Floor Statements

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my amendment to the fiscal year 2007 budget resolution, which would have provided immediately for a $4,500 Pell grant for needy students. My amendment would have redirected the savings generated by the HELP Committee as part of reconciliation back to student aid, as originally intended and passed by the committee and the full Senate.

Last year, through Chairman Enzi's leadership, the HELP Committee drafted a bipartisan Higher Education Act reauthorization and reconciliation instructions. The committee was instructed to find savings of $13.7 billion--$7 billion of which was to be generated from education programs. The committee developed reconciliation instructions that included savings of over $20 billion. As a member of the HELP Committee, I can say that we purposely generated additional savings with the intent that a portion of the savings would be returned to students in the form of grant aid.

Accordingly, the committee created two programs for Pell-eligible students. We allocated $2.25 billion for SMART grants to target aid to students who study math, science or a critical foreign language. We also allocated $6 billion to the Provisional Grant Assistance Program, or ProGAP. These increases in the Pell grant program are critical, given that tuition has increased rapidly.

This year alone, tuition rose by 7.1 percent at public colleges and 5.9 percent at private universities. Yet students and families have seen no growth in the Pell grant program in the past 4 years; the maximum Pell award has been stagnant at $4,050 since fiscal year 2003. ProGAP would have immediately provided current Pell recipients with a $4,500 maximum grant.

However, when the Deficit Reduction Act returned to the Senate from conference with the House, ProGAP had been eliminated and was replaced by Academic Competitiveness grants. The majority will claim to have increased grant aid for needy students through Academic Competitiveness and SMART grants.

However, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that less than 10 percent of Pell-eligible students will be able to take advantage of the Academic Competitiveness and SMART grants in 2006. The percent of eligible students rises slowly, from 10.3 percent in 2007 to a paltry 13.5 percent in 2010. Given the existence of both Academic Competitiveness and SMART grants in the conference bill, adopting my amendment would have allowed us to help both needy Pell students and target math and science programs.

The intention of the committee was for the savings generated from changes to the student loan programs go towards deficit reduction and student aid. Not only did the final bill significantly reduce the aid going to students, the savings are clearly going for tax cuts that will not help the families we sought to help in the bill we passed in the Senate. In fact, even with the savings generated through the Deficit Reduction Act, the tax cuts cost more than the savings we generated. The newest tax cuts yet again result in an increase to the deficit.

Currently only one-third of the U.S. workforce has a postsecondary education, but it is estimated that 60 percent of new jobs in the 21st century will require a college education. Workers who have attended college on average have higher incomes and lower rates of unemployment than those who don't. And those with a college education also are more likely to have jobs with benefits like health care, retirement and pensions plans.

My amendment would have restored our original intent of the Senate by redirecting the savings generated by the HELP Committee into the pockets of needy students, not the pockets of the wealthy benefiting from the tax cuts.

Mr. President, I withdrew my amendment after we had a huge victory for education--the overwhelming passage of the Specter-Harkin amendment which would provide $7 billion in increased funding to health and education programs. As an appropriator, I know first hand how critical that funding will be for education programs in fiscal year 2007. But we must all fight to retain that funding when the budget resolution is conferenced with the House. We should not accept a final budget resolution that does not contain the funding provided through the Specter-Harkin amendment.

While I withdrew my amendment today, I will continue to fight for increasing Pell grants and student aid. We can do better than level funding for our nation's needy college students.

Mr. President, I am here because the Senator from Pennsylvania came to the floor this morning and offered an amendment on funding for Community Development Block Grant Programs. First of all, I am delighted that the other side recognizes that the assumption in this budget, to cut $1 billion from Community Development Block Grant Programs, is absolutely unacceptable. Their assumption is absolutely accurate.

Across our country today, mayors and other community leaders are up in arms about the billion-dollar cut to Community Development Block Grant Programs that is in this budget, on top of what I might remind all of my colleagues was the $500 million cut from last year.

We all know these essential programs. They are essential for housing, an absolutely critical part of our infrastructure, making sure we help develop many of our neighborhoods across this country with that critical seed money that brings those communities back up to standard and makes sure people have adequate housing while it creates jobs and economic development in communities across our country. Robbing those communities of those funds right now when our country is struggling to get back on its feet is the

wrong thing to do, and the Santorum amendment recognizes that.

Here is my problem. Last night I was on the floor of the Senate. I offered a real amendment to restore the funding for Community Development Block Grant Programs. It provides $1.3 billion, and it does it by adding real money to the budget amendment by closing corporate loopholes. The amendment offered by Senator Santorum is simply a ``let's not worry, be happy until after the election'' amendment and doesn't provide one dollar.

How do I know that? I keep hearing the other side go to the floor and--whether it is veterans or Community Development Block Grant Programs or defense--say we are going to take money out of function 920. I went to the budget resolution book and I looked up 920 to see how much money was left. I was astounded to find out there is no money in function 920. In fact, they are half a billion dollars in the hole right now.

I see the ranking member, Senator Conrad, on the floor. If he wouldn't mind, I wanted to ask him a question because he knows this budget better than anybody.

I ask, through the Chair to the ranking member, am I wrong, in looking at this budget resolution, that the Republican Members are coming to the floor offering amendments to pay for funding for CDBG or veterans or defense, when there is no money? I ask my colleague if he could respond?

Mr. President, I ask my colleague, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, then am I to assume that function is now $11 billion in the hole? And we are hearing our colleagues on the other side say: Don't worry, be happy; simply take it out of the function where there is no money? I ask my colleague, the ranking member on the Budget Committee, is that real?

Mr. President, that sounds completely irresponsible to me, to send a false promise by some kind of sham vote that you are supporting veterans or Community Development Block Grant Programs or all the other programs that we hear from the other side. I heard the Senator from Pennsylvania say this will just tell the Appropriations Committee that this Senate says you are to spend that money.

I am the ranking member on the Transportation-HUD subcommittee. We are already looking at a transit cut of $100 million, an Amtrak cut, which I know the Senator from Pennsylvania cares about, a cut of $394 million, and the FAA is cut by $561 million, a safety factor.

I say to my colleague from North Dakota, I am completely worried about the irresponsible message that these amendments are sending and the sham that they are. I heard last night when I offered my amendment, the chairman of the Budget Committee said we were raising taxes to pay for our amendments on this side.

I want to ask this of the ranking member on the Budget Committee. My amendment I am offering today is to restore Community Development Block Grant Programs at a real, significant number. The $1 billion cut in the budget is irresponsible. Trying to pay for it out of sham money that is not there is irresponsible. We are asking for $1.3 billion by closing corporate tax loopholes. I heard those on the other side say that is raising taxes. I know my colleague, who happens to be the ranking member, who happens to be one of the most fiscally responsible Members on this side, is also a member of the Finance Committee. I would like to ask him, through the Chair, how he would respond to that being a tax increase.

Mr. President, I thank the ranking member for clarifying that. I think it is important for all of us to understand that.

These votes we take today will have real consequences. How do I know that? Not just because of the respect I have for the ranking member and his explanation, because this is exactly what happened on this floor last year when the Senators on the other side of the aisle offered a ``don't worry, be happy'' amendment to restore funding for community development block grants, critical money for neighborhood restoration, for low-income housing for our communities across the country.

Do you know what happened when we got to Appropriations? We didn't have the flexibility because our subcommittee also has to fund Amtrak, airlines, transit, and other housing programs. There was no way to do it

despite what the Senate voted on. They ended up having to cut $.5 billion from the community development block grants.

It is a sham to me to watch these amendments march through here on an account that has no money, that is deficit spent already, and try to sell to their constituents that we are doing something about it when every Senator on this floor knows we ran into a train wreck last year which lasted well into this year on the Appropriations bills. Who was hurt? Not the Senators who voted for it, but our neighbors and friends, mayors and city councils and people on the ground across this country who are trying very desperately today to try make sure that the most important citizens have critical housing infrastructure, that we create jobs, that we have economic development, and that our communities become strong again.

I have said time and time again on this floor that we need to make our country strong again. The most important way we can do it is to invest real dollars in our infrastructure. The CDBG Program is one of the best ways to do that. Every Senator here knows it. The votes we will take later today will be for sham accounts or a real vote. And when will it count? Next fall, when our friends and neighbors see the reality of these amendments and the budget impact on it.

I will conclude by saying that I have been around my State talking to many mayors, talking to many community developers, hearing story after story about how our communities have taken this small amount of money from the Federal Government and invested it wisely, created jobs, created housing, improved the lives of our citizens.

I know this CDBG cut, if we don't pass real money, will mean that Pennsylvania will lose $46 million in funding. It means Minnesota will lose $15 million in funding. In my home State, it means $16 million. Those are not just items on a budget; those are real dollars that make a difference in the lives of our friends and neighbors and communities across the country.

This afternoon we will have an opportunity to cast votes for a real amendment--the Murray amendment--that restores funding and makes sure our Appropriations Committee has the allocation that will allow us to fund the CDBG, or we can take a political vote and be happy for a day. But it will not change anyone's life at home, and it will not restore hope and opportunity that this country so desperately needs today.

I thank my colleagues, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senate is about to vote on the Murray amendment which is the only amendment before this Senate that will restore actual dollars to the $1 billion cut to the Community Development Block Grant Program. We will see another amendment that is paid for by a 920 account that is now $10.5 billion in the hole--not real money.

When our Committee on Appropriations gets that next fall, all of the Senators will be asking: Why are we cutting CDBG? We did not put real money in to restore that cut, unless we pass the Murray amendment that is paid for by closing tax loopholes.

Real dollars are the difference between this and next fall when our Senators are asking us about CDBG money and why it is being cut. We will relate it directly back to this vote on this amendment.

Let everyone know where the real vote is. If no one believes me, read the Wall Street Journal article, ``Republican Budget Plan Advances as Challenges By Democrats Fail,'' outlining that Republicans in tighter reelection races are offering amendments that are not paid for.

I ask unanimous consent to have this article printed in the Record.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, it is unfortunate the Senate just defeated the amendment that would actually add real money to CDBG and allow our communities across the Nation to invest in the critical infrastructure to bring hope and opportunity back.

The amendment we are now going to vote on is a sham, and I refuse to be part of a continuing sham that says to all of us that we are going to have CDBG money. Our recipients deserve a lot more. This amendment is for show, as I quote from the Wall Street Journal of today: `` . . . for show since no money has been added above the cap''--leaving us, next October, November, in the appropriations bill to either fund CDBG or cut transit and Amtrak, which I know is important to many Senators, and many other critical housing programs.

I urge my colleagues to say no and to put a stop to this continuing sham of amendments that do nothing for our communities that deserve a lot better.

Mr. President, first, I thank Senator Akaka for his tremendous leadership on this veterans issue. I couldn't agree with him more. This isn't about a bidding war; this is about getting it right.

I want to, first of all, thank Senator Burns for his amendment because what it does is recognizes and acknowledges the serious problem we have today in making sure we have the funds available to pay for the services that our veterans not only deserve but were promised to them.

We are at a critical time in our Nation's history. We are at war. What message does it send to those we have sent overseas if we are telling veterans today that they are going to have to pay copays and increased fees once they return? What message does it send to those who are serving us overseas today that the veterans who have gone before them are waiting in long lines, they are not getting help and the promises that were given to them?

What I appreciate is that Senator Burns' amendment acknowledges the serious challenge we have within this budget in making sure we meet the rising demand for our veterans today.

I know Senator Craig has said we have increased the VA budget dramatically. My colleagues all remember us last year having to come to the floor to add billions of dollars to the veterans budget because we were shorthanded. But, Mr. President, to many of us, you will recall, it was not a surprise. We have hundreds of thousands of men and women who are coming home from a war in which we are currently engaged who are now needing to access veterans health care facilities. Of course, there is an increased cost. At the same time, we have an aging Vietnam veterans population who are accessing our veterans health care services. At the same time, health care across the board is increasing the costs. Everyone who is

providing health care has to pay increased costs. So of course the VA budget, as a health care system, has to increase its costs as well.

I also should remind my colleagues that because so many employers today cannot afford the cost of rising health care, they are not providing health care to their employees, and those who are veterans are turning to the VA, increasing the numbers who access it, and they have a right to do that.

On top of that, Medicare Part D, which we need to talk about, is already a problem. Our folks across the country are calling in to ask: Whom do we sign up with for Medicare Part D? And they are being asked by our own DHS: Are you a veteran? And if they say, yes, they say: Don't sign up for Medicare Part D, go to the VA. That is great. They deserve that, but it is increasing the numbers accessing our VA.

Yes, of course, the budget has gone up, but does it meet the need? That is the test this country needs to consider and that we as Senators need to consider in this budget.

Again, my colleague from Montana has acknowledged that in his amendment. Here is where we have a problem. How do you pay for it, and when you pay for it, is it a reality?

This function 920 everybody is robbing from is merely saying that we are not going to increase the budget to pay for this, we are going to pretend there is money out there. That may work very well now, but it will not work when we get to next fall, probably after the election, and we actually are sitting down and writing our appropriations bills and passing them on this floor, within the cap of those appropriations bills, and there will not be the funding to increase this.

So let's not do some imaginary proposal and all go home and get well on making sure we provide the services. We will be offering an amendment with Senator Akaka that actually provides the increased costs, to make sure we have the funding available.

The acknowledgment is clear on this floor. Charging our veterans a fee and a copay for health care that they were promised is not the right way to balance this budget.

Should we be providing tax cuts for the wealthiest or should we be providing within our budget the means to keep the promises that were made to those men and women who served our country honorably before and are serving it honorably today and, I might add, we will be asking another generation, no doubt in the future, to serve us.

They will watch what we do on this floor. They will watch what we do and how it impacts us next fall and whether we have the actual money within our budgets to provide the health care that is promised when we ask them to sign on the dotted line and serve our country in the future.

Although I commend the Senator from Montana for the sentiments in this amendment, I actually believe the amendment coming from Senator Akaka and myself is the right amendment because it is not an empty promise. It actually is a promise fulfilled, and our veterans deserve that.

Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. President, I retain the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, how much time is left on our side?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Akaka and the amendment he has offered today that will truly and in reality help make sure we keep the promises we made to the men and women who serve this country overseas and who fought for us in the past and are fighting for us today and will be asked to fight for us in the future. These are people who have served our country. They have kept us safe. They have sacrificed for each and every one of us, and now they need our help. They need the support and the health care that was promised to them when they joined the service, and they need the health care and support in coming home and making sure that we have the services available to them.

Unfortunately, the budget that is now before us is going to leave many of those veterans who have served this country so honorably without health care, without job assistance, and without the support they need to rebuild their lives on the homefront.

Any of my colleagues who have gone out to their State and talked to these men and women, particularly the ones coming home today, you know they are having a hard time with getting jobs, dealing with health care issues, dealing with posttraumatic stress syndrome, facing lines at our veterans facilities, and not being adequately served, much less those veterans who are facing the same long lines and who are being ultimately denied care. Our veterans deserve better. That is why Senator Akaka and I are here today offering this amendment to provide $1.5 billion to keep that promise to America's veterans.

There are two amendments in the Chamber, one offered by Senator Burns

and one offered by Senator Akaka. Our colleagues need to understand that the amendment that has been offered by Senator Burns is window dressing. How do I know that? Because we were offered the same amendment last year by, I believe it was Senator Ensign. And what happened? As we warned our colleagues time and time again from the beginning of last year until June, we are billions of dollars short in health care. Finally, in June, the VA Secretary came to us and he said: You know what, you are right; we were $3 billion short. If we sit here in the Chamber and do an empty-promise amendment again, we are going to find ourselves back in the same position.

The Akaka amendment adds real dollars. It puts real, actual money into the budget, so next fall, when we are writing our appropriations bills, we have the capacity within the veterans subcommittee to make sure we can provide the real services our veterans were promised.

I believe our veterans deserve better, and I believe America can do better, and I believe the Senate ought to stand up right now when we are at war and tell those who are serving us that we are going to be there for them and support the Akaka amendment which provides real dollars.

One of the real concerns I have with the budget that is in the Chamber today, that Senator Akaka is trying to amend, is it balances the VA health care dollars by assuming fees and copayments, new fees and new copayments to our veterans. I will tell you, I have talked to many people who have served our country. Not one of them signed a form saying, I will join the service and fight for my country with an asterisk on it, without the promise that we will provide the health care for them when they come home. It is a disservice to those veterans now for us to have a budget in the Chamber of the Senate that says, never mind, now that you have served, now that you are home, now that you need health care, we are going to charge you a fee, we are going to charge you copayments which will dissuade you from getting the health care that you need. That is really the wrong message to send. There is no fine print when someone signs up to serve our country saying ``exclusions apply.'' For us to impose those fees is wrong, and I hope this Senate goes on record today supporting the Akaka amendment that will make sure that next fall when our budget is tight, there is money there to make sure we are not having to come forward with proposals to do that.

That is why it is so important that we support the Akaka amendment. It is the real amendment in the Chamber. It is not an empty promise. It is not just a be-happy amendment, everything is great, we-supported- veterans amendment. It has real dollars in it, and it is absolutely critical.

Senator Akaka has done an excellent job of defining what is in this amendment. It is really critical that we help our Iraq war veterans who are making the transition back home with the $231 million for transition assistance. Any one of us out talking to our veterans knows they are having trouble coming home and getting a job and getting health care. This is critical outreach money, increasing support for PTSD and menatl health care.

Senator Durbin is on the floor. He has been a strong advocate for making sure we adequately fund PTSD for veterans out in rural communities who do not have access.

I talked to a woman the other day who was talking about the fact that 80 percent of our Guard and Reserve are coming home and getting a divorce. Divorce should not be a result of serving your country. We ought to make sure we have the funds to help those in need, to make sure they transition back into our communities.

This amendment includes support for our veterans clinics, $81 million. Anyone who has been out there knows we do not have enough clinics available, especially in our rural communities, to make sure those folks who have served us get the services they need. Importantly, this amendment and this amendment alone eliminates the fees and copayments that are a tax on our veterans, that this Senator says they should not have to pay. I heard my colleagues from the other side say this amendment raises taxes. What this amendment does is pay for this. Senator says they should not have to pay with real dollars by closing corporate tax loopholes.

I would ask any one of us to go home and ask a corporation or ask a millionaire: Are you willing to pay a little bit more to make sure that those who served us are taken care of when they return home? I doubt any one of us will get a letter from any one of them saying: I am not willing to pay.

The Akaka amendment is the real amendment. It provides real dollars, assures that when we are here next fall doing the VA budget that we actually have the dollars to make sure we are supporting our veterans. This amendment is supported by the independent budget.

I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars in support of the Akaka amendment.

I commend Senator Akaka, and I tell my colleagues, when we vote in a few minutes, you can vote for the Burns amendment if you want to say: I support veterans. But if you want to make sure we are there for our veterans when they come home with real dollars, you will vote for the Akaka amendment.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

I am ready to go with my amendment which follows this.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Sarbanes, and Senator Leahy, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors to the amendment Senators Reed, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Stabenow, Schumer, Mikulski, Durbin, Rockefeller, and Akaka.

Mr. President, the amendment I have sent to the desk tonight, that we will vote on tomorrow, restores the $1 billion cut in funding for Community Development Block Grant Programs that are assumed in the budget resolution that is before the Senate this week.

For more than 30 years, the Community Development Block Grant Program, known as the CDBG, has served as a tremendous catalyst for change in communities across the Nation. It has brought hope and opportunity to families and to residents and to communities everywhere we look in this country. For both cities that are urban and rural, CDBG has supported efforts to expand affordable housing. It invests in neighborhoods, and it supports local economic development projects that have literally revitalized communities.

But tonight, as we look at this budget resolution, that future, that hope is really being diminished. The actual opportunity that so many families have seen is threatened by the work that will not be done if this budget resolution passes in its current form.

The budget resolution we are now considering assumes the President's proposed cap on domestic discretionary spending. And that includes a $1 billion cut to the Community Development Block Grant Program. By the way, that is on top of a $500 million cut that this program received last year.

Now, every one of my colleagues knows how successful this CDBG Program is. You can see its impact in every community back home. Over the past 4 months, I have had the opportunity to talk with mayors and housing authority officials and other local leaders to see how they are using CDBG, and there are some great examples I want to share with the Senate tonight.

The city of Spokane, WA, used $220,000 in CDBG funds and helped remodel and expand the Native Health Clinic and Community Center. This is a clinic in Spokane that provides medical care, substance abuse treatment, mental health and counseling services to economically disadvantaged children, youth, and adults. This money made a difference.

In Vancouver, WA, in the other corner of my State, the Vancouver Housing Authority used CDBG funds to help fund the Esther Short Commons. This is a mixed-use, mixed-income building with 160 units of affordable workforce housing. It is home to businesses in the Vancouver Farmers Market. That building is a very important part of downtown Vancouver's redevelopment. Those funds made a critical difference.

In Bremerton, in Kitsap County, Kitsap Community Resources is using $950,000 in CDBG funding to help build a new facility that will serve the needs of low-income people in Bremerton and Kitsap County. That facility houses a WIC clinic and employment and education programs and is a great addition to the city's efforts to revitalize its downtown. It is a great investment of Federal dollars.

And in Seattle, the Delridge Neighborhoods Development Association received $850,000 in CDBG and home funds from the city of Seattle and developed the Croft Place Townhomes. That is a development that is now providing good housing for 21 families at or below the 30- and 50- percent of median income, including families who were previously homeless.

These are just a few examples of how these Federal dollars leverage a difference in our home States. I know every one of my Senate colleagues has heard from their mayors and their communities about the importance of the flexibility of this money and the critical difference it makes in the lives of so many.

As I have said on this floor many times, if we want to be strong abroad, we have to be strong at home. And investing in our infrastructure, bringing new economic revitalization, making sure that affordable housing is available for families, is an absolutely essential part of making sure our country is strong at home.

Any one of us can tell you that if a family does not have a place to call home, then they are not going to be strong, and they are not going to feel their family has opportunity in the future. If you are a young woman trying to raise a family alone, you know you need to have a place to live or those kids are not going to do well in school and your opportunity to send them to college is minimized.

Every one of us knows that a senior citizen who does not have a place to call home that is convenient to services they need--whether it is their doctor or physical activities--is not going to be able to have the dignity they deserve at the end of their life.

And every one of us knows that for families who cannot afford housing in many communities across our States--my State and across the Nation-- if they do not have a place to call home that is close to a job, they are not going to be economically self-sufficient.

These CDBG funds have made an incredible difference in people having the security of housing, a place to call home, and financial stability. At the same time, they are bringing economic development, new jobs, new businesses, new economic revitalization, to many of our communities.

Cutting these programs by $1 billion is a disservice to those families, but it is a tragedy for this Nation because we cannot be strong if our families are feeling insecure at home because of the lack of housing. These dollars, we all know, make an incredible difference. This program has changed lives and changed communities.

Now, tomorrow our colleagues on the other side are going to offer an amendment they say will do the same thing. First of all, I thank them for recognizing the budget resolution is not sufficient and does not do the job when it comes to CDBG. But I will call them on how they are going to fund it. Once again, we will see them funded with funny money, saying: We are going to take it from section 920.

Well, already today, this Senate has gone on record taking $6.5 billion from the so-called 920 fund. And it is not there. Why do I know this? Because last year, at this same exact time, Senators on the other side offered an amendment to restore funding for CDBG, and come October, November, and December, when we were doing appropriations bills, this Senate cut half a billion dollars from CDBG. Why? Because the money offered in the amendment on their side was not real.

The same thing is going to happen tomorrow. Senators will have an opportunity to pass a phony amendment and to go home and say to their constituents: Oh, I voted for CDBG. But the bill will come due in the fall, when we do an appropriations bill and that money is not available, and we will see CDBG cut dramatically.

As ranking member on the TTHUD Subcommittee that has the funding on

this, I know where this is going to go. I urge my colleagues, and I will tell this country, if you vote for the Murray amendment, you are asking for real dollars. You are telling your communities you are going to be there to help families with affordable housing and communities with redevelopment. If you vote for the amendment from the other side offered by Senator Santorum, you are going to get a nice vote for the day. All Senators will support it. But all it does is say, politically: Yes, I think CDBG is good. It will not provide one single additional dollar when we come to actually appropriating these funds.

So this is extremely critical. Everywhere I go in neighborhoods across my State, I see the insecurity of so many families. They are worried about their jobs. They are worried about whether their kids can go to college. They are worried about whether their pension is going to be there. They worry about whether transportation infrastructure is going to be capable of getting them to their job or back home again. Part of that insecurity, and the most basic part of that insecurity, is housing.

That is what these CDBG funds do. Every Senator on this floor knows it. When you invest in our infrastructure, whether it is housing or transportation, especially through funds such as this, you are creating new jobs, new economic development, and revitalizing communities in ways that I have seen no other dollars do.

Mr. President, tomorrow, again, we will have an opportunity to do a political move if we vote for the Santorum amendment and say we are going to take money from this 920 fund that does not exist, or we can raise the cap, and then, when we are here next fall, actually fund CDBG at a promised level that this Senate will go on record on. It is a critical amendment. I urge its adoption by my colleagues tomorrow.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. President, I will take one additional minute and then yield back my time. But I did want to say, while I had the floor, that I added myself as a cosponsor to the Menendez port security amendment. This is a critical amendment. It is an issue I have been working on since September 11. I have joined with Senator Collins to introduce the GreenLane Maritime Cargo Security Act.

I think what we have all learned over the past week is that our ports and our cargo containers are a huge hole in our Nation's security. We cannot fix it with more rhetoric from this floor. We can fix it if we fund it adequately. This Senate will have an opportunity to vote on that tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to support that amendment when it comes to the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. I will yield back my time in order to move to the next amendment.

Mr. President, I rise this evening to talk about the budget that is before the Senate. But before I do, I want to add my voice to my colleagues who have come out here to express their condolences to our colleague, Senator Inouye, on the loss of his wife and long-time partner. Certainly, as the Senator from New Jersey said, Senator Inouye is the most respected Senator in this body, and he served his country well. Mrs. Inouye, too, has served her country by allowing Senator Inouye to be such a historic figure in this country and such a great leader and by all the time that was demanded by that. She has served her State, she has served her country, and we are all grateful. And to Senator Inouye, he and his family are in my thoughts and prayers as well.

Mr. President, I have risen tonight to express my deep concerns about the budget that is before us. I am concerned that the budget that this Senate is now considering does not pass the test of protecting our homeland. It does not pass the test of promoting fiscal responsibility. And it does not pass the test of fighting for our middle-class families.

Let me start by putting this discussion in the right context. The budget decisions that we make now will either empower us or tie our hands when we turn to write the appropriations bills this year. That means you cannot vote for an unrealistic budget now and then act surprised in the summer and fall when painful cuts are required. Just look at what happened last year. The logjam that we experienced at the end of last year was not a surprise. It was the logical outcome of decisions that were made regarding the budget.

Starting last March, many of us saw that there was no way we could meet our obligation to our veterans, honor our commitment to America's working families, enact huge cuts in entitlement programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, enact another round of tax cuts, and continue to cut our Nation's deficit. And when you added the growing cost of the war and Hurricane Katrina, the legislative train wreck was entirely predictable. I hope we do not repeat the same mistakes this year-- starting with the wrong priorities and unrealistic assumptions here in the budget process which will lead to constrained appropriations bills that will end up hurting our American families.

Mr. President, a budget is more than just a bunch of numbers on a piece of paper. It is a statement of our values, and it reflects our priorities. The budget this Senate is now considering closely follows the President's budget, and it is based on the wrong priorities. It is clear to me that we need to invest here at home to make our country strong again. That means investing in education and in health care, in infrastructure and housing, in safety and security, and on each of those fronts the Bush priorities have been time and again misguided, adrift, and downright painful for millions of Americans.

You know, Mr. President, when I am at home in Washington State or here in the Nation's Capital I hear a lot of concern from the business community, from local governments, and from families across the United States about us losing our global competitiveness. They talk to me about the challenges they face in keeping and growing good jobs right here at home, and they tell me that education is one of the elements for our success. But last year's budget, the fiscal year 2006 budget, set us on the path of undermining our competitiveness by weakening educational programs at all levels, and I fear that this budget, the fiscal year 2007 budget, will do the exact same thing.

Last year's budget, the 2006 budget so constrained education, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill failed once in the House and almost did not pass at all. In the end, the programs faced one last hit, a 1-percent across-the-board cut that further hindered education at all levels.

At a time when our schools are facing the increasing requirements of No Child Left Behind, our families are facing rising college tuition costs, and employers are crying out for highly skilled, educated workers, this is no time for our Nation to be shortchanging education.

Because of laws Congress has passed and President Bush has signed, school districts are facing increasingly rigorous academic standards and working very hard to meet the new requirements for highly qualified teachers.

How has Congress responded? Well, a majority in this Congress cut funding for the No Child Left Behind Act by 3 percent, or $13.1 billion below what was promised when we passed that bill. The fiscal year 2006 budget from last year also led the Government to slide backwards on its commitment to students with disabilities for the first time in 10 years. The Federal share of educational costs dropped from 18.6 percent in 2005 to 18 percent in 2006. Funding for disadvantaged students eligible for title I was inadequate. The fiscal year 2006 funding from last year is $9.9 billion less than what Congress and President Bush committed to spending in that law. That bill would leave behind 3.1 million students who could be fully served by title I if the program were funded at the level to which we committed.

The reason I feel the need to talk about last year's budget at length is to put this year's budget proposal in context because the budget we are considering, the 2007 proposal, continues that dangerous trend. The President proposed the largest cut to education in 26 years. Sadly, this budget resolution makes it impossible to restore those proposed cuts. It would eliminate vocational and technical training efforts and college prep programs that have been so successful, such as TRIO and

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about International Women's Day, which was yesterday, March 8. The theme this year is ``women in decisionmaking.'' As I contemplated the meaning of this, I thought about how important it is for women to be involved in the decisionmaking about their own bodies.

And in this vein I would like to talk about the global gag rule.

When President Bush took office in 2001, he signed an Executive order known as the global gag rule. It denies U.S. funds to any overseas health clinic unless it agrees not to participate in any activities related to abortion services. Those activities include: providing legal abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or where the woman's life is endangered; and offering advice and information regarding the availability and benefits of abortion and providing referrals for abortion services.

The global gag rule denies U.S. funds even if the overseas health clinic is using its own privately raised funds for these services. What that means is that if you are a medical professional living in an impoverished country trying to help people and save their lives, you are gagged from even talking about certain reproductive health services. The gag rule places limits on women and doctors that we have deemed unacceptable here in the United States.

Last year, the Senate passed an amendment to the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act to reverse the President's policy and ensure that health care clinics for women and families receive this much needed funding. Unfortunately, this legislation has not been passed by the full Senate. The Foreign Operations Appropriations bill last year contained $34 million for the United Nations Population Fund, UNPA, for this purpose. But in order to ensure that this money goes toward funding health care clinics for women and families in poor countries, we must overturn this global gag rule.

In many poor countries around the world, nongovernmental organizations and medical professionals are working to make things better. They have set up clinics and reached out to the women and families in poor communities. They are doing great work. But their hands are tied, because the Bush administration has imposed a political ideology on the world.

Overturning the global gag rule is about safe access to health care for women. Hundreds of thousands of women are dying each year from complications from pregnancy. These women do not have access to the health care that they need, especially reproductive health care. I will continue to speak out about the importance of providing safe access to health care for women all over the globe until this dangerous policy is lifted.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, as we return from the President's Day recess, the Senate will be debating the future direction of our country.

This debate will come in the form of the discussions we have on the Federal Government's budget.

A budget is a statement of our priorities. Families across our country make difficult decisions every day while living within their own budgets, choosing one priority over another and working hard to fulfill their own American dream.

Likewise, our national budget and the way we spend tax dollars reflects our priorities as a Nation. We make difficult choices, establish priorities and try to set our Nation on a course to prosperity.

Unfortunately, the President's recent submission of his fiscal year 2007 budget and subsequent request for supplemental appropriations for the ongoing war in Iraq do not reflect the priorities our Nation needs to move ahead, and it makes the wrong choices in spending and saving.

Taken together, they represent a callous disregard for fiscal reality and a failure to prioritize our country's most important needs.

No American family would dare manage their finances this way, and I am on the floor today to say that we must take a different course.

In the 3 years since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, our country and Congress have stood with the President in staunch support of our troops.

While we are both proud and duty-bound to provide the resources our men and women in uniform need to do their jobs safely and effectively, it is disingenuous to continue to ask for ``emergency'' spending to pay for military action that has been ongoing for years.

Year in and year out, the President asks the Congress to provide the resources for his Iraq policy outside the bounds of the traditional budget process, and in each one of those years, concerns over accountability swell and demands for a plan that will allow our troops to fulfill their mission and return home go unanswered.

Like every American, we all want to succeed in our mission in Iraq. We want to achieve our military and policy goals, and to bring our troops home safely.

We know that this will require sacrifice and that a U.S. presence will be required for some period of time.

Despite these obvious facts, the administration continues to operate from the pretense that the cost of this ongoing war is unknowable and thus requires emergency spending.

The continued adherence to this policy deliberately misleads the American people about the cost of this war.

But it also misses a central point, the real emergency is here at home in our classrooms, in communities from the Gulf Coast to the Pacific Northwest, in our hospitals, and in our firehouses.

The Senate has shown unwavering support for our men and women fighting overseas. These heroes deserve every bit of aid we can provide--be it the best body armor, the best equipment, or the best pay and health care.

Time and again Democrats have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Bush administration to do just that--and in many cases we have pushed to provide more than the President requested for our troops, our veterans, and their families.

My concern--and I know many of my colleagues share it as well--is that while we provide the best for our men

and women overseas, we are doing far less for the men, women and children fighting to get ahead on our own shores.

They too deserve the best--the best education, the best health care, and the best protection from terrorist attack. I don't think anyone in this Chamber today can honestly say that we are achieving that goal.

I am here to say that this Senator will not stand idly by as we send billions to support and protect the heroes overseas while cutting basic needs for the heroes waking up every morning across our great Nation trying to provide themselves and their children a better life. We can and must do both.

So, as the Senate prepares to consider the budget and support our troops, I am going to ask that we stand up to protect and support hard working American families right here at home. That means: Providing affordable, accessible health care for every American, ensuring the best education for our young people, taking care of our veterans when they return home, pointing our Nation down a path toward energy, independence, and protecting our homeland from both terrorists and natural disasters.

The costs of mismanagement, corruption, and lack of investment at home are creating a crisis of confidence in our current path among the American people. We must change course.

There is precedent in our Nation's history for future oriented investment during difficult times--in fact, troubled times demand that we don't just wallow in current events, but better prepare for our future.

In 1862, our great Country was torn apart. The Civil War defined our Nation and determined our future. But war was not the only thing that was debated that year, and war was not the only thing that determined our Nation's fate: 1862 was also the year that legislation creating the land-grant college system was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Lincoln.

Think of it, in the midst of war, when the Union's very existence was in question, our leaders took the forward looking step of establishing a path by which average Americans could improve themselves and contribute to the welfare of our Nation. And you know what--it worked.

Today, those same land-grant colleges and universities are the envy of the world because of the great education they provide many Americans and the economic benefit they provide to our country.

Today, we too, are in the grip of war, and there are forces arrayed against us that seek to do us real and lasting harm--we must combat our enemies with every ounce of energy we have.

But like previous generations of American leaders, we also have an obligation to prepare the American people for the challenges we will confront in the future and to ensure that we are strong and secure in meeting those challenges head-on. Today, our efforts in this regard are woefully inadequate.

To be strong in the future--to have the ability to fight the wars of the future, create the economy of the future, and lead the world in human liberty and freedom--we must create an environment of hope and opportunity here at home. And yes, this is an emergency.

We all support our troops, and we will support the President's efforts to provide for their well-being and to ensure that they have the tools and resources they need to carry out their missions.

But, candidly, we must be able to both support our troops and create a country full of hope and optimism for them to return to.

To accomplish this we need to make changes in policy and allocation of resources, and I am going to demand that we consider these important questions when we debate the budget and the Iraq war supplemental appropriations request.

As I have said before on this floor, the Federal budget is the statement of our priorities as a people, and it should be a moral, thoughtful document.

Today, America's need for sound fiscal policy and a solid commitment to prosperity at home is not being met.

We can do better. If the President and the majority won't lead our country toward a more hopeful, prosperous future, then we will.

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

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

Mr. President, a week ago we all listened as the President laid out his priorities in the State of the Union.

At the time, I noted that what he says in his speech is a lot less important than what he does in his budget.

Yesterday, he sent us his budget, and I am deeply concerned about what it means for our country, our people and our future.

Later today, I will raise some of my concerns directly with the budget director, and I will come back here to the floor time and again to talk about what we should be doing.

But this morning, I want to step back and take a broad look at the significance of the budget and the choices before us.

I want to remind my colleagues that what we do now will affect us, and the American people, months from now.

The budget decisions we make now will either empower us, or tie our hands, when we turn to write the appropriations bills.

I am speaking on the floor today to warn my colleagues that you cannot vote for an unrealistic budget in the spring and then act surprised in the summer and fall when painful cuts are required.

At the end of every year, Congress crams several important pieces of legislation through in a rush to head home for the holidays. This past year was no different. In a matter of days, we finished appropriations bills, authorization bills, and even spending cuts.

Unfortunately, the logjam we experienced at the end of last year was not a surprise to many of us who work closely on the budget process.

Starting in March, many of us began raising concerns that we were headed in the wrong direction. We knew that there was no way we could honor our commitment to America's working families, enact huge cuts in entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, enact another round of tax cuts, and continue to cut our Nation's deficit.

When you add in the growing cost of war and Hurricane Katrina, the legislative train wreck was entirely predictable.

But no matter what the hurry, make no mistake these bills have serious consequences, and their impact will be felt for years to come.

They set funding levels, cut and grow programs, and set important policy for agencies and programs touching nearly every American.

But it is more than that. Collectively, they represent our priorities and reflect our values.

They provide the direction we intend to lead the country. And what too few Americans know--and too few Senators seem to remember--is that one single document serves as the blueprint for these additions, subtractions and everything in between each year.

I'm speaking, of course, about the Federal budget resolution.

Every year, with much fanfare and even more detail, the administration sends Congress a spending and revenue plan for the next 5 years. Congress is required to draft a similar spending and revenue plan.

Our work begins on the day we receive the President's budget and is supposed to be completed by April 15. From early February, until April we debate, mark up, and offer a multitude of amendments.

Most of the time, we complete this process and move to the next phase of the budget process on May 1. The congressional budget resolution sets the tone for the entire budget process, including appropriations.

I have served on the Budget Committee for my entire Senate career. It's a very important committee, one that I take great pride in working on. But its work is not often considered newsworthy or particularly interested for the press and public.

While this process may not always draw front-page coverage, its importance could not be greater.

This one document is more than numbers and charts. From health care to energy, security to the economy, this one document is the vehicle that allows us to act on each and every priority the Government will have for an entire year.

The Federal budget is the statement of our priorities as a people. It should be a moral, thoughtful document.

It should carefully consider its impact on the Nation's best-off and worst-off.

Too often, I fear, this impact is overlooked in all the details and process. Its impact is lost in the time from the budget's passage to the enactment of the final appropriations bills.

That is why this year, with the benefit of our action at the end of 2005, with upcoming votes on left-over items from last year, and with the President's new budget, I wanted to come here to the floor to ensure that we all know the stakes of this great debate.

And I intend to be back, saying much the same, I fear, in the weeks and months ahead.

This year's budget, and the priorities it enacts, will not be lost to time, if I have anything to say about it. It is simply too important to forget.

As I listened to the President's State of the Union, I felt a real disconnect between his priorities and the challenges facing working families in Washington State, Americans across our country, and those fighting for our freedom abroad.

We all want America to be strong again and that means we must invest in our people and in our infrastructure. What the President said last week matters much less than what he does in his budget.

That budget is a document of values, and it will tell us if he is really intent on creating a brighter future for America or just giving us more of the same.

It is time to put the needs of America's working families first. We need a government that reflects our values and provides real economic incentives to encourage job creation.

We can do that by investing in our infrastructure, providing affordable, accessible healthcare, supporting energy independence, providing education for all of our children, and protecting our ports and borders.

These are the priorities that will make our Union and our families strong. We also have a moral obligation to ensure that our troops who serve and protect all of us have the resources they need on the battlefield and when they return home.

Unfortunately, if last year's budget and this year's speech are any indication, the President's priorities are simply not in line with those of the American public.

Almost exactly 1 year ago, the President previewed his FY 2006 budget in the State of the Union Address. He said:

My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150

Government programs that are not getting results, or

duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential

priorities. The principle here is clear: Taxpayer dollars

must be spent wisely, or not at all.

A week later, we received a budget from President Bush that slashed health care programs, punished veterans, cut education aid, and increased the long-term financial obligation we'll leave to the next generation. His ``non-essential priorities'' were made quite clear.

In choosing to vote against that budget, I said:

Families in Washington State and across the country are

concerned about the security of their jobs, their

communities, access to affordable health care and a quality

education. Unfortunately, rather than inspiring confidence,

the budget we are voting on tonight leaves too many Americans

questioning the future.

On issue after issue, this budget falls short of what our

communities and our country need to move forward.

I know what responsible budgets look like because I've

worked with chairmen of both parties to create them.

Unfortunately, this Republican budget fails to create jobs,

improve security and meet our country's needs.

Mr. President, last year's budget proposal was a disaster. It cut Medicaid--the health care for our most vulnerable. It cut education. It cut veterans funding. And incredibly, once again, it increased the deficit.

The President has rightly been focused on our Nation's security, but his budget didn't reflect the type of priorities that keep Americans safe. Speeches are one thing, but they ring hollow

if not matched with a real commitment of funding.

In fact, in his budget proposal last year, the President tried to cut firefighter grants, funding for U.S. search and rescue, and the port security grants that help keep cities such as Seattle and Tacoma safe. If we are serious about our security, then each of these should be priority for this President.

And after that budget passed--by the slimmest of margins, I might add--we felt the pain it inflicted. In appropriations debate after appropriations debate Democrats, and in some cases even some Republicans, fought to provide the basic funding for services that make a difference in every American's life--the most important programs needed.

Several times Republicans invoked the budget, saying we couldn't provide the necessary dollars because of its constraints.

The budget and the Bush priorities were taking their toll.

As if these painful cuts weren't enough, the Bush team actually used the budget to ensure more hardship for the least among us, while handing out more perks to the best-off.

Through reconciliation, Republicans ``saved'' billions of dollars on the backs of the poor. Again, by the slimmest of margins in each Chamber, they cut Medicaid, Agriculture, and retirement security programs.

Reconciliation is intended as a tool for reducing the deficit. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has pushed reconciliation bills that actually make the deficit worse and pass the burden of tax cuts for the wealthy and the cost of the war on the backs of poor children, the disabled, and our Nation's seniors.

I will say again what I said when they brought this immoral bill to our committee: At a time when communities along our gulf coast are hurting, when we are facing the implementation of a confusing new prescription drug law, when our roads and bridges and railways are aging, when millions of Americans are concerned about how they are going to pay for heat in their homes this winter, and when the men and women who have sacrificed to serve us overseas cannot find health care or jobs when they return home, we should be focused on protecting our most vulnerable, not handing them further burdens.

There is one particular area that warrants mentioning because we have heard a lot about it in recent days, and that is health care. We heard the President talk about his health care priorities in his State of the Union Address last week. But every American knows that actions speak louder than words.

One of the most serious challenges facing all working families today is the escalating cost of health care. Instead of addressing the increasing cost of health care and its impact on the uninsured, last year's failed budget strategy only made this situation worse.

In the reconciliation package the House approved, half of the cuts come from Medicare and Medicaid. We know from a recent CBO report that an estimated 65,000 enrollees in Medicaid will lose coverage under the Republican budget reconciliation bill.

The reconciliation bill shifts greater costs to working families and could reduce Washington State's share of Medicaid funding by $185 million. The package requires higher copayments and premiums for low- income children. It eliminates the focus on prevention benefits and early screening for children.

Medicaid is an essential safety net program for seniors, for the disabled, and for our children. Without Medicaid, there are very few options available for receiving care. Nationwide, in fact, 40 percent of all births are paid for by Medicaid. Where will these people go for care? Who is going to pay? The reconciliation bill cuts $35 billion from services that make America stronger and make our communities more secure, all while burdening our children with massive debt.

Rather than being good stewards of taxpayers' dollars and helping our Nation become stronger and more secure, and rather than paying down the debt, Republicans are back to the same game: They want to keep shoveling money right back out the door in the form of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to point out that they cut spending by $40 billion, but they did so by cutting student aid, cutting health care for the poor, and cutting other programs that are critical to working families, and they did it all while increasing the deficit.

As our outgoing Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan once said:

If you are going to lower taxes, you should not be

borrowing essentially the tax cut. That over the long run is

not a stable fiscal situation.

I agree. Imposing painful cuts on hard-working families to pay for more tax cuts and then passing the cost on to our children is clearly wrong. We can and we must do better. And let's not forget higher deficits also mean a larger debt. It is no surprise that we soon will be asked to raise the borrowing authority yet again for the Federal Government to over $8 trillion. That is going to mean less capital for small businesses to expand and it means higher interest rates for every working family.

Once again the budget and Bush priorities will take their toll.

As I look at the challenges facing our country and as I listen to the people in my home State of Washington, it is pretty clear that the top priority now must be making America strong again. And to do that, we need to invest here at home. That means taking care of education, health care, infrastructure, housing, safety, and security, and on each of these fronts, the Bush priorities have been time and again misguided, adrift, and downright painful for millions of Americans.

I believe that in order to make America strong, we need to make investments here at home in our people, in our infrastructure, and in our communities. Everywhere I travel in Washington State, I hear from families who are struggling to find a safe and affordable place to live. Whether it is a young couple looking for their first home or a family searching for rental housing close to their job or a senior citizen who wants to find better access to social services, it is harder than ever in this country to find affordable housing.

Across the country, public housing agencies and nonprofit organizations are working to help families find a place they can call home. At the same time, they are contributing to community revitalization efforts that will bring new jobs and opportunities. But a lack of funding threatens those achievements that have been made and the work that is yet to be done.

It is also critical that we continue to invest in our Nation's infrastructure. Recent cuts in transportation spending threaten to weaken airline safety, impose new transportation costs on American businesses, and cost tens of thousands of construction jobs. Investing in our Nation's transportation infrastructure will help reduce congestion, improve safety, and support continued economic growth. I urge this President to support these critical investments and put action behind his good rhetoric.

When I am home in my State of Washington and here in DC, I hear a lot of concern from the business community, from local governments, and families over the United States losing its global competitiveness. In fact, we heard a lot from President Bush the other night on this very subject. But last year's budget set us on a path that weakened education programs at all levels, and the new budget that was sent to us yesterday does the very same thing.

Last year's budget so constrained our education programs that the Labor-HHS appropriations bill failed once in the House and almost did not pass at all. In the end, programs faced one last hit again, a 1- percent-across-the-board cut that further hindered education at every level.

In a time when our schools are facing increasing requirements under the No Child Left Behind Act and families are facing rising college tuition costs, this is no time to be shortchanging education.

Last year's budget resulted in funding levels that represented the smallest increase in education in a decade, and this year the President is proposing the largest cut to education in 26 years.

This year, $12.7 billion is proposed to be cut from student loans that help low-income and middle-income families pay for college. Seventy percent of

those cuts will be paid for by students and their families. Those cuts will not go for balancing the budget either; they are going to go for tax cuts for those who need them the least.

Tuition and fees increased this year by 7.1 percent for 4-year public universities and 5.9 percent for private universities. Not only is cutting student aid the wrong priority for our country today, but it will cost our Nation dearly in the long term.

Today only one-third of the U.S. workforce has a postsecondary education, and it is estimated that 60 percent of the new jobs in the 21st century will require college education. Workers who have attended college have higher incomes and lower rates of unemployment than those who do not. And those with a college education are more likely to have jobs with benefits, such as health care and retirement and pension plans.

We should be helping to break down the barriers to a college education, not building them up with this budget plan.

I want to talk about veterans funding because with so many of our brave men and women fighting for us overseas, I believe our most fundamental priority has to be to take care of those who sacrificed so much for all of us.

I have said time and again that actions speak louder than words, but it was, nevertheless, very troubling to me when President Bush failed to even mention our veterans in the State of the Union Address. I hope he will not forget them in the budget process.

I am concerned that the President's fiscal year 2007 budget that was just sent to us is not based on real numbers and does not reflect the real demand for VA services. I am convinced that without real budgets based on real numbers, the VA is going to face a shortfall again this year and more veterans are going to be denied the care they have earned.

The rising utilization rates, increasing costs of medical care, and the influx of veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq are going to require more VA funding.

In addition, the new Medicare prescription drug program has added more demands on the VA. Many seniors who are veterans are now being told they should go to the VA for their prescription drugs. Surely, this influx of new VA patients will have a major impact on the VA system and will inevitably delay access for veterans.

Finally, much of the increased demand on the VA system is due to the nationwide health care crisis. As veterans lose their health care coverage from their own employers, they are coming by the thousands to the VA to get care for the first time. The longer the health care crisis continues to grow, the more the demands will be on the VA to take care of the veterans population.

As my colleagues will remember, last year I was told the VA didn't need any more funding. The administration told me everything was fine and that they could handle the demands brought about by the Iraq war. I tried time and again to increase funding for the VA to maintain veterans' access to the health care they were told they would get, and I was fought at every level. Then finally in June, Secretary Nicholson announced the VA was, indeed, facing a $1 billion shortfall in fiscal year 2005 and that the VA miscalculated demands in the VA by over $3 billion between fiscal year 2005 and 2006.

In June, when I asked whether the administration had adequately planned for the impact of the war, I was told the VA underestimated the number of Iraq war veterans by over 300 percent.

I finally was able to work with my colleagues to attach $1.5 billion in emergency funding for the VA on the fiscal year 2006 Interior appropriations bill and another $1.2 billion in the fiscal year 2006 military construction bill to finally cover this shortfall.

Since the war in Iraq began, there have been 2,245 casualties and 16,548 wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. Our men and women in uniform--past, present, and future--will time and again answer the call to duty, and at the very least they deserve a budget that fulfills our commitment to them and to their families.

I look forward to debating the President's budget this week. I truly believe it is one of the most important actions that we take every year because it sets the tone for everything else we do.

Tuesday night last week the President told Congress and all Americans that:

In this decisive year, you and I will make choices that

determine both the future and the character of our country.

I couldn't agree with him more. Our future and our character are at stake. A budget reflects our priorities and our values. Let's make sure our budget for the coming year reflects the best of both, and let's remember that the decisions we make now will tie our hands months from now.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I came to the floor this afternoon to spend a few minutes speaking in support of the Bingaman-Rockefeller- Murray Medicare drug REPAIR amendment that we will be seeing this afternoon. I came to the floor to urge my colleagues to support this amendment so we can address the immediate crisis facing our most vulnerable citizens.

I wish we were here debating a real fix to the Medicare Modernization Act, but unfortunately the Senate leadership has placed a lot higher priority on tax cuts than on providing reliable access to prescription drugs for low-income seniors and the disabled, so we are here today debating that. I know the chairman of the Finance Committee was on the floor earlier talking about the relevance of this amendment, the Bingaman-Rockefeller-Murray Medicare drug REPAIR amendment, but this is the first piece of legislation that we have had on the floor since the rollout of the Medicare prescription drug bill. Offering this amendment on this tax bill is our only option.

What this amendment does is ensure that our low-income seniors and our disabled--who are often technically referred to as duals--are at least ensured of a 30-day supply of lifesaving drugs, regardless of any communication or data exchange problem. It simply ensures that States and pharmacies and beneficiaries who have had to provide coverage to those who have fallen through the cracks in this rolling out of the Medicare prescription drug bill receive just and fair reimbursement.

Finally, it will end the confusion facing any of our duals. And for any of my colleagues who have not been out in their States since January 1, I will tell you there is tremendous confusion and conflict and people are falling through the cracks and we need to end that confusion so they know whether, in fact, they qualify for assistance.

Because of the tremendous data and outreach problems, many of these so-called duals have been told they have to meet a $250 deductible before their plan is going to cover their prescription drugs. If they are eligible today for Medicare and Medicaid, they are assumed eligible at the drugstore.

I have listened to Secretary Leavitt and CMS Administrator McClellan reassure all of us that they are acting to fix these problems. I am here today to applaud their attention and their commitment and their recognition of the tremendous challenges out there, particularly for our duals, as this prescription drug rollout bill is occurring. I only wish they had listened last November when I offered an amendment to provide a 6-month transition and predicted the dire straits that we are now in before this was rolled out.

I will say they have been responsive since January 1. But all of the steps that have been implemented are worthless if there is no education of our pharmacists and our seniors, or if there is no aggressive oversight and enforcement. Saying that they are just going to work to ensure the plans honor their commitment is not the same as saying plans will be required by law to honor that commitment. It doesn't do a senior any good to be told we are going to hold plans accountable, and they still do not have any access.

There are a number of problems with this flawed structure, but I think it is critical that we address the immediate crisis for those people who have very few options. If anyone on this floor today thinks this is fixed, or these problems are going to go away, I want them to know they are sadly mistaken. I have traveled around my home State of Washington since August. I am not hearing that things are getting any better. I have people come to forums that I am holding where I try to give them information, and every forum I have had, time after time, there are new problems, new challenges: pharmacists are falling through the cracks, doctors who don't know how to deal with their patients, long-term care facilities that are at their wits' end, and certainly the mental health advocates who are telling us we have people who could be in serious crisis very soon if we don't address these problems.

There is a lot of frustration. There is a tremendous amount of panic for these dual eligibles that they are being denied access to lifesaving drugs, and to low-income seniors, especially those in group homes, who can't afford the added burden of copayments. It is wrong for us to sit here and say this is going to get worked out. I think it is our responsibility to stand up today, at our very first opportunity, and make sure we fix this Medicare prescription drug plan.

This week, my Governor, as many Governors who have been facing this at home on the ground, joined with me in urging the Federal Government to fix this mess. I want to quote her. She said:

All we are asking is don't make these people worse off than

they were.

Our Governor's office, as many Governors' offices, has been flooded with calls about this prescription drug plan. She says some of these people are telling her they would rather take their own life than deal with the situation.

I have sat in forums in my State where people have said that to me, to my face, as well. These are people with mental health problems, they are elderly, they are having trouble working through the system. It is too much for them. They cannot deal with the copayments for the first time--and that is not what our country should be about. It does not sound to me like things are getting better and the kinks are getting worked out.

Congress promised in 2005, they promised to people in this country access to affordable prescription drug coverage. It is clear they are not getting that today. We know these problems cannot be fixed through some kind of administrative action alone. We here in Congress have an obligation to act and not follow CMS.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and send a message to those who are living, literally, in fear today that Congress is not going to wait and we are going to do the right thing.

I do not agree that this is not the bill to deal with this issue. I wish we had another bill in front of us. I wish we had an actual fix in front of us. But we cannot wait to work through the next several weeks and then the budget

process and everything else coming down the pike to deal with this issue. We are talking about real individuals in real communities who are not getting access to their prescription drugs because of the challenges that CMS is facing as this plan is rolled out, and we have an obligation to act.

I urge my colleagues to support the Bingaman-Rockefeller-Murray drug REPAIR amendment and get a fix in place so people's lives are not in crisis. We have an obligation to do this, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to submit this resolution designating the week of February 2, 2006 as ``National School Counseling Week,'' on behalf of my colleagues, Senator Biden, Senator Dorgan, Senator Johnson, and Senator Dodd. This resolution honors and celebrates the important work of school counselors, which the Senate has recognized since 1965 through the inclusion of school counseling in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Across the country, there are approximately 95,000 school counselors, including 2,100 in Washington State. School counselors are critical components of a successful school and contribute significantly to the growth and success of students. In fact, school counselors were instrumental in helping students, teachers, and parents deal with the trauma of terrorism on September 11, 2001, and its aftermath. However, despite their important service, counselors are expected to serve, on average, 485 students each, and are overwhelmed. The American School Counseling Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Psychological Association recommend the ratio of students to school counselors be 250 students to 1 school counselor.

I want to share just a few examples of how school counselors throughout America are helping students.

In a middle school in southern California, school counselors realized that 257 students were in danger of not passing on to the next grade. They discovered that only 15 percent of the students understood the promotion and retention requirements. The school counselors presented a series of individual and small-group lessons on promotion and retention criteria. After the lessons, 100 percent of the students understood the requirements. As a result, 72 of the 257 students, about 28 percent, avoided retention that year.

In a high school in Racine, WI, a math teacher realized that 100 of his students failed algebra in the first quarter of the year. He asked a school counselor for help. Together, they discovered some of the reasons why students were failing. They initiated several programs, such as peer tutoring and homework assistance. As a result, 93 of the 100 students passed algebra by the end of the year and were able to move on to the next level of math.

A school district in Kentucky realized that the retention rate among ninth grade students was unacceptably high. School counselors, teachers and administrators worked together to develop and implement strategies targeted at helping ninth graders move to tenth grade. As a result, retention rates improved in 16 of the 17 high schools in the county in just 1 year. One school saw the retention rate improve more than 25 percent.

This resolution, though, is merely the beginning of what we need to be doing to support school counselors. We need to reduce the ratio of students to counselors to, at the most, 250 to 1. We need to help schools maintain their funding so that school counselors are not cut from school budgets. And we need to support our school counselors so that they can continue to be integral in the fabric of our schools and help our students achieve success in high school and beyond.

School counselors design and implement comprehensive developmental school counseling programs that are integral to the success of every student. They help students improve academic achievement, develop personally and socially and prepare for successful careers that will enable them to be contributing members of society. National School Counseling Week focuses public attention on the unique contribution of professional school counselors and highlights the tremendous impact that school counselors have in helping students achieve success in school and beyond.

Mr. President, I rise this evening to discuss my vote on the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr., to the U.S. Supreme Court. After meeting with Judge Alito and studying his record and comparing his answers to my criteria for judicial nominees, I have decided to vote against confirming Judge Samuel Alito, Jr., as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The next Justice will have the power to change the Court, change the country, and change our rights for generations. Judge Alito has a very troubling record. In his hearing and in our private meeting he did not show that he will be an independent judge who will uphold the rights and liberties of all Americans. With our rights and freedoms on the line, I will not take a chance on Judge Alito because I have serious questions about his independence and his commitment to protecting our rights and our liberties.

As with past nominees, I have evaluated this nominee based on my longstanding criteria, which ask: Is the nominee qualified, ethical, and honest? Will the nominee be fair, evenhanded, and independent? And will the nominee uphold the rights and liberties of all Americans?

Personally, I got involved in politics because of another Supreme Court nomination, that of Clarence Thomas. At the time, I was frustrated that average Americans didn't have a voice in the process that affects them so much. I have worked to be the voice of working families in my State, and I have asked the questions they would ask. I am voting to protect their interests.

I recognize the significance of a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. The Constitution directs Senators to provide advice and consent on all judicial nominees, and the people of my home State of Washington have trusted me to be their advocate to safeguard their rights as I vote on judicial nominees.

I take that responsibility very seriously. That is why I have reviewed Judge Alito's past writings, studied his answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and asked to meet with him in my office.

A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is a tremendous grant of unchecked power. If the Supreme Court rules incorrectly, there is no option for appeal. There is no backstop. Any seat on the Supreme Court can affect our rights for generations. But there are three factors involved in this particular nomination that make it even more significant. Those factors are the times, the seat, and the process.

First, I am well aware that we are living in historic times. Each day, it seems that the rights of the individuals and the power of government are being tested. We are at war overseas, we face threats from terrorism here at home, and the current administration is pushing the bounds of governmental power in remarkable ways.

The Bush administration has arrested U.S. citizens and held them without access to the courts. It has run secret prisons around the world. It has expressed views on torture that put our own troops at risk. As we recently learned, the administration has been spying on American citizens without prior approval from a court. These are grave issues which will likely come before the Supreme Court. How that Court rules will affect the rights of our citizens, the balance of power between the branches of our Government, and the balance of power between our citizens and Government.

So as I make my decision on this nominee, I am very mindful of the historic times we are living in and the serious questions this Supreme Court will address in the coming years.

Secondly, I am very mindful of the seat that is open on the Supreme Court and its significance. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was a pioneer in the field of law, and her decisions will shape the lives of the American people for generations to come.

As I said when she announced her resignation, we live in a better America due to her 24 years of service on the Court. Justice O'Connor was often a swing vote on those critical decisions. Her successor could easily change the balance of power on the Court, which could dramatically shift the Court's ruling on so many issues. Because this is a swing seat that could tip the Court's balance of power, we need to make sure that the person we confirm is someone who will protect our rights and liberties.

Some have suggested that I should just go along and support the President's nominee. That is not the way I make decisions. I have criteria that I use to evaluate all judicial nominees, and Judge Alito is no different.

Third, I am also well aware of how Judge Alito came to be the President's nominee. The President, as we all remember, had nominated his counsel, Harriet Miers, to the High Court, but Ms. Miers was not acceptable to the rightwing of the President's party. I found it very interesting that before her nomination, Republicans were demanding an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor for anyone the President nominated. But when President Bush nominated Ms. Miers, suddenly we stopped hearing that urgent call for an up-or-down vote. In fact, Ms. Miers' nomination was killed by the President's own party, apparently because she did not meet the ideological test of the extreme right.

I recount this history tonight not to diminish Judge Alito but to point out that his nomination comes before the Senate in the context of an ideological battle that has been created by the rightwing. When the President nominated Judge Alito, the rightwing cheered, confident that he would vote their way. That reaction gives me pause as to whether this nominee can keep an open mind on the issues that come before him. If the rightwing is so confident that he is going to vote their way, how can all of us be confident that he will put our country's needs first? That alone does not suggest that Judge Alito cannot be fair, but it did lead me to explore those questions diligently.

Given the importance of the Supreme Court and the background of the times and the seat and the process, I began to evaluate how Judge Alito measured up to my standards for judicial nominees. Judge Alito's record contains some disturbing statements, rulings, and pronouncements that require detailed explanations. Does he still hold some of those views? In many cases, we don't know. I wish Judge Alito had been more forthcoming during his hearing. At the same time, many of the things he said and refused to say spoke volumes.

As I noted earlier, my standards are simple: Is the nominee qualified, ethical, and honest? Will the nominee be fair and evenhanded and independent? And will the nominee uphold the rights and liberties of all Americans?

I am very comfortable that Judge Alito is qualified, he is honest, and he is ethical. But whether he will be fair and evenhanded is another question. And, as was discussed at his hearing, he does have a troubling record for fighting for the government and corporations and against individuals. He seems to favor the entrenched power over the little guy. His record does not give me the confidence that everyone who comes before the Court will be treated fairly.

I am also deeply concerned about Judge Alito's independence. We rely on our courts as a critical check and balance against government abuse. That independent check helps to protect our rights. This is especially important today because of the growing questions of the expansion of Executive power.

The Supreme Court will need to evaluate whether recent Executive actions are constitutional. Here Judge Alito's unbalanced minority view of the scope of Executive power tells me he does not have the independence to be an adequate check on the Government's abuse of our rights.

Finally, I have serious doubts that Judge Alito will uphold our rights and liberties. One example is his hostility

to the right of privacy. In the hearings, he refused to say that Roe v. Wade is settled law, and he did not adequately explain his 1985 statement that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.

Last year, when I voted to confirm, yes, Chief Justice John Roberts, I said I was choosing hope instead of fear and that Judge Roberts, through his answers, inspired such hope. Judge Alito, through his writings, his rulings, and his nonanswers, does not inspire confidence in me that he will protect all our rights. Because so much is on the line, because I do not believe he will be sufficiently independent or will uphold our rights and liberties, I will respectfully vote against his confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from teachers around the country who have opposed this nomination.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today regarding the December 7 Korean Fair Trade Commission, KFTC, decision against Microsoft. A major employer in Washington, Microsoft is being unfairly penalized by Korea, but this decision goes well beyond Microsoft as the Korean Fair Trade Commission's decision is ultimately a decision against free and fair trade.

When the European Commission issued its competition decision against Microsoft in March 2004, I was one of many Members who expressed serious concerns about the decision and its impact on one of America's most innovative companies and its workers. Like many of my colleagues, however, I was also alarmed at the broader policy implications of the decision--that Europe would adopt a decision whose negative impact on trade was so clear, and which diverged so markedly from the Department of Justice's remedy addressing the same conduct.

I believe that the December 7 decision of the Korean Fair Trade Commission against Microsoft is yet another warning sign that our trading partners are limiting competition in order to benefit their domestic interests. In this case, the Korean Fair Trade Commission not only followed the EU's market-distorting, anticonsumer approach, but appears to have gone substantially further than the EU remedies in several respects. The KFTC's decision makes me wonder whether the Microsoft case is not a unique case but instead indicates the beginning of a trend among some of our key trading partners to use competition law as a means to pursue protectionist agendas or advance domestic industrial policy goals. If so, this should be of tremendous concern to every member of this body.

Last week I wrote to U.S. Trade Representative Portman about this issue, and I would like to ask unanimous consent to place that letter into the record.

The letter urges Ambassador Portman to work with others in the administration--including at the White House and the Departments of Justice, State, and Commerce--to develop and implement mechanisms for addressing these issues in a more coherent and effective fashion. At the same time, I urged Ambassador Portman to work with others in the administration to take whatever steps are still available to advance the U.S. perspective in the Microsoft case, so that the

anticonsumer, anti-innovation decisions do not establish a precedent that harms U.S. competitiveness for years to come.