Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. I send the amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this amendment is being proposed by Senator Smith and myself, Senator Coleman, Senator Baucus, and other cosponsors who are listed on the amendment.

I wanted to start by commending my colleague from Oregon for his leadership on this very important issue. He has made the exact, right points. I will be brief in my comments because other Senators are here wishing to speak as well. I want to give them an opportunity to do so.

Medicaid is the most important program that pays for health care coverage in my State today. There are over 400,000 people in the State of New Mexico who receive health care because of the Medicaid Program. As he pointed out, these are the people who are most in need of that care, who are least able to cover their own health care costs.

There are 53 million of our Nation's most vulnerable children, disabled, and elderly citizens that rely on Medicaid for their well- being and livelihood. And there are 45 million Americans without health insurance coverage.

The President offered a budget proposal that added $140 billion for health care spending. Even with the proposed reductions in Medicaid spending, he was proposing a net increase of $80 billion for health care.

In contrast, the budget before us provides no spending for the uninsured and a cut in Medicaid of $15 billion over 5 years. This is important because the administration only got a scored savings of $7.6 billion in Medicaid. So, it is $140 billion short of the President's proposal on the uninsured and the cut for Medicaid is scored at twice the level of the President's budget, according to CBO.

This budget is seeking to reduce the deficit, but sadly at the expense of the uninsured and our Nation's most vulnerable children, elderly, and disabled citizens that rely on the Medicaid program.

As a result, I am pleased to be here today with my colleague Senator Smith in support of the bipartisan Smith-Bingaman-Coleman-Baucus amendment to strike the Medicaid cuts and to replace it with a bipartisan Medicaid Commission.

Senator Smith and I strongly believe that Medicaid needs reform and improvement. For years, Medicaid has been neglected. Democrats are often trying to push for universal coverage and neglect fixing issues with Medicaid. Meanwhile, Republicans have proposed block granting the Medicaid program without addressing reform. Just 2 years ago, that proposal was defeated on the Senate floor.

Sadly, we are here again with a proposal to cut Medicaid, but no thoughts

about how to reform and improve the Medicaid program. We are imposing cuts on Medicaid at twice the level the President proposed, as scored by CBO, with little more guidance than rhetoric about cutting ``waste and fraud in the system.''

According to the Budget Committee staff document, ``at least 34 States are estimated to be receiving up to $6 billion a year in Federal Medicaid dollars inappropriately.''

Which States? I think we all deserve to know who they are and what they are doing before voting to cut funding to them. In the Senate Finance Committee, a bipartisan group of Senators asked the Secretary for that list and we still do not have it.

However, anybody that asks is being assured not to worry because their State is not the problem. How can we cut $15 billion to the States without it seriously impacting any State or any of the 53 million people served by Medicaid? Even the best circus elephant or donkey cannot pull off such a feat.

To get scored savings, the Finance Committee will be forced to make major cuts in funding to the States. Let me emphasize, no State is protected.

Also, while some of the proposals have so little detail that we have no idea about the impact on individual States, we do know the budget assumes saving $1.5 billion by dropping the matching rate for targeted case management in Medicaid from the current matching rate to 50 percent Federal and 50 percent State. Again, there is nothing about reform here. It is simply about cutting Federal funding to States. And, in this case, we do know which States, and they are the poorest States in this country.

It may come as somewhat of a shock to some in the Senate, but the cuts would fall disproportionately on the 28 States of Mississippi, Montana, Arkansas, West Virginia, New Mexico, Utah, Idaho, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arizona, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Iowa, North Carolina, Indiana, Maine, Missouri, Oregon, Texas, Georgia, Kansas, Ohio, Nebraska, and Florida. President Bush carried 26 of the 28 States and those States have 43 Republican Senators and 13 Democratic Senators.

Simple mathematics tells us that will not fly in the Senate. So, two of the largest proposals for savings truly have nothing to do with Medicaid reform and one does not have enough details to allow CBO to provide scored savings and the other has enough detail that we know it will never be enacted.

So, what we have here are proposed Medicaid budget cuts in search of a policy.

It is with that in mind that Senator Smith and I come to the floor today to actually attempt to reform and improve the Medicaid program in a systematic way. Our proposal is to strike the arbitrary cuts in the budget before us and replace them with the establishment of a bipartisan medicaid commission.

Why a Commission? Just like Social Security, just like the 9/11 Commission which examined the intelligence system, and just like Medicare, we believe that Medicaid deserves a comprehensive and thorough examination of what is working and what is not by all stakeholders--federal officials, state and local government officials, providers, consumer representatives, and experts.

Medicaid is a very complicated program. In fact, it is not one program. It is really four programs.

First, it is a program that provides health insurance for 25 million low-income children.

Second, it provides a safety net of coverage to 14 million adults, primarily low-income working families that play by the rules and work but do not have access to or cannot afford health insurance.

Third, 42 percent of Medicaid spending is actually for what are known as ``dual eligibles,'' which are over 7 million elderly and disabled citizens that have both Medicare and Medicaid coverage. Therefore, Medicaid fills the holes in both Medicare and private insurance by providing acute and long-term care services that neither Medicare or the private sector is able or willing to cover.

And fourth, Medicaid serves as a critical payment system for our Nation's safety net, including payments to disproportionate share hospitals for indigent care or to community health centers and other safety net providers. Without that funding, many of these critical community services would end.

Medicaid is a critically important health care safety net of four different programs that provides services to over 50 million of our Nation's most vulnerable children, pregnant women, the elderly, and people with disabilities.

In New Mexico, Medicaid is, in fact, the single largest payor for health care. All told, Medicaid covers the health care costs of more than 300,000 New Mexicans--nearly one-quarter of our State's population.

It is why I believe firmly we need to make sure that we do whatever we do right rather than quick. Medicaid is the back-stop to Medicare, the back-stop to private insurance, and the major funding source for our Nation's safety net providers. Medicaid is, as Health Affairs has called it, ``the glue that holds our Nation's health care system together.'' Therefore, we must make sure reform is done right and systematically, rather than quickly and without being thought through.

I would like to take a few moments to emphasize the importance of Medicaid to our Nation's children. Again, over 25 million children receive health care services through Medicaid. This includes an estimated 42 percent of our Nation's black children and 36 percent of our Nation's Hispanic children.

Children covered by Medicaid are far less likely than uninsured children to lack a usual source of medical care or have an unmet medical, dental, or prescription drug need.

During the last presidential election, the President recognized that 9 million children lacked health care coverage and made a proposal that he called ``Cover The Kids.''

In his own words:

We'll keep our commitment to America's children by helping

them get a healthy start in life. I'll work with governors

and community leaders and religious leaders to make sure

every eligible child is enrolled in our government's low-

income health insurance program. We will not allow a lack of

attention, or information, to stand between millions of

children and the health care they need.

The President put that proposal into his budget, but I do not see it in this budget. We should not be going backwards on children's health, but we will in this budget unless this amendment we offer today passed.

We should take time and ``first do not harm'' to our Nation's health care safety net. We have tried to enact reform quickly before and it has created many problems. For example, in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress cut funding for disproportionate share hospitals and Medicare physician payments in rather indiscriminate ways. As a result, the Congress has come back in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2003 to make what are known as ``provider give-backs.''

The cumulative pages of legislation to correct the Medicare and Medicaid changes from 1997 now far exceed the original legislation, the problems continue and, in some cases, even grow. In fact, we have a crisis with Medicare physician payments that everybody acknowledges will now cost billions and billions of dollars to correct.

Unfortunately, these ``fixes'' are not reflected in this budget, but we all know that the Congress will have to address the problem. I fear the budget, as currently proposed, will create more problems that need fixing rather than correcting the current problems.

Therefore, Senator Smith and I call for a process by which we can enact reforms to Medicaid but do it correctly, rationally, and in a bipartisan fashion. For example, we should ensure that people have more access to home- and community-based care in Medicaid. Doing so would provide care in more cost-effective and appropriate settings for many Medicaid patients.

However, despite a lot of rhetoric about how this is one of the reasons Medicaid needs reform, the budget proposal before us does not address this problem.

There are those that believe Medicaid is ``flawed and inefficient'' and that costs are spiraling out of control so the program needs overhaul. On the other hand, there are those who believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with Medicaid. I firmly believe neither point of view is correct.

First, Medicaid is far from broken. The cost per person in Medicaid rose just 4.5 percent from 2000 to 2004. That compares to just over 7 percent in Medicare and 12.6 percent in monthly premiums for employer- sponsored insurance. If that is the comparison, Medicaid seems to be about the most efficient health care program around, even more so than Medicare.

The overall cost of Medicaid is going up largely, not because the program is inefficient, but because more and more people find themselves depending on this safety net program for their health care during a recession. While nearly 5 million people lost employer coverage between 2000 and 2003, Medicaid added nearly 6 million to its program. Costs rose in Medicaid precisely because it is working--and working well--as our Nation's safety net health program.

Consequently, Medicaid now provides care to 53 million low-income Americans, including nearly one-quarter of all New Mexicans.

On the other hand, it is also not true that Medicaid is not in need of improvement. The administration is rightly concerned about certain State efforts to ``maximize Medicaid revenues'' via ``enhanced payments'' to certain institutional providers. Secretary Leavitt, in a speech to the World Health Care Congress on February 1, 2005, referred to State efforts to maximize Federal funding as ``the Seven Harmful Habits of Highly Desperate States.'' As a result, he called for ``an uncomfortable, but necessary, conversation with our funding partners, the States.''

I would agree. However, Medicaid cuts driven by a budget reconciliation process is not a dialogue or conversation. It is a one- way mechanism for the Federal Government to impose budget cuts on the States. The administration's budget calls for $60 billion in cuts to Medicaid over 10 years, including $34-40 billion that would directly harm States.

Where is the conversation in that? In fact, I believe the States would have quite a lot to say to the Federal Government in such a conversation. While I do not speak for the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, or the National Association of Counties, some of their grievances are rather obvious and I share them.

For one, these cuts are merely a cost-shift to State and local governments that simply force State Medicaid programs to enact cuts in coverage to our Nation's most vulnerable populations or require tax increases to make up for the loss of Federal funding. It is pretty simple. If the Federal Government cuts $15 billion out of Medicaid, New Mexico will likely lose over $100 million in Federal funding for Medicaid. Either some of our State's most vulnerable citizens will lose coverage or benefits, or taxpayers will be asked to pay more.

Governor Richardson is a pretty impressive guy, but he cannot magically produce the $100 million that the Federal Government would cut to our State under this budget proposal.

Second, as figures from the Kaiser Family Foundation indicate, 42 percent of the costs in Medicaid are a result of services delivered to Medicare beneficiaries. These dual eligibles are also a major driver of health costs in Medicare and this is a prime example of where the Federal Government pushes costs on to Medicaid. Instead, better coordination between Medicare and Medicaid could improve both programs and delivery of care to ``dual eligibles.'' States have been calling for better coordination for years to no avail.

Third, for all the rhetoric about being concerned about what States are doing in drawing down Federal funding, we should acknowledge that the Federal Government passes the buck on to States in other ways. For example, in the Medicare prescription drug bill that was passed by the Congress in 2003, the Federal Government imposed what is referred to as a ``clawback'' mechanism which forces the states to help pay for the federally-passed Medicare prescription drug benefit. Although States were expected to derive a financial windfall from the prescription drug bill, they are now finding that it will cost them millions of dollars more annually through what is referred to as the ``clawback provision'' than if the bill had never passed.

Furthermore, CBO estimated that States had $5.8 billion in added enrollment of dual eligibles in Medicaid due to what they refer to as a ``woodworking'' effect on dual eligibles trying to sign up for the low- income drug benefit discovering they are also eligible for Medicaid benefits. CBO further estimated that States had $3.1 billion in new administrative and other costs added by the prescription drug legislation.

States have no ability to ``have a conversation'' with the Federal Government about the imposition of such costs on them, but they should and will have that ability in our bipartisan commission on Medicaid.

Furthermore, due to a recent rebenchmarking done by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Affairs with respect to the calculation of per capita income in the States and the application of that data by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, the Medicaid Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, or FMAP, many States, including New Mexico, will see a rather dramatic decline in their Federal Medicaid matching percentage. In fact, due to the rebenchmarking and other factors, 29 States will lose Medicaid funding in 2006 by an amount of in excess of $800 million. Again, this occurred with no dialogue or conversation.

I agree with Secretary Leavitt that there should be a conversation among all the stakeholders about the future of Medicaid and about what are the fair division of responsibilities between the Federal Government, States, local governments, providers, and the over 50 million people served by Medicaid. It is for this reason that the bipartisan commission on Medicaid includes all of those stakeholders at the table to have a full discussion and debate about the future of Medicaid.

It is our intent that the recommendations would not only be focused on spending inefficiencies but about improving health care delivery to our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. However, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, both can and should be done.

Before closing, I thank Senator Smith for his leadership on this issue and the over 100 organizations--State and local governments, providers, and consumer groups that have endorsed this amendment. We have the attention and support of all these groups to come to the table to make Medicaid more efficient and effective in the delivery of care to our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. We should not pass up that opportunity.

The policy needs to drive the budget.

As Senator Smith said, and as Senator Coleman said, we cannot just take a figure out of the air and say we are going to cut Medicaid because we need to make up some money in the budget in order to get to the number that we predetermined we ought to get to. That kind of arbitrary cut in Medicaid, when we are doing nothing to constrain the growth of Medicare, when we are doing nothing to constrain the growth of spending in a lot of other areas, would be irresponsible. Exactly as Senator Smith pointed out, it is important that we do this right, that we do this fast.

This first chart I wanted to point to shows the States in red which are going to suffer these cuts. There is $4 billion proposed for cuts in these States that are depicted in red on this map. It turns out that most of those are the States that supported the President's reelection in large numbers.

We have a couple of other charts which I very briefly would like to point out. One is a chart that points out that Medicaid is not the great inefficient program that everyone is pointing to. Medicaid has grown 4.5 percent per year the last few years. Medicare has grown over 7 percent. The private sector health care expenses have grown over 12 percent. There is enormous growth in Medicaid because more and more people are depending on Medicaid. That is the simple point.

This last chart points out that 42 percent of the cost of Medicaid is because of the ``dual eligibles.'' These are people who are covered by Medicare, but Medicaid is having to pick up a substantial portion.

We need to understand these programs better before we begin cutting them. The Senator from Oregon has provided a real service to us in the Senate by focusing attention on this.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to add my voice today in support of the amendment offered by Senator Cantwell. This amendment would strike the instruction to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee contained in the budget resolution premised on opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development and enacting the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program cost recovery proposal set forth in the President's Budget for fiscal year 2006. I would like to address both of these issues.

First, I have concerns regarding the Pick Sloan cost recovery proposal. Although I have not had an opportunity to thoroughly review the proposal, I am advised that it could result in significant rate increases for power users in rural areas of the Upper Midwest and the Great Plains. The instruction assumes that the provision would increase revenues by $33 million in fiscal year 2006 and $157 million over the next 5 years. If the committee should choose not to enact the Pick Sloan cost recovery proposal, we would be obligated to find these revenues elsewhere. Given the jurisdiction of the Energy Committee, our options are few. We have only limited mandatory spending within our jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction over imposition of fees for the use of public lands. Administration of oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf and the revenues raised from opening areas currently covered by moratoria is within the jurisdiction of the Energy Committee. Similarly, the President's budget contains a proposal to divert revenues from southern Nevada land sales, which falls within our committee's jurisdiction. All of these are likely to be controversial. The best way to ensure that the Pick Sloan cost recovery proposal is not enacted as part of budget reconciliation legislation and the only way to avoid finding an offset is to support the Cantwell amendment to strike the instruction, and I think that is clearly the preferred course of action at this juncture.

Turning now to the Arctic Refuge, there are many reasons--related to both energy security and environmental concerns--that lead me to conclude that I cannot support oil and gas leasing and development in the Arctic Refuge.

The most compelling reason for not opening the Arctic Refuge is that it will do very little, if anything, to further our national energy security. If opened, not one drop of oil will come from the Arctic Refuge for 7 to 12 years. The most recent Energy Information Administration, EIA, study, ``Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,'' March 2004, assumes that production will not occur for 10 years. According to EIA, peak production will not occur for another 10 to 11 years after initial production. Thus, we will have to wait for 20 years before having the benefit of maximum production from the Arctic Refuge. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge does nothing to address near-term shortages or issues of energy security.

More importantly, drilling in the Arctic Refuge does not address our reliance on imported oil. The United States relies on imports for 58 percent of its current oil supplies. The Energy Information Administration in March 2004 has estimated that production from the Arctic Refuge would, at its peak, reduce our reliance on imports by only 4 percent by the year 2025, based on the mean estimate of technically recoverable resources.

Unlike other future-looking initiatives that we could undertake now, drilling in the Refuge would over the long term have no effect on reducing imports, once the oil resources in the refuge have been depleted. Unfortunately, the controversy over the Arctic Refuge diverts attention from the real opportunities to enhance domestic energy production. Last Congress, we enacted energy tax legislation that I believe is a good start in addressing our Nation's energy future. Unlike opening the Arctic Refuge, this legislation is intended to provide a near-term increase in domestic energy production. Not only does the legislation include tax provisions that would promote highly efficient hybrid vehicles and alternative transportation fuels such as ethanol, make renewable energy more competitive, and enhance energy efficiency, it would also provide specific incentives to increase oil and gas production at home. In particular, I am pleased that we were able to pass the marginal well production tax credit. It is my hope that this year we will be able to expand upon the energy tax package that was enacted last Congress and do even more to provide for our Nation's energy security.

Environmentally sound development of the National Petroleum Reserve-- Alaska provides another opportunity to enhance our domestic energy security. This is 23.5 million acres of Federal land set aside by President Harding to secure the Nation's petroleum reserves for the national security. The area is highly prospective for oil and gas. BLM conducted lease sales in 1999, 2002, and 2004 that had an extremely high level of industry interest. Several wells have been drilled that have encountered oil and gas. The NPRA is estimated to hold a mean value of 3.1 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil at $24 per barrel and a mean estimate of 9.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. While I believe that BLM should take all measures to conduct leasing in an environmentally sensitive way, and also am of the view that there are areas of NPRA that should not be developed, the vast majority of this resource can and should be tapped to enhance our energy security.

Renewables, energy efficiency and R&D must play an increased role in meeting our Nation's energy needs. Clean energy from renewable sources such as the sun, the wind, the ocean, geothermal heat and biomass helps to diversify our energy portfolio and enhance our energy security with minimal environmental impact.

In addition, a rational energy strategy should focus on cost- effective ways to reduce energy demand, not solely on increasing supply. Energy efficiency

provides an array of benefits--economic growth, national security, reliability and environmental protection. Our growth in demand, each year, for automotive fuels far exceeds any potential new domestic oil production. That includes any production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, even if we were to open it and even if the Arctic Refuge has more oil than anyone thinks is likely. Because of that reality, Congress needs to take a serious approach to increasing the fuel efficiency of our new cars, trucks, and SUVs. We cannot talk seriously about loosening our dependence on foreign oil without advancing meaningful improvements in automotive fuel efficiency.

In conclusion, Mr. President, there are many reasons why the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge need not and should not be drilled for oil and gas. The environmental sensitivity of this area is well-known. Opening the Arctic Refuge is not good environmental policy, but equally important to our Nation, it is far from necessary to our energy policy.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to oil and gas leasing and development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Our dependency on foreign oil is now over 11 million barrels a day-- it is rapidly moving towards 20 million barrels a day. This is important. Let's assume our dependence will be 19 or 20 million barrels a day by 2025. The oil produced at ANWR would represent about 5 percent of what we need to import from foreign sources. That is a lot.

I close by saying 1 million barrels of oil a day equals $18.4 billion a year in balance of trade dollars. We talked about the merchandise trade balance. Currently, 25.5 percent of this country's merchandise trade deficit is from net imports of crude oil and petroleum products. Everybody is worried about it.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, the amendment I have sent to the desk relates to the level of funding in this budget for education. It proposes to restore the funding level to the level we are currently operating under here in 2005, so that in 2006 we would have as much Federal funding going out for education as we had in 2005. We would not have any more. We would not have enough to account for additional inflation. We would not have enough to account for additional students, children coming into the school system. But we would have the same amount if my amendment is adopted.

The budget resolution before us embraces and adopts the worst education budget the country has seen for well over 10 years. Writing budgets is about setting priorities. Anyone who reads this budget must conclude that education is not a priority for this Congress or for anyone who supports this budget. Simply put, the budget proposal before us does not provide sufficient funding to sustain current funding levels in many education programs. In title I, in IDEA, it provides no significant increases in funding. There is really no funding provided for the new initiatives which had been talked about by the administration. The resolution adopts the President's budget and, by implication, it endorses the cuts the President has called for.

The budget would eliminate 48 educational programs and would drastically cut funding for several other programs. My amendment, as I said before, would merely restore the $4.8 billion in funding for these programs. It also provides for deficit reduction as part of the same amendment.

In December of 2001, there were 87 of us here in the Senate who voted in support of No Child Left Behind. I was one of those. We recognized there was an unacceptable achievement gap in this country between low- income students and more affluent students, or students of more affluent families. So, with broad bipartisan support, we decided to hold schools accountable for the academic achievement of all students, but we did so with the recognition that the Federal Government was obligated to support these reforms and to implement them wisely. On a bipartisan basis we calculated what it would cost for States and schools to implement the law, and we authorized the programs accordingly.

The administration assured many of us that it would support these commitments of funding. Three years later, however, we find the programs authorized under No Child Left Behind underfunded by about $12 billion this year alone. Since enactment, we have actually seen a cumulative shortfall of almost $27 billion. That is reflected on this chart, starting in fiscal year 2002 and 2003, 2004, 2005. The first year, the shortfall was $4.22 billion; the next year, $5.38 billion; the next year, $7.55 billion. These are not added together on this chart. These are the shortfalls for each year. But the cumulative shortfall in No Child Left Behind programs, when you include this budget that has come before us now, would approximate $39 billion.

I do not believe there is a Member in the Senate who has not heard about the challenges their States and their school districts face in attempting to implement the No Child Left Behind legislation. Yet the resolution fails to provide adequate funding to help the States and to help our school districts implement the law. It provides minimal increases for title I grants to States which serve the country's most impoverished schools; minimal increases for IDEA. To make matters worse, because there are no increases in overall funding, these inadequate increases are paid for by proposals to eliminate and slash other critical education programs.

Since the passage of No Child Left Behind, we found that the number of schools failing to meet adequate yearly progress--and that is the key phrase in the legislation: AYP, adequate yearly progress--the number of schools failing to meet adequate yearly progress for 2 or more years has nearly doubled. It is nearly 11,000 schools nationwide. These schools are facing sanctions under No Child Left Behind.

What we mean by sanctions is that they will be required to expend an amount equal to as much as 20 percent of their title I grant to provide school choice and supplemental services; that is, transportation to other schools and supplemental services. These schools require resources. They will require technical assistance and expertise and effective strategies if they are actually going to improve. Many of these schools will not find the resources they need to turn themselves around.

Further, No Child Left Behind requires that all core academic teachers be ``highly qualified'' by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. That is this next school year. Our schools are gearing up to try to meet that requirement. Yet, astonishingly, this budget fails to provide any increases in title 2 for teacher and principal training and recruitment. In fact, it eliminates or slashes a number of teacher preparation programs. At a time when educators around the country are fighting to meet the challenges of No Child Left Behind, rather than providing them with the necessary resources, this budget actually cuts the ground out from under them. The committee may actually undermine their best efforts to improve student achievement and teacher quality and to meet our goal of closing the achievement gap.

Moreover, I am afraid the budget resolution can be seen as something of a shell game. The resolution set a nearly identical level of discretionary spending as is in the President's budget. There is just one exception: the President's budget sets a very clear policy decision and identifies where the severe cuts are to occur. This resolution adopts the President's budget, but it obfuscates policy decisions by failing to provide budget assumptions.

The level of funding in the budget resolution is nearly identical to the President's. It is insufficient to meet the needs of current spending and meet the need of the President's priorities, and it fails to say where the cuts will actually occur.

The resolution endorses the President's budget but hides the truth about from where those cuts will come. Since it endorses the President's budget, the only thing we can assume is that it endorses the President's priorities as well as his cuts.

These are the programs the budget eliminates. Let me show chart 2, which is a list of educational programs the President has recommended we eliminate. There are 48. I know it is impossible to read from any distance, but I will have a chance in the rest of my remarks to point out that many of these programs are meritorious and deserve our continued support.

The shell game nature of what is going on here is most evident in the context of high school reform. The

President proposes a $1.5 billion high school reform initiative. Who could not support that? It sounds like a great idea, but, unfortunately, it is paid for by eliminating a number of critical high school programs, including Perkins Vocational Education.

Just last week, here in the Senate we voted 99 to 0 in favor of reauthorizing the Perkins Vocational Education Act. Through the leadership of the chair and ranking member of the HELP Committee, we crafted a strong career and technical educational program in a bipartisan manner, and we did so despite the President's call to eliminate the Perkins program entirely. Clearly, 99 of our colleagues recognized that career and technical education is an important part of strengthening our high schools. This budget, however, does not provide sufficient funds for both the Perkins program, which we all endorsed last week, and the high school reform initiative that the President indicated he supports. Ninety-nine members voted in support of Perkins, but obviously that support is not real if we do not support it with funding. The budget resolution does not do that.

The chair of the Budget Committee cosponsored the Perkins legislation, spoke on the floor in support of the program, but the budget resolution would eliminate the program. In the budget that was sent to the Congress, the President proposed a new $1.5 billion high school reform initiative. Most of us agree that we need to do more at the high school level.

Forty percent of our high school graduates are not ready for the demands of college or the competitive workforce. Clearly, I support what the President has recommended by way of increases to advance placement and math and science partnerships and reading programs. But the President would pay for these increases by eliminating or slashing other high school programs--the vocational education program that I just mentioned, the Smaller Learning Communities Program, the TRIO Program, the GEAR UP Program. Obviously, the President is entitled to believe that those programs I just listed do not work, although the evidence, in my view, proves otherwise. I believe most Members of the Senate believe otherwise. We need to be clear to the American public, though, that this resolution does not provide support for these critical programs.

I believe we all want to strengthen our high schools, and there are effective ways to do so. It is noted on the Department of Education's Web site, which anyone can log on to.

When the size of the learning community and the learning environment is reduced, and closer student-teacher relationships are provided, the benefits for student learning become apparent very quickly. Students learn better in smaller learning communities. They experience a greater sense of belonging to their school. They have fewer discipline problems. Crime and violence, gang, and alcohol and tobacco abuse decline. This budget, however, eliminates the $95 million that we have in current funding for smaller learning communities.

The TRIO and the GEAR UP programs have helped millions of underrepresented student populations prepare for and succeed in college.

To understand the breadth and success of these programs, it is worth noting that TRIO serves more than 55,000 students in Texas, 25,000 students in Pennsylvania, 6,000 students in Maine, and 9,000 students in Montana. Nevertheless, the budget would eliminate the program.

GEAR UP, which currently serves more than 1 million students nationwide, has been extremely effective in preparing low-income students for postsecondary education, as well as improving the academic achievement of the students who participate in this program in high school. I know how effective the program has been in my State of New Mexico. ENLACE, a GEAR UP program in our State, has been very successful in helping Hispanic students to develop leadership skills, prepare for college, and advocate for their own education. This budget would eliminate funding for more than 4,000 students who participate in the program in Virginia and 7,000 students in Rhode Island.

With regard to graduation rates, this country is facing a crisis. The best estimate we have is that only 68 percent of our Nation's high school students actually graduate with a high school diploma in the time allotted for high school completion. The number is significantly worse if the student happens to be African American or Hispanic or Native American.

I am pleased to hear the administration talking about increasing graduation rates. The low graduation rate of our students is a national disgrace. We recognized this problem in the No Child Left Behind Act, and we required States and schools to increase graduation rates as part of adequate yearly progress, or AYP. But we also recognized the challenges of mandating higher graduation rates without adequate resources, and we authorized $125 million for States and school districts to develop innovative dropout prevention programs. The President has proposed to eliminate that program.

With all due respect, we cannot talk about increasing graduation rates and at the same time propose to eliminate efforts that would help decrease dropouts.

This program received less than $5 million last year. The administration calls for its elimination because it is too small and too ineffective.

The argument is circular. If we funded the program anywhere near the level that it is authorized, then it would not be too small, and it would not be ineffective.

Members talk about stemming the tide of dropouts, but eliminating dropout prevention programs is not the way to do that.

We have real challenges. Too many of our students are leaving high school unprepared to meet the demands of college and a competitive workforce.

This budget eliminates critical and effective programs, such as comprehensive school reform, education technology, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, parent information centers, gifted and talented programs, school counseling, Ready to Teach, Arts in Education, Even Start, National Writing Project, foreign language assistance, and school leadership.

The administration claims that programs such as mental health integration and school counseling are not a priority or they are funded elsewhere. Unfortunately, when you look at where they are funded elsewhere, the funds there are also being cut.

The administration claims that many programs are too small, or funds for programs such as Safe and Drug-Free Schools are spread too thin to be effective. I think the evidence is clearly to the contrary. Students in Oregon learn about the dangers of steroids because of that Safe and Drugfree Schools program. Safe and Drugfree Schools helps families in Iowa, helps prevent alcohol and drug abuse in Minnesota, helps strengthen families in Iowa, provides critical funding to prevent youth violence in Richmond, VA, and on and on. There are many examples. My own State loses $3 million under the proposed budget of the administration and that this budget resolution contains.

Taking a step backward, in my view, the budget eliminates education technology grants. We need to build on efforts to integrate technology into learning, not cut back on those efforts. Particularly, this is important for rural schools. We need to increase access to courses, equip teachers with advances in technology, and provide students with the means to compete in the global economy.

There is substantial money involved in education technology funding. Schools in Pennsylvania receive $17 million; schools in Texas, $42 million; Florida, $23 million; Colorado, $4 million; Georgia, $15 million; Virginia, $8 million; my home State of New Mexico, $4 million.

By eliminating these critical programs, we will be causing real harm to real students and schools. Using the Department of Education data, here is a sample of who participates in these programs. Some of the programs I have listed have a substantial number of students involved. Comprehensive school reform: 2,473 schools benefit from that, approximately, and 1.18 million children benefit from that program. Small learning communities: 591 schools and 591,000 students were to be served in 2004. It is clear there are actual effects on students from the cuts we are proposing.

The budget also slashes funding for other critical programs such as adult

basic education and literacy, Grants for Innovative Programs, and Advanced Credentialing.

My colleagues tout increases in title I spending since the President took office. There have been increases of Title I spending. A significant amount of that increase has been added by the Congress and not requested by the administration. There have been increases and the administration asked for some of those increases. But we are still substantially below what we authorized.

The level of funding is still cumulatively, if this budget is approved, $39 billion less than what we authorized for No Child Left Behind Programs, and $30.8 billion less than authorized for title I. The level is $3.6 billion less than the amount we authorized for this, this year in IDEA when that was reauthorized a few months ago.

It is also important to note that the increases were significant in only the first couple of years of No Child Left Behind. Last year, we saw an increase of less than $400 million in title I spending. This year's proposed increase is only about $600 million. In fact, the small increases are offset by changes in the poverty data and resulted in more than half of the Nation's school districts receiving fewer title I funds for the 2004/2005 school year. Ten States had their title I funds cut from the previous year's level. For this school year, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Oregon all see cuts from last year's title I allocation.

This chart shows a sample of the school districts in my State and the amounts they can expect. They have already been advised by the Department of Education that these lower amounts will be provided through title I funding for them from the current school year. The budget resolution would further complicate and add to those cuts that have already been made.

In my view, there is no higher priority for the future well-being of the country than the education of our children. I offer this amendment to bring the level of funding for education back to where it is in the current year. That is not too much to ask if we do believe that education is a priority.

I urge my colleagues to support education in this budget and to adopt my amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to speak very briefly. I gather we will have a vote in 3 minutes on my amendment. I wish to speak very briefly to summarize what it does and urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

The amendment very simply tries to restore in this budget the funds that the President has recommended we eliminate for various educational programs and that this budget also recommends we eliminate for various educational programs.

There is a long list of educational programs that is slated for termination in this budget. There are 48 programs. Some of them are programs about which many of us have spoken very eloquently. The Vocational Education Program, the Perkins legislation we passed last week, is a good example. We had a 99-to-0 vote in the Senate to reauthorize the legislation for vocational education, most of which is in our high schools, that is contained in that Perkins legislation.

This budget, the budget the President has sent us, would eliminate funding for that program. We have a great many other programs--Arts in Education; the GEAR UP program, which is focused on trying to assist minority students and economically disadvantaged students to go on to college; the TRIO program; the Upward Bound Program which, again, serves many students in my State and throughout the country. These are all programs that I

hear about when I go back to schools in my State. People say these are good programs. They are programs that are helping our students. They are, in fact, strengthening our high schools.

I know the administration's position is that we should concentrate on high schools this year and perhaps next year. That is the President's desire, that No Child Left Behind should also be extended into our high schools. I favor doing that, but I also believe very strongly that we need to keep the programs in place that are helping our high schools. We need to build on the successes we have had, not eliminate the successes we have had.

I feel very strongly that unless we add this additional money and keep these programs in place, we will, in fact, be putting our schools back rather than forward.

One other program I wish to mention which is slated for termination in the President's budget and, of course, in this budget that is presented to us in the Smaller Learning Communities Program. We are spending in the current year $94.5 million in that program. That is a program to help primarily high schools to restructure so they can provide smaller learning environments for their students. This is an extremely important concept. I am persuaded that much of the dropout problem in our schools is the result of the fact that we are sending students into very large high schools. We need to help them restructure into smaller learning communities. These grants help to do that.

I believe very strongly that we should be increasing that funding, not eliminating it. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of a critical piece of legislation, the reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. More than ever, we need rigorous, relevant career and technical education programs to help students prepare for postsecondary education and to address the shortage of highly skilled workers necessary to meet the demands of the contemporary workforce. A skilled and flexible workforce is essential to building a strong and dynamic economy and to maintaining our country's ability to compete in a global economy.

According to a recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey, 75 percent of employers report severe difficulties when trying to hire qualified workers, with 40 percent of job applicants having poor skills. Further, a survey by the National Association of Manufacturers found that 80 percent of manufacturers experience a shortage of qualified workers. Most troubling, as many as 3.3 million jobs may be sent overseas in the next 15 years, resulting in American workers losing $136 billion in wages.

With this reality, it is vitally important to support S. 250, the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education, CTE, Improvement Act of 2005. This legislation promotes a rigorous curriculum, innovative learning environments, and relevant coursework and

training, thus ensuring students receive the education and training necessary to develop a highly skilled workforce. Strong career and technical education programs are essential in addressing this shortage of highly skilled workers and in preserving American jobs.

Career and technical education must be academically rigorous and enhance students' critical thinking and applied skills. Accordingly, this bill makes a number of significant improvements to ensure that CTE students participate in a rigorous and challenging curriculum, and realize positive educational and employment outcomes.

For example, the bill integrates challenging academic and technical standards, aligned with No Child Left Behind and nationally-recognized industry standards, into CTE instruction. The bill also strengthens educational and career pathways for students beyond high school and makes significant strides in building alliances among high schools, 2- and 4-year colleges, business and industry, and community organizations. Further, the bill expands career guidance and academic counseling services to ensure that students have a career plan and career objectives.

Well-prepared CTE teachers and good professional development are essential components of an effective, rigorous CTE curriculum. CTE teachers must possess the knowledge and skills to teach effectively. Hence, this bill dedicates resources to promoting the leadership, initial preparation, and professional development of career and technical education teachers to foster effective practices.

Mr. President, this bill is designed to improve student educational and employment outcomes, including their technical and workplace knowledge and skills. But, we must be able to measure how well CTE programs are meeting the needs of its students. Accordingly, the legislation will require states to identify core indicators of performance that include measures of student achievement on technical assessments and attainment of career and technical skill proficiencies.

Thus, it is essential to develop valid and reliable assessments of technical and career competencies that are aligned with national industry standards and integrate industry certification assessments, if available and appropriate. To address this need for high-quality technical assessments, this bill permits State leadership funds to be used to develop valid and reliable assessments of technical skills that are integrated with industry certification assessments where available.

Yet, increasing academic and technical rigor alone is not enough to prepare students to enter into and compete in the 21st century workforce. The learning environment students experience also heavily impacts academic performance and student outcomes. When smaller learning communities are in place, students benefit greatly: they experience a greater sense of belonging to their schools and they have fewer discipline, crime, violence, and substance abuse problems.

I would like to highlight two high schools in my home State of New Mexico which demonstrate some of the best practices of rigorous and innovative career and technical education. Rio Rancho High School, in partnership with Intel Corporation, has served as a model example of how academic rigor, hands-on-learning, strong professional development, defined career pathways, and robust alliances are elements of a successful, quality CTE program. Rio Rancho has created academies of study for all students, which allow students to: pursue career pathways to postsecondary education and beyond; take core courses geared toward interests, skills, and competitive careers; form partnerships with instructors; and become part of a smaller learning community within the larger high school. The academies allow students to explore personal strengths and interests in relationship to career planning and job markets. Accordingly, Rio Rancho has been designated as a Microsoft Center of Innovation and Time Magazine has called Rio Rancho one of the ten most innovative career and technical schools in the nation.

Another great example of innovative career and technical education can be found at Albuquerque High School. In just a couple of years, the career academies at Albuquerque High School have demonstrated very positive student outcomes. The first students in Albuquerque's Academy of Advanced Technology have lower dropout rates and improved academic achievement.

Accordingly, this legislation recognizes that smaller learning communities are a critical educational investment and thus allows local funds to be used to support and develop personalized career themed learning communities. As Rio Rancho and Albuquerque High Schools demonstrate, rigorous career and technical education and smaller learning environments enhance students' achievement and motivation to learn.

Mr. President, this country is facing a crisis. Only 68 percent of our Nation's students are graduating high school with a regular diploma in four years. We must devote more attention and resources to increase graduation rates and promote dropout prevention. Providing quality career and technical education is one crucial way to increase graduation rates. CTE programs provide students with relevance, and are themselves a form of dropout prevention. In fact, quality CTE programs result in positive educational and employment outcomes for students. Effective career and technical education results in increased school attendance, reduced high school dropout rates, increased entry into post-secondary education and greater access to high-tech careers.

Accordingly, we must improve our ability to measure the effectiveness of career and technical education programs. High-quality data systems are essential to collect and analyze information regarding educational and employment outcomes and to inform the development of effective career and technical education programs. The data reported, however, must be complete, accurate, and reliable. Yet present data and data systems are too often incapable of meeting the requirements of career and technical education programs, of states, and of this Act. Accordingly, the bill includes several new provisions for data collection, utilization, and analysis, including provisions which allow the State allocation to be used to support and develop State data systems, and State leadership funds to be used to develop and enhance data systems to collect and analyze data on postsecondary and employment outcomes.

Effective career and technical education programs are necessary to build a strong and dynamic economy and to maintain a competitive American workforce. This legislation evinces some of the best principles of strong, effective career and technical education. Mr. President, I fully support Senate passage of S. 250.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of a concurrent resolution I submitted yesterday which conveys the deepest sympathy of the Senate to the families of the young women who have been tragically murdered in Ciudad Juarez and throughout the state of Chihuahua, and urges the Governments of Mexico and the United States to work together to address this issue. This is an issue that has not only affected the people of Mexico but has long troubled the border communities across the entire Southwest region.

Last Congress, I submitted a similar version of this resolution in conjunction with Representative Hilda Solis in the House of Representatives, and I am pleased that Senators Cornyn, Corzine, Durbin, Ensign, Feingold, Feinstein, Landrieu, Leahy, Levin, Mikulski, and Murray, have joined me in resubmitting this resolution.

This last Tuesday was International Womens' Day, and I believe that as we mark the achievements women have made, we must also recognize the challenges that remain. Stopping violence against women is one such challenge that we face. It is far too prevalent in our country and around the world, and we must do all we can to bring it to an end.

Since 1993, bodies of young women began appearing in the deserts outside the city of Juarez, Mexico, marking the beginning of a horrendous epidemic that has plagued the United States-Mexico border region for more than 10 years. Since then, more than 370 women have been killed. Many of the young women were abducted in broad daylight in well-populated areas, held captive for several days, and subjected to physical violence, humiliation, and sexual torture before having their mutilated bodies discovered days, or sometimes years, later in deserted areas. Since 2004, at least 30 women have been killed in the city of Juarez in Chihuahua.

On May 28, 2004, 14-year-old Luisa Rocio Chavez was found murdered in the state of Chihuahua after disappearing the previous morning on her way home from the store. She had been raped and strangled to death, and her body was found partially clothed. And before that, on April 26, 2004, a 33-year-old factory worker, Teresa Torbellin, was found after being beaten to death and dragged through bushes and desert, eventually being dumped in a deserted area outside the city. Like these deaths, nearly all of the cases remain unsolved. In fact, many of the bodies of victims have yet to be positively identified. One can only imagine how much pain and suffering this has caused the families and friends of these young women. I want to make sure these deaths are never forgotten, and that the Governments on both sides of the border continue to give this issue the attention it so rightly deserves.

Human rights groups have reported that in many cases bodies have been misidentified, evidence contaminated or lost, key witnesses not properly interviewed, and autopsies inadequately performed. And there have been serious allegations of instances of individuals being tortured into confessing to these horrible crimes. In one such case, an American citizen, Cynthia Kiecker, and her husband Ulises Perzabal were accused of killing a young woman and reportedly tortured into confessing. I am pleased that they have since been released.

President Vicente Fox has taken steps to address this issue by setting up the Commission to Prevent and Eradicate Violence Against Women, which is responsible for coordinating federal and state efforts in preventing violence of women in Ciudad Juarez and Chihuahua, and appointing a special prosecutor for punishing those responsible for the murders in Ciuad Juarez. The federal prosecutor, Maria Lopez Urbina, has reviewed over 200 cases and cited 130 Chihuahua public servants for negligence and malfeasance. I am encouraged that the new governor of Chihuahua, Jose Reyes Baeza Terrazass, has indicated a willingness to take steps to resole these murders.

I also want to recognize the efforts of Commissioner Guadalupe Morfin Otero, who has done some good work in investigating the issues surrounding these deaths. The Mexican Federal Government has also established a DNA database to help better identify the victims. While obtaining independent verification of victims' remains an outstanding issue, the creation of this database is a positive step in the right direction.

Although I am pleased that President Fox has taken the initiative on these fronts, I continue to believe that there needs to be a more coordinated effort on the part of the Mexican and U.S. Governments. That is why I have submitted this vitally important resolution. I stand ready to assist in any way I can, and I believe that the U.S. Government should be prepared to do so as well. The U.S. Agency for International Development has begun providing assistance to the state of Chihuahua for judicial reform, and I hope that the Mexican and U.S. Governments can work together on other initiatives as well. This resolution isn't meant to be a condemnation of Mexico. It is meant to express that the U.S. Congress stands with the victims of this violence and is willing to take constructive steps to assist in preventing these murders in the future.

Specicially, this resolution would condemn the abductions and murders of young women in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico, express the sincerest condolences and deepest sympathy of the Senate to the families of the young women, and urge a continued multilateral effort on the part of the Governments of Mexico and the United States to address this issue.

To this end, it would urge the Governments of Mexico and the United States to support steps that would allow families to positively identify the remains of the victims, and encourage the Secretary of States to continue to facilitate U.S. participation in such efforts.

It would also encourage the Secretary of State to urge the Mexican Government to ensure fair and proper judicial proceedings for the individuals accused of these abductions and murders, and to impose appropriate punishment for those individuals found guilty of such crimes. Additionally, it would condemn threats against human rights activists and the use of torture as a means of investigation.

Lastly, this resolution would condemn all senseless acts of violence against women across the world and express the solidarity of the people of the United States with the people of Mexico in the face of these tragic and senseless acts.

This problem can't be ignored. We have the chance to help end the suffering of these innocent families, and I hope the Senate will join me in supporting this resolution.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 51 to the bankruptcy bill.

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

Mr. President, this amendment would help to ensure that legal representation remains affordable and accessible to lower income Americans who are forced into bankruptcy.

As currently written, the bill contains provisions that would significantly increase attorney's fees and expenses related to the filing of a bankruptcy petition. Under existing law, attorneys can rely on information that a client provides regarding the extent and the value of their assets, such as the worth of a car, household furniture, and that sort of item.

In an effort to combat the perceived abuse of the bankruptcy system, this proposed bill requires an attorney to certify that the attorney has made an inquiry into the client's assertions, and it subjects the lawyers to personal liability for inaccuracies in a debtor's list of assets. Although the proponents of this provision may argue that the change will prevent abuse, I believe it is an unnecessary change that will have significant unintended consequences.

Under existing law, attorneys are already required to certify that pleadings, motions, and other materials have factual support pursuant to bankruptcy rule 9011. Attorneys are also prohibited from knowingly making any legal or factual misrepresentation to the court or assisting a client in any abuse. If we want to address misconduct by attorneys, what we need is better enforcement of those existing rules. If we want to address abuse by debtors in submitting their lists of assets, we should seek to hold those individuals responsible. My amendment would do that by making specific debts nondischargeable if the debtor lied about them in their bankruptcy schedule.

With regard to the unintended consequences of these changes, in order to protect themselves from harsh sanctions, attorneys would be forced to conduct a costly investigation into the value and the actual existence of the client's claimed assets. This would not only directly increase the attorney's expenses, it would also likely raise very significantly other costs such as malpractice insurance. The Attorneys' Liability Protections Society, Inc., which is a malpractice carrier that insures 15,000 lawyers in 27 jurisdictions around the country, has estimated that the impact of this provision could result in the immediate increase of insurance premiums for bankruptcy lawyers from 10 to 20 percent.

The bankruptcy bill contains another provision with regard to reaffirmation agreements that will also likely result in higher attorney's fees and costs.

Current law provides that debtors can reaffirm a debt and therefore keep a specific asset, as long as the attorney certifies the decision to do so is voluntary and will not create undue hardship for the debtor.

As drafted, S. 256 would require attorneys, where there is a presumption of hardship, to certify that debtors would be able to make future payments under the agreement. Attorneys are not accountants and would have to conduct extensive audits of their client's finances in order to determine if that client would be able to afford specific payments. Of course, that would drive up attorneys' fees as well.

These additional costs would negatively impact on the accessibility of legal representation and court administration in two primary ways. First, they would reduce the ability of lawyers to take on pro bono cases and would make these legal services unavailable to many indigent debtors. In my own State, the law clinic at the University of New Mexico Law School has said if the bill passes in its current form, it would likely have to stop doing bankruptcy work for indigent clients due to the additional cost and concerns related to the attorney sanction provision. Second, these costs would place additional administrative burdens on the Nation's courts by increasing the number of individuals who would be representing themselves in the court proceeding due to their inability to afford an attorney. According to the Chief Bankruptcy Judge for the District of New Mexico, cases involving pro se debtors, debtors who are representing themselves, can take up to 10 times as much time to process as cases where debtors are represented by counsel. As such, even a small increase in the number of cases being processed without counsel could create substantial administrative burdens on our bankruptcy courts.

So the amendment I have called up would do three things. First, it would replace the attorney liability language in section 102 of the bill with new language that would impose nondischargeable sanctions on debtors who lie on their bankruptcy schedules. Second, it would urge bankruptcy courts to more vigorously enforce existing rules regarding the sanctioning of attorneys where misconduct has been demonstrated. These changes would properly address abuse in the bankruptcy system by holding debtors responsible for intentional misrepresentations in listing the worth of their assets and holding attorneys responsible if they assist in any such abuse. Last, the amendment would maintain existing law with regard to the certification of reaffirmation agreements by attorneys.

I understand the need to punish attorneys for abuse of the bankruptcy process but there are ways to do this without unnecessarily driving up the cost of legal representation. This, in my view, is an amendment that is reasonable. The American Bar Association has endorsed it. I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

I have talked to various of my colleagues in the Senate. I have watched the amendments being defeated in the Senate for the last several days. I believe I am correct that every single amendment that has been offered to this bill has been defeated, many of them on pretty much a party-line vote. So it is clear to me that offering this amendment and actually requiring a vote on it will not be productive.

I do believe it is a significant issue. It is an issue that should be addressed before this bill is completed and goes to the President for signature. I hope my colleagues will consider the need to address this issue and make changes in the bill. But, because of the lack of support, at this point I will not ask for a vote on the amendment.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I briefly would like to say how pleased I am that the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Study Act was enacted in the last Congress. That Act,

Public Law 108-340, directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to assess the national significance, suitability, and feasibility of designating one or more of the historically significant sites associated with the Manhattan Project as a unit of the National Park System. The significance of the Manhattan Project to this Nation--and indeed the world--would be difficult to overstate, and I believe that passing this bill was an important step in fulfilling our responsibility to ensure that society neither forgets nor misunderstands it.

The legislation directs the Secretary to include within the study the ``historically significant sites associated with the Manhattan Project.'' While the bill lists three of those sites, it does not limit the study to only those sites. Additional sites may be included, and it leaves that decision to the discretion of the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and other interested Federal, State, tribal, and local officials, representatives of organizations, and members of the public. So, by those terms, there certainly is the opportunity for sites such as the Dayton Project to be included in the study.

Mr. President, the landmark report Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General brought the hidden mental health crisis to the attention of the U.S. public. According to that report, 13.7 million of the Nation's children and adolescents, twenty percent, have a diagnosable mental disorder, the most common of which include Anxiety Disorder, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Depression. Unfortunately, only one out of five of those in need will receive mental health care. One of the primary reasons for this across the Nation is that mental health services to help treat children are in short supply. Long waiting lists for children seeking care, even those in crisis, are not uncommon. In New Mexico, it's estimated that 56,000 children and adolescents have a mental or emotional disorder. Of these, almost 20,000 have serious emotional disorders. As of June 2003, there were only 13 licensed child and adolescent psychiatrists to serve the entire State of New Mexico. In addition, there are fewer trained psychologists and social workers per 100,000 population in New Mexico than the country as a whole. Children with untreated mental disorders are at a higher risk for school failure and dropping out, violence, drug abuse, suicide, and criminal activity. A 2002 report documented that approximately one in seven youth in New Mexico detention centers incarcerated because mental health care is not available. From January to December 2001, 718 New Mexico youth were collectively incarcerated for 31.3 years just to wait for a mental health treatment opening. Clearly, something needs to be done to address this growing shortage of these important health professionals.

The Surgeon General states that there is a dearth of child psychiatrists, appropriately trained clinical child psychologists, or social workers. Nationwide, 3,543 urban, suburban, and rural localities have been designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas by the Federal Government due to their severe lack of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and other professionals to serve children and adults. According to the U.S. Bureau of Health Professions, the demand for the services of child and adolescent psychiatrists is projected to increase by 100 percent by 2020, while the number of these professionals is expected to increase by only 30 percent resulting in a shortage of over 4,000 child and adolescent psychiatrists by that year. The National Center for Education Statistics within the U.S. Department of Education reports that the national average student-to-school counselor ratio in U.S. schools is 513:1, more than double the recommended ratio of 250:1.

In the United States, there are approximately 7,000 child and adolescent psychiatrists and only 300 new child and adolescent psychiatrists are trained each year. In 2000, the Bureau of Health Professions projected that between 1995 and 2020, the use of child and adolescent psychiatrists will increase by 100 percent.

While the Nation as a whole is experiencing a shortage of mental health professionals, the problem is most acute in the rural areas. In NM for example, 4/5 of the psychiatrists in NM are located in Bernalillo and Santa Fe Counties. This area is also home to 70 percent of the psychologists, 53 percent of counselors and 47 percent of the social workers--leaving the rest of the State at a severe disadvantage.

It is in response to the mental health workforce crisis that I rise with my colleagues Senator Collins of Maine, Senator Harkin of Iowa, Senator Dodd of Connecticut, Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts, Senator Reed from Rhode Island and Senator Sarbanes of Maryland, to offer The Child Healthcare Crisis Relief Act. This bill creates incentives to help recruit and retain child mental health professionals providing direct clinical care, and to improve, expand, or help create programs to train child mental health professionals. It provides loan repayment and scholarships for child mental health and school-based service professionals as well as internships and field placements in child mental health services and training for paraprofessionals who work in children's mental health clinical settings. This bill also provides grants to graduate schools to help develop and expand child and adolescent mental health programs. It allows for an increase in the number of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists permitted under the Medicare Graduate Medical Education Program and, extends the Board Eligibility period for residents and fellows from four years to six years.

Finally, this bill asks the Secretary to prepare a report on the distribution and need for child mental health and school-based professionals with respect to specialty certifications, practice characteristics, professional licensure, practice types, locations, education, and training, broken down by State so that we may better comprehend the mental health workforce needs that are facing our Nation.

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

Mr. President, the landmark report Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General brought the hidden mental health crisis to the attention of the U.S. public. According to that report, 13.7 million of the Nation's children and adolescents, twenty percent, have a diagnosable mental disorder, the most common of which include Anxiety Disorder, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Depression. Unfortunately, only one out of five of those in need will receive mental health care. One of the primary reasons for this across the Nation is that mental health services to help treat children are in short supply. Long waiting lists for children seeking care, even those in crisis, are not uncommon. In New Mexico, it's estimated that 56,000 children and adolescents have a mental or emotional disorder. Of these, almost 20,000 have serious emotional disorders. As of June 2003, there were only 13 licensed child and adolescent psychiatrists to serve the entire State of New Mexico. In addition, there are fewer trained psychologists and social workers per 100,000 population in New Mexico than the country as a whole. Children with untreated mental disorders are at a higher risk for school failure and dropping out, violence, drug abuse, suicide, and criminal activity. A 2002 report documented that approximately one in seven youth in New Mexico detention centers incarcerated because mental health care is not available. From January to December 2001, 718 New Mexico youth were collectively incarcerated for 31.3 years just to wait for a mental health treatment opening. Clearly, something needs to be done to address this growing shortage of these important health professionals.

The Surgeon General states that there is a dearth of child psychiatrists, appropriately trained clinical child psychologists, or social workers. Nationwide, 3,543 urban, suburban, and rural localities have been designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas by the Federal Government due to their severe lack of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and other professionals to serve children and adults. According to the U.S. Bureau of Health Professions, the demand for the services of child and adolescent psychiatrists is projected to increase by 100 percent by 2020, while the number of these professionals is expected to increase by only 30 percent resulting in a shortage of over 4,000 child and adolescent psychiatrists by that year. The National Center for Education Statistics within the U.S. Department of Education reports that the national average student-to-school counselor ratio in U.S. schools is 513:1, more than double the recommended ratio of 250:1.

In the United States, there are approximately 7,000 child and adolescent psychiatrists and only 300 new child and adolescent psychiatrists are trained each year. In 2000, the Bureau of Health Professions projected that between 1995 and 2020, the use of child and adolescent psychiatrists will increase by 100 percent.

While the Nation as a whole is experiencing a shortage of mental health professionals, the problem is most acute in the rural areas. In NM for example, 4/5 of the psychiatrists in NM are located in Bernalillo and Santa Fe Counties. This area is also home to 70 percent of the psychologists, 53 percent of counselors and 47 percent of the social workers--leaving the rest of the State at a severe disadvantage.

It is in response to the mental health workforce crisis that I rise with my colleagues Senator Collins of Maine, Senator Harkin of Iowa, Senator Dodd of Connecticut, Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts, Senator Reed from Rhode Island and Senator Sarbanes of Maryland, to offer The Child Healthcare Crisis Relief Act. This bill creates incentives to help recruit and retain child mental health professionals providing direct clinical care, and to improve, expand, or help create programs to train child mental health professionals. It provides loan repayment and scholarships for child mental health and school-based service professionals as well as internships and field placements in child mental health services and training for paraprofessionals who work in children's mental health clinical settings. This bill also provides grants to graduate schools to help develop and expand child and adolescent mental health programs. It allows for an increase in the number of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists permitted under the Medicare Graduate Medical Education Program and, extends the Board Eligibility period for residents and fellows from four years to six years.

Finally, this bill asks the Secretary to prepare a report on the distribution and need for child mental health and school-based professionals with respect to specialty certifications, practice characteristics, professional licensure, practice types, locations, education, and training, broken down by State so that we may better comprehend the mental health workforce needs that are facing our Nation.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I first commend my colleague from Montana for his statement about Social Security and his leadership on that issue. He has been the leader in the Senate in

trying to keep us focused on the real importance of maintaining Social Security and avoiding a privatized proposal, and I commend him for it. It is an honor for me to serve with him on the Finance Committee and follow his leadership on this issue.

As we all know, Social Security and proposals to change Social Security are very much the priority today in Washington, and particularly this President. The President just yesterday, I believe, announced that he will take the next 2 months to do a 60-city tour or to at least have events in 60 cities to try to promote his suggestion or his proposal for privatizing Social Security. Of course, this is a decision he has made about how to use the political capital that he saw himself coming out of the last election with.

Social Security is clearly an issue that deserves attention. There will be serious difficulties with Social Security. I believe 38 years from now, with current projections, the system will not be able to pay full benefits. I favor trying to find something that can be done to head that off. I do not believe the President's proposal is the right solution, and I have spoken out on that before.

First Things First

What I want to do today is speak very briefly on a couple of other issues that I believe are more urgent and more priority issues that we in the Congress should be addressing and that the President should be addressing. If we are looking to how to spend the next 60 days, let us focus on first things first. I remember reading a book Peter Drucker wrote many years ago called ``The Effective Executive.'' According to Peter Drucker, one of the attributes of an effective executive was that he or she would work on first things first.

In my view, first things first today in our circumstance is not changing Social Security. First things first is dealing with our budget deficits and dealing with our trade deficits. Unfortunately, I believe we are failing to deal with either of those issues in a responsible way.

First I will talk about the budget deficit. In 2004, we had a record deficit of $412 billion. That was a turnaround from the $128 billion surplus we had 4 years ago. In 2005, this year, the deficit is projected to grow to $427 billion, and clearly this is an unsustainable course. We need to look carefully at the decisions we are making in Washington and what those decisions will do with regard to this very large budget deficit.

The first step in addressing the budget deficit is to make some tough choices in this year's budget. The process starts with the President's recently released proposal, and it will conclude with Congress's actions when we actually appropriate funds.

I support the President's stated intention to cut the deficit in half by 2009, although it is also clear to me that we cannot do so if we adopt his proposed budget. The budget claims to get us to that goal, but, in fact, it falls short because it excludes so many large-ticket items.

The budget does not include the real costs of going forward with the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that cost will be roughly $383 billion over the next 10 years. The President has put in his budget an estimate for $81 billion. We are going to be passing a supplemental appropriation for $81 billion just for current operations in Iraq, to say nothing of the next 5 or 10 years of cost.

The second item the President's budget does not include is anything for these so-called private accounts that the President wants to have us establish in Social Security. Again, the estimate in the President's budget is zero. The phased-in cost of the administration's Social Security plan during the first 10 years is projected at $754 billion, and over 20 years it is projected at $4.5 trillion. The Senator from Montana spoke about that issue.

The third item the budget does not include is anything to deal with the alternative minimum tax. Taxpayers must pay the alternative minimum tax if they have too many deductions and credits and, therefore, otherwise are not paying a sufficient percent of their income in taxes. If we made the President's tax cuts permanent, we would go from roughly 3 million alternative minimum tax payers, which we had last year, to roughly 40 million alternative minimum tax payers at the end of the decade. That is a very expensive proposition. If the tax cuts are to be made permanent, reform of the alternative minimum tax is going to cost a very substantial amount of money: $774 billion is the 10-year cost of reforming the alternative minimum tax during the years 2006 to 2015.

The failure to deal with the short-term cost of our defense budget and the proposal to make recent tax relief permanent is going to leave future generations with no options except to drastically raise taxes or to drastically cut services and benefits. Most of this should be avoidable, but first we need a realistic plan about how to move forward. It is clear that simply cutting discretionary spending accounts, as the President's budget proposes, is not the answer.

To put this in context, the administration estimates that the deficit of 2005 is $425 billion. That is about the same as our entire nondefense discretionary spending for 2005. So you can eliminate all of these departments whose spending levels we are going to be arguing about here over the next several months: the Energy Department, Education Department, Transportation Department, Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland Security. You can eliminate the Department of Homeland Security and you still do not solve the problem of the deficit. No one is proposing to eliminate all of that, but I think it gives you a sense of the magnitude of the problem when you look at the fact that we cannot solve this problem strictly by cutting domestic discretionary spending. That is the point.

As we all know, debt matters. There are three obvious reasons why debt matters. First, debt prevents us from dealing with the costs involved with the aging of our population. Second, we need to find other countries to lend us money as long as we are going to keep running this kind of enormous debt.

We have a chart here that shows where we are getting the money we are borrowing every day, every week, every month. These are the top 10 countries that hold our national debt. Over 60 percent of our debt is purchased by foreign government banks. The top 10 countries are Japan, and we owe them $715 billion; China, $191 billion; United Kingdom, $152 billion; ``Caribbean banking centers,'' we owe $76 billion; South Korea, we owe $69 billion. This was as of November 2004, so all of those figures are now larger than this chart reflects.

A third reason why debt matters is that high deficit levels will eventually result in higher interest rates. All of us know that higher interest rates depress economic activity, hurt consumers, and clearly it does not make sense for us to take action here to adopt budgets that have the ultimate effect of driving up interest rates.

What we need is a real plan, one that can be supported by a majority of the Members of the Congress, one that can become law. We need a budget that is honest. We need to provide voters with clear choices, letting them know what the real impact of different options is.

One of the areas we need to deal with honestly and not just to demagog is the issue of taxes. I believe there is sufficient bipartisan support to make permanent many of the tax provisions that are now scheduled to expire in 2010. For example, the marriage penalty relief, child tax credit, 10-percent income tax bracket--those are provisions that were adopted at the urging of President Bush which enjoy broad support here in the Congress and around the country. We should find a way to make that a permanent part of the tax package that we have earlier adopted.

Even though the administration requested that we make all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, I do not believe there are sufficient votes in the Senate to do that. There are not enough votes because there are enough Senators who realize we do not have the resources to do that. Overall, making all of the tax cuts permanent will put us an additional half trillion dollars in debt over the next 10 years.

Here is the chart that shows what happens after 2010, if you go ahead and do what the President is urging and make all these tax cuts permanent. You can see essentially that 10-year cost, from 2006 to 2015, is $1.6 trillion. This is unsustainable. We need something responsible we can negotiate and

on which we can arrive at a consensus. We need a real plan for dealing with our budget deficit.

Let me say a few words also about the trade deficit. As we know, the trade deficit is the difference between what we sell to the rest of the world in goods and services and what they sell to us. On February 10, the Department of Commerce released the trade data for 2004. The trade deficit in 2004 was $617.7 billion. That is a new record for trade deficits for the United States. It is a new record for any country. There is no other country in the world that has ever had such a trade deficit. It was $121 billion more than the previous record of $496 billion we set in 2003.

To emphasize the point a little more, it was a 24-percent increase in 1 year, in spite of 3 straight years of declines in the value of the dollar.

Let me show a couple of charts here. This first one shows what has happened to trade deficits starting in 1992. It went up a little, then sort of leveled off during the mid-1990s, and then it started up again in 1998 and it has been going up ever since and there is no end in sight. I believe this is a major problem. Let me give you the reasons why.

If you look at historical context, in the mid-1980s the Reagan administration found itself in a similar circumstance. This is a more complicated chart, but what it tries to do is show the trade deficit, which is this red line, and also show the value of the dollar compared to other currencies. The trade deficit started up in the mid-1980s, in the Reagan administration. It was a concern then. The Reagan administration was not known for its policies of Government intervention, but the Secretary of the Treasury then understood that something had to be done to deal with this growing trade deficit. The result was the 1985 Plaza Accord, which bound the governments of the then G-7 countries to pursue specific actions related to currency valuations, market access, deregulation, deficit spending, and workforce investment. And the deficit, the trade deficit, came down. The value of the dollar came down relative to other currencies and the trade deficit came down.

What we have now, and this chart makes the point very emphatically, is the value of the dollar went up and in the last 3 years it has been coming down, but the trade deficit continues to go up. This is an unsustainable situation, just as the budget deficit is an unsustainable situation. This affects people throughout the country in very obvious ways.

This chart shows the trade deficit. Again, the red line is going up as compared to manufacturing exports, which have been going down in the last 4 or 5 years. So you have people losing their jobs. You have U.S. companies finding it impossible to export. Accordingly, we have a very serious issue with decline in manufacturing jobs in the United States. It is a long-term decline. It seems to continue unabated. While the trade deficit continues to grow, manufacturing jobs continue to drop.

These charts speak to a very significant problem I believe needs attention. Let me suggest four concrete actions we could take to address the trade deficit.

First, we need to recognize the importance of research and technology development in our own country. Across the board, we need to have targeted investments in critical emerging technologies. We need to see to it that we remain on the cutting edge of new technologies. Unfortunately the administration's budget actually decreases support for science and technology and engineering research and development. In my view, that is moving us in the exact wrong direction.

This chart shows the budgets, proposed budgets the administration has given us for all of these agencies that are very involved in science and technology. You can see, with the exception of one agency, NASA, everyone else is slated for a cut. That is moving us in the wrong direction.

A second step we can take is to actually step up and begin enforcing our trade agreements in a meaningful way. I think we have assumed that other countries will play by the rules, and the more trade agreements we could enter into, the better off we will be. That has not proven to be the case. The administration has done little to make many of these countries abide by their agreements. China is the most salient example. We have a $162 billion trade deficit with that country today. It is up 31 percent from 2004 over 2003. We have lost well over a million jobs to China in the last decade or 15 years. China continues to manipulate the value of its currency, continues to subsidize its exports. I believe it is time the administration insists on better treatment. It needs to start by pressing the Chinese to revalue their currency. We have a circumstance now where everything the Chinese send to us is artificially undervalued and everything we send to them is artificially overvalued, and that hurts us badly.

The third suggestion I have is we need to improve our education and workforce training systems. There is no question we need to have people who can fill these jobs if we are going to hope to attract and retain these jobs. Again, I point to the President's budget and say that it is wrongheaded in the extreme in this regard. The administration proposes elimination of these 48 educational programs. I am not suggesting all of those are meritorious, but many of them are, and many of them are helping local school districts and States to improve their education system.

I think there are many things that can be done. I have various recommendations of bills to try to help. I hope we can seriously push back against the administration on these proposed cuts in education and training, job training funds.

The final point I would suggest is the final concrete action we can take to deal with the trade deficit is to encourage foreign firms to contribute to the U.S. economy, to come here and establish here and create jobs here to a much greater extent than we have in the past. What we need is a national strategy to do the very same thing our States are doing and our local communities are doing, and that is they are working hard to attract business and to create jobs. We need an aggressive effort on the national level to do the same. We need a concerted effort to market the United States to other countries as a place to do business, a good place to do business.

I am working on legislation that I will introduce soon that would increase the U.S. Government's efforts in this regard to establish a very visible, assertive entity where the primary mission would be to promote increased foreign investment in the United States.

Once we take these steps, the four I have outlined, then we at least would have some strategy in place to increase domestic investment and to draw foreign investment to our country to a greater extent. Maybe those actions could help shrink the trade deficit.

We should be working on our highest priority problems, our most urgent problems. It is my firm belief that the budget deficit and the trade deficit are those problems.

Let me finish by saying we should not allow politics as usual to prevail in this 109th Congress. The decline in the value of the dollar and the decisions that we have seen in recent weeks by foreign banks to begin shifting their reserves from dollars to other currencies, those are our signals that financial markets want responsible action by this Government to deal with these two problems, the budget deficit and the trade deficit.

I ask unanimous consent an editorial from earlier this week in the Washington Post be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. President, that editorial makes the point that these issues deserve attention, and we cannot postpone action on these issues indefinitely. We in Congress and the administration need to get the message that foreign governments and foreign banks are sending to us. We need to face up to the challenge. We need to begin addressing the budget deficit and the trade deficit as first priority issues, and not push them off while we continue to deal with other matters.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 1, 2005]

Dollar Jitters

Last week brought a warning to economic policymakers on

both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. A rumor that South Korea's

central bank had decided to shift its reserves away from

dollars triggered a sharp fall in the

greenback and a retreat on Wall Street. The fact that the

South Koreans later denied this rumor is only half-

comforting. Economic logic is pushing Asia's central banks to

quit propping up the dollar. If a hollow rumor can rattle the

currency, what would a real policy change do?

The dollar's vulnerability reflects the nation's trade

deficit. To sustain their appetite for foreign goods,

Americans need to convert their dollars into other

currencies, depressing the greenback's value. This didn't

stop the dollar from being strong in the 1990s, because the

trade deficit was smaller then and because foreign investors

were hungry for American stocks, bonds and other assets,

reflecting the U.S. economy's eviable performance. But now

foreign investors' appetite for dollars lags behind

Americans' demand for foreign goods and services. The gap is

being filled by Asian governments, whose central banks have

accumulated vast piles of U.S. bonds in an attempt to slow

the dollar's slide.

A year or so ago, a fashionable theory held that this Asian

government support could continue indefinitely. Asian

policymakers, according to this theory, would prop up the

dollar to keep their own currencies competitive. It's true

that export-led growth is a quasi-religion in East Asia and

that China's dictators fear their grip on power might falter

if they can't keep growth and job creation humming. But China

and its neighbors have proved themselves capable of fast

growth even in periods when they haven't been artificially

depressing their own currencies. So it seems dangerous to bet

that Asian central banks will think it worth the risk of

holding ever-expanding dollar portfolios that can falter on a

rumor.

The other optimistic theory is that while Asians may not

want to prop up the dollar, they are prisoners of their own

policy. By now they've bought so many dollars that if they

quit buying, the value of their existing reserves would tank.

But what if one central bank worries that others will stop

buying dollars first? Such fears could trigger a stampede for

the exit.

None of this is to say that a dollar crash is inevitable.

The dollar may fall gently, as it has over the past year or

so, or a renewed appetite for U.S. assets among private

investors could even stabilize its value. But the risk of a

currency crash grows every day. In 2003, the United States

had to attract $530 billion of foreign capital to finance its

purchases of foreign stuff; in 2004 it had to attract $650

billion; this year, it may have to pull in as much as $800

billion. Every year of vast borrowing increases borrowing in

later years; as Brad Setser of Oxford University notes, just

paying interest on the $800 billion borrowed in 2005 might

add $40 billion to the overall 2006 deficit.

To stabilize this house of cards, Congress and the

administration should pull the one lever they have: They

should reduce the nation's reliance on foreign capital by

cutting government borrowing. This isn't going to be possible

through spending cuts alone. It's going to take higher taxes.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Coleman, to introduce the American Competitiveness Through International Openness Now (``ACTION'') Act of 2005.

A few days ago, I came to the Senate floor to discuss the importance of the United States taking steps to ensure that we remain the world leader in terms of scientific research and innovation. There is a global competition underway for dominance in science and technology, and I remain concerned that the federal resources we are allocating for research and development are completely insufficient. At a time when other countries are investing more in R & D, we are cutting back Federal support of key science programs. Our Nation's economic competitiveness depends on reversing this trend.

We must also do all we can to continue to develop a highly skilled domestic workforce. It is paramount that we improve math and science education in our school systems, and spend more on graduate education in science and engineering. Maintaining the world's best education system is essential for ensuring Americans well-paying jobs and critical for our economic and national security.

Another area that we must also address in order to ensure U.S. competitiveness in the world economy is visa processing for scientists, engineers, and students wishing to come to the United States. Red tape and delays, although improving, still plague our overseas embassies and threaten our long-term economic security.

The ACTION Act of 2005 would address this important issue.

A country's immigration system helps determines its relationship to the global marketplace. The system can either be conducive to the free flow of ideas, scientists, and international business ventures, or it can provide disincentives to the flow of international talent and scientific collaboration.

Since September 11, the United States has adopted a number of visa policies aimed at making the United States and the traveling public more secure. Unfortunately, those policies have also had a significant impact on scientific collaboration with other countries and have made it problematic for exchange students to come to the United States with the ease they once enjoyed. While the United States has an obligation to thoroughly vet visa applicants, we need to find ways to do so that keep us engaged with the rest of the world and keep our efforts

focused on those that seek to do us harm.

Our international economic competitors are taking proactive steps to encourage highly talented students and graduates to come to their countries and study in their universities. In contrast, the attitude that the United States seems to be projecting to highly talented foreign scientists and students is one of complacency. This not only damages our image abroad, but also hampers research in the nation's laboratories and universities.

Recent studies from the National Science Foundation and the Council of Graduate Schools, as well as State Department statistics, have documented a sharp decline in the foreign students seeking advanced scientific and technical degrees in graduate schools across the United States. The National Science Foundation has found that the combination of an overly restrictive U.S. policy towards issuing visas, the growing perception that the United States is hostile to foreigners, and the increase in opportunities overseas has significantly challenged our ability to attract the best and brightest from around the world to come to the U.S. to study and engage in open scientific exchange.

The 2003-2004 academic year marked the first absolute decline in foreign student enrollments since the early 1970's. And in the fall of 2004, international student applications to graduate schools dropped 28 percent from the same time in 2003.

In contrast, other countries have instituted aggressive strategies for attracting students, scholars, and scientists and have sought to encourage access to universities and promote scientific collaboration. One such example is Australia, which has increased international student enrollment 53 percent since 2001. The European Union has also set forth a comprehensive strategy to be the ``most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world'' by 2010. A key part of this strategy is aimed at making the E.U. the most favorable destination for students, scholars, and researchers from around the world.

Our university system is the envy of the world, and where we have a long-standing record of producing the best trained and most innovative scientists and engineers, and we must not concede our leadership in this area.

It is also important to note that international students play an important economic role--the Institute of International Education recently determined that through tuition and living expenses, foreign students contribute roughly $13 billion to the U.S. economy.

In particular, the ACTION Act of 2005 would help keep international students and scientist coming to the United States to participate in essential research and exchange programs by: improving visa processing in a manner consistent with national security; requiring the President to develop a strategic plan to enhance the recruitment and access of students, scholars, and scientist coming to the United States; reforming the SEVIS system, which tracks students, to allow approved schools to make corrections to a student's record to correct database errors; and by facilitating that the FBI and the State Department develop interoperable data systems.

Openness to international students and scientist is an important aspect of maintaining American competitiveness in the world economy, and I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in supporting this essential bill.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Coleman, to introduce the American Competitiveness Through International Openness Now (``ACTION'') Act of 2005.

A few days ago, I came to the Senate floor to discuss the importance of the United States taking steps to ensure that we remain the world leader in terms of scientific research and innovation. There is a global competition underway for dominance in science and technology, and I remain concerned that the federal resources we are allocating for research and development are completely insufficient. At a time when other countries are investing more in R & D, we are cutting back Federal support of key science programs. Our Nation's economic competitiveness depends on reversing this trend.

We must also do all we can to continue to develop a highly skilled domestic workforce. It is paramount that we improve math and science education in our school systems, and spend more on graduate education in science and engineering. Maintaining the world's best education system is essential for ensuring Americans well-paying jobs and critical for our economic and national security.

Another area that we must also address in order to ensure U.S. competitiveness in the world economy is visa processing for scientists, engineers, and students wishing to come to the United States. Red tape and delays, although improving, still plague our overseas embassies and threaten our long-term economic security.

The ACTION Act of 2005 would address this important issue.

A country's immigration system helps determines its relationship to the global marketplace. The system can either be conducive to the free flow of ideas, scientists, and international business ventures, or it can provide disincentives to the flow of international talent and scientific collaboration.

Since September 11, the United States has adopted a number of visa policies aimed at making the United States and the traveling public more secure. Unfortunately, those policies have also had a significant impact on scientific collaboration with other countries and have made it problematic for exchange students to come to the United States with the ease they once enjoyed. While the United States has an obligation to thoroughly vet visa applicants, we need to find ways to do so that keep us engaged with the rest of the world and keep our efforts

focused on those that seek to do us harm.

Our international economic competitors are taking proactive steps to encourage highly talented students and graduates to come to their countries and study in their universities. In contrast, the attitude that the United States seems to be projecting to highly talented foreign scientists and students is one of complacency. This not only damages our image abroad, but also hampers research in the nation's laboratories and universities.

Recent studies from the National Science Foundation and the Council of Graduate Schools, as well as State Department statistics, have documented a sharp decline in the foreign students seeking advanced scientific and technical degrees in graduate schools across the United States. The National Science Foundation has found that the combination of an overly restrictive U.S. policy towards issuing visas, the growing perception that the United States is hostile to foreigners, and the increase in opportunities overseas has significantly challenged our ability to attract the best and brightest from around the world to come to the U.S. to study and engage in open scientific exchange.

The 2003-2004 academic year marked the first absolute decline in foreign student enrollments since the early 1970's. And in the fall of 2004, international student applications to graduate schools dropped 28 percent from the same time in 2003.

In contrast, other countries have instituted aggressive strategies for attracting students, scholars, and scientists and have sought to encourage access to universities and promote scientific collaboration. One such example is Australia, which has increased international student enrollment 53 percent since 2001. The European Union has also set forth a comprehensive strategy to be the ``most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world'' by 2010. A key part of this strategy is aimed at making the E.U. the most favorable destination for students, scholars, and researchers from around the world.

Our university system is the envy of the world, and where we have a long-standing record of producing the best trained and most innovative scientists and engineers, and we must not concede our leadership in this area.

It is also important to note that international students play an important economic role--the Institute of International Education recently determined that through tuition and living expenses, foreign students contribute roughly $13 billion to the U.S. economy.

In particular, the ACTION Act of 2005 would help keep international students and scientist coming to the United States to participate in essential research and exchange programs by: improving visa processing in a manner consistent with national security; requiring the President to develop a strategic plan to enhance the recruitment and access of students, scholars, and scientist coming to the United States; reforming the SEVIS system, which tracks students, to allow approved schools to make corrections to a student's record to correct database errors; and by facilitating that the FBI and the State Department develop interoperable data systems.

Openness to international students and scientist is an important aspect of maintaining American competitiveness in the world economy, and I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in supporting this essential bill.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 15 minutes in morning business.

Madam President, today marks the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. Following President Bush's decision to opt out of ratification of that treaty, enforcement of the Protocol fell onto Russian shoulders and was finally ratified by the Russian Federation late last year. Today it is a legally binding treaty.

The basic climate change problem is well understood. We have been told repeatedly in peer reviewed scientific assessments that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases will lead to an increase in the average global temperature. The increasing temperature of the earth will lead to a large number of important changes to today's climate system. Through past emissions and projected emissions over coming years and decades we expect that the warming will accelerate unless the world alters its emissions path. Indications of warming are already evident in the global temperature record. Last year was the fourth- warmest year since temperature measurements began in the 19th century. The warmest year on record was 1998, followed by 2002 and 2003. Indications are also evident in the vast changes now underway in the Arctic and the bleaching of coral reefs around the world.

Over the years there have been many who have been skeptical of the science that has informed us of the climate change problem. But the mainstream of the scientific community, as evidenced by panels organized through the National Academy of Sciences, has been quite consistent in their views. Our doubling of the pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide has been a major factor in increased global average temperatures.

If human-induced global warming continues on its present path, the

changes to our way of life could be vast. We know this from looking at climates of the past as well as projections made by scientific models. There would be significant changes in water resources, because precipitation patterns will change. The sea level will increase because the oceans will warm and will expand. The ice sheets of Greenland and parts of Antarctica could disintegrate, further adding to long-term sea level rise. A warming of the earth will place major ecological systems at risk, including many of our forests and coral reefs. We are essentially performing a global experiment with our planet, with increasing risk to the future. A prudent course of action would be to take steps now to lower these risks, while we continue to improve our understanding of the implications of the warming of our planet.

The desirability of taking prudent steps now, on a national and international basis, to stem global warming is further highlighted by other developments. Across the United States, an increasing number of individual States are taking policy steps related to global warming. California and New York are moving forward with innovative programs to do their part in minimizing emissions. Add into the mix States like Pennsylvania, Colorado, Texas, Minnesota and others and you can see that a patchwork quilt of climate policies is being formed across the United States. While States can be a great laboratory of ideas, the developing situation really calls out for Federal leadership to get to a more coordinated and rational approach across the country.

The business community is looking for federal leadership as well. At a recent hearing before the Energy Committee, an industry economist called climate change a ``wild card'' that could shape energy markets and governance worldwide. He testified that it would be ``prudent to take preparatory steps'' to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. He is not alone. Many U.S.-based multinational corporations are looking to the Federal Government for help as they seek to comply with the EU emissions trading scheme. More than 12,000 factories and power plants in Europe are subject to emissions caps, affecting many U.S. multinationals with operations in Europe.

I applaud the hard work that has been done by many of my colleagues on the issue of global warming. In past Congresses, we have seen productive work both in terms of discrete bills, such as that by Senators McCain and Lieberman or the abrupt climate change bill by Senator Collins, or as part of large legislation, such as the bipartisan climate change titles in past comprehensive energy bills. It is clear that most Members of the Senate understand the importance of global warming. I hope that we will continue to work together this Congress on a path toward sensible climate legislation. For my part, as the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I hope that we can find a way to continue to integrate global warming concerns in energy legislation.

Energy legislation is an appropriate place to deal with global warming. I have said many times that climate change is so closely related to energy policy because the two most prominent greenhouse gases--that is, carbon dioxide and methane--are largely released due to energy production and use. To a large extent, to do energy legislation is to do climate legislation and vice versa.

As we consider climate in an energy context, I would like to lay out three principles that I stand for and that I think are important. I think that these principles are both modest and aimed at providing more certainty to decisions that need to be made by the many actors who are part of our national energy picture.

The first principle is to have a sensible plan to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. I am very impressed with the recent proposal by the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy in this regard. They have presented a well-thought out plan to create a mandatory emission trading scheme that protects the economy and provides the essential framework for certainty.

Industry needs the certainty of a program that will help them make investment decisions for the future without causing them to prematurely retire capital stock. For example, I would bring to the Senate's attention the recent report of the Cinergy Corporation and their detailed analysis of the implications of potential greenhouse gas regulations. They conclude that neither their company, nor their region, nor this country would be endangered in the face of a modest greenhouse gas emissions policy that includes a safety valve to protect against shocks to the economy. This approach has been championed by well known economists such as Glenn Hubbard and Joseph Stiglitz, as well as institutions such as Resources for the Future, the Climate Policy Center and the Washington Post.

Protecting our economy will not come from ignoring the situation. Lack of attention is as detrimental as legislation that is too aggressive. The Energy Commission's proposal is the right mix of modesty and certainty.

The second principle is to couple any emission reduction plan with robust technology research and development and a broader energy package that addresses energy supply from nuclear power, renewable energy, natural gas, IGCC, and other sources. We need our approach to research and development to be strategic in the sense of creating new options for dealing with greenhouse gases in an economic way.

The third and final principle I wanted to mention is the need to enact policies that affect emissions trends in developing countries, at the same time that we try to deal with emissions trends here. EIA has projected that we will soon be overtaken by the developing countries in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, these developing countries are not required by the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions. This has been a key point for opponents of the Protocol who are worried about losing competitive advantage to countries with weak environmental standards.

In terms of the long-term resolution of this issue and the competitiveness of the U.S. economy, it is essential that the United States and developing countries coordinate action. One way to do this is to link progress in the United States to policies overseas. Here again I point to the Energy Commission proposal that links progress on American action to what is done by the international community.

Climate change is important to the international community. It is important to Prime Minister Blair and the other members of the G-8 who will be meeting later this year. And, finally, it is important to all Americans.

I intend to propose some sensible climate legislation at an appropriate point that is consistent with the principles I have laid out here.

I hope we can address elements of it in energy legislation as it moves forward through Congress. We need to find a way to move forward, and I believe we can before this Congress concludes.

I ask unanimous consent that several items be printed in the Record: First, an editorial out of the Washington Post entitled ``A Warming Climate''; second, a letter from Glenn Hubbard, professor, Columbia University, and Joseph Stiglitz, professor, Columbia University to John McCain and Joseph Lieberman; third, a summary of the Report to Stakeholders on air issues that has been developed by Cinergy Corporation; and finally, a summary of recommendations of the National Commission on Energy Policy entitled Ending the Energy Stalemate.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her courtesy, and my colleague from Michigan.

Science and Technology In The President's Budget

Mr. President, I rise as in morning business to speak about the budget that has been submitted by the President, and particularly to speak about the science and technology portions of the budget, the portions of the budget that are intended to support science and technology in this country.

In his recent State of the Union Message, President Bush said:

By making our economy more flexible, more innovative, and

more competitive, we will keep America the economic leader of

the world.

I agree with the President that strong economic growth is vital to continued American leadership. I also believe innovation is the key to that growth. But the reality of his proposed budget to spur innovation for the next year does not square with the rhetoric we heard last week.

I fear this budget will do serious harm to our Nation's scientific and technological capacity. And because it shortchanges our children and threatens to deprive them of the prosperous America we have enjoyed, the shame will be on us if we allow it to be enacted as it has been presented to us.

We are about to embark on an intense debate about the priorities of the Nation. This debate is all about the Nation's future growth and prosperity, and that, in turn, is about our Nation's investment in the foundations of discovery and innovation.

What will not be in dispute in this several month long debate is that science, and the technology that flows from it, is recognized as the principal engine of our economic growth. Nor will there be any contention about the fact that America's present strength, prosperity, and global preeminence depend upon the fundamental research we do in this country. The scientific and economic record of the past 50 years is overwhelming proof on both of those points.

Regrettably, knowing full well that economic growth is the prerequisite for opportunity, and that scientific research is a basic prerequisite for growth, this budget blueprint for the next fiscal year falls far short of meeting our long-term national goals. It is unsuited to the challenges of our time, it is built on short-term political calculations and it weakens one of the pillars of our country's future economic health. It is not a clearly thought out strategy to ensure the preeminence of the U.S. scientific enterprise.

The budget proposes much larger cuts in domestic discretionary research and development programs than is generally understood. The less than straightforward numbers of the Office of Management and Budget have the effect of obscuring the true impact of the cuts that are proposed. Moreover, once one gets past 2006, the proposed budgets in the outyears for domestic discretionary programs throughout the Government would be cut below the 2004 and 2005 levels, even before inflation is taken into account.

Many of these research and development programs that are being curtailed or cut back have provided the cornerstone for our recent economic progress and have spurred the creation of high-paying jobs and record prosperity.

Basic research is the primary source of the new knowledge that ultimately drives the innovation process. The Federal Government supports a majority of the Nation's basic research, and the Federal Government supports nearly 60 percent of the research and development performed at U.S. universities. Equally important, federally funded research and development at universities and colleges plays a key role in educating the next generation of scientists and engineers and providing a technically skilled workforce.

So scientific investments have never been more important to our Nation's future. And never have we stood on the verge of so many stunning advances in technology and science. Cutting back now would be like cutting back our defense budget at the height of the Cold War.

Increases are disproportionately concentrated primarily in two Departments--Defense and Homeland Security--while other research and development funding agencies are left with very modest increases or with increases for some agencies that are offset by flat funding or cuts in other agencies. In the name of national security, we are building a swaying tower of insecurity with regard to our long-term future.

In order to make room for huge tax cuts and to address the record budget deficits they have helped to create, the administration now proposes major cuts in the research our country depends on to maintain its technical leadership and ensure that Americans continue to enjoy growing prosperity and high-paying jobs.

The budget distinguishes between Federal R&D spending and Federal spending for ``Federal science and technology.'' The Federal science and technology designation, recommended by the National Academy of Scientists, is intended to highlight ``activities central to the creation of new knowledge and technologies more consistently and accurately than the traditional R&D data.''

It includes the full budgets for the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, the Defense 6.1 and 6.2 research programs, the various Energy Department R&D programs, and a variety of research efforts at other agencies. Overall, this Federal science and technology designation encompasses nearly all of Federal basic research, more than 80 percent of Federal applied research, and about half of civilian development.

It does not include defense development, testing, and evaluation.

The overall Federal science and technology budget suffers a 3-percent decrease in real buying power under the proposal we have received. Businesses have always looked to the Federal Government to support the lion's share of basic research that has led to business successes in modern aircraft and computing and in many other areas.

For Federal science and technology, the President's budget proposes a reduction of $877 million, to $60.2 billion. Among other things, it provides a death sentence for the Advanced Technology Program, and it slashes funding for kindergarten through twelfth grade science and math education.

President Bush's proposed 2006 budget flat-lines or cuts funding for key Federal medical and health research agencies. Today's miracles of modern medicine are the result of past research in physics, chemistry, mathematics, computer sciences, and engineering, most of which was carried out in universities by faculty and student researchers and supported by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy, and several defense agencies.

The National Science Foundation, in this proposed budget, is woefully underfunded. Two years ago the President

signed a bill authorizing the doubling of the budget of the National Science Foundation, the premier agency supporting basic research in all fields of science and engineering in the Nation's outstanding universities, and tasked with promoting investments in science, math, and engineering education. The administration's request next year for the NSF is $2.91 billion or 34 percent below the fiscal year 2006 level that was authorized in the bill signed by the President. Adjusted for inflation, the real purchasing power of NSF actually declines in next year's budget. The National Science Foundation education programs continue to be devastated. They are down another 24 percent from last year's level.

If the administration believes in closing the gap in science and math performance between our students and the rest of the world, how is that possible when proposing major cuts in science and math education programs?

The National Institutes of Health, the Nation's principal source of funding for the treatment of cancer, AIDS, diabetes, and Alzheimer's, would decline 1.4 percent in constant dollars. The number of research project grants funded by the NIH in fiscal year 2006 would drop. This proposal, if enacted, will be the worst NIH budget since 1970.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, critical in preparing us for potential epidemics from possibly devastating new infectious diseases and biological terror, is proposed to be cut by 9 percent in constant dollars, while the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality would be flat funded at $319 million.

At the Department of Energy, the Federal science and technology budget would drop by $278 million or 5 percent. The science programs in the Department of Energy that support much of the Nation's premier work in physics and material sciences are cut 6 percent in real spending. While the President's rhetoric during the State of the Union supported renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, the budget does not. Renewable energy research is cut 9 percent in constant dollars. Energy efficiency is cut 5 percent. All other energy programs--nuclear, fossil fuel, transmission, and distribution--are proposed for a decline of 9 percent.

The administration is also undercutting efforts to support a technology-driven economy by slashing the budgets for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The fiscal year 2006 request is 24 percent less than the fiscal year 2005 appropriated level of $708 million. The request eliminates the Advanced Technology Program, including $43 million of funding for ongoing projects that companies are relying on and planning to complete. The Advanced Technology Program is an industry-led, competitive, cost-share program that allows U.S. companies to develop the next generation of breakthrough technologies. It enables them to compete aggressively against foreign rivals.

According to its 2004 annual report, returns from just 41 of the 736 ATP projects have exceeded $17 billion in economic benefits, more than eight times the amount of money spent for all of the 736 projects. The National Academy of Sciences has found ATP to be an effective program that could use more funding and use it wisely.

Buried within the Department of Defense budget are cuts to investments in science and technology that will substantially undermine our warfighting capabilities 10 to 15 years from now. Defense research, both basic and applied, are starved and, when inflation is factored in, we will end up buying less research than we did before. The Federal science and technology budget at the Department of Defense would drop by $905 million or 14 percent. For decades possession of superior technology has been the cornerstone of U.S. military strategy. Maintaining this technological edge has become even more important as our military faces new and formidable dangers to countering chemical, biological, nuclear, and high explosive threats and attacks. This budget makes a grave mistake in saying that America's greatest military assets are no longer our greatest research universities.

Overall, the Federal budget for science and technology would decline by over 3 percent and would decline by 4 percent in the absence of the requested increase for manned spaceflight.

I have a chart that sums up all of these figures I have gone through and points out that at every agency of the Government, every department except NASA, we are seeing cuts proposed for basic research, science, and technology in this budget that has been presented.

Given the fierce competition that U.S. businesses face from China and India and other nations, even in high technology products, this is a particularly dangerous time for America to be cutting back on support for innovation. Many of our senior industry, military, and academic leaders are expressing alarm that real Federal spending in basic research has stalled. They worry whether we are starting to lose our edge in basic scientific research. They wonder if we are losing sight of the importance of long-term investments in creating the conditions of prosperity. Their fear is that the administration's other priorities, combined with the enormous deficits we face, will squeeze out these productivity-enhancing investments. They are concerned that funding for Federal nondefense basic science and technology programs will continue to stagnate or decline. And if we allow such an erosion of America's ability to innovate, they warn, then be prepared for the wrenching, turbulent social and economic change that surely will follow.

There are many powerful arguments for expanding the basic research agenda in this country, even in these difficult economic times. I hope the President and this Congress will step up to the task of rethinking and realigning our budget proposals to reflect the importance of our investments in science and technology.

The greatest tragedies, of course, will be the missed opportunities. How many excellent research proposals will be left on the National Science Foundation's cutting room floor, how many fewer students with fewer National Institutes of Health grants will be pursuing research careers, how many advances in conquering disease will be slowed, and how many new lifesaving technologies will be delayed in reaching our warfighters?

This failure of intellectual leadership could not come at a worse time.

Now is precisely when we need enlightened national leaders who fully understand the value of basic research in science and technology. High- tech R&D is so enmeshed in our economy that it is part and parcel of the jobs and growth issue.

The issue of outsourcing high-tech, high-wage jobs--reverse brain- drain--has moved front and center to our economic worries. American workers, facing rising economic insecurity, are filled with anxiety and unease because they realize that almost any service that can be delivered in bits and bytes and does not require face-to-face interaction with customers is up for grabs.

We are on the brink of a new industrial and commercial world order. The successful competitors in the increasingly fierce global scramble for supremacy will not be those who simply make products faster and cheaper than anyone else. The big winners will be those who develop talent, techniques, and tools so advanced that there is no competition.

That means the United States must secure unquestioned superiority in nanotechnology, biotechnology and information technology. And that means upgrading and protecting the investments that have given us our present national stature and our unsurpassed standard of living.

Coming to grips with this issue is important if we wish to remain at the epicenter for the ongoing revolution in research and innovation that is driving 21st century economies all over the world. The reality is that in this 21st century global economy, China, India, and other nations which were once considered economic backwaters have discovered how to build strong economies around sophisticated technology. We should be concerned about our competitive position relative to our global rivals' investments in research and development. While we are limiting our budget increases in the civilian arena, other countries' investments are moving up very substantially.

In the European Union, the United Kingdom is planning on boosting its R&D spending to 2.5 percent of its gross domestic product. The French are aiming at investing 3 percent of their budget in research and development.

Spain announced an ambitious plan to lift R&D funding by 25 percent between now and 2008, while excluding military spending from the equation.

On the Pacific Rim, China is doubling the proportion of GDP it spent in the last decade on R&D, India is raising its funding of science agencies by 27 percent, and Japan is increasing its investments in life sciences research by 32 percent, while South Korea is upgrading research spending by 8.5 percent. They are resolved to reach technological parity with the West.

What do we do about these international challenges? We have absolutely no choice but to emphasize what we do best in this coming rivalry. Our most important strength has always been innovation. Our can-do spirit of commercializing technological innovation has always heen America's core competence. We do it far better than anyone else. But faced with these other potential innovators on the global scene, we must start doing it even better.

As our Federal R&D commitments shrink, so too does the pool of technically trained talent, forcing industry and academia to look abroad for skilled knowledge workers. Education and training of scientists and engineers are tied to Federally sponsored research performed in the Nation's laboratories and universities.

The best course is to increase Government funding for basic research and to spend more on graduate education in science and engineering, not to spend less in these important areas, which the President has proposed. I hope those involved with the Appropriations Subcommittee will focus on this in their deliberations this spring.

America has always been a Nation built on hope--hope that we can build a prosperous, healthy world for ourselves and for our children. But it is clear that these long-standing American aspirations depend critically on our far-sighted investment in science and technology which lies at the center of this hope. Leadership in science and engineering and the world's best education and training system are essential for ensuring Americans well-paying jobs and essential for our security.

When J. Robert Oppenheimer, the renowned physicist, warned President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1943, about Germany's plan to build an atomic weapon, FDR replied in a secret letter that ``whatever the enemy may be planning, American science will be equal to the challenge.'' Never has a prediction been so prescient.

We know with every fiber of our being that the dominance of our fundamental research enterprise is a core American strength that must be preserved--and we must not let our position erode and compromise our future economic and national security.

By sustaining our investments in basic research, we can ensure that America remains at the forefront of scientific capability, thereby enhancing our ability to shape and improve our Nation's and the world's future.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.