A resolution honoring the life of and expressing the condolences of the Senate on the passing of Rosa Parks.

Mr. President, this amendment is a very modest amendment. It effectively adds $200 for students who receive Pell grants. These are students who come from families with low incomes. Pell grants have been a backbone of our education policy and are essential to providing these students an opportunity.

We initially passed in the budget a $5.4 billion increase in funding for higher education. All of that was eliminated. We have an opportunity this afternoon to make a small difference for those who receive Pell grants.

This amendment is about education. Education is about opportunity. This amendment is about competitiveness because in today's global economy we need well-educated individuals.

This amendment is about national security because education is the key to having a strong national security.

Finally, it is about fairness. Americans understand fairness. They believe in education.

I hope this amendment will succeed.

What is the issue before the Senate?

Further inquiry: An aye vote effectively would be related to keeping the pending amendment alive?

Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for addressing the Senate on this very grim day that marks the loss of the 2,000th young American in Iraq. I welcome my memory being refreshed by the Senator's very eloquent statements about what took place at that time and subsequently about his policy differences, which I share so deeply.

While the Senator said we should wait, does the Senator not think it might have been appropriate that we give the inspectors adequate time to complete their inspection prior to the time we were going to have the troops begin the invasion?

As members of the Armed Services Committee, we were told that we were transferring the information Don Rumsfeld had to the inspectors. Under the excellent questioning of the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, Secretary Rumsfeld was asked about the information that would be transferred to the inspectors, and he gave the assurance to the Armed Services Committee that this was a continuing, ongoing process in which we were involved. Then we found out subsequently that there was no transfer of information. There was no transfer of information because, as the Senator has pointed out, those weapons had not been there. But that information was never shared with the Members of this body. There was never an effort to try to see whether the international inspectors could find what the Secretary of Defense swore to, effectively, about the weapons of mass destruction--and the Senator used the words north, south, east, and west, which are very much the words the Secretary of Defense used. He assured the American people he knew where they were.

We understood they were going to notify the inspectors and give assurances to the American people. Doesn't the Senator believe it would have been appropriate at least if we had waited until that kind of process continued and we find out whether weapons of mass destruction were there or were not there? That is part of the waiting, is it not?

I thank the Senator for reminding us about that period in history. I gather from what the Senator is saying, with all the mistakes and blunders that have been made--

--what the Senator is asking for is out of respect for the extraordinary heroism of our current men and women in the service, that they deserve something better than the cliches and slogans for policy.

And that they need to have a real policy that is going to reflect how we can bring those brave American service men and women home with honor.

And do it in a way of which we can all be proud.

Will the Senator yield? I don't want to interrupt his comments here, they are so important, but has the Senator, in his following of this issue, been able to detect any plan, any strategy that has come from the administration from which he believes the American people can gain great satisfaction that we are headed in the right direction? Does he know of any plan or program, any strategy that would result in the opportunity to bring those service men and women home with honor?

Mr. President, I know we are going to pause at 3:40 p.m. My friend and colleague from New Jersey has an important statement, but he is letting me proceed.

Winter is rapidly closing in on States across America. Yet even after Hurricane Katrina shocked the Nation about the desperate plight of the poor, the administration and the Republican Congress continue to ignore our neediest citizens.

According to the Energy Information Administration, home heating bills will soar this winter. Households heating primarily with natural gas will pay an average of $350 more this winter for heat--an increase of an incredible 48 percent over last year. Those relying primarily on oil for heat will pay $378 more--an increase of 32 percent.

The people most in need of help on this issue are the 37 million Americans living in poverty today--including 13 million children. According to a recent report by Economic Opportunity Studies, families in poverty will owe an average of 25 percent of their entire income for their energy bills this winter.

The Federal poverty guideline is $16,090 for a family of three. That means that $4,022 will be spent on home energy bills, leaving only 12,000 or $1,000 a month for expenses the entire year.

A family whose rent is $800 a month would have only $200 left. For a household of three, that's only $63 per person per month for food, clothing, and health care.

Mr. President, 46 million Americans lack health insurance in this country. If such families have a health emergency and no health insurance, their annual income could be further strapped.

What if the family owns a car so they can get to and from work? More money will be needed to pay the high cost of gasoline and to make monthly car and insurance payments.

Since many families live below the Federal poverty line, they will have even less money left for other needs after they pay to heat their homes.

A recent study by researchers from Stanford University, the University of Chicago, the RAND Corporation, and UCLA found that when poor families' heating bills go up during cold winter months, they reduce their spending on food.

LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program, was created two decades ago to prevent low-income families from being forced to make these impossible tradeoffs. Yet Federal funding for LIHEAP has been stagnant for over a decade, even as the need for assistance has risen sharply. As a result, the purchasing power of LIHEAP assistance, adjusted for inflation, is now only a little over half of what it was in 1982.

Thirty-three million households are eligible for LIHEAP assistance. These households will spend nearly $55 billion in energy costs. Yet the LIHEAP program is funded at only $2 billion.

According to the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association, LIHEAP assistance reached 5 million families this year--the highest level in

ten years, but only 15 percent of the eligible population.

In Massachusetts, LIHEAP serves 134,000 families, which is only 15 percent of the 867,000 families eligible for assistance.

Earlier this month, I visited the Curtis Hall Community Center in Boston, MA, with Mayor Menino. I heard first hand about the extreme need for home energy assistance among senior citizens.

Last winter, Eileen Duggan, a widow from Jamaica Plain in Boston, kept her oven on high and wore several layers of clothing because her time-worn furnace was inadequate to provide enough heat. She started buying less food so that she could use her small monthly budget to pay her heating bill. Despite her best efforts, she still couldn't pay that bill, and last April, with the New England winter chill still in the air, she asked the utility company to stop sending her oil. ``I told the oil man: `Don't give me anymore. I can't afford it,' '' she said.

Other low-income families have also been sharing their stories. One example involves a single mother who lives in Haverhill, MA, with her 18-year-old son who is handicapped, her 19-year-old daughter, and her daughter's child who has a medical condition. Both mother and daughter work as school bus monitors, and they have little or no income over the summer. Their rent is $950 a month. Their last gas bill was $1,729. Because they couldn't pay the bill, their gas was shut off last winter. Even if they qualify for $600 in LIHEAP assistance, the gas company may still refuse to reconnect their service, unless the family comes up with another $400 to $800 towards their debt.

Millions of low-income Americans set their thermostats at just 60 degrees or even lower--if their heat is still on--while Congress, the administration, and the vast majority of us rest content in warm homes. Yet the Bush administration and the Republican Congress do nothing year after year.

Time and time again I have stood on the Senate floor urging Congress to open its eyes to the needs of the poor.

It is shameful that after the President and the Republican Congress froze LIHEAP funds through the continuing resolution, they continue to tune out the pleas of low-income families who need home heating assistance.

Last week, the Republican leadership decided to use a procedural maneuver once again to block emergency funding for LIHEAP. Almost every Democratic Senator supported this additional relief, but Republican Senators overwhelmingly opposed it, and it was defeated.

There is no excuse for the Republican majority to look the other way--but they do. They continue to ignore families who lie awake at night worrying how to make ends meet. They refuse to acknowledge the parents who worry, day after day, week after week, month after month, how to feed their children and keep the heat on, or the elderly who turn down their thermostats, put on extra sweaters, or even turn off the heat in an attempt to save money.

It is time to tell low-income families across the country that we hear them, that we care about them, and that we don't intend to leave them shivering in the cold again this winter. That is why I strongly support the Reed-Collins amendment to add $2.9 billion to the LIHEAP program. We need to increase LIHEAP funding now to avoid real harm to real people this winter, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I urge our colleagues to listen to our colleagues not only from New England, from the Northeast, but other parts of the country in urging favorable consideration of this amendment. I join them in saying I have seen the faces of too many senior citizens, too many elderly people who are on fixed incomes. I have seen their fear about what is going to happen in their homes and the hard, difficult choices they are going to have to make this winter unless we provide this assistance. This assistance is desperately needed for our region of the country. It is Katrina in a very real way. Like Katrina, it is an emergency in terms of heating homes. I hope we can get favorable consideration of the amendment.

Mr. President, as of today, 2,000 American soldiers have been killed in combat in Iraq.

Since last January's election in Iraq, we have lost 565 American soldiers; 74 of those soldiers have been killed in October--an average of three a day. An additional 15,220 have been wounded, and more than 7,000 of whom were unable to return to combat.

The youngest of America's fallen soldiers was just 18. The oldest was 59. Nearly three quarters had not even celebrated their 30th birthday. They came from every State in the Nation. This includes 38 soldiers from my own State of Massachusetts.

They are the best of America, and we are proud of each one. Although I disagree with the President about Iraq, I honor the service and sacrifice and dedication of each of these brave men and women.

Our Armed Forces are serving ably in Iraq under enormously difficult circumstances and the policy of our Government must be worthy of their sacrifice. Unfortunately, it is not, and the American people know it.

Our soldiers in Iraq need more than happy talk about progress from the President. They need more than a public relations campaign.

They need an effective plan to end the violence, and stabilize Iraq, so they can come home with dignity and honor.

Reality is hard medicine to swallow. Facts are stubborn. As the Valerie Plame case makes increasingly clear, the administration stopped at nothing to cover up its misguided and dishonest decision to go to war, and our servicemen and women, their families, and friends are paying an unacceptable price. They deserve better--much better from their President and so does the Nation.

It was wrong for the President to rush to war for such a deeply questionable cause. President Bush once said that the war in Iraq was a catastrophic success. He's half right in one sense. The war has been a catastrophe--for our soldiers and their families, for the war on terrorism, and for America's standing in the world. It has made the United States more hated in the world than at any other time in our history.

Beyond the cost in human lives and to our national security, there has been an enormous financial cost.

American taxpayers are spending $195 million each day in Iraq.

For the cost of fighting the war in Iraq for one day, we could make significant improvements in homeland security.

We could provide 4 million American households with emergency readiness kits. We could close the crisis communications technology gap for 41 small cities, 36 mid-sized cities, or 6 large cities, so that Federal, State and local first responders can talk to one another during an emergency.

We could purchase 780 fire trucks for improving local emergency response capabilities, and we could employ 5,000 fire fighters, 4,000 police patrol officers, or 7,000 paramedics and emergency medical technicians for one year each.

For the cost of fighting the war in Iraq one day, we could double the Federal budget for nuclear reactor safety and security inspections to ensure that these potential terrorist targets are adequately protected.

We could pay for 1,100 additional border patrol agents to better guard our borders against potential terrorists.

We could provide 9,700 port container inspection units to detect hazardous materials being trafficked into the country.

Obviously, the $195 million a day we spend in Iraq could be better spent on the all-important areas of jobs, education, and health care, which the Senate is debating today. Instead of spending those funds in Iraq, we could spend them on better teachers, better financial aid for college students, better health care for families, and countless other priorities whose budgets are being cut back because of Iraq. I ask unanimous consent that a document I've prepared outlining the various ways $195 million dollars a day could be spent on pressing priorities at home be printed in the Record.

Instead of covering up mistakes in Iraq, it is time for the President to admit them, to adopt an effective strategy to end this war and begin to bring our troops home, and to stop ignoring the very real priorities facing the Nation and the many many challenges facing us at home and abroad.

Mr. President, I agree with everything Senator Kennedy has said about the importance of increasing Pell grants. But the difficulty is, in adding this appropriated fund, in his effort to add additional money, there is no offset. We have a budget of $145 billion. We have made the allocations as best we can.

Since I took over the chairmanship of the Appropriations subcommittee, in 1995 we have increased the Pell grants on an annual basis from $2,340 to $4,050. I would like to increase them more, but there simply is not enough money to do so. If the Senator from Massachusetts has a suggestion as to some other priority which is of lesser importance, I would be glad to listen. This is a carefully crafted bill. Much as I would like to increase the Pell grants, there simply are not the funds to do so.

I am constrained to ask my colleagues to support the point of order.

I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their prompt arrival in the Chamber to vote. We had an 18\1/2\-minute vote. I don't think we have had too many under 20 minutes, recently, at least, so we are moving right along. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. President, I believe the amendment which has been offered by the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Maine is one of necessity. It is regrettable that fuel costs have grown so high, occasioned by a great many factors, one of which is what has happened with Hurricane Katrina and the elevation of oil, the elevation of natural gas prices.

This issue of low-income home energy assistance, LIHEAP, has been a difficult matter for this subcommittee for the 24 years I have been on the subcommittee because it poses such a drastic alternative for so many people. The comment ``heat or eat'' is a very accurate one. That really is the choice for so many, especially the elderly. I have supported funding for LIHEAP in the past, and I believe it is accurately characterized as an emergency.

I say that recognizing the very heavy, burdensome obligations the Federal Government has and that spending is a very major issue. But when it comes down to the exigencies of this moment where we have appropriated so much money to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina, we are talking about brothers and sisters of those victims of people who live in Rhode Island or New Hampshire or Maine or Pennsylvania or so many States in the Union. So I will be supporting the amendment Senator Reed and Senator Collins have offered.

I have been advised that there will be an alternative amendment put forward to have an across-the-board cut. I do not think that is the better answer to the issue, but I wanted to put that on the record so that if we move ahead with the yeas and nays, we will hold off on the vote perhaps to vote on them side by side, if there is not a second- degree amendment. We will see what we sort out on procedure.

I thought it important as manager on this side that I make this statement which I have. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would suggest, if I may, that we conclude action on this amendment, with a brief reply by this side, so we can move ahead with the amendment, anticipating its adoption. I think that would be a more orderly process. So technically, I do object--with that suggestion.

Mr. President, as I said, I think it is preferable, as a procedural matter, to take up the amendments one at a time so we can conclude debate on the amendments.

I believe this amendment is a good amendment. It would permit the Secretary of Education to treat as timely filed applications from El Paso, CO, school district and Window Rock, AZ, for impact aid. There is no cost involved. There is sound explanation as to why they were not timely filed.

In order for the Secretary of Education to make the payments, there needs to be legislative action. The Senator from Colorado has provided the vehicle for doing so. I support the amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. President, the amendment on impact aid, I urge its adoption, or you can articulate it for unanimous consent to be adopted. One way or another, let's adopt it and move on.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, the amendment calls for the Secretary of Education to undertake a study to evaluate the effectiveness of violence prevention under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. I think it is a good idea.

So frequently we make appropriations for certain purposes and never have any concrete idea as to how well the programs are working. One area analogous to this is the money we spent on literacy training and job training, so-called rehabilitation in our correctional system. It is not enough we spend the funding, never having an idea as to really what works and what

does not work in terms of stopping recidivism.

I believe the Senator from Colorado has struck a good idea. I support the amendment and join with the Senator from Colorado in urging its adoption.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, before the amendment is adopted, I would like to have an opportunity to speak on this side of the aisle.

This amendment would use a portion of the funds for the Corporation for National and Community Service to do a study of national service programs in rural areas. I think, again, this is a good idea which the Senator from Colorado is offering. Rural areas are too often underserved and underfocused. Pennsylvania has more people living in rural areas than any other State in the Union. It might be surprising, but we do.

I think it is a good amendment, and I will now defer to the Senator from Colorado for urging its adoption.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2223

Mr. President, this amendment would add $15 million to a program. While it is a very good program, regrettably, this would exceed the allocation which has been given to the subcommittee. I, therefore, have to oppose it. It is subject to a point of order.

For the record, I raise a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, that the amendment provides budget authority and outlays in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation under the fiscal year 2006 concurrent resolution on the budget and, therefore, is not in order.

As I had discussed with the Senator from Colorado, this will require 60 votes for the Senator from Colorado to prevail. So the choice is his as to whether we move ahead to vote on it at some point during the consideration of the bill. I ask how the Senator from Colorado would like to proceed.

That is acceptable, provided those on the floor can muster a no which either exceeds the ayes or is so recognized by the Chair to be the predominant voice vote. I call for the question on a voice vote.

I thank the Senator from Colorado for coming forward at this early stage with these four amendments to help move processing of the bill.

Mr. President, we have been proceeding reasonably well on handling amendments. We had a short period between 12 and 12:30 where we did not have amendments pending. I understand we will have an amendment presented at about 6 o'clock this evening. But that leaves us with an hour and 22 minutes. The distinguished

Senator from Texas wishes to speak for 10 or 15 minutes. We can accommodate his schedule. We have quite a number of amendments which have been filed and others where there has been an indication that there will be amendments. I urge my colleagues to come to the floor. Floor time is hard to find. When this bill moves ahead tomorrow or the day after or Friday, the bill is going to be finished this week, however long it takes us. We are anxious to conclude the work of the Senate. Now is the time.

I yield to my distinguished colleague from Texas 10 to 15 minutes, as he chooses, and ask unanimous consent for his recognition to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I appreciate the thrust of the argument being advanced by the Senator from New Hampshire in terms of expenditures. There is no doubt that the deficit is excessive. There is no doubt that the national debt is an enormous burden on our society. When we deal with the issue of energy assistance for the poor, there has been a generalized agreement, as evidenced by the amendment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, agreeing that there ought to be LIHEAP assistance.

He approaches it differently than the Reed-Collins amendment, which treats the issue as an emergency, and instead has an across-the-board cut of almost 1 percent on all funding under this bill.

The bill is not cut to the bone. The bill, in its present shape, goes into the bone. It does not have an increase for inflation. It has a very marked shortfall on many programs. We heard one this morning on education in the caption of Pell grants where there simply is not enough money to take care of the basic needs of these three departments.

Education and health care are our two major capital assets. Without good health, people cannot function. Without a decent education, people cannot progress. This allocation of $145 billion is right to the bone.

We find ourselves in what I think is a genuine emergency situation with respect to fuel assistance. It is as much an emergency as Katrina is to the people who are victims of that hurricane. That incident has markedly raised the cost of fuel oil and natural gas where people need it for heating.

Where we can appropriate the kind of dollars which we have for Katrina--and I am not questioning that--this is right in the same boat, to use an overused metaphor.

Much as we have problems with the deficit, much as we have problems with the national debt, this is, I think, a genuine emergency, and the accounts on this bill simply cannot tolerate further cuts. Therefore, I am constrained to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator seeking recognition--I was about to suggest the absence of a quorum--but let me urge my colleagues to come to the floor, instead, and offer amendments. We have an indication that there will be an amendment offered at 6 o'clock. We may be in a position to vote on some amendments at that time, if no other amendments are to be offered. But we have 47 minutes between now and 6 o'clock where there is ample time for someone to come to the floor a few minutes and offer an amendment.

It may be the offerer of the next amendment will be here at 5:30. I am advised there may be a change. That still leaves us 16 minutes. We can get a lot done in 16 minutes, if somebody comes to the floor and offers an amendment. We don't like to waste any time, Mr. President. We have a complicated bill here. Wait and see, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, Friday, or whoever knows when this week we will finish this bill--and the majority leader and the managers are determined to finish the bill--16 minutes will look like a lot of time.

I remind my colleagues about the argument over a unanimous-consent request for 1 extra minute last Thursday. We have those arguments from time to time, sometimes made by experienced Senators who know that if you object to a 1-minute unanimous consent request, it will take at least 5 minutes to straighten it out. Eventually they got the minute. Mr. President, 15 or 16 minutes is a lot of time, so I urge my colleagues to come to the floor.

In the interim, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we have been sitting in the Chamber without accomplishing much for more than 45 minutes now. We had, in my view, more quorum calls and more time which was not spent on the bill than we should have. We have a great many amendments pending, and we are going to be pushing ahead.

We are filing cloture today, and we are going to be pushing ahead to try to get this bill finished at the earliest time. Whether it is Thursday, Friday, or when this week, I do not know. We have been awaiting for more than 30 minutes the arrival of a Senator to offer another amendment. And very candidly, I am tired of waiting.

So that concludes the action on this bill today. We will begin tomorrow morning with a series of amendments. We had wanted to vote on a number of amendments which were pending, but we cannot because too many Senators have other commitments. That is something that is hard to understand sometimes: why we are notified midafternoon that Senators are too busy to attend to the business of the Senate and to vote.

I say in gest that I am going to run for majority leader on a platform to have a 4-day workweek, from Monday noon until Friday noon. That would double the workweek of the Senate. The second plank of my platform--I notice the two Senators from Georgia are amused; anybody would be amused--to hold down these votes to 15 minutes and 5 more minutes, we did pretty well on that. We had an 18\1/2\-minute vote. So that is a little progress. The junior Senator from Georgia is nodding in the affirmative.

But we have to do better. And to advocate a 4-day workweek, which would double the work of the Senate, is said only facetiously. I would have only one vote, my own. I would have maybe two or three if I didn't run on that kind of a platform.

Seriously, we need to get on with this bill. But it is now past 6 o'clock, and that concludes our activity on the bill. I think the custom of the Senate is to move to morning business at this point.

I am advised we have not yet filed cloture, Mr. President, so I suggest the absence of a quorum so we technically stay on the bill until the final signature is added so that the cloture motion can be filed.

Mr. President, we have reached a milestone in Iraq. Two thousand U.S. servicemembers have been killed, including 42 Marylanders. We must not talk about this in terms of just numbers and statistics. Each individual has left behind a legacy, a unique life story.

Today, I want to pause to remember five young men from Maryland who

died in Iraq in the last 10 days: Army SGT Brian R. Conner, Army SPC Samuel M. Boswell, Army SPC Bernard L. Ceo, Marine LCpl Norman W. Anderson, III, and Army SPC Kendell K. Frederick. Our condolences go out to their families, as well as our gratitude and our appreciation for these brave young men. To honor those who have died, we must remember the way they lived. Let me tell you about them:

SGT Brian R. Conner of Gwynn Oak, MD was just 36 years old. He was a member of the Maryland National Guard's 243rd Engineer Company, in Baltimore. Sergeant Conner was one of three Army National Guardsmen killed October 14 in an accident northwest of Baghdad. A tractor trailer struck their humvee, setting it on fire and detonating ammunition aboard. Sergeant Conner was a lieutenant in Baltimore Fire Department, having joined in 1993. He had served in the Maryland National Guard since June 1989. Sergeant Conner leaves behind three daughters, ages 10, 15, and 21, and his beloved 3-year-old grandson. He is survived by his mother Hortense Connor, his brother Paul Edwards, and sister Cherice Conner Davis. He is also mourned by his brothers and sisters in the Baltimore Fire Department. One family friend said of Sergeant Conner: ``Brian was not only a great man who accomplished many of his dreams--he was someone loved and cared for. His values will live on.'' May God bless Brian Conner.

SPC Samuel M. Boswell of Elkridge, MD, was 20 years old. He was also in the Army National Guard, killed in the same accident that took Sergeant Conner's life. Specialist Boswell joined the National Guard in June 2003, right after graduating from the technology magnet program at River Hill High School in Clarksville. He is mourned by his father, Anthony L. Boswell, and by his seven brothers and sisters. Describing his youngest brother, Michael Boswell said, ``Sam was probably the happiest person you'll ever meet. He was always walking around with a smile on his face. . . . He always wanted to do things that would help other people whether he knew them or not.'' May God bless Sam Boswell.

SPC Bernard L. Ceo of Baltimore was 23 years old. He was the third member of Maryland's Army National Guard killed on October 14. Specialist Ceo enlisted in the Army in December 2001, joining the military to help pay for college. He dreamed of being a teacher, and when he wasn't serving with the Guard, he worked with students with special needs at Kennedy Krieger High School Career and Technology Center. Specialist Ceo was carrying on a proud family tradition of military service: his father and several uncles served in Vietnam. He leaves behind his parents Rosemarie and Fred Ceo, fiancee Dajae Overton, and her two young children, whom he was raising as his own. Specialist Ceo's coworker said, ``He was a thoughtful, introspective young guy. He would have been an excellent teacher.'' May God bless Bernie Ceo.

Marine LCpl Norman W. Anderson, III, from Parkton, MD, was 21 years old. He served with the U.S. Marines' 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, based at Camp Lejeune, NC. Lance Corporal Anderson was killed by a suicide car bomb on October 19 in Karabilah, near the Syrian border. He was a 2002 graduate of Hereford High School, where he was a running back on the football team. He joined the Marines in December 2003, and had already served one tour in Afghanistan. He is survived by his wife Victoria Anderson, his parents, Robyn and Norman, and his sister Brooke. The last time he was home he told his mother that, if he was killed in Iraq, she should know that he died doing what he wanted to do. May God bless Norman Anderson.

Army SPC Kendell K. Frederick, from Randallstown, MD, was 21 years old. He was an Army reservist, assigned to 983rd Engineer Battalion, in Monclova, OH, where he served as a mechanic who worked on power generators. Specialist Frederick was killed outside Tikrit when a roadside bomb detonated near the vehicle he was driving. He was a 2004 graduate of Randallstown High School. Specialist Frederick leaves behind his parents, Michelle Murphy and Peter Ramsahai, his stepfather Kenmore Murphy, and two sisters and one brother. May God bless our Kendell.

Mr. President, similar stories are being told in every community, across the Nation. Stories about volunteers who left behind friends and family--in the case of guardsmen and reservists, they also left behind jobs--to protect our country and help bring freedom to people of Iraq. We honor their service and sacrifice, not just with words, but with deeds.

First, we must support our troops, by ensuring they have the equipment they need to stay safe and accomplish their mission. Second, we need a workable plan to drawdown our troops. Today, there are 159,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Our strategy for Iraq must be worthy of sacrifices they have made. We need to involve the international community more, getting help to seal Iraq's borders and keep out foreign fighters and terrorists. We used to be at war with Iraq, now we are at war in Iraq with insurgents.

We must also continue to support Iraqi political process. The constitution has been approved by more than 78 percent in an election that included 63 percent of Iraq's registered voters. Iraq can now move forward with parliamentary elections. We should continue to support their progress toward democracy. We need better progress rebuilding Iraq's military. Iraqis need to fight for Iraq. Our training program has been slow to start. We seem to be making progress, but not fast enough. We should let our allies help us in this effort. Finally, let's get that Iraqi oil going, so they can start to pay their own bills.

We need to see faster progress on all these things. When these things happen, we can begin to withdraw our troops in stages and bring them home. Our military men and women have sacrificed in Iraq. They honored our country by volunteering to serve. We must honor them with an effective plan to finish their work, and bring our troops home.

Mr. President, today we reach a milestone in Iraq.

Two thousand U.S. service members were killed, including four Marylanders.

A few weeks from now we will be celebrating Thanksgiving. For 2,000 families, there will be forever and a day an empty chair.

The 2,000 members of our armed services who died, we cannot think about them in numbers and statistics. We in Maryland have lost 42 soldiers, and most recently we have lost 5 in just this last week alone. Each individual left behind a legacy, a unique story.

Today, as I come to the Senate floor, I wanted to remember the five young men who died in the last 10 days, tell you their names, and tell you a little bit about them. Army SGT Brian R. Conner, Army SPC Samuel M. Boswell, Army SPC Bernard L. Ceo, Marine LCpl Norman W. Anderson, III, Army SPC Kendell K. Frederick.

Our condolences go out to their families, as well as our gratitude and our appreciation for those who have died. To honor those who have died, we must remember the way they lived.

Let me just tell you about them. SGT Brian Connor was only 36, a member of the Maryland National Guard's 243rd Engineer Company. He was one of three Army National Guardsmen killed on October 14 northwest of Baghdad. Their humvee carrying munitions was set on fire and detonated. The ammunition exploded and all three died. Sergeant Conner, Specialist Boswell, and Specialist Ceo.

Sergeant Conner was a lieutenant in the Baltimore Fire Department. He joined in 1993. But he was a real star. He rose quickly through the ranks to become a lieutenant. The firehouse put his hat and his coat aside as a perpetual remembrance. He leaves behind three daughters, one 10, one 15, the other 21, and a grandson he loved so much.

A family friend said about Sergeant Conner:

Brian was not only a great man who accomplished many of the

dreams, he was someone who loved and cared for people. His

values will live on.

God bless Brian Conner.

Then there is SPC Samuel Boswell from Elkridge, MD, another guy from the Army National Guard, killed in that same accident. He joined the Guard in 2003. He had just gotten out one of our technology magnet schools called River Hill High School in Clarksville. He was one of eight brothers and sisters. He joined the military because he wanted to have a future. He wanted a long career, and he wanted to follow the American dream while protecting the American homeland. Here is what Michael Boswell said about his brother:

Sam was probably the happiest person you'll ever meet. He

was always walking around with a smile on his face. He always

wanted to do things that would help other people whether he

knew them or not.

God bless you, Samuel Boswell.

Then there was Specialist Bernard L. Ceo, from Baltimore. He was just 23. He enlisted in the Army in December 2001 to help earn money for college. Specialist Ceo dreamed of being a teacher, and when he wasn't on duty as Guardsman, he worked with students with special needs at the Kennedy Krieger High School Career and Technology Center. He was carrying on a proud family tradition of military service--his father and several uncles had served in Vietnam. Specialist Ceo leaves behind his parents, Rosemarie and Fred, his fiancee Dajae Overton, and her two children, whom he was raising as his own. God bless you, Bernie Ceo.

Then there was Norman Anderson, III from Parkton, MD. He was a marine based in Camp Lejeune. He was killed on October 19. A suicide bomber killed him. He had just graduated in 2002 from Hereford High School, where he was a running back on the football team. Under the Friday Night Lights this week, they took his helmet and his sweatshirt and put them aside. The team gave him a salute. They really knew that Norman Anderson gave one for the Gipper and one for the United States of America. He joined the Marines in December 2003. He already served one tour in Afghanistan. He came back home and was recently married to a wonderful woman named Victoria. But he went back into the field one more time because he felt it was his duty. The last time he was home, he told his mother if he died she should know that he died doing what he wanted to do.

God bless Norman Anderson, III.

Then we come to Kendell K. Frederick, U.S. Army, only 21 years old, from Randallstown, MD. He was in an engineering battalion. He was a mechanic who worked with power generators. He wanted to do something for his country as wells as for himself. He graduated from one of our community high schools called Randallstown High School. He was killed outside Tikrit. A roadside bomb detonated near the vehicle he was driving. He leaves behind his parents, a stepfather, and other family members. He had two sisters and one brother. But he was willing to go into the military in order to be able to earn what he needed to earn to be able to go on to college.

All of Randallstown mourns our Kendell. We want to say to Kendell Frederick, God bless you.

Senators of the U.S. Senate, and to all who are watching, those are five Marylanders. Knowing they will never be back, we can never forget them. The best way for a grateful nation to honor them is to stand up for our troops. We need to make sure they have the right pay, that they have the right benefits, that they have the right equipment to protect themselves. We also need to have a workable plan to draw down our troops. Our strategy for Iraq must be worthy of the sacrifices our troops have made. The U.N. needs to get more involved in international burden sharing--in securing Iraq's borders. We need to continue supporting the Iraqi political process, and work with our allies to boost training for the Iraqi military. Iraqis want to fight for Iraq, and they should. Finally, let's get that Iraqi oil going, so they can pay their own bills. We need to see faster progress on all these things. When these things happen, we can begin to withdraw our troops and bring them home with the honor they have earned.

God bless our men and women in the U.S. military and all those who passed on. And wherever there is an empty chair, we should always fill it with our hearts and our remembrance.

Mr. President, I would like to thank the distinguished manager of the bill, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I am honored to serve, for his accommodation. I certainly do not want to detract from the efforts to complete this important appropriations bill. I do thank the Senator for yielding to me so I may address some of the historic events occurring today in Iraq. This has been the subject of other speakers. I thought it was important that while this is on the minds of a lot of people, that we talk about some of our successes in Iraq and what the facts are with regard to what reality is like there on the ground.

I am disappointed to hear some Members, primarily on the other side of the aisle, this morning blaming America for the insurgency and claiming that our military does not have a plan for victory. That is not true as a factual matter, and they know it. As recently as a couple of weeks ago, we had the commander of the coalition forces in Iraq, General George Casey, and the CENTCOM commander, General John Abizaid here, along with Secretary Rumsfeld and others, to talk precisely about what conditions were like on the ground in Iraq, how our plan was going, and what the future looked like. We do have a plan, and I wanted to talk about it for a minute.

I want to note my concern that to use Iraq as a convenient political football only undercuts the brave young men and women who are fighting there, not only on behalf of the beleaguered Iraqi people but on behalf of us here. We know that the central front in the war on terror today is in Iraq. We know that foreign fighters and other jihadists who adhere to an extremist ideology, who believe that they can use force to kill innocent Americans because they simply hate who we are and our way of life, that Iraq is where they are being drawn. If we leave prematurely, if we fail to finish the job that we have undertaken there, then it will simply leave a haven available for those who want to train, recruit, and finance international terrorism and who will then threaten us on our own shores, as we were hit dramatically on September 11.

In reality, it is the critics of our military that have no plan. They simply want to cut and run. They believe in retreat. The most disturbing of all, their proposals serve merely to divide the American people.

I am particularly concerned when I hear people make the argument, as I have heard on the floor of the Senate, that Iraq was not a threat to the United States and the rest of the world. Perhaps these critics need to be reminded of the statement of President Clinton in 1998 which clearly lays out the threat that Iraq posed at that time. President Clinton said, talking about Saddam:

What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take

some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more

opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass

destruction . . . He will then conclude he can go right on

and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the

arsenal.

This was on February 17, 1998, President Bill Clinton.

Then, on December 16, 1998, President Clinton said:

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power,

he threatens the well-being of this people, the peace of the

region, and the security of the world. The best way to end

that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government,

a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a

government that respects the rights of its people.

That was President Clinton on December 16, 1998. I am pleased that this body passed that same year the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which stated:

It should be the policy of the United States to support

efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from

power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic

government to replace that regime.

The Congress passed that legislation because, indeed, Saddam Hussein was a threat in 1998 and remained a threat. Fortunately, today, he is no longer a threat. But we must stay the course.

Complaints without solutions are simply not productive. What are the proposals coming from those who criticize our current efforts in Iraq? Some complain that we don't have enough troops in Iraq to finish the job, but at the same time all they talk about is creating an arbitrary timetable for cutting and running and bringing those troops home before they finish the job, before we finish the job. Then others say our presence in Iraq actually creates additional terrorism. But what they don't explain is what we would leave the Iraqis with if we were to leave prematurely. Again, complaints are not solutions.

GEN George Casey, whom I mentioned a moment ago, who is the leader of the coalition forces in Iraq, said when he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

We're in a tough fight but we've been in tough fights

before to advance the cause of democracy and to protect our

way of life. We should not be afraid of this fight. We and

the Iraqi people will prevail in this battle of wills if we

don't lose ours.

Again:

We and the Iraqi people will prevail in this battle of

wills if we don't lose ours.

Just this morning, we heard that the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq has announced an overwhelming majority of Iraqis has approved the country's constitution; that is, 78 percent of those who voted yes to approve that constitution which has now been cleared. You know what. Their voter turnout was 63 percent, better than most elections we hold here in the United States, given our long tradition of constitutional democracy.

Soon the Iraqi people will have a chance to elect their elected representatives in parliamentary elections on December 15 which will provide the final step in their march to democracy and self- determination.

Yes, the Nation of Iraq has made remarkable political progress in the last 2 years, but they still have a way to go to achieve a fully functioning democracy. Last week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and in her eloquent remarks she clearly outlined the political and military strategy in Iraq: Clear, hold, build. Clear, hold, build. That is to clear areas from insurgent control, to hold them securely, and to build durable national Iraqi institutions.

I could not agree more with Secretary Rice. This is a strategy that has been articulated for quite some time now by the President of the United States. This strategy is the only way we will see the blossoming of a democratic Iraq.

In 2003, not that long ago, the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein was brought to an end. The Iraqi people were liberated and a provisional government established. In 2004, a five-step plan was announced to end occupation in Iraq and to bring our troops home, and in 2005 that transition is well underway.

Our strategy is working. The Iraqi people will vote in elections in December and soon will select a government that will serve them for the next 4 years.

As I mentioned, Iraqi participation in these recent elections was very strong, including among Sunnis who boycotted the earlier election last January. These elections were also much more peaceful than the previous elections. A clear path is being charted to implement the rule of law and we must continue our support for the Iraqi people to achieve success.

It is clear that the implementation of the rule of law is the next step, a necessary next step to achieve stability in Iraq. It is in the absence of democracy, it is in the vacuum created by the absence of the rule of law, that there is no forum, no mechanism for justice to

address grievances in which extremism will rear again its ugly head.

Only 2 short years ago the people of Iraq were oppressed by a brutal dictator. Those who privately yearned for freedom held their silence out of fear for their lives. No more. As it has been said before, freedom is on the march.

Part of implementing law and justice, not to mention providing a measure of closure for the people of Iraq, is the trial of Saddam Hussein which began on October 19. Unfortunately, this trial has been postponed because--and it comes as perhaps no surprise--the defense lawyers representing him said they needed more time to prepare.

Well, I for one do not begrudge them additional time, but it is not so much for them, because I doubt any level of preparation, any amount of investigation will absolve Saddam Hussein of the blood that is on his hands, but I do believe that perception is important, and it is important that the public perception, the international perspective be that this is, indeed, a fair proceeding and that Saddam Hussein, even the most brutal of tyrants and dictators, is, indeed, entitled to the protection of the rule of law and entitled to a fair process.

Of course, this trial is one of the first formal acts in the path to restoring the rule of law, and it is important Iraq demonstrate to the world that it can conduct this trial in a fair manner, as it is a foundational and deeply symbolic proceeding.

A series of declassified U.S. intelligence documents and other U.S. agency reports provides a wealth of evidence substantiating Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses and more evidence of Saddam's brutality is provided by the people of Iraq who had suffered under his boot heel for years. A portion of these documents concerned Saddam's responsibility, along with other members of his regime, for the massacre in 1982 of Shiites in a town 35 miles north of Baghdad after an unsuccessful coup d'etat, including an attempt on the dictator's life. It is said he may be tried at least a dozen times for crimes he committed during his regime, to include gassing of Kurds and suppression of a Shiite uprising in the south. However, the Iraqi Government is reportedly considering foregoing additional trials if Saddam is convicted as expected and such conviction results in the death penalty under the laws of the sovereign nation of Iraq.

In remarks before the United Nations, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said that under the rule of Saddam Hussein, Iraq was ``a murderous tyranny that lasted 35 years and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament.'' In a report entitled ``Mass Graves: Iraq's Legacy of Terror,'' compiled by the United States Agency for International Development, it is estimated that nearly 400,000 Iraqis lie buried in mass graves--Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, Egyptians, Kuwaitis, Iranians, all killed because neither Saddam Hussein nor his regime valued life in the least.

I am confident that some day in the not too distant future an appropriate measure of justice will be meted out to Saddam Hussein for the atrocities he committed against his own people, the people of Iraq. And that is as it should be. I am sure that the symbolism of this first tribunal being held in Iraq to try their former dictator is not lost on the people of Iraq. This restoration of the rule of law, this process which is designed to administer justice, is commensurate with the rule of law.

We must continue working with the Iraqi people to ensure that democracy, freedom, progress, free markets, self-governance, and the rule of law are allowed to flourish. It is the only way to promote stability in that country and throughout the greater Middle East.

There is no enemy on the face of the Earth that can defeat the people of the United States of America unless, of course, it is the American people ourselves, by losing our resolve to stay the course, to finish a job that was just in its initiation and which is just in its goals. We must stay the course. We must maintain our resolve. To hear the comments of those here in this body and elsewhere who would attempt to hijack this just cause in the interest of political gamesmanship does nothing but harm our efforts, the resolve of the American people, and undermine the heroic and noble efforts being carried out on a daily basis by our young men and women who are fighting in freedom's cause, not just for us but for the people of Iraq.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the regular order is that we are back on the bill, is that right?

Mr. President, obviously, the amendment that is now pending of the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Maine is an amendment I am sympathetic to. Those of us who come from the northern States, whether they be in the Midwest or New England, recognize that winter can be a beautiful time. Snow is wonderful, lovely, and certainly brings skiers to our region, and we very much encourage that. But it can also be an extraordinarily difficult time, difficult for people who are living on a fixed income, a set income, difficult for folks who have to find ways to heat their home and also meet the expenses of everyday life. Certainly keeping home heating is about as important an expense as you can have in everyday life. It is especially hard on senior citizens, seniors who have obviously fixed incomes in most instances. When the price of their fuel oil jumps significantly, they do not have a whole lot of opportunity to adjust their income because they are no longer earning a salary, usually, in most instances in order to meet that increase in cost. We have obviously seen a dramatic rise in the cost of energy prices, especially home heating oil and in the gas area for homes. So the issue becomes how do we help these people who, through no action of their own, find themselves in a dire financial situation and facing a very stark situation this winter, should they not have the dollars necessary to pay for their home heating oil.

We are talking about people of very low incomes, people who are on fixed incomes, in most instances people who are senior citizens, and the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program which has been in place for a number of years has been a way of helping these people bridge this period, and it has always been focused on the neediest of the needy. It has been a well-administered program, at least in the State of New Hampshire where people who were clearly in distress, who have situations where they simply are unable to afford the cost of keeping their home heated in the middle of an extremely cold winter, had a place to go to get some assistance.

It is a good program for that reason. It has been strongly supported over the years in a bipartisan way. The administration has consistently funded this program and has, to its credit, always released money early when it was necessary due to cold weather hitting us sooner than might have been originally anticipated under the traditional weather patterns, which is what happened last year. But this year we do face the unique situation of these huge runups in the cost of home heating oil in New England specifically and, of course, the gas across the Midwest and into parts of New England, and this runup is a function of a lot of different events. The Katrina situation is a big part of it. It has disrupted the refining capacity of our Nation rather significantly. Obviously, the instability of the Middle East is another part of it. The demand which is now being created in parts of Asia, especially China and India, as those economies expand, is part of it.

But whatever the reason, we are seeing a dramatic jump in the cost of home heating oil specifically and therefore we know a lot of people, as we head into winter--and believe me, it is getting cold in New Hampshire. In fact, today there was a fair amount of snow in many parts of our State--we know these people are going to need some help, people of very low income, people who are living on very fixed and tight budgets.

So it is appropriate that we expand the LIHEAP program to meet this unanticipated cost which is no fault of anybody's, certainly not those who are receiving the benefit of this program.

The question is how do we expand this program? Over the last few weeks, we have had a number of attempts to expand this program. It really was not

in a manner we call fiscally prudent or responsible, and we simply said we are going to put a lot of money in this program, money not budgeted, money outside the budget, and do it in a manner which would have violated the budget. So points of order were made against those proposals, and those points of order have all been sustained, and appropriately so.

We do have a budget under which we must live. The issue is how do we set priorities within that budget. Right now I believe one of our actions should be to set a priority to put more money into the Low- Income Home Energy Assistance Program. We should absolutely do that, but we should do it in a way that is responsible so we do not end up passing the bills for today's energy costs on to our children by creating more debt.

I don't think senior citizens who benefit from the low-income energy program want us to go into debt to pay for their energy costs and end up with our children paying the cost of their energy today, when their children might need the same type of support and would be less able to get it if they had to pay for not only their energy costs but also pay for the low-income energy costs of the last generation, the generation of today.

The proper way to do this is to increase the LIHEAP program in a way that is fiscally responsible. The best way to do that is to look at what the need is, to begin with. The program costs or additional costs of the program, which we know will probably be generated as they can best be projected, on top of the money already being spent on the program, which is about $2.4 billion, is about $1.276 billion.

This number of the additional cost increase, which is a fairly significant number--it is a lot of money--that was essentially reached by calculating the increase in energy cost as a result of a runup in energy prices and finding out how much oil and gas was used last year by this program and then basically converting that to the increase in the cost of the program.

So the number that has been generally agreed to around here as being the correct number and the reasonable number and the number that would be consistent with the historic needs of the program is $1.276 billion.

It is not me saying this, by the way. I didn't come to that number. Actually, 41 Members of the Senate signed a letter saying that. They wrote the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 20--not that long ago--and asked for an increase in the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program by $1.27 billion. Signing that letter were Senator Collins and Senator Reed, who are the authors of the pending amendment, along with, as I mentioned, 41 other Members, which is a fairly large number of the membership of the Senate, many of whom are from the Northeast. They reached that number through the calculations I just said. So that number is a reasonable number.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter, signed by 41 Senators, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I think that establishes pretty definitively what the number is. In fact, I drafted an amendment, which I intend to offer at this time, which would increase the funding for low-income energy assistance by an amount of $1.276 billion. The $1.276 billion which is, I believe, the agreed-to number about which 41 Members of this Senate, all of whom I believe are probably supporting various amendments in this area, signed a letter asking the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee to put in place an increase in the LIHEAP program--is going to be the amount by which my amendment increases the LIHEAP program.

That is a significant increase, a rather dramatic increase, in fact, and it represents, as a percentage, probably about a 50-percent increase in the program or well over a 50-percent increase; in fact, a 58-percent increase in funding and, in fact, hits the target we need to aim at in order to make sure that people of low incomes, living on fixed incomes, will have the necessary support they need to fund the cost of their energy this winter during the coldest months so they do not have to be put in a situation where they choose between food and warmth, something that would be inexcusable and inappropriate.

There is a further thing that my amendment does because I do believe in a fiscally responsible approach, and I believe Congress has an obligation to set priorities. There is no question in my mind that an immediate priority for us is that we make sure that the low-income energy assistance program is adequately funded heading into what will obviously be a difficult winter in light of the high energy costs. That should be a priority of our Government. But in setting that priority, we should not pass the debt, as I said earlier, of funding that program on to our children. We should decide what we are going to cut or how we are going to reduce the rate of growth in spending at the Federal level to pay for this program.

So my amendment, in addition to adding this fairly significant, rather dramatic increase in funding to the LIHEAP program, and a number which was originally supported by the 41 signatories of the letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee, also puts in place an offset to pay for this.

The offset represents an across-the-board cut under this bill of all accounts. It comes out to be less than a 1-percent cut, a nine-tenths- of-1-percent reduction in spending across other accounts to pay for this LIHEAP spending. That is the proper way to approach an issue such as this.

Let's determine whether or not it is a priority. If it is a priority--and I believe it is a priority--to fund LIHEAP, then let's fund it and not pass it on to our children.

That is what I do in this amendment. Rather than sending it up as a second degree, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

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

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

Mr. President, the reason I sent this amendment up as a first-degree amendment is that I believe we have an understanding with Senator Reed and Senator Collins as to the voting sequence, and that is important, and that is why I originally asked to be protected with a second-degree amendment.

The amendment is now pending. Once again, to summarize what the amendment does, it increases the funding for LIHEAP by $1.276 billion, which is the number which was asked originally of the administration about a month ago by 41 Senators, including Senator Collins and Senator Reed, in a letter sent to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Appropriations Committee. It is a significant number. The number is reached by determining what the projected costs of the increased cost of energy will be to our citizens who are living on a fixed income.

Second, it is an amendment which is paid for where we recognize we have a priority as a Government to participate in assisting these individuals who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in dire straits if the energy costs, with their significant jump in price, make it impossible for them to buy adequate heating oil to heat their

homes, and in recognizing that priority, we pursue a policy of making sure that the moneys will be put into the LIHEAP program, but at the same time it will be paid for by a reasonable, across-the-board cut, relative to other programs within this bill, on the theory it would be inappropriate to simply raise this spending without doing an across- the-board cut or without some adequate offset because that means we would be deficit financing this number and thus passing this cost on to our children to pay, rather than absorbing the cost, as it should be absorbed, by our generation.

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Grassley be listed as a cosponsor.

I yield the floor.