Floor Statements

There was initially a 5-minute opportunity for me to speak on my amendment. Will that take place immediately or be postponed until after the vote on the Levin amendment?

Mr. President, this amendment would transfer $50 million from the Missile Defense Program to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program which is designed to secure nuclear materials and nuclear weapons in countries around the globe, principally the former Soviet Union.

A few facts I think are in order.

First, with respect to missile defense funding, in the emergency supplemental appropriations bill for the global war on terror, there was an additional $50 million appropriated that was not required or asked for by the Agency. With this money, even with this amendment, the Agency still would have sufficient money to carry out its programmed operations for this year. Again, we are just transferring $50 million from this rather expensive program overall.

Let me briefly recap where we are with respect to the program.

The administration has already requested and Congress has provided funds for 30 interceptors. There are nine already in the ground. There are others being constructed. There are 21 that are in some aspect of construction. Yet in the fiscal year 2006 budget, there is a request for 10 additional operational interceptors, plus 8 test interceptors, for 18 in all. Again, these are in addition to the 30 interceptors that are already planned for.

In addition to that, I must point out that the production rate capacity for these interceptors is 12 per year. So we are asking for more missiles than can be produced in 1 year. So there are ample funds with respect to missile defense. We are asking for more missiles than can be produced in 1 year--many more missiles than can be produced. This is a situation that I believe calls for readjustment of funds, moving it to another compelling need.

One of the compelling needs I urge on my colleagues is to fund the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. President Bush and President Putin met in Bratislava months ago and created a unique opportunity for additional funding of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. This meeting took place after preparation of the budget. So moving $50 million from missile defense to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program will allow this country to carry out the pledge President Bush made to President Putin to more aggressively secure 15 additional sites.

There is one final point I would like to make. There is often the argument, well, we shouldn't fund the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program because there are so many unobligated funds; they can't use the money. In August of this year, the Missile Defense Program had $844 million in unobligated funds. If the Missile Defense Agency has $844 million in unobligated funds, I don't think anyone would stand up immediately and say they can't use it, don't need it, et cetera. The same goes for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. We have needs out there. The greatest threat to face this country, in my view, is the combination of terrorists and nuclear materials. We are going after the terrorists. We have to also aggressively go after nuclear materials. We can do this.

This is a very modest transfer of funds for a program that is vitally important to fulfill the pledge that the President made with President Putin, and it will not in any way impair the funding available for missile defense.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Levin.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kerry, Senator Feingold, and Senator Lautenberg be added as cosponsors.

Mr. President, we have spent the last several days making difficult decisions about national priorities with respect to spending. We also have to continue to make these difficult decisions within the context of the Defense bill.

The amendment I propose today, along with Senator Levin and my colleagues, would transfer $50 million from the Missile Defense Program to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. I believe this amendment properly reallocates scarce resources so we can deal with an immediate threat. That immediate threat is the proliferation of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons.

When President Bush first took office in 2001, he made missile defense one of his highest priorities. Since fiscal year 2002, approximately $45 billion has been spent on missile defense. In fact, this represents a huge amount. If you look back to 1984, when President Reagan began the search for a strategic defense initiative--we have spent, since President Bush took office, half again the amount of money that was spent from 1984 to 2002. This has been a huge program.

It has been named as a priority by the President. In fact, the Missile Defense Agency, as a result, rushed to field a system--any system--in fact, a system that many claim--and it seems to be the case--does not work very well.

So last year, six ground-based interceptors were placed in silos at Fort Greely in Alaska. Two interceptors were placed in silos in Vandenberg Air Force Base. In September 2004, President Bush declared that this missile system was operational. A seventh interceptor was put in place at Fort Greely last month.

Now, one of the critical aspects of declaring a system operational, it seems to me, is successful testing. Unfortunately, this element-- successful testing--seems to be absent from the present ground-based system. In fact, it is highly questionable whether this is at all operational.

In missile defense, interceptor tests are critical, and they should involve a real missile intercepting a real target. These tests are the only means to truly assess whether a missile defense system has a chance to work against an enemy missile.

The first intercept flight test of the system was conducted in December 2002, and it was a failure. Over the next 2 years, seven other planned tests that were contemplated were canceled because of technical reasons. In December 2004, 3 months after the missile defense system was declared operational--3 months after we supposedly had a working system--the Missile Defense Agency conducted only the second integrated flight test on this multibillion dollar system. It failed. On February 14, 2005, there was another integrated flight test, and it, too, failed.

After three consecutive failures, Lieutenant General Obering, the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, established an Independent Review Team to examine test failures and recommend steps for improving the test program. The team made some interesting observations. The team's report stated:

With the focus on rapid deployment of the Ground-based

Midcourse Defense system, there was not always adequate

opportunity to fully ground test the system prior to each

flight attempt.

The team also found:

Schedule has been the key challenge that drives daily

decision making in the program.

What you have here today has been a rush to failure, a succession of flight test failures, a premature declaration of operational characteristics of the system. No one will argue that the development, in a deliberate way and in a technically feasible way, of a missile defense system is not a good thing for the country, but what has happened over the last several years has been this rush to failure.

In addition to the evaluation team I previously mentioned, General Obering requested RADM Kate Paige to direct a Mission Readiness Task Force to study the review team's recommendations and put the program on a path to success.

This task force made the following recommendation:

There will be a significant increase in ground testing of

all systems, components and processes before resuming flight

testing. Contractors will be held accountable for their

performance. The first flight test will not be an intercept

test and the first intercept test will not take place for

more than a year.

I commend General Obering and the Missile Defense Agency for implementing these recommendations, for realistically assessing their technical capacity, for realistically beginning to test on the ground before they fly, for doing the things that are both prudent and necessary in this regard. The next interceptor flight test is not scheduled until a year from now, so we will not know until fiscal year 2007 whether the problems that led to the past test failures have been fixed.

Let me evaluate where we are. We presently have nine interceptors in the ground, but we do not know if they will work because we have not had a fully successful flight test. In addition, the administration has requested and Congress has provided most of the money for 30 more interceptors. So we have nine in the ground which we have not adequately tested, and we have also, through the President's request and the majority's concurrence, purchased 30 more of these interceptors. Yet in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request, he requested long lead funding for an additional 10 operational interceptors. These are in addition to 30 interceptors we are already buying on top of the 9 we have in the ground, all of which have not been adequately tested.

Furthermore, it must be noted there is also the issue of production rate capacity. Production rate capacity for the interceptor is 1 per month, or 12 per year. That means the Defense Department is seeking funding for more missiles than can be built in 1 year.

As we all know, this is an annual authorization process. There is no need to pay for more interceptors than can be built in 1 year, especially when there is no guarantee that any of them will work in operational circumstances.

At this point the responsible thing to do is to slow down funding and reallocate the money to a more pressing threat. That is what this amendment does. This amendment takes $30 million from the long lead procurement for more interceptors and $20 million for funding for initial construction of silos to house these interceptors and increases funding for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program by $50 million. As we all know, the goal of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is to eliminate the threat of unsecured nuclear material from falling into the wrong hands.

A 2001 task force, chaired by former Senator Howard Baker and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler, studied nonproliferation programs for almost a year and concluded:

The most urgent unmet national security threat to the U.S.

today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or

weapons-usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold to

terrorists or hostile nation states and used against American

troops abroad or citizens at home.

That was before September 11. Certainly since September 11, this warning is much more ominous and should be much more closely followed.

It is estimated that Russia has approximately 16,000 nuclear weapons stored at 150 to 210 sites. Only about 25 percent of these sites have received any upgrades for security in the past 5 years. At the rate planned in the fiscal year 2006 budget request, it would be around 2011 or 2012 before work at only a portion of the sites would be completed to bring them up to the levels of security and safety that we would feel confident this nuclear material would not be stolen, misplaced, or somehow diverted into the wrong hands.

Because of the agreement between President Putin and President Bush at the February summit in Bratislava, we have a unique opportunity to improve security at an additional 15 sites. The problem, of course, is funding. The cost of securing these 15 sites is $350 million, funding that is not in this budget. This project deserves top priority. This amendment provides some funding--not complete funding--$50 million toward securing nuclear material.

As I have said before, I support the concept and, deployment of a system

that has been tested and truly works for national missile defense. I think it is a system we should pursue. But I also believe the Missile Defense Agency is more than adequately funded for its fiscal year 2006 mission, and some money can and should be diverted to more pressing needs without harming this missile defense program.

This amendment does not affect the funding or deployment of the first 30 ground-based interceptors. They will continue to be built and deployed. Again, this is all in a situation in which we haven't had a truly effective, complete flight test of even the first missiles we have acquired.

This amendment does not touch $53 million included in the bill for long lead funding for eight test missiles. It is essential to produce these missiles for testing.

This amendment simply takes into account that only 12 interceptors can be produced in a year so the funding for the 6 that cannot be used should be reallocated to the dire threat of nuclear proliferation so that no one, no terrorist, can obtain nuclear material or a nuclear device because we have been negligent in securing those materials along with other countries, and use those weapons against our soldiers in the field or citizens here at home.

We have an obligation. The most existential threat that faces this country is a terrorist, nonstate actor obtaining a nuclear device, surreptitiously moving into the United States or some other area of vital interest to the United States, and detonating that device. The more we do to resist and thwart that threat, the more we are responding to the true threats that confront this country.

I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Levin amendment, which establishes a commission to look into the treatment of detainees by our national security forces.

Let me say as an initial point, I am a strong supporter of the McCain-Graham amendment which would clarify the law. But the issues we are confronting today with respect to Abu Ghraib and with respect to other notorious incidents is not simply a failure of law, a failure of lacking legal precedent; it is a failure of leadership and a failure of institutions. Unless we look carefully, objectively, and independently at this leadership and these institutions, we will be bound to repeat the mistakes of the past several years. I urge my colleagues to support the Levin amendment.

What prompts me to support this amendment is the belief and understanding that the treatment of our soldiers on the battlefield is a function of how we treat our opponents. If we do not have high standards of treatment, then we cannot make the moral claim that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines should be similarly treated.

I understand the nature of our adversaries might reject those claims, might reject standards, but if we reject those standards, then our ability to protect our soldiers is diminished substantially.

I think also one just has to take note of the events of the last several years and understand that not only is there a legal and moral premise to our use of suitable standards of conduct, there is a very practical one. The incidents of Abu Ghraib, the reports of abuse of prisoners, have been a disastrous situation with respect to our progress in the Middle East. It is harming our efforts to convince people that we are there not to exploit them, not to abuse them, but to try to lift them up.

It is essential we get to the heart of these failures of leadership, institutional direction, and policy. I think it is also essential that we have accountability. One of the essential aspects of any military organization is accountability. Everyone who enters the military, particularly an officer, learns that the first rule is they are responsible for what happens and what fails to happen on their command. There has been a dearth of accountability when it comes to these issues of abuse of detainees.

The plan seemed to be from the very beginning to portray this as the fault of aberrant soldiers. In fact, if we look at those people who have been prosecuted, those people who have been brought to justice, it is a handful of enlisted soldiers. We know this process, this approach, was not simply the result of a few soldiers. It was the result of decisions that were made at the very highest level.

Today, in the International Herald Tribune, COL Larry Wilkerson, a former chief of staff to Colin Powell, pointed out that, in his words: There was a visible audit trail from the Vice President's office to the Secretary of Defense down to the commanders in the field authorizing practices that led to the abuse of detainees.

That suggests to me that the evidence has accumulated where we need to take a good look not just at individual soldiers, not just compartmental reviews of certain aspects, we have to take the approach that Senator Levin suggests, a comprehensive review by an independent panel on the model of the 9/11 Commission to look at how we came to this point; not just to establish accountability I think that is principal and important but to ensure that we do not do it again, to ensure that when we enter into a conflict everyone understands the law, everyone follows the law. That is to the benefit not only of the protection of our troops but also to claiming the moral high ground, aiding our mission, aiding our military forces in the field, by creating an image in the world that we are bound to the highest standards and we are not there for self-interest but to help other people.

If we fail to pursue this commission, we will see a situation where what has happened in the past will happen again. It will be replicated time and time again. It will create a terrible situation within our military forces. It will appear, as it appears now, that the only people who are punished for these abuses are low-ranking, enlisted personnel. They bear the brunt, but the officers who directed it, the officers who could have stopped it, the civilian leaders in our Government who might have directed it or encouraged it, will walk away. That is unfair and that is so corrosive that it will undermine our military forces in the future.

I urge passage of the Levin amendment.

I reserve the remainder of time on our side and yield the floor.

Madam President, while the Enzi-Kennedy amendment passed on a voice vote, I want the record to reflect my opposition to this amendment.

We have all seen the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and I certainly understand and share my colleagues' desire to address the needs of displaced school children.

Unfortunately, this amendment, which frankly is more than 2 months overdue, falls far short of the help needed for the affected families and public schools. It falls short financially, since it provides less money than these schools need in order to re-open and serve the children of the Gulf Coast. It also falls short constitutionally by making payments to private religious schools on behalf of students who fled these hurricanes and are now attending such schools across the country.

Now, I understand that these hurricanes did not differentiate between public and private school students, and that we need to be able to provide some assistance for all students affected by them. However, this amendment is not the answer. As my colleagues are very well aware, we currently have a mechanism in current law to provide support to students in private schools. We do it everyday under Title I and Title V of NCLB, and under IDEA.

These children should have been helped over 2 months ago with the funding mechanisms we already have in place. That is why this amendment is not about getting help to these students. This is about using these students' needs as a pawn to further the Republican agenda of vouchers.

In addition, we are doing a disservice to families displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita by not informing them that this assistance is just for this school year. No where in this legislation is there a requirement that parents be notified that this assistance is temporary and that it will not be renewed beyond August 2006. Instead of being fair to these parents by providing them with transparent information, this amendment fails to include a provision to notify parents that this assistance is time-limited. We have an obligation to inform parents receiving this assistance that this funding is a one-time deal. Without clear language on this point, language which I suggested to the sponsors of the amendment, parents will have an unfounded expectation that this aid will be there next year and perhaps even for years to come. These families are settling down in new communities, and they may lack the resources, ability, or desire to go back to the gulf coast.

Of course, we want to help families in their moment of need and distress. I understand my colleague, Senator Landrieu's position on this matter, and her sincere desire to help her constituents. I too believe this assistance to schools, both public and private, is important, needed, and appropriate. But this amendment could and should have been structured in a way that contains clear notification requirements and that mirrors current law.

This legislation is not the direction we should be heading. This legislation is a stalking horse for a national voucher program. At the same time, it provides less funding than is needed to repair and fund our devastated public schools. It provides very little accountability for the use of taxpayers' funds and provides little or no enforcement of the civil rights protections that would exist if money were sent through existing funding mechanisms.

I want to thank Senators Enzi, Alexander, Kennedy, and Dodd, because I know that they have worked very hard to improve this amendment, and I appreciate their efforts. I urge my colleagues to continue to work to address the concerns I have raised as this bill moves forward.

Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 2409 be called up for immediate consideration.

This amendment strikes section 6031 of the reconciliation act which pertains to case management services. States have the ability to identify groups such as children and adults with AIDS, children in foster care, other vulnerable groups, and find comprehensive services. These services include educational and social as well as medical services. The underlying reconciliation bill will force these services to be paid for by third parties, the State or others. That will decrease the use of these services and actually end up costing more to the States, and it will disrupt many of the very appropriate programs we have. In fact, many of these programs save money by dealing with these people.

I would point out that this legislation does not require an offset, nor does it require a supermajority vote since we are striking language in the underlying bill.

I reserve any time I have.

Mr. President, this bill will hurt programs that exist today that help children, people with AIDS, a host of people. I received this information not from the Clinton administration but from providers in my own community, Christian Brothers who deal with children, social workers who deal with adults.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2396.

Mr. President, my amendment would restore the ability of HUD to preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing.

The FHA upfront grant and below-market sales programs are designed to help local governments purchase FHA foreclosed multifamily properties in order to preserve and rehabilitate these units into affordable housing.

Currently, the money for this program comes from the FHA General Insurance Fund, not from appropriations. This gives HUD significant flexibility in providing these funds if the need arises.

The proposal before us today will restrict HUD from using the FHA General Insurance Fund to support both the below-market sales program and the upfront grant program. It is a program of about $50 million a year.

My amendment would strike the language prohibiting the use of these funds to allow them the flexibility to continue this program. Because it strikes language, no supermajority vote is necessary, and no offset is necessary.

I retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I engage my colleague, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, in a colloquy about his intent regarding Medicaid pharmacy dispensing fees in the Medicaid pharmacy reimbursement reform section of the Budget Reconciliation Act.

As I understand the intent of these provisions, States are required to pay dispensing fees to pharmacies for Medicaid prescriptions, but there are no specific minimum fees set forth in the bill. States are given some guidance regarding the factors to use when setting the fees, but there are no requirements to do anything more than take those factors into ``consideration'' when setting fees.

I am concerned that the States will not be able to accurately account for these factors when setting these dispensing fees. As a consequence, pharmacies will be paid significantly less for the drug product that they provide to Medicaid recipients. This could make it difficult for Medicaid recipients to continue to obtain their prescription medications from their neighborhood pharmacy, and many pharmacies may have to close or reduce hours. The total payment to pharmacies for the drug product and dispensing fee must be adequate to pay pharmacies to buy the drug, dispense the medication, and have a reasonable return. It is my understanding that States would have to pay double or triple the dispensing fees currently being paid to he pharmacies just to break even.

I am also concerned that States do not have any guidance or direction in the bill on how to set their dispensing fees for generic drugs in relation to brand name drugs. While the bill does say that States should set dispensing fees for non innovator multiple source drugs higher than innovator multiple source drugs that are therapeutically equivalent and bioequivalent, I urge that the language require that fees for generic drugs in general be set higher than fees for brand name drugs. This will encourage the dispensing of generic drugs which can be one-fifth the cost of a brand name drug.

I thank the Chairman for his clarification regarding dispensing fees. I look forward to working with you as this process moves forward to ensure that any reforms in the Medicaid pharmacy payment system will provide adequate reimbursement to pharmacies for dispensing Medicaid prescriptions since beneficiary access to lifesaving medications depends on pharmacies to dispense them.

medicaid waivers

Mr. President, I strongly oppose the so-called Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005. This reconciliation bill and the administration's budget are fiscally irresponsible and reflect misguided priorities. As a matter of fact, the reconciliation bill at the end of the day will further increase the deficit by more than $35 billion over the next 5 years.

In 2 weeks, both the Senate Finance and the House Ways and Means Committees are expected to report a second reconciliation bill that will cut taxes by $70 billion. This $70 billion reduction in tax revenue will more than eliminate the effect of the cuts to critical programs in the reconciliation bill that we are considering this week. With the enactment of two reconciliation bills, there is a real effort by this administration and the majority to perform a bait and switch on the American people.

Significant portions of the reduction that are achieved in this reconciliation bill are achieved by cuts in programs on which low- and moderate-income Americans rely. The Senate reconciliation package includes a total of $39.1 billion in spending cuts over 5 years, of which $10 billion will come from Medicaid and Medicare. The House reconciliation package could have cuts as high as $50 billion over the same period, with $9.5 billion coming out of Medicaid.

In contrast, the benefits of the second reconciliation bill that this body will soon undertake will go overwhelmingly to high-income individuals. The tax reconciliation bill is expected to extend many provisions from the 2003 tax cut that expire in 2008 to 2010 that lower the rate on dividend income and capital gains. Just extending these provisions through 2010 is likely to cost nearly $23 billion.

The bill before us today includes a series of spending reductions that target pharmaceutical pricing and reimbursement, curtail the definition of `targeted case management' under Medicaid, and eliminate the `HMO slush fund' under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and the Federal Housing Administration's affordable housing preservation programs. A provision to update reimbursements for doctors will have a direct impact on seniors in the form of higher Medicare part B premiums.

Republicans have tried to disguise these cuts by restoring funding for the State Health Insurance Program SCHIP for States such as Rhode Island, allowing parents of severely disabled children to `buy-into' Medicaid, and by increasing student financial aid.

Meanwhile, the House reconciliation bill is truly an even worse deal for low-income and vulnerable Americans, as it would impose new copayments on Medicaid beneficiaries and allow States to scale back coverage. It also would tighten rules designed to limit the ability of elderly people to shed assets in order to qualify for nursing home care. And, for the first time, people with home equity of $500,000 would be ineligible for nursing home care under Medicaid.

The House bill also includes $844 million in cuts to food stamps, overturns a critical court ruling, Rosales v. Thompson, which allows for Federal support of abused and neglected children in foster care who reside with family members, weakens States' ability to establish and enforce child support orders, and raises interest rates and fees that students pay on their college loans.

The House package takes almost $20 billion out of child support and student loans alone, compounding the effect on struggling working families.

I commend Chairman Grassley and the rest of the Finance Committee for their diligence in attempting to craft a reconciliation measure that would not directly impact Medicaid beneficiaries. By contrast, the House, targeted beneficiaries through increased Medicaid cost sharing among other program changes.

In an effort to further minimize the impact of the reconciliation bill on these populations, I offered two amendments. The first amendment would restore Targeted Case Management services, TCM, to assist eligible high-need Medicaid beneficiary groups, such as children in foster care, children and adults with HIV/AIDS, children with developmental disabilities and mental retardation, individuals with substance abuse disorders and mental illness, and at-risk tribal populations, access to needed medical, social, educational, and other services. States have flexibility whether to offer TCM services and which population to cover, and, nearly every state now offers TCM services. We should not jeopardize an essential bridge to services for these populations.

By focusing cuts on Medicaid and other essential Federal programs, the reconciliation package will most harshly impact those who cannot advocate for themselves--abused and neglected children in foster care, at-risk youth, single parents, the disabled, persons with mental illness, and vulnerable elderly.

I understand that the intent of the TCM provision was to codify a HHS policy from January 2001. Again, I applaud the Chairman for attempting to clarify this provision, however, I am deeply concerned that the provision, when implemented, will severely restrict the providers' ability to serve our most vulnerable Medicaid beneficiaries.

The second amendment would strike the Banking Committee's portion of the reconciliation bill that eliminates the ability of HUD to use the FHA General Insurance Fund to provide grants to help preserve FHA- foreclosed multifamily properties as affordable housing. Given the current affordable housing crises in our country, the grants are more important than ever and should be maintained. I am disappointed that these and other amendments that would have addressed many of the deficiencies of the bill failed.

One such amendment was Senator Cantwell's amendment to protect the Artic National Wildlife Refuge from drilling. Earlier this year, the Senate Budget Committee included in the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution provisions that paved the way to arctic drilling. Senator Cantwell offered an amendment to strike language authorizing artic drilling from the reconciliation bill, which would undo this exploitation of the budget process and permit an open debate of the issue. Unfortunately, her amendment failed. The bill not only opens up the Artic to oil and gas development, but does so in a way that does not accord this pristine wilderness protection under existing mineral leasing laws and regulations, existing environmental protections, and existing rules of administrative procedure and judicial review. In short, it affords the Arctic Refuge less protection than current law affords other refuge or public land that is open to oil and gas development. Drilling in the Artic will not help us address our nation's energy problems. It is yet another giveaway to big oil companies.

The reconciliation bill also includes a provision that would extend agricultural commodity payments until 2011. Extending existing subsidy programs will continue policies that are bad for the environment. While the bill extends the life of subsidy programs and three conservation programs until 2011, it does not extend the life of four other conservation programs past 2007. These programs, which restore wetlands,

grasslands, and other wildlife habitat and protect farmland and ranchland are critical to meeting some of the Nation's most significant environmental challenges.

In the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, escalating home energy prices, and stagnant wage growth, taking money from important federal programs in order to pave the way for billions of dollars in tax cuts shows how out of touch the majority and administration are with hardworking Americans.

The bill before us is lamentable, and I only hope that those who support it today will reassess their positions in the weeks ahead as we consider other reconciliation bills that will further add to our deficit and continue a path towards misguided priorities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to return to amendment No. 2194, as modified.

Mr. President, I send a modification of this amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, and the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, be added as cosponsors to my amendment.

Mr. President, I understand Senator Byrd will now offer his amendment. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of his remarks that I be recognized for up to 10 minutes to speak on amendment No. 2194.

Mr. President, my colleague Senator Gregg offered an amendment to increase funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, by $1.276 billion yesterday. He will offset the spending by an across-the-board cut of almost 1 percent to all other programs funded by this bill--cuts to programs that protect the public health of our Nation, cuts to research to cure diseases, cuts to educational programs that help children reach their potential and build bright futures, and cuts to labor programs to help our workers remain competitive in the global economy. These cuts are very difficult and, indeed, I think should be avoided at all costs.

This is the wrong level of funding for the LIHEAP bill and, second, it is the wrong way to go about paying for these costs.

First, Senator Gregg based the amount of funding in his amendment on a letter Senator Collins and I wrote to the appropriators in September. We were pleased to be joined by 43 of our colleagues in requesting $1.276 billion in emergency spending for LIHEAP. Since that time, 51 of our colleagues have joined us to vote for an increase in spending to $5.1 billion, the full authorized amount. At this point, a majority of the Senate is on record supporting a much higher level of funding for the State grant program.

The second point about Senator Gregg's amendment is that the $1.276 billion level of funding requested in our letter is different from the money we have been discussing and voting on in the last several days. The $1.276 billion was for emergency funding that could be used by the President at his discretion. This would give the President the ability to target assistance to the States most in need of additional funding based on increases in energy prices and weather conditions.

Senator Gregg's amendment adds the additional funding into the State block grant program, not the emergency discretionary program. Ironically, because of the formula allocation of this program, the cold-weather States that Senator Gregg and all of us are attempting to help this winter may see only slight increases in funding.

I have been provided with different analyses of the LIHEAP formula and what States will gain and lose under the Gregg amendment. This, I must say, is a rather arcane formula which produces at least two interpretations. Based on data from the Department of Health and Human Services and a preliminary analysis by CRS, States, such as Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin, will see no increase in funding under Senator Gregg's amendment. Iowa will see an increase of under 3 percent. Oregon will see less than a 7.5-percent increase, and Maine less than 10 percent, hardly the targeting we need to ensure these States are prepared for the cold weather that is upon us and the high energy prices.

Under a second scenario, another analysis--and this is according to the Economic Opportunity Study also based on data from Health and Human Services--States, such as Maine, New Hampshire, Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota, Alaska, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Montana, may receive only a slight increase under the Gregg amendment and less funding than they received last year when these States received both their block grant allocation and emergency funds. This will be less funding when energy bills are rising 50 percent, and the Gregg amendment is proposing $1 billion in increased spending.

The reason there are at least two different scenarios is because of the complex nature of this formula. The current LIHEAP formula favors funding to cold-weather States up to $1.97 billion in appropriations. For funds above that level, a new formula determines the allocation of funding. This new formula directs funding to warm-weather States in the South and Southwest. Therefore, cold weather States in New England, the Midwest, and the North will see fewer additional dollars despite the increase offered by Senator Gregg. Cold weather States that need a substantial increase in assistance now to address rising energy prices will not get the funding they need under the amendment of Senator Gregg.

The amendment Senator Collins and I offered adds $2.92 billion to the State LIHEAP block grant program. This funding, coupled with the money currently provided in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, will provide a total of $5.1 billion for LIHEAP, the level authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This law was passed by this Congress and signed into law by the President just 3 months ago. The $5.1 billion level of funding acknowledges the program needs and would fully satisfy the demands caused by this winter and rising energy prices or at least go a substantial way to satisfy all the demands throughout the country. Our amendment adds the $2.92 billion to the block grant program which provides direct assistance to the States. Our funding level is sufficient to ensure both cold weather and warm weather States get the funding they need.

The other problem that the $1.276 billion level raises is, because of income data, because of cold weather, because of the number of Americans who qualify, we need every dollar we can get to help Americans this winter, particularly seniors. There are 32 million households eligible for LIHEAP assistance under the law, and yet we are serving only 5 million. So this is a situation where demand far exceeds needs even at robust funding levels, and at the $19.9 billion level, it is dramatically unsatisfactory. Seniors just received a $65 adjustment, but this is totally inadequate to deal with the soaring energy prices in all the cold States of this Nation. So I believe we have to do much more. In fact, the majority of the Senate believes that, in supporting a higher level of $5.1 billion total appropriation level for LIHEAP.

The other point I think is disturbing about the approach of the Senator is it would pay for this by cutting programs across the board, cutting very important programs that are necessary for all of us.

As the chairman, Senator Specter, pointed out, this is a barebones bill. It does not even have increases for inflation, and we are literally robbing Peter to pay Paul if, in fact, we support the approach of the Senator from New Hampshire. This support for across- the-board cuts will leave behind 37,000 needy students who could be served by title I and will reduce IDEA funding for special education by $98 million. It would drop the Federal share of excess special education costs from 18.6 percent in fiscal year 2005 to 17.8 percent in fiscal year 2006. It would mean a $63 million cut in the level for Head Start, $32 million below the level of last year, and here we have a program that would be serving, as a result, 4,400 fewer children.

We face a challenge this year, a particular challenge after Katrina, of ensuring that the second surge from that disaster, the surge of high energy prices and cold weather, does not leave families vulnerable. That is why I am so pleased that the majority of the Senate supports our approach of $5.1 total appropriation, and we hope, as the votes come, that we will reach the 60-vote margin we need to prevail. I hope we can, in fact, reach that margin.

I will join, again, Senator Collins in urging all our colleagues to support our amendment.

Mr. President, I also commend and thank Senator Byrd, first for his kindness in yielding to me and second because his title I amendment will increase funding. I thank the Senator for his valiant work in this regard and his concern for those who need that type of funding for their education and their future.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Senator Collins and I have proposed an amendment that would raise LIHEAP funding to a total of $5.1 billion. That is absolutely necessary as we approach the winter with rising fuel prices, rising natural gas prices. Our amendment will help all States. I want to make it very clear all of our funding goes into the State block grant program, so no State will be disadvantaged.

My colleague from New Hampshire has introduced a complementary amendment that does not provide, in my view, sufficient funding. At his level of funding, States such as Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin will receive no new money. I think that is unfortunate because those States and the citizens of those States deserve the kind of support that will be necessary this winter.

Fifty-three Senators have already joined us to support the increase in LIHEAP spending to the $5.1 billion total mark. I hope they will continue to support us. There is a second storm surge coming from Katrina, and that is rising energy prices that have overwhelmed vulnerable families throughout this country.

In addition, my colleague from New Hampshire is proposing to fund this with an across-the-board cut. That across-the-board cut will disappear in conference. As Chairman Specter has pointed out, this bill is bare bones. When the conferees arrive and look at the funding for Head Start and look at

funding for other critical programs, I do not think they are going to allow this supposed increase in LIHEAP funding. Also, we are paying for this LIHEAP increase by taking away valuable programs: 37,000 students in title I will be denied services because of these cuts. We are going to reduce IDEA spending. We are going to reduce Head Start spending. We are essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul, taking from some who need to give to others who need. That is not fair. It is not appropriate and it is unnecessary.

This is an emergency. Just as the storm damage in the gulf was an emergency, this is an emergency. I urge support of the Reed-Collins amendment and opposition to the Gregg amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, quickly, Senator Collins and Senator Gregg and I are trying to put more money in the State block grant program. Mr. President, $1 billion will not provide assistance in many States that need it now, Wisconsin and other States that are going to see a very difficult winter. Only by supporting our amendment will we reach all the States, all the people who need it. These cuts, as Senator Harkin suggested, are illusory; they will not be made. Frankly, I don't think it is appropriate, when we are trying to help poor people in the wintertime to heat their homes, we think about offsets; we think about that when we are providing tax cuts for very wealthy Americans.

I urge passage of Reed-Collins and the rejection of the Gregg amendment.

I move to waive the applicable section of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the Gregg amendment would appropriate $1.2 billion into the State block grant program for LIHEAP. That would mean, because of the arcane nature of the formula, States such as Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin will see no increase, Iowa will have under a 3-percent increase, and Oregon has less than a 7.5-percent increase.

In sum, the States that need this help right away, the cold-weather States, will see little help from the amendment.

Moreover, his amendment is funded by cutting valuable programs--Head Start, education for disabled Americans, a host of programs--that cannot be made up.

As our chairman and ranking member said, this amendment probably will be disregarded in conference because they will not fund but be taking away what very little exists already--title I, Head Start, and a host of other programs.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. We will try again for a real LIHEAP amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside, and I further ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 2194 that is pending at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators Dodd and DeWine as cosponsors.

Mr. President, last week Senator Collins and I came to the floor to offer an amendment on the Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill to increase funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, more commonly known as LIHEAP. We would have increased the appropriations to the authorized amount of $5.1 billion. With Senator Collins' support, and with the help of 53 other Senators, we came forward to make a statement that in this cold winter that is approaching, with soaring energy prices, Americans needed help and we could do better. Fifty-three Senators, Democrats and Republicans, northerners and southerners, east coasters and west coasters supported our amendment when it came to a vote. But it failed to pass because of a procedural need to acquire 60 votes. We, joined by 30 of our colleagues, are here again today to offer our amendment to the Labor- HHS appropriations bill.

Our amendment provides $2.92 billion in emergency spending for the LIHEAP program. This amount, coupled with the $2.18 billion in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, will fully fund LIHEAP at the authorized level of $5.1 billion, a level authorized by this Congress and signed into law by the President just 3 months ago. At this level, LIHEAP will cover the full increase in

recipients' heating costs so they would not be forced to pay more out of their very limited budgets for this winter's heating season. It is imperative that this appropriations bill provide additional resources to the LIHEAP program so families are safe and warm this winter.

As we speak, there is a storm raging in the Northeast in New England. We expect in some parts of the region to have snow this evening. Winter is coming. It is coming with a particular ferocity at this moment. But something else is already happening: Rising energy prices, extraordinary increases in energy prices, much of it as a result of Hurricane Katrina that struck the gulf coast area. As I have said before, the first surge was high water that overwhelmed low-income people in New Orleans and Mississippi and Alabama and other cities along the gulf coast. The second surge is high energy prices which are about to overwhelm many individuals in the Northeast and the Midwest and throughout this country where the temperatures begin to fall as they do this time of year. We have to do more to protect these people because we know it is coming.

One of the lessons from Katrina is that we understand that there are people who are vulnerable, and they have to be protected before the storm hits, not afterwards. This is an opportunity to do that for people throughout this country who are vulnerable this winter to rising energy prices and falling temperatures.

I particularly thank Senators Specter and Harkin for their strong support of the LIHEAP program. I realize the difficult choices they faced this year in determining spending limits for the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. I appreciate their support for this amendment to add emergency spending for LIHEAP.

On Saturday, the New York Times printed an editorial titled ``Washington's Cold Shoulder.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the editorial be printed in the Record.

The editorial says that our congressional priorities are skewed, and I agree. As the editorial points out, Members of Congress are continuing an unrelenting drive to pass $70 billion in new cuts this fall in taxes, most of them for wealthy investors, and to cut $35 billion in spending, mostly in programs that benefit the poor. The vulnerable people need to keep the heat on to keep from getting sick, becoming homeless, or worse.

Because of our budget rules, we are prevented from getting a straight up-or-down majority vote on our amendment to provide assistance to seniors, low-income working families, and disabled individuals. This amendment will ensure that they will be protected from the ravages of the cold this winter: aid that will ensure children will not become ill or malnourished, aid that will ensure families do not resort to hazardous means of heating that can cause fires. Unfortunately and regrettably, every heating season there is a terrible incident where some poor person decides their stove can provide them some heat, and they leave it on, causing a fire with tragic consequences. I hope that will not be the case this year. If we don't provide support for these families, they have very little choice in many cases, other than to improvised heat, and that often leads to tragedy.

As the New York Times editorial states: Heating aid for the needy is a matter of common decency. Is our memory so short that we have forgotten the pledge we made to low-income families after Hurricane Katrina to address the economic disparity in our Nation that literally leaves many out in the cold or in the dark?

Rising energy prices could financially wipe out working-class families and seniors this winter. Energy costs for the average family using heating oil are estimated to hit $1,600 this winter, an increase of $380 over last winter's heating season. For families using natural gas, prices could hit about $1,400, an increase of $500. For families using propane, prices are projected to hit $1,400, an increase of about $325. For families living in poverty, energy bills are now over 20 percent of their income compared to 5 percent of the income of other households, more affluent households.

In America, no one should be forced to choose between heating or eating. No senior citizen should be forced to choose between buying necessary pharmaceuticals and keeping the heat up. But unfortunately, low-income working Americans are facing these decisions each day, and they will become more dire and more consequential as the winter approaches.

The heat-or-eat dilemma is a real one for poor families. A study by the RAND Corporation found that low-income households reduce food expenditures by roughly the same amount as their increase in heating expenditures. That is an awful tradeoff, one that I don't think any American would like to see take place.

The Social Security Administration recently announced its cost-of- living adjustment for 2006 for seniors. The COLA is about a $65-per- month increase for the average retired couple. But with this winter's energy prices, that increase will be wiped out in an instant. So we have to do better. Even at a funding level of $5.1 billion, LIHEAP would still only serve about one-seventh of the 35 million households that are poor enough to qualify for assistance. So we are just talking about serving the very neediest in our community. This is a program that, frankly, could use many more dollars to serve every qualified individual. We are just reaching the neediest among us. If we don't pass this appropriations, we won't even reach those individuals.

I urge all my colleagues to join us to secure $2.9 billion in additional LIHEAP funding and pass this amendment. I urge an up-or-down vote on the amendment. As a nation, we must step back and evaluate our priorities. American families are facing an energy emergency. If we can find money for tax cuts, then we can find funds for LIHEAP. Now is not the time to sacrifice the health and safety of American families. We must prioritize, and the priorities start with providing affordable energy to low-income and middle-class Americans as they struggle with extraordinary increases in

prices and the looming cold of this winter.

I am pleased and proud to be joined in this effort by my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment No. 2194. I am told I do not need consent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Byrd to amendment No. 2194.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Ari Strauss, who is legislative director of the Northeast-Midwest Coalition, for the duration of the debate on the LIHEAP amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his eloquent and, to me, very persuasive remarks about the need for supporting this amendment. This is something we know is going to happen. Everyone understands energy prices are soaring out of sight. Last year, we did not have sufficient resources for LIHEAP with prices that were much cheaper. This year we know we are not going to have sufficient resources.

So we have come together on a bipartisan basis. Senator Collins, Senator Snowe, Senator Smith, Senator Coleman--many of my Democratic colleagues have come together to do what should be obvious to all of us: raise the level of LIHEAP funding to accommodate these huge increases in prices. It is very simple, I think--I hope.

I hope we are in a process of beginning to understand all of the demands that are being placed on low-income Americans, and particularly seniors. They received the Social Security increase of about $65 a month. Most of that was taken up automatically by increased payments to their Medicare Program, and whatever little is left is going to be swallowed up by these rising energy prices.

The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program needs $5.1 billion just to maintain the status quo. The appropriation to date, what the President supports, is $2 billion. Now, $2 billion was inadequate last year; it is grossly inadequate this year.

I understand our colleague, the Senator from Missouri, has indicated in terms of concept of the program he supports it, and I appreciate those remarks. We might have a debate about whether this is the appropriate vehicle to place this amendment, but, frankly, time is running out; floor time is running out, and unless we are able to appropriate these funds immediately, we are going to have a real issue of getting

them to deserving people throughout this country.

Last winter Congress provided $2.2 billion. Again this year they have already cut that in the budget to $2 billion. That is the administration's request. It was insufficient last year. In Rhode Island, 12,146 households, including the elderly, received utility termination notices. The average balance of those who were disconnected was over $1,000.

Today, my State and other States are struggling to get these people reconnected using LIHEAP funds to get them back on the utility grid. That is even before we have had the first cold days of winter.

A Rhode Islander receiving $400 from LIHEAP last year could buy approximately 235 gallons of heating oil, almost a full tank, but at $2.60 a gallon, which is the price that is being paid today--in fact, in many cases that is a pretty good price; in fact, it is much higher-- $400 will only buy 150 gallons of oil. That is a little over half a tank and may last in a very cold New England winter about 2\1/2\ weeks.

This year, with even higher energy prices facing Americans and more Americans living in poverty, the administration and the House have simply come forward with $2 billion. It is absolutely inadequate. We know it. We have an opportunity today to make it so that at least it will buy as much this year as it did last winter.

The average price for heating oil is $2.65 per gallon. That is 65 cents higher than it was last year this time. The average price of propane is $1.95 per gallon. That is 32 cents higher than last year. The average price for natural gas is $15.25 per million cubic feet. That is $2.32 higher than last year.

What we have seen consistently, what we all recognize, what we see every day when we pass the gasoline station, is extraordinarily high energy prices. How can we reasonably fund this program with less dollars than we did last year with these soaring prices? We are just trying to maintain what we have.

Frankly, last year a significant number of households that would qualify because of income could not receive assistance because those funds were insufficient.

I believe we have to increase the LIHEAP funding to its fully authorized level of $5.1 billion. This bipartisan amendment would do that by increasing the appropriation by the sum of $3.1 billion. I hope my colleagues will join us and support this amendment.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, who would that time be charged to?

I have no objection.

Mr. President, I ask the time be charged to each side.

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

Mr. President, I ask how much remains of my time.

Mr. President, I will make a few additional comments in the remaining time with respect to the LIHEAP program and this legislation.

This is a very simple amendment. It adds $3.1 billion. It would bring it up to the level that was authorized in the Energy bill which we considered on this floor several weeks ago, recognizing the authorization levels had to be raised given the increase in prices, given the need for more Americans to access the LIHEAP program.

The energy costs to the average family using heating oil this winter are estimated to hit about $1,500, and that is a significant increase, about $400 over last year. Natural gas could hit over $1,000, an increase of $350. Propane prices are projected to hit $1,400 for the average prices for the whole year of heating, an increase of about $325.

This is particularly burdensome for low-income families and families in poverty. In fact, families who live in poverty spend over 20 percent of their income on heat. That is in contrast to other families, middle- and upper-income families who spend about 5 percent during a heating season. So this is a huge impact, in fact, a more aggravated impact, on low-income Americans.

Frankly, the choice for many seniors is very stark: to heat or to eat. A RAND study pointed out that low-income households reduce their food expenditures by roughly the same amount as their increases in fuel expenditures. They cut back on eating to heat their homes. It doesn't take a RAND study to suggest why that is the case. It is hard for a senior or for anyone who lives in a home where the temperature is 50 or 45 degrees. You can put on sweaters and extra blankets but at some point you have to keep the energy flowing as best you can. They will, in fact, as the studies indicate, avoid eating to heat their homes.

Our LIHEAP program in Rhode Island, as so many programs across the country, is under tremendous stress and strain. Last year they served 26,000 families, but if the President's proposal goes through with $2 billion, they will only be able to service about 21,000 families. So 5,000 families will not get anything; 21,000 families lucky enough to qualify will receive resources, but it will be not as adequate as it was last year to buy heating oil, particularly because the price has gone up so much. So it is again a situation I find difficult to understand, why we cannot summon the will to do something which is so obviously necessary.

This is no innovative program. This is no controversial program. I dare say everyone on this floor would say it is a good program, it makes sense, it helps people who need help, particularly at a time when prices are surging as they are. Yet I hope we can come together and recognize we need something more than words. We actually need the appropriations to help keep these people whole, keep them, literally, warm this winter.

We have all been out to our communities. We have all visited with seniors. I visited with a senior from Rhode Island, a veteran of the U.S. military who is 88 years old--part of that great generation of World War II. He receives LIHEAP support. Frankly, this year even if he receives the same amount of money, it will not buy the same amount of fuel oil and it will be colder in his home. As has been said so often on this floor, and it has to be repeated, we can do much better. We could do much better for an 88-year-old veteran of the U.S. military forces who last year got a little help and this year will get less help. We can do better and we should do better.

We need to fully fund LIHEAP up to the authorized level of $5.1 billion. I think we have to do more, going forward on other energy projects. But let's at least begin with adequately funding the LIHEAP Program.

I hope my colleagues will join my cosponsors, Senator Collins, Senator Snowe, Senator Smith, Senator Coleman on the Republican side, and many others on the Democratic side to ensure that this amendment is passed and we can at least guarantee minimum warmth for our seniors and low-income families across this country.

With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask unanimous consent the time be divided equally between both sides.

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

Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from Missouri made a motion under the Congressional Budget Act 1974. I move to waive the applicable sections of the act, for the consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside and further ask unanimous consent to call up amendment No. 2077, pending at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I also ask unanimous consent Senator Dodd be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

I further ask unanimous consent that Senator Nelson of Florida be added as an original cosponsor of amendment No. 2113.

Madam President, the topic of this amendment is increasing the funds available for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. We are about to see a second tidal surge from Katrina and Rita; it is not rising waters, it is rising energy prices, and those rising prices are going to break with ferocity on people all over this country, particularly those individuals who live in States that are going to see a cold winter, which is beginning shortly. Low-income Americans are going to be faced with extraordinary challenges in meeting their energy bills this winter.

We have already seen huge increases in prices of heating oil, natural gas, and propane. We understand, without some further assistance, we will be in a very precarious position, and these families will be in a distressed position. I particularly thank Senator Collins, Senator Snowe, Senator Coleman, and Senator Smith for their bipartisan leadership on this amendment--particularly Senator Collins--for joining me in this effort. She has been a stalwart over several Congresses with respect to supporting the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

We are reaching across the aisle and across the country to provide more assistance to the LIHEAP program. We offer this amendment with 30 cosponsors. It is bipartisan, stretching across the length and breadth of this country. It seeks to add $3.1 billion to the HUD appropriations bill in emergency energy assistance.

Energy costs for the average family using heating oil are estimated to hit $1,577 this winter, an increase of $378 over last winter's heating season. For families using natural gas, prices could hit $1,099 this winter heating season, an increase of $354. Families using propane can see heating costs on average this heating season to be approximately $1,400. That is another increase of $300. For families living in poverty, energy bills now are approximately 20 percent of their income compared to 5 percent for other households. Unless we take action now, we are going to see families in this country, low-income working families, families struggling with the issue of poverty, seniors who are living on fixed incomes being devastated.

I yield to the Democratic leader.

I am prepared to yield. My colleague from Maine is here to speak.

If I could do so and then, with the order being that at the conclusion of Senator Baucus, Senator Collins be recognized to speak.

Reclaiming the floor, I ask how long the Senator from Montana might speak?

Madam President, I think probably the most efficient way to do this is let me yield the floor to the Senator from Maine. When she concludes, I ask the Senator from Montana be recognized. At the conclusion of the comments of the Senator from Montana, if I can be recognized again, I will finish my statement.

Madam President, I will continue my remarks about the LIHEAP program. I certainly salute the Senator from Montana for his passion, his eloquence, and his sense of decency. We should be moving on this legislation. It is a bipartisan effort, just as this LIHEAP legislation is a bipartisan effort. They are both linked by the devastation in the gulf. So many families have been displaced from their homes, their homes destroyed. They are looking for health care. Other families in the Northeast, in the Midwest, in the Far West, and in the Mountain States where this winter will be cold and difficult to bear will also see the effects of Katrina. They have seen them already in rising energy prices.

As I indicated in my prior remarks, this is the second wave, the second surge. The first was waters through the gulf. The second is increased energy prices for the rest of the country.

No family should be forced to make choices between heating or eating. That is precisely what many families will be faced with this winter unless we adopt this proposal and increase LIHEAP funding by $3.1 billion.

The RAND Corporation found in a study that low-income households reduced food expenditures by roughly the same amount as their increases in fuel expenditures. They cut back on food to pay for heat. That is not something any American wants to see or wants us to tolerate.

It is particularly difficult for seniors. Recently, I visited the home of Mr. Ohanian in Cranston, RI. Mr. Ohanian is an 88-year-old veteran of our military service. He served this country. Now he lives on a Social Security check of $779 a month. One does not have to have advanced training in economics to figure out that with these energy prices this year in the Northeast--Senator Collins indicated she was paying $2.70 a gallon for heating oil--that adds up quite quickly, and it wipes out a monthly income of $779. As a result, Mr. Ohanian has to go to his daughter's house sometimes for food, goes to soup kitchens to get help. He deserves it. He served this country in a most difficult time, in uniform. What we have is a situation where last year Mr. Ohanian received $600 in LIHEAP payments. It helped. It did not pay for all the fuel costs, but it helped. Unless we put this money in, his costs will be way out of proportion to what he can bear.

Recently, the Social Security COLA was announced. It is $65 a month. Any increase is appreciated, but that is already wiped out more or less by increased contributions to health care programs that are required. When you put on top of that for a senior this huge spike in energy prices--be it natural gas, heating oil, or propane--they are losing ground rapidly, unless, of course, we act to at least bring them up to the level of last year's program.

We need to fully fund the LIHEAP program at the $5.1 billion authorized in the Energy bill. This amendment would do that. It would add $3.1 billion in emergency spending to the $2 billion the President has requested. That is roughly what we had last year, just a little bit below. Do the math. If we have just $2 billion and we have increased energy prices--just take heating oil. Last year, heating oil was roughly $1.92. Expensive? Yes. Now it is $2.70. The same amount of monthly income, huge increases in energy costs. How can we provide that assistance we provided just last year?

As Senator Collins indicated, look at the poverty numbers. Poverty has increased every year for the last several years. There are more people qualified for this program. This is an anticipated disaster--in some respects, the same way Katrina was anticipated.

I hope we can learn from Katrina, not just sit back and watch idly, watch the impact, watch poor people suffer. Not just poor people who were caught up in the tumult and terror of New Orleans--but poor people in Portland, ME; New Haven, CT; in Cleveland, OH; in Seattle, WA; in Butte, MT. I expect it gets cold out there in the winter. They will be caught up.

I thought after Katrina we had a coming together, led by the President, to recognize we are failing people who are poor, that we are not doing what we have to do to keep faith with them. I can remember his words at the Washington National Cathedral. Have those words evaporated already? Are those words not operative now? I hope they are. I hope we take them to heart. If we do, we will pass this amendment, and we will pass the legislation of Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley. That is what I thought the President was telling us to do at the Cathedral speech.

Now, even if we do have funding of an additional $3.1 billion, we are still only serving about one-seventh of the 35 million households poor enough to qualify for assistance. So we are not talking about a program that has so much money that they do not know what to do with it. What they have is so many customers and clients that they do not know what to do with them. And what happens, is these people will apply to the community action agencies across the country, and they will be put on waiting lists. They will try to help some. We can do much better. I hope we can start by passing this legislation.

We also need Presidential leadership. What has happened from the speech on the pulpit of the National Cathedral until today when it comes to LIHEAP? Nothing. Those were very powerful words, but they require powerful actions. We have not seen, in this respect, those actions.

We have to do other things to get our energy house in order. In fact, this is not just an issue of domestic politics. It is probably the single most important thing we can do over the next several years to improve our strategic position in the world vis-a-vis those who would be our adversaries or those who compete with us. From a national security standpoint, we have to take steps to make our energy future more independent, more sensible. But we have to do things today that will help Americans.

I am very proud Senator Cantwell is a cosponsor of this particular amendment. She is also the sponsor of the Energy Emergency Consumer Protection Act to bring prices down at the gas pump in the wake of natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina.

In addition, we have to pass Senator Dorgan's Windfall Profit Rebate Act which imposes a temporary windfall profit tax on big oil companies and uses the revenue to bring a rebate to American consumers to help offset the higher cost of oil and gasoline products. I am told the oil companies--the energy companies--will be reporting their quarterly earnings in the next few days, and most estimates are they could be the most profitable reports ever issued by companies in this country because of this extraordinary run-up in pricing. Some of that money should come back to Americans.

Total energy spending in this Nation this year will approach $1 trillion--24 percent higher than in 2004. It will claim the largest share of U.S. output since the end of the oil crisis 20 years ago. Oil and natural gas companies make huge profits while workers' salaries are declining in real terms. This is wrong. We have to fix it.

We have to pass Senator Cantwell's legislation, Senator Dorgan's legislation, and, of course, immediately, we have to help restore funding and increase funding for LIHEAP program. The President and Secretary Bodman have called on Americans to reduce their energy use. They have to lead by example. One way to lead is to support, articulate, and advocate, for sensible energy programs and this LIHEAP proposal to increase that funding.

We have to do much more. I hope we begin, with respect to energy, by recognizing the pending crisis that will face so many families in this country, so many seniors. They will be cold this winter. They will give up eating so they can heat their homes. They will miss mortgage payments and rent payments because they have to at least stay warm.

We can do much better. America can do better. I hope we do.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I move to waive the applicable sections of the act referenced by the Senator and at the appropriate time would ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: I believe what happened, the floor manager raised a budget point of order. I have requested a waiver of that act. We have agreed at some time in the future we will have a vote on that. Now it is in order to have further discussion of the amendment, and Senator Cantwell can discuss her amendment.

Mr. President, today the Senate passed the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill conference report. The bill provides $30.8 billion in discretionary spending for the Department of Homeland Security. While it is important that the Senate acted to pass this legislation, I am concerned about the funding levels provided for critical programs in this conference report. Specifically, the bill cuts funding for vital first-responders grants, and fails to improve our Nation's transit and aviation security.

I fear that we have failed to learn from the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London about the vulnerability of our transit system. Yesterday's terrorist threat against the New York City transit system further illustrates the need to increase our efforts in this area. Yet the conference report that we passed today includes only $150 million for transit security grants. In June, Senators Shelby and Sarbanes and I sponsored an amendment to raise funding for transit security to more than $1 billion. Unfortunately, the amendment failed. But it is this level of funding, not $150 million, that is necessary to keep the Nation safe.

Every workday, 14 million Americans take a train or a bus. We know that transit systems and their riders are by their very nature prime terrorist targets. Subways, light rail, buses, and ferries are designed for easy access and to move large numbers of people efficiently.

These are the facts: Numerous attacks on transit; 6,000 transit systems in the U.S.; and 14 million riders every workday. I don't think anyone can say transit is not a target for terrorists and should not be among our highest homeland security priorities. Yet the Federal Government's response to these facts has been underwhelming. Indeed, the Federal Government has invested $9 in aviation security improvements per passenger, but only $0.006 in public transportation security per passenger. Now, are aviation and transit the same and can we achieve the same level of security in the open access environment of transit? No, but I doubt that the 14 million Americans who use transit every workday think that less than one cent is the appropriate amount to invest in transit security

Second, I am concerned about the cuts that the bill provides to aviation screening. The bill would cut funding for the aviation security screener workforce by $125 million from the budget request. This cut will result in 2,000 fewer airport screeners nationwide, including cuts in the number of screeners in Rhode Island. Rather than cutting the number of screeners, we need to increase the nationwide number to 53,000 screeners in order to keep wait times at the current average of about 10 minutes. Yesterday, President Bush in an attempt to rally public support for the war in Iraq stated that the Government disrupted 10 serious terrorist plots since September 11, 2001. Three of these plots involved hijacking airplanes for suicide attacks. Yet, today, the Republican Congress cut the number of screeners serving our airports.

Finally, the bill cuts funding for first-responder grants for States and local governments by about 17 percent, $680 billion less than last year, and failed to include a formula to help ensure all states would receive adequate funding and protection.

This conference report does not do enough to protect Americans from terrorism threats or natural disasters. This is a continuation of the administration's, and the leadership of this Congress, pattern of failure to learn from past lessons and invest in the essential infrastructure necessary to make our country safe. Is this the type of belt-tightening the administration is willing to accept in order to continue to pay for irresponsible tax cuts?

Mr. President, from October 7 through October 16, 2005, the National Mall will be transformed into a solar village. The Solar Decathlon 2005 will showcase 18 solar homes designed, built, and operated by university teams from across the United States as well as Canada and Spain. Each of the university teams chosen for the decathlon competed in 10 contests that measured the aesthetics and livability of the solar homes as well as their capacity to provide lighting, heat water, and run household appliances, including a TV, refrigerator, and computer. Each team demonstrated the ability to power an electric car from the energy harnessed by the solar home--an important achievement in this day of skyrocketing fuel prices. I am proud that the Rhode Island School of Design, known as RISD, is among the 18 participating teams in the Solar Decathlon.

The first Solar Decathlon, held on the Mall in 2002, received more than 100,000 visitors. The decathlon, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, aims to educate policymakers and the public about alternative energy sources to improve building design and quality of life. The competition motivates participating teams to use cutting-edge solar technologies, renewable materials, and energy-efficient building principles so that these features will become part of the mainstream of home design.

RISD's solar home is a team effort on the part of more than 60 students and seven departments from both the Rhode Island School of Design and Brown University. The team was led by architecture faculty members, William Yoder and Jonathan Knowles. These students worked for 2 years on the production of an environmental and energy-smart home design while taking classes specifically geared toward this end. Last week, they transported their solar home to Washington, DC, for assembly on the National Mall.

The principle behind RISD's design is to incorporate high-tech solar technologies with low-tech materials that increase energy efficiency. Through this combination, the students illustrated that designers and homeowners do not need to be well-versed in complex technologies to incorporate solar into their homes. Furthermore, many of the materials used in the RISD solar home, while having high insulation values, are reclaimed--an effort on the part of the Rhode Island team to reduce construction waste.

As a design school, RISD was concerned about the attractiveness of the materials and design principles, which will improve the marketability of solar home features. Function and aesthetics led the team to incorporate both a roof garden and a louvered skin. The louvered skin is adaptable, so as to reflect heat during the day and keep in heat during cold nights. Moreover, the skin provides ``chameleon-like'' color variations and graphics that add to the home's artistic style as it tracks the cycle of the sun. The roof garden brings an element of tranquility to the home's design but is also a smart use of space for a home designed for an urban setting where a lawn is hard to find. This element is one that illustrates the team's goal to blend the boundary between home and environment.

The Rhode Island team also created a home that is adapted to its surroundings. Since the home was designed as an urban dwelling, it uses a north/south orientation, allowing for the home to receive ample lighting if serving as a townhouse between adjacent homes. The RISD team took into account the expansion of its townhouse style to a community scale. With the addition of mirrored or identical units, the entire lot would collectively become more energy efficient. Furthermore, the variations in how these modules fit together would create open spaces that provide a private haven when juxtaposed against an urban backdrop.

The Rhode Island team applied great effort to the design of the ``mechanical core'' that runs the heating, cooling, plumbing, and electricity of the house. Centrally located, this unit minimizes the need for ducts and piping throughout the home, thereby increasing energy efficiency throughout the structure. RISD's house is so efficient that it produces enough reserve energy from the sun that it will be able to power a car.

Upon conclusion of the competition, several teams will offer the homes that they designed and built for educational or living use. The RISD students intend to transport their solar home back to Providence, RI, where it will serve as an example of smart building design for the community.

The Solar Decathlon offers an opportunity to witness first hand the ingenuity of the participating teams and the innovative solutions available to Americans to reduce our energy demand and propel us on a cleaner and sustainable energy path. Visitors to the solar village will be able to tour each of the 800 square-foot homes and ask the students questions regarding their solar design and technology choices. Workshops are scheduled throughout the week for visitors to learn how to incorporate into their homes both active and passive solar energy, improved energy efficiency technologies, and biobased products. My

sincere congratulations to the Rhode Island team for a job well done.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act of 2005. This legislation would address a serious flaw in our Nation's regional fisheries management system by adding Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), which currently consists of representatives from New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.

The MAFMC manages the following 13 species, all of which are landed in Rhode Island: Illex squid, loligo squid, Atlantic mackerel, black sea bass, bluefish, butterfish, monkfish, scup, spiny dogfish, summer flounder, surfclam, ocean quahog, and tilefish.

In 2003, the most recent year for which final data are available, Rhode Island fishermen brought in 30 percent of MAFMC landings by weight--more than any of the MAFMC member States except New Jersey, which is responsible for about 60 percent of total MAFMC landings.

If Rhode Island fishermen are responsible for a large percentage of overall MAFMC landings, these species make up an even larger proportion of landings within Rhode Island every year. Between 1995 and 2003, MAFMC species represented between 32 percent and 56 percent of all finfish landed in Rhode Island annually, for an average of 44 percent of total landings by weight. In eight of the years between 1990 and 2003, squid, Illex and loligo, was the number one marine species landed in Rhode Island, with a value of between $11.6 million and $20.1 million annually.

Yet Rhode Island has no voice in the management of these species.

Following council tradition and Federal fisheries law, the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act would create two seats on the MAFMC for Rhode Island: one seat nominated by the Governor of Rhode Island and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, and a second seat filled by Rhode Island's principal State official with marine fishery management responsibility. The MAFMC would increase in size from 21 voting members to 23.

There is a precedent for this proposed legislation. In 1996, North Carolina's representatives in Congress succeeded in adding that state to the MAFMC through an amendment to the Sustainable Fisheries Act. Like Rhode Island, a significant proportion of North Carolina's landed fish species were managed by the MAFMC, yet the State had no vote on the council. Today, Rhode Island's share of total landings for species managed by the MAFMC is more than six times greater than that of North Carolina.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to restore a measure of equity to the fisheries management process by passing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act of 2005. This legislation would address a serious flaw in our Nation's regional fisheries management system by adding Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), which currently consists of representatives from New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina.

The MAFMC manages the following 13 species, all of which are landed in Rhode Island: Illex squid, loligo squid, Atlantic mackerel, black sea bass, bluefish, butterfish, monkfish, scup, spiny dogfish, summer flounder, surfclam, ocean quahog, and tilefish.

In 2003, the most recent year for which final data are available, Rhode Island fishermen brought in 30 percent of MAFMC landings by weight--more than any of the MAFMC member States except New Jersey, which is responsible for about 60 percent of total MAFMC landings.

If Rhode Island fishermen are responsible for a large percentage of overall MAFMC landings, these species make up an even larger proportion of landings within Rhode Island every year. Between 1995 and 2003, MAFMC species represented between 32 percent and 56 percent of all finfish landed in Rhode Island annually, for an average of 44 percent of total landings by weight. In eight of the years between 1990 and 2003, squid, Illex and loligo, was the number one marine species landed in Rhode Island, with a value of between $11.6 million and $20.1 million annually.

Yet Rhode Island has no voice in the management of these species.

Following council tradition and Federal fisheries law, the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act would create two seats on the MAFMC for Rhode Island: one seat nominated by the Governor of Rhode Island and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, and a second seat filled by Rhode Island's principal State official with marine fishery management responsibility. The MAFMC would increase in size from 21 voting members to 23.

There is a precedent for this proposed legislation. In 1996, North Carolina's representatives in Congress succeeded in adding that state to the MAFMC through an amendment to the Sustainable Fisheries Act. Like Rhode Island, a significant proportion of North Carolina's landed fish species were managed by the MAFMC, yet the State had no vote on the council. Today, Rhode Island's share of total landings for species managed by the MAFMC is more than six times greater than that of North Carolina.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to restore a measure of equity to the fisheries management process by passing the Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, rising energy prices could financially wipe out working-class families and seniors this winter. We are about to see an extraordinary runup in prices that imperil the ability of many families simply to keep their homes warm during this coming winter.

In New England, the average cost for a family using heating oil is projected to hit $1,666 during the upcoming winter. This represents an increase of $403 over last winter's prices and $714 over the winter heating season of 2003-2004. That is an extraordinary increase in the cost families have to spend to heat their homes.

For a family using natural gas in the Midwest, prices are projected to hit $1,568, representing an increase of $611 over last year's prices and $643 over the price of the 2003-2004 heating season.

The Mortgage Bankers Association, looking at this data, expects steep energy costs could increase the number of missed payments and lost homes this year. So we have observers who are fearful that this huge energy shock could cause families to, indeed, lose their homes.

In America, no family should be forced to choose between heating their home or putting food on the table for their children. No senior citizen should have to decide to either buy lifesaving pharmaceuticals or pay their electric bill. But, unfortunately, low-income working Americans are facing these decisions this winter.

In some respects, this is a tidal wave, not of rising water but of rising energy prices which is a consequence of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

For this reason, Senator Kennedy, Senator Kerry, and I offered an amendment to the Defense Department appropriations bill to provide $3.1 billion in emergency funds for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP. This funding will provide our Nation's most vulnerable--low-income families, seniors, and disabled individuals-- with affordable energy this winter. Again, we saw and were shocked as a nation to see rising waters imperil the most vulnerable in our society on the gulf coast. Well, these rising energy prices will do the same thing by threatening the most vulnerable people through the Northeast, through the Midwest, through every area of the country that anticipates cold weather this winter.

I urge my colleagues to join us to secure $3.1 billion in additional LIHEAP funding.

In September, I, along with over 20 of my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, sent a letter to the President urging that he include additional funding for LIHEAP in a supplemental appropriations bill for Hurricane Katrina. We sensed, as he sensed, that one of the consequences of Katrina was a severe shock to our energy sector with complementary increases in prices. So I believe it is appropriate to deal with this issue now. We are waiting not only for the supplemental for Katrina, but also dealing with it on this particular appropriations bill.

On Monday, I was dismayed to learn that President Bush currently does not have plans to request additional LIHEAP funds this year. States are bracing for a crisis caused by a lack of affordable energy, and this funding will ensure low-income families and seniors will have safe, warm homes this winter.

President Bush, I strongly urge that you reconsider. The warning has been issued. Will you once again ignore a looming crisis facing America?

In addition to LIHEAP funding, there are other steps that Congress and the administration need to take to address our Nation's high energy costs. First, we need to pass Senator Cantwell's Energy Emergency Consumer Protection Act to ban price gouging at the

gas pump in the wake of natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina.

Second, we need to pass Senator Dorgan's Windfall Profits Rebate Act which imposes a temporary windfall profits tax on big oil companies and uses the revenues to provide a rebate to American consumers to help offset the higher cost of oil and gasoline products.

Total energy spending for the Nation this year will approach $1 trillion, 24 percent higher than in 2004. Energy will claim the biggest share of U.S. output since the end of the oil crisis 20 years ago. Oil and natural gas companies are making record profits, while energy prices are overcoming and overtaking workers' salary increases. This is wrong.

We also must fix those bankrupt energy policies that provide oil and gas companies with billions of dollars from the Federal Treasury for production. These tax breaks should be repealed to pay for LIHEAP and conservation programs that help American energy consumers, not big business.

The Federal Government must lead by example also. The President called on Americans to reduce their energy consumption and conserve oil. I know American families are up to this challenge and will respond. But Americans have the right to expect that their President and their Government will also make sacrifices.

The President should implement a Federal savings target to demonstrate a serious commitment to improving our Nation's energy security. He should set a 40-percent savings target for Federal agencies by 2020. Over the past few years, the Federal Government has reduced its petroleum consumption by less than 1 percent. We can and we must do better.

As a nation, we must step back and evaluate our priorities. Now is not the time to cut funding for social programs such as LIHEAP, Medicaid, and food stamps that support working families and seniors while the President and Members of the Senate continue to push for irresponsible tax breaks. We must prioritize, and the most vulnerable among us must be considered first.

Millions of Americans are struggling each day to make ends meet. They deserve our support. I hope the President and this Congress will heed this warning and help build an energy safety net for all Americans.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on July 1, 2005, we welcomed home a son of Providence College to assume the presidency of that great institution. Father Brian Shanley is a man of great intellect, great enthusiasm, and a man of deep and abiding faith.

He is superbly prepared to continue the extraordinary progress of Providence College as a distinguished community of scholars serving to educate the talented young men and women who proudly claim PC as their own.

Generations of students and graduates of Providence College have enriched our Nation and our State not only with their knowledge but just as importantly with their character.

Father Shanley understands this great legacy of Providence College and, through his effort and his energy, he will sustain and enhance this extraordinary place.

St. Thomas Aquinas, a theologian who Father Shanley is acquainted with, wrote ``If the highest aim of a captain were to preserve his ship, he would keep it in port forever.''

Under Father Shanley, I do not think Providence College will get many ``port calls.'' He will sail forward with determination, faith, and good humor to inspire faculty and students to think seriously, to face the challenges of our times, and to live a life of character and concern that has always been the hallmark of Providence College.

I wish him good luck and Godspeed.

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

Madam President, I also ask the pending amendment be laid aside.

I ask to call up amendment No. 1943.

I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator Hagel as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment which would move funding for the end-strength increases included in this bill from emergency funding to regular funding, thereby increasing the top lines of the Army and Marine Corps budgets.

Let me first begin by commending Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye for including the end-strength numbers, the increase in this legislation. There are no more dedicated individuals committed to the welfare and the efficiency of our military forces than Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, and they have raised the end-strength numbers of the Army by 40,000, and they have raised the end-strength numbers of the Marine Corps by 3,000, and this was over the request included in the President's budget.

I think it is patently clear that additional personnel are necessary, and I am pleased to see that this is the conclusion of the Appropriations Committee. But simply raising the end-strength number, in my view, is not enough. I believe we also have to pay for these troops in a very straightforward fashion--not through emergency supplementals but through the regular budget process. If we do not start doing this now, I believe the Army and the Marine Corps will begin to pay a far greater price in the future as supplemental funding may diminish, but still the needs for an increased end strength persist.

There is an obvious need for increased end strength. On January 24, 2004, Army Chief of Staff General Schoomaker announced he had received emergency authority to temporarily increase the size of the Army by 30,000 soldiers for the following 4 years. At that time the leaders of the Department of Defense were working on a couple of assumptions.

First, they were working with a plan formulated in the fall of 2003 that calculated the numbers of forces in Iraq in mid-2005 to be approximately 40,000 troops. Remember, at that time the Pentagon was predicting our force levels in Iraq would be 40,000 troops. In the fall of 2005, at this moment, we have approximately 139,000 Army troops in Iraq, together with 25,000 marines--far above the predicted level of troops necessary, in the Pentagon's view 2 years ago, to conduct these operations.

Now this number of about 130,000 troops, Army troops and significant Marine Corps forces, has been steady or even higher from the period of March 2003, the time of the invasion, to today.

In addition, General Schoomaker recently told the Associated Press he is planning for over 100,000 troops to remain in Iraq through fiscal year 2009.

I think this is very prudent and I commend General Schoomaker for doing that which I think is necessary, of publicly stating that we at least have to assume for planning purposes a commitment of that number.

This initial assumption of 40,000 troops in place in Iraq by 2005 is clearly inadequate. It has been overtaken by events. Again I think this argues for not a temporary increase in troops but a permanent increase in end strength and regular funding.

The second point I make is that in addition to our obligations in Iraq, which require significant forces--and to have the forces in Iraq, we have to have many more forces in the Army and Marine Corps training and getting ready to go and recover--in addition to that, Secretary Rumsfeld was ambitiously moving forward on a transformation of the Army to increase the number of brigades from 33 to 48 and replace 10,000 military slots with civilian slots, significantly reducing the number of soldiers in support positions. This is a very difficult and in some cases dynamic experience. We have an army at war and an army in transformation simultaneously, but the Army is doing a magnificent job in both cases.

Secretary Rumsfeld argued that this transformation would initially cause a spike requiring again a temporary increase of 30,000 soldiers, but then within 4 years his projection was that spike would be eliminated. However, under the Army's own analysis and even if all anticipated efficiencies are widely successful, if we get the transformation of military positions and civilian positions, we are able to form these brigades to perform as they were expected to perform, and all these efficiencies are squeezed out of this transformation, the Army has suggested we will not be back down to pre- 911 end strength of 482,400 until fiscal year 2011, 6 years from now.

Now that is not right. You have two demands, our commitment in Iraq and our transformation process, that drive up end strength numbers, not in the short term but actually over many years, and we know this right now.

Third, the Pentagon could not have anticipated in some cases their involvement in natural disasters such as

Hurricane Katrina which is creating demand for forces, particularly National Guard forces. As we understand, the National Guard is the first responders. They have in some respects a dual capacity. They serve the Governors of States, as the State militia, as a State force, and then they have a Federal role. So these demands on military forces right now, including individual units, including demands in the planning process, are a third issue that is increasing end strength numbers and, I would argue, also argue strongly for regularly paying for these forces.

Now even before General Schoomaker made his announcement in 2004 of an increase temporarily in end strength, Senator Hagel and I were arguing that we needed more troops and we needed them for a considerable length of time. I think, as I have tried to suggest, this need is even more obvious today than several years ago when Senator Hagel and I first took the floor. Yet surprisingly the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request did not ask for any additional troops in terms of end strength. They were operating on this emergency mechanism but, as I said initially, I am delighted and pleased to see that the Appropriations Committee, under the leadership of Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, has recognized the need to formally increase end strength. What I am asking is that this formal increase of 40,000 Army troops and 3,000 marines be also complemented by including their funding in the regular baseline of these forces and not through an emergency supplemental.

This issue of funding is the purpose of my amendment. An end-strength increase of 40,000 soldiers and 3,000 marines will cost approximately $3.9 billion for 1 year of paid training, housing, and equipment. This bill funds the cost through supplemental funding, a mechanism which the Department of Defense agrees with. They have always been supportive of this, but I would argue again the assumptions that they have articulated of a temporary spike, do not consider, I think, fully the demands of transformation, and the other external demands of supporting foreign deployments and domestic operations such as Hurricane Katrina.

This funding mechanism is not the best because there are several problems with this approach. The first problem is that supplemental funding is supposed to be reserved for unforeseen or emergency events. The Army and marines have required more troops than their authorized end strengths for the past 2 years and it is likely this trend will continue for at least 4 more years. That should not be a surprise to anyone. These soldiers and marines are clearly not an unforeseen happenstance today. So I would argue it should be included in the regular budget and not through emergency supplemental funding.

The second problem is that to continue with supplemental funding creates a potentially unhealthy pattern. We pass supplemental funding many times. This funding runs out quickly before the end of the year-- usually in about 9 months--and we are presented with a second supplemental bill. But these extra soldiers and marines will be in the field, we know, beyond 9 months; in fact, as I have suggested, probably for several years in terms of their total end strength.

But the Department of Defense is caught up in this cycle of asking for supplementals, running out of money and asking for another supplemental.

Again, I think with respect to this issue of predictable increases in end strength of several years, we can avoid that through regular funding.

Another problem with supplementals is the growing concern and uneasiness of the American public with respect to funding some of our operations.

Congress, to date, has appropriated $218 billion for the war in Iraq.

That does not go unnoticed by the American people.

All of this funding has been through supplementals--in effect, deficit spending.

The Congressional Budget Office points out that we will run a deficit in 2005 of about $331 billion--again, a fact not escaping the American public.

This deficit number does not include the significant costs associated with Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita.

In an AP poll conducted 2 weeks ago, 42 percent of those polled stated that they preferred to pay for this hurricane relief by cutting spending in Iraq.

That is potentially an ominous note with respect to the priority that the American people are suggesting in this poll.

Only 14 percent, by the way, were willing to continue to add to the Federal debt to pay for our operations overseas and our operations in the gulf coast with respect to recovery from Katrina and Rita.

My concern is that the time we can come up and automatically fill all the needs of our military forces in Iraq through supplementals may be drawing to a close. It will be increasingly more difficult to move these supplemental bills to fully pay for our forces as the American public begins to be more and more concerned with both the deficit and the unexpected increasing costs of contingencies and the cost of our operations overseas.

I believe, if this happens, there is a real potential for both the Army and Marine Corps to be caught short having troops in the field which they must pay, equip, train, support, and also their families at home, but yet being squeezed because supplemental funding will not be sufficient. That will require them to look within their own budget to cut programs, to cut training, to cut modernization, which is very critical not only to their present posture but also to their future posture as the world's most formidable land force.

If these supplementals can't resolve the personnel costs of additional troops, the Army will have to look for $3.5 billion within their budget, and the Marine Corps would have to look at $400 million.

These are significant numbers for these services.

This could put excruciating pressure upon our military forces that are already under excruciating pressure, and we can see that reflected in many different dimensions.

Recently, we read about the recruiting shortfall. I believe Secretary Harvey of the Army announced today that they are going to increase the category of enlistees they would accept that do not meet the previous standards that were being used or increase the lower category of enlistees.

That is a reflection of the difficulty we have to man the force, at least at the recruitment level. Retention is good. But once again, if this pattern of operations persists for several years, and we see soldiers who have served with magnificent valor and dedication to the country faced with a third or fourth deployment into Iraq or into Afghanistan, those pressures will build.

I believe very strongly that not only should we follow the lead in the Appropriations Committee by formally increasing the end strength, but that we should begin to think seriously about and in fact begin to pay for these forces through the regular account.

My amendment moves the appropriate amount of money from the Army and Marine Corps personnel and operations and maintenance accounts included in the bridge supplemental, and moves them to the Army and Marine Corps personnel and operations and maintenance accounts in the underlying bill. The funding move will, I hope, ensure several things. First, it will be much more honest about how we are paying for our operations overseas with respect to the Army and Marines Corps. Secondly, it will enable us to better ensure that these funds will be available if, in fact, it becomes more difficult in terms of both the fiscal climate and the overall opinion climate in the country to send up on a regular basis very substantial supplemental appropriations bills for our consideration.

I think we should do it today. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I thank my colleague, Senator Hagel, for joining me in this effort.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have immense respect for the chairman. I appreciate the difficulty of the job in trying to balance all these conflicting requests for funds. He has done a tremendous job with this appropriations bill. Certainly, I will consider his advice with respect to the position of the legislation. I would like to consider it a little further. But I appreciate the difficulty that the committee has in trying to meet all these amendments.

I say, finally, that what I am trying to do now is avoid a situation next year or the following year, as the chairman very well pointed out, where supplementals are not sufficient and the Army and Marine Corps have to look to their acquisition programs, cut combat systems, they have to look to other issues, quality of life for families, since these do keep these forces in uniform.

There is no disagreement, as the chairman pointed out, with respect to the need of these troops. There is no disagreement with respect to the fact that they will be on our books, if you will, for several years into the future.

I am pleased that the chairman and Senator Inouye formally increased the end strength, as Senator Warner and Senator Levin have done in the Defense authorization bill.

He is very right. The argument is how we pay for it. Do we pay for it through the emergency, or do we pay for them through the regular accounts?

I argue that a day of reckoning is coming where, if we don't face up to this by including it in the regular accounts, we will be dipping into acquisition and into other necessary programs of both the Army and Marine Corps.

But again, I will take the Senator's good advice very closely to mind, and I appreciate the fact that we agree on so much.

We are trying to figure out what is most appropriate--not just for the near term but in the long term--way to pay for these forces.

I yield the floor.