention to this process. In a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, the American people said that ending earmarks should be the No. 1 priority for Congress this session. Thirty-nine percent said that members should be prohibited from ``directing federal funds to specific projects benefiting only certain constituents.'' It is interesting to note that ending earmarks was ranked ahead of immigration reform, which was cited as the No. 1 priority by 32 percent of Americans.

I hope that these results, combined with polls showing a 22-percent approval rating for Congress, will encourage conferees to avoid a confrontation with President Bush over spending. I would hope that when conferees look for items to remove from this bill they take a close look at my amendments that lost by a narrow margin as well as those I withdrew.

I believe that in this time of war and disaster recovery the American people expect us to make hard choices about spending. Taxpayers want us to be serving in a spirit of service and sacrifice, not searching for new ways to raid the public Treasury.

Congress is raiding the Treasury in two ways with this bill. First, many of the items in this bill should be considered in the regular appropriations process and through the regular order. The war on terror is no longer a surprise. We are entering our fifth year of this war. It shouldn't come as a surprise to Congress that we have needs related to this effort. We have also developed a good understanding about many of the priorities in the gulf coast that could have been addressed in the regular budget process.

Congress has also added billions of dollars for items that have no connection to the war on terror and the gulf coast recovery. Again, few of these items are true emergencies. The American people deserve to understand what defines a true emergency. According to the budget resolution for fiscal year 2006 all of the following five criteria must be met to be considered an emergency: necessary, essential, or vital; sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time; an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action; unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and not permanent, temporary in nature.

Designating a project as an ``emergency'' excuses Congress from paying for a project. The result of abusing the ``emergency'' designation is an even greater emergency. Our Nation's debt is nearly $8.4 trillion. Each American's share of this debt is $27,964.86. Our national debt is increasing by an average of $1.95 billion per day. Social Security, Medicare and the standard of living of future generations of Americans are in jeopardy as a result of decades of fiscal irresponsibility and rationalizations for spending more money today without considering the consequences tomorrow.

The Social Security trustees reported this week the program will exhaust its trust fund and begin running annual cash deficits in 2040. A year ago, that prediction was 2041, effectively meaning 2 years have been lost by a refusal to act. The trustees reported Social Security's unfunded liability is $13.4 trillion.

Of course, the real problem with Social Security and Medicare is much worse because the Federal Government uses an Enron-style accounting scheme. We habitually borrow or, more accurately, steal money from these trust funds to pay for more spending today.

When the 77 million baby boomers begin to retire in 2011, our Nation will be faced with the greatest economic challenge in our history. If we continue to indulge in earmarks, the gateway drug to spending addictions, we will never address these complex challenges, particularly if we can't resist the urge to abuse the earmark process on a bill designed to address the emergency needs of our troops and displaced people in the gulf coast.

Another reason we must act today to rein in wasteful spending is because our ability to influence world events is diminished by our debt to other nations. We now have the distinction of being the world's largest debtor nation, and this bill will add to that debt. Many serious economists are warning that our excessive borrowing from foreign sources could cause the value of the dollar to collapse, which would lead to a disaster for our economy. It is incredibly shortsighted for this body to sell Treasury bills to countries such as China so we can finance economic development programs and other pet projects while, at the same time, we hope to encourage China to be more aggressive in terms of discouraging Iran from developing nuclear weapons. This is not just a numbers game. The future

vitality of our nation is at stake. We are slowly but surely whittling away our national power and ability to leverage other nations away by our refusal to make hard choices about spending.

Many of the items in this bill are obviously not emergencies, which is why this bill will be vetoed by President Bush if it is sent to him in its current form. Again, I hope conferees do not force the President to take this step. I am confident the President will veto this bill. He understands that it is more important to secure the next generation rather than the next election.

Past Presidents and Congresses have made hard choices during difficult times. Between 1939 and 1942, Congress and FDR cut spending for nondefense programs by 22 percent. In 1950, President Truman and Congress cut nonmilitary spending by 28 percent. I suggest to my colleagues that if we want to be here past 2006, we better do the same.

Still, I agree with my colleagues who say that the President's priorities don't come down from heaven. I suggest, however, that we are all subject to the judgment that comes down from the taxpayers. If we flippantly disregard the President's insistence that we make hard choices, the judgment of the taxpayers will not be kind to any of us.

Families across this country are faced with hard choices every day in order to live within their budget. They have elected us to make hard choices. Our refusal to do this only reinforces the perception that we are disconnected from the priority-setting reality that governs the rest of the country.

It is wrong, for example, for this body to fund pork projects such as grape research in the State of California force the taxpayers in my State and every other State to pay for a so-called emergency project that has been ongoing for the last 46 years and has already received more than $130 million from the American taxpayer. Where this body sees an emergency the taxpayers often see a series of misplaced priorities.

The State of California received 549 Federal earmarks this year totaling $733 million. That included $10 million in Federal resources alone for museums. Is it more important to protect the residents at risk from flooding by the Sacramento River or to fund grape research? Congress is spending over $3.6 million on a grape research center in California this year. We are spending another $1 million on a pedestrian walkway project in Calimesa and a half million on pedestrian/bike improvements on Tower Bridge in Sacramento? What is more important for Sacramento? Why can't we prioritize today so future generations are not forced to make even tougher choices between massive tax hikes, drastic cuts to Medicare and Social Security, or the defense of our Nation?

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, ``Cowardice asks the question--is it safe? Expediency asks the question--is it popular? Vanity asks the question--is it popular? But conscience asks the question--is it right?''

I plead with my colleagues. Do what is right. Our Nation is on an unsustainable course, and that course correction must begin today, not when it is too late.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Leahy and Domenici, to introduce a bill that would reauthorize ``America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project Act.'' This program addresses the impact that mentally ill offenders have had on our criminal justice system and the impact the system has had on the offenders and their special needs.

My interest in, and experience with this issue began over 30 years ago, when I was working as Assistant County Prosecuting Attorney in Greene County, OH, and then as County Prosecutor. What I learned then-- and what I have continued to encounter throughout my career in public service--is that our State and local correctional facilities have become way stations for far too many mentally ill individuals in our Nation.

A recent Justice Department study revealed that 16 percent of all inmates in America's State prisons and local jails today are mentally ill. The American Jails Association estimates that 600,000 to 700,000 seriously mentally ill persons each year are booked into local jails, alone. In Ohio, nearly one in five prisoners need psychiatric services or special accommodations. As these statistics make clear, far too many of our Nation's mentally ill persons have ended up in our prisons and jails. In fact, on any given day, the Los Angeles County Jail is home to more mentally ill inmates than the largest mental health care institution in our country.

How did we wind up in this situation? What happens is that all too often, the mentally ill act out their symptoms on the streets. They are arrested for minor offenses and wind up in jail. They serve their sentences or are paroled, but do not receive any treatment for their underlying mental illness. Not surprisingly, they often find themselves right back in the system only a short time later after committing additional--often more serious--crimes.

Throughout this destructive cycle, law enforcement and corrections spend time and money trying to cope with the unique problems posed by these individuals. Certainly, many mentally ill

offenders must be incarcerated because of the severity of their crimes. However, those who commit very minor, non-violent offenses don't necessarily need to be incarcerated; instead, if given appropriate treatment early, their illnesses could be addressed, helping the offenders, while reducing recidivism and decreasing the burdens on our police and corrections officials.

That is why, six years ago Senator Domenici and I introduced America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project, to begin to identify--early in the process--mentally ill offenders within our justice system and to use the power of the courts to assist them in obtaining the treatment they need.

This program has been a success. In pilot programs around the country, mental health courts have begun to help local communities take steps toward effectively addressing the issues raised by the mentally ill in our justice system, and these steps must continue. The legislation that we are introducing today will help do that. Our bill would establish a Federal grant program to help States and localities develop mental health courts in their jurisdictions. These courts are specialized courts with separate dockets. They hear cases exclusively involving nonviolent offenses committed by individuals with a mental illness. Fundamentally, mental health courts enable State and local courts to offer alternative sentences or alternatives to prosecution for those offenders who could be served best by mental health services. These courts are designed to address the historic lack of coordination between local law enforcement and social service systems and bring them together to work within the criminal justice system.

To deal with the separate needs of mentally ill offenders, these mental health courts are staffed by a core group of specialized professionals, including a dedicated judge, prosecutor, public defender, and court liaison to the mental health services community. The courts promote efficiency and consistency by centrally managing all outstanding cases involving a mentally ill defendant referred to the mental health court.

Mental health court judges decide whether or not to hear each case referred to them. The courts only deal with defendants deemed mentally ill by qualified mental health professionals or the mental health court judge. Similarly, participation in the court by the mentally ill is voluntary; however, once the defendant volunteers for the Mental Health Court, he or she is expected to follow the decision of the court.

For instance, in any given case, the mental health court judge, attorneys, and health services liaison may all agree on a plan of treatment as an alternative sentence or in lieu of prosecution. The defendant must adhere strictly to this court-imposed treatment plan. The court must then provide supervision, and quickly deal with any failure. This way, the court can quickly deal with any failure of the defendant to fulfill the treatment plan obligations. The mental health courts provide supervision of participants that is more intensive than might otherwise be available, with an emphasis on accountability and monitoring the participant's performance. In this sense, the mental heath courts function similarly to drug courts.

Offenders with a mental illness who choose to have their cases heard in a mental health court often do so because that is the first real opportunity that many of these people have to seek treatment. A judicial program offering the possibility of effective treatment-- rather than jail time--gives a measure of hope and a chance for rehabilitation to these defendants.

The successes of mental health courts are encouraging and show that we can improve the health and safety of our communities through these programs. In Ohio, the Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services Board which serves Athens, Hocking and Vinton Counties, began operating its program on August 2003 after receiving a mental health court grant under the original America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project Act. Success stories from this program are numerous, but let me focus on one individual here. D.L. is a 53 year old man who struggled with Bipolar Disorder for years. Arrested for trespassing in 2003, D.L. was the ideal candidate for the Mental Health Court. Having completed individual counseling, and never missing a single psychiatric appointment, D.L. completed the program last May. He is now viewed as a potential mentor for other program participants.

Many jurisdictions across America have established mental health courts as a result of the program that we established four years ago. Our Nation's communities are trying desperately to find the best way to cope with the problems associated with mental illness. Law enforcement agencies and correctional facilities remain challenged by difficulties posed by mental illnesses.

Mental health courts offer a solution.

Mental health courts have shown great success, and we must ensure their continuation. Our Nation has long been enriched by the dual ideals of compassion and justice, and these programs are a wonderful embodiment of both ideals. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I will cast my vote in favor of H.R. 4939, the fiscal year 2006 supplemental appropriations bill. This bill takes the important step of supporting disaster relief efforts and helps fund our ongoing military and intelligence operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. I support the intent of this bill, but I have some significant reservations regarding the growing cost of the war and how it is being funded.

In supporting our troops, I believe we must do what is necessary to ensure that the men and women risking their lives for our country have everything they need to carry out their mission. I do not support the administration's policy of funding the war in Iraq through emergency supplemental bills. According to a Congressional Budget Office report, in 2005 the Department of Defense obligated $83.6 billion--nearly $7 billion per month--for the global war on terror, much of which was appropriated through emergency supplemental funding. This is a fiscally irresponsible approach that masks the true magnitude of the war's costs. Therefore, I voted in favor of an amendment offered by my colleagues, Senators Byrd and Carper, which expresses the sense of the Senate that any request for funds after fiscal year 2007 for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan should be included in the President's annual budget. I was encouraged that the amendment passed with a vote of 94 to 0. I urge the administration to heed the Senate's resolution and commit to making the costs of the Iraq war more transparent.

I also believe that the administration must be held accountable for progress in the Iraq war. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and ranking minority member of the Readiness Subcommittee, I am committed to finding a way to bring our soldiers home as soon as possible. I do not believe that we should leave before the Iraqi people are equipped with the tools necessary to support a stable democratic society, but we must ensure that progress is being made. Toward that end, I support the plan outlined in the amendment submitted by my colleague Senator Carl Levin, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, which establishes clear reporting requirements regarding the political situation in Iraq. According to this plan, the President is required to submit a report to Congress every 30 days outlining Iraq's progress toward the formation of a national unity government. The plan also requires the administration to inform Iraqi political, religious and tribal leaders that meeting their own deadlines with regards to amending the Iraqi Constitution is a condition for the continued presence of a U.S. military force in Iraq. While the Senate did not consider Senator Levin's amendment due to germaneness, this is an important issue that Congress must address.

Notwithstanding my concerns regarding the continued use of emergency supplementals to fund the conflict in Iraq, there are a number of provisions in this bill that I wholeheartedly support. In particular, I was pleased to see that we did not forget our Nation's veterans during consideration of the emergency supplemental. Our returning soldiers and sailors have earned the right to the best health care that this Nation can provide, and I believe we should strive to carry out this obligation to our servicemembers. With the backing of my Senate colleagues, I successfully passed an amendment to the emergency supplemental adding $430 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. These funds will be specifically used to supplement direct health care, mental health care, and prosthetics services at VA. As the ranking member on the Veterans Affairs Committee, I am pleased that the Senate took this important step of supporting our Nation's veterans.

Another appropriate use of the emergency supplemental was appropriations for disaster relief. Our Nation has been hit hard by many significant natural disasters that could not have been planned for in advance. I believe that we, as Government leaders, should continue to provide assistance to help those devastated by natural disasters including the severe flooding that deluged Hawaii earlier this year.

On May 2, 2006, President George W. Bush declared that a major disaster exists in the State of Hawaii that Federal funds to help the people and communities recover. I am pleased that the Senate Appropriations Committee included $33.5 million in the emergency supplemental for disaster assistance in Kauai and Windward Oahu, and $6 million for sugarcane growers in the State whose crops were destroyed by the floods earlier this spring.

In March, I introduced S. 2444, the Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act of 2006. This bill would amend the National Dam Safety Program Act to establish a program to provide grant assistance to States for the rehabilitation and repair of deficient dams. I also supported Senator Inouye's efforts to include an amendment to H.R. 3499 to provide $1.4 million to assess the security and safety of critical reservoirs and dams in Hawaii, including monitoring dam structures. I am extremely disappointed that this amendment did not pass because the failure of Kaloko Dam on Kauai led to the severe flooding and loss of life. I am hopeful that my colleagues will recognize the importance of addressing the dam problem for the sake of Hawaii and our Nation and that my bill will receive floor consideration.

Senator Inouye also introduced a timely amendment that provides $1 million for environmental monitoring of waters in and around Hawaii. In March of this year, I had the opportunity to visit the hardest hit areas of our State and meet victims, emergency responders, and State officials. To date, the situation for many of our residents remains very grave. With hundreds of homes and businesses damaged or destroyed, critical infrastructure crippled, and many hours spent engaged in search and rescue activities, the resources of our State have been severely strained. I supported this amendment, and I am encouraged that this amendment passed. It is clear that Hawaii will not be able to fully recover without substantial Federal assistance.

Mr. President, I wish to reiterate that a clear distinction needs to be made for true emergencies and natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and the floods in Hawaii, which could not have been anticipated.

It is fiscally irresponsible for the current administration to continue to treat this war as an emergency in order to hide the true cost of the war and circumvent the normal budgeting and oversight process. If the current administration continues to refuse to make hard choices and insist on a policy of funding the war through emergency appropriations, succeeding generations of Americans will face even more difficult choices.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with a long list of colleagues in introducing a bill to extend the MILC program. This measure is supported by members from different regions of the country and both political parties. This broad base of support is a clear indication of this issue's importance.

MILC, as most of my colleagues know, is the program created in the 2002 Farm Bill after a very painful battle over the Northeast Dairy Compact. Many recall what a difficult time that was, with one group of dairymen pitted against another. I don't want to revisit that time. The MILC program bridged a bitter regional divide by providing a critical safety net when prices are low. And when prices rebound, the MILC program becomes dormant and costs nothing. The problem with MILC is that it expires on September 30 of this year--two years before the rest of the Farm Bill.

In addition to the cosponsors, MILC extension is supported by sixteen governors, including the governors of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Virginia, Vermont, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Maine, Iowa, Michigan, New York, South Dakota, Ohio, Louisiana, and North Dakota. Moreover, the President of the United States committed himself to MILC extension during the presidential campaign.

I am hopeful the President's budget will include MILC extension when we receive it next Monday. That would be a helpful next step. But the fact of the matter is that budget resolutions never get signed into law in and of themselves. They are merely a framework for further discussion and work. And it will take effort both from Congress and the administration to see this extension translated into law. I look forward to working with the President and his new Secretary of Agriculture to make sure that happens.

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today with Senator Snowe to reauthorize funding for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership. This successful Commerce Department program, based in the National Institute of Standards and Technology, is a nationwide network of Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Centers working with small- and medium-sized manufacturers in all 50 States. These local centers have played a critical role in helping our manufacturers turn out the most advanced products, using cutting edge technology and processes, to prevent these firms from being forced out of the global marketplace.

My State of Wisconsin is a great manufacturing State. Small- and medium-sized manufacturers and a few larger concerns make us the State economy most dependent on manufacturing--save Indiana. Thus, I am keenly aware of the devastating job losses experienced by American manufacturers. In Wisconsin alone, we lost more than 90,000 manufacturing jobs over the last four years.

While 2004 brought encouraging news in which we saw a net gain of 3.1 percent or 15,400 manufacturing jobs in my State, this pace of economic growth will never bring us back to where we were before.

That is why I am committed to doing all I can to help our manufacturers. And that is why I am such a strong supporter of the MEP program, one of the only Federal programs which has provided tangible assistance to the manufacturing sector to help companies stay in business and retain jobs. The MEP program served 18,422 manufacturers in fiscal year 2003 alone, and over the life of the program has assisted more than 184,000 firms across the Nation.

MEP's top areas of assistance are process improvement, quality inspection, business system and management, human resources, plant layout and manufacturing cells and product development. MEP streamlines operations, integrates new technologies, shortens production times and lowers costs, leading to improved efficiency by offering resources to manufacturers, including organized workshops and consulting projects. MEP removes the drag on profits and maximizes the potential of our manufacturing firms.

Wisconsin is the home to two MEP centers which have both had a significant impact on the productivity of companies throughout the State. Since 1996, Wisconsin MEP has helped over 1,300 Wisconsin manufacturers improve their productivity and profitability. Over that time WMEP customers have reported a positive impact of nearly $400 million in improvements attributable to the assistance provided by MEP. And, since 1994, the Northwest Wisconsin Manufacturing Outreach Center, targeting the more rural northwestern part of the State, has provided over 3,189 technical assistance activities to over 942 companies, created or retained 1,979 jobs, and achieved client-reported impacts of over $132 million.

One of the novel aspects of the MEP program is that it is a Federal- State-private partnership. Federal funding leverages State and private funding. Manufacturers pay reduced fees for the services and States match the Federal funding. In many cases, the Federal component is only one-third of the funding for the program.

Although the MEP program has broad bipartisan support, with 55 senators writing a letter in support of the program last year, we have had to struggle in recent years to ensure that MEP centers receive the funding they deserve. In the last two years, the Administration has proposed deep reductions in the program that would have forced MEP centers around the country to close. In fiscal year 2004, despite Senate support for full funding for the MEP Program, funding was reduced by 60 percent from $106 million to $39.6 million. As a result, 58 MEP centers closed and staff was reduced by 15 percent. Working with several other Senators, we succeeded in having amendments adopted on the fiscal year 2005 Defense authorization and appropriations bills to permit and direct the Commerce Department to reprogram unobligated funds to the MEP program in fiscal year 2004 to keep the MEP network intact. Fortunately, in the fiscal year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill, MEP received $109 million and was renamed the Hollings MEP program, in recognition of the strong support Senator Hollings gave this program during his tenure in the Senate.

Next week the President will be sending us his proposed budget for fiscal year 2006. I am deeply concerned at reports that indicate that the Administration intends to propose yet again to cut this vital program. We have introduced this legislation today as a sign that there continues to be bipartisan support for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. I hope that these reports were incorrect and that the Administration recognizes that we cannot abandon our small- and medium- sized manufacturers. They are the key to economic growth, good paying jobs, and a healthy balance of trade.

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