---

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. Alexander: Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from New Mexico. He has been working at this a long time. He helped originate the report by the National Academy of Sciences to which he referred, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm." He has also performed a service to the Senate and the country by doing some of the hard, less glamourous work, because he has worked his way through the budget process and, in his words, we are making sure with this amendment that we have room in the budget to appropriate funds to support what I believe is the single most important legislation before the Congress this year; that is the America COMPETES Act which has been introduced by the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, and by the Republican leader, Senator McConnell.

At one stage in its development over the last 2 years it had 70 Senators, an equal number of both parties, supporting it and has been vetted and worked on by at least a half dozen of our committees. I thank Senator Bingaman for his long-time leadership on this effort, especially for making sure there is room in the budget for it.

On this side of the aisle, we talk a lot about progrowth policies and progrowth investments. We usually mean tax cuts when we talk about that. I learned a long time ago that while low taxes and balanced budgets are one important part of a progrowth strategy, they are not the only important part.

When I was Governor of my State, the Senator from New Hampshire was Governor of his State. That is a low-tax State. It was nearly as low a tax State as Tennessee when we were both Governors. That was important. But we also found out in Tennessee that if we wanted an auto industry, we had to have good four-lane highways. If we wanted to grow new jobs, we wanted to have a good banking. That was part of a progrowth strategy.

But more than anything else, the most important part of a progrowth strategy in my State was schools, colleges, and universities. We learned that better schools, colleges, and universities meant better jobs.

So this legislation we are talking about is about America's brainpower advantage. It is the reason why we produce a third of all the money for about 5 percent of all the people in the world. It is because of the big ideas that have come out of our country. From the automobile, to the electric light bulb, to Google--they have been created here. The jobs are here and the standard of living is higher here.

But the rest of the world has figured that out. They have the same brains we do, and suddenly China is recruiting the most distinguished Chinese professors from great American universities to come back to China to build up China. You heard what Senator Bingaman said about what is happening in India.

We are talking about a little money for progrowth investments here. We would make room for $1 billion the President requested--that the President requested--to restore funding for basic scientific research in math and science education so we can keep our brainpower advantage. This is the real way to keep our good jobs from going to China and India and other countries in the world.

It is important to keep that $1 billion over the next year in perspective. That is half what we spend in the war in Iraq in a week. We spent $237 billion on debt last year, $378 billion on Medicare, $545 billion on Social Security, at least $70 billion on hurricanes. We are going to be asked to pass a $100 billion supplemental request for the war in Iraq.

We will not have enough money to pay all these important bills unless we keep enough money in the budget for the investments that keep our brainpower advantage so we can keep our jobs. That is where we get all that money.

The Bingaman-Alexander amendment would help make room for the $1 billion requested by the President to fund basic research in math and science education.

Specifically, one, it would restore $398 million for the National Science Foundation, bringing the total to $6.429 billion, as requested by the President.

Two, it restores $610 million for the Department of Energy's Office of Science, bringing the total to $4.481 billion, which meets the President's request, and then adds $70 million extra for three programs that are part of the Reid-McConnell America COMPETES Act: Discovery institutes, PACE Graduate Fellows, and Distinguished Scientists.

It adds $11 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as authorized for next year by the Reid-McConnell legislation.

The majority leader and the minority leader, in the midst of some contentious discussions in the Senate--which we have regularly--are rising above that and putting this piece of legislation into play. I know of no other piece of legislation that has that kind of bipartisan support that is that important to the future of our country. It is based on work Senator Bingaman, Senator Domenici, Senator Mikulski, Senator Ensign, Senator Lieberman, Senator Hutchison, and many others have been a part of. Senator Frist and Senator Reid put the bill in, in the first place, toward the end of last year.

It began because Senator Bingaman and I and others walked down the street to the National Academy of Sciences and said: Please tell us exactly what we ought to do, in priority order, to keep our brainpower advantage. Give us 10 specific things to do. They gave us 20, in priority order. That was put together with other important work done by the Council on Competitiveness. Then here we are today with the "Rising Above the Gathering Storm" report and with the Council on Competitiveness' report.

The bill, the America COMPETES Act, to which this amendment relates, authorizes $16 billion in new spending over 4 years. But this is a significant savings over the original legislation, the one that was sponsored by 70 Senators and reported by the committees. We took out $3 billion from the bills passed by Energy and Commerce. We avoided a number of duplicative undergraduate scholarship programs. We wanted progrowth investment, but we wanted to do it wisely and prudently.

I wish to conclude my remarks with some of the provisions of the America COMPETES Act. I know the Senator from South Carolina is waiting to speak, and others will be speaking, too, so I will conclude my remarks quickly. But it includes such matters as doubling funding for the National Science Foundation. It will set the Department of Energy's Office of Science on track to double in funding over 10 years. It will strengthen the skills of thousands of math and science teachers, and others.

As I said, provisions of the America COMPETES Act include double funding for the National Science Foundation, or NSF, from $5.6 billion in fiscal year 2006 to $11.2 billion in fiscal year 2011; setting the Department of Energy's Office of Science on track to double in funding over 10 years, increasing from $3.6 billion in fiscal year 2006 to over $5.2 billion in fiscal year 2011.

Another provision is to strengthen the skills of thousands of math and science teachers by establishing training and education programs at summer institutes hosted at the National Laboratories and by increasing support for the Teacher Institutes for the 21st Century program at NSF.

Another provision is to expand the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program at NSF to recruit and train individuals to become math and science teachers in high-need schools.

Another provision is to assist States in establishing or expanding statewide specialty schools in math and science that students from across the State would be eligible to attend--as they do now in North Carolina and other States.

Another provision is to expand Advanced Placement, AP, and International Baccalaureate, IB, programs by increasing the number of teachers prepared to teach these math, science, and foreign language courses in high schools. This would allow thousands of new students to take these outstanding college preparatory classes.

Another provision is to provide grants to universities to establish programs modeled on the successful UTeach program at the University of Texas--where students getting a bachelor's degree in math or science can concurrently earn teaching credentials and become the new generation of math and science teachers.

Another provision is to create partnerships between National Laboratories and local high-need high schools to establish centers of excellence in math and science education.

The challenge America faces today is really about brainpower and jobs.

We Americans--who constitute just 5 percent of the world's population--produced about 30 percent of the world's wealth last year. Yet we worry that America may be losing its brainpower advantage. We see what is happening in China and India and other countries, too, such as Finland, Singapore, and Ireland. We face a new "flat" world where more and more countries can compete with us, and we must rise to the challenge. That is why we must fund this progrowth investment in our economy and create the best new jobs here instead of shipping them overseas. That is why I hope all my colleagues will join in supporting this amendment.

One more point. We asked our National Academies what to do to keep our brainpower advantage. We worked 2 years through various committees and many changes to bring our legislation to this point. We still have some way to go, although a parallel path is being pursued in a bipartisan way in the House.

I believe we will get there, and get there soon, with this kind of leadership. But we should realize President Hu of China walked over to the National Academy of Sciences in China last July, and they do things in a little different way. He announced to his joint academy meeting in the Great Hall of the People exactly what China's innovation effort would be over the next 10 years, how they are going to increase their percentage investment in the gross domestic product, how they are going to improve their universities and elementary and secondary schools, and exactly what they would do to recruit distinguished Chinese leaders to come back, because they know their brainpower advantage, to the extent they can develop and improve on it, is the most important aspect of creating good jobs and a higher standard of living here.

So this legislation is a step in that direction for us. We have much more to do. We have the research and development tax credit to make permanent. We have provisions in the immigration legislation which have passed once, which I hope pass again, to in-source brainpower, to give a preference to people with high skills in science, technology, engineering, and math. Let them stay here, create jobs here instead of in other countries. We are going to continue to work on that.

But Senator Bingaman has, by his leadership and persistence, come up with an amendment, which I join him in cosponsoring, which will make room for funding. We need to properly support the America COMPETES Act that Senator Reid and Senator McConnell have cosponsored, along with 40 of us right now. Hopefully, we will be keeping that brainpower advantage and, therefore, keeping our good jobs.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, I ask the Senator to withhold for 1 minute.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, I wish to comment very briefly on the amendment that was offered.

I commend Senator Bingaman and Senator Alexander for one of the most thoughtful amendments I have seen being offered on the budget resolution. It is bipartisan. It is something that has been very well thought through. It is almost a model for how things ought to be done in this Chamber. So I especially commend Senator Bingaman and Senator Alexander for this effort, and many other colleagues who have been involved in it. I hope it serves as an example for everybody about how we do business around here. I thank the two Senators very much.

Mr. President, we now have Senator DeMint who wants to comment briefly on the Bunning amendment and also lay down an amendment. We have an understanding we have the potential of a side-by-side amendment with the DeMint amendment, if that becomes necessary. Senator Gregg and I have talked about that.

Importance of Education

Mr. Bingaman: As the chairman knows, strong math and science education is critical if we, as a nation, are going to continue to have a skilled and educated workforce that can compete in the global economy.

Mr. Conrad: Yes, I agree.

Mr. Bingaman: Does the chairman agree that we need to improve K-12 math and science education for all students in this country and do all we can to strengthen the math and science teaching skills of the teaching workforce?

Mr. Conrad: Yes, these are both very important elements to maintaining our economic edge.

Mr. Bingaman: I am very pleased that the chairman's mark increases funding for education by more than $6 billion over the President's proposed budget, and I ask, was it the chairman's assumption that this increase should be used, in part, to fund provisions that will strengthen K-12 math and science education and strengthen the math and science teaching skills of the teaching workforce?

Mr. Conrad: That is correct.

Mr. Bingaman: I thank the chairman and look forward to working with him to ensure these critical programs receive funding.

Mr. Domenici: Mr. President, today I join Senator Bingaman and other colleagues to offer an amendment to increase our investment in our Nation's economic competivenes.

Our amendment will provide just over $1 billion for the coming fiscal year to support world-class research in the physical sciences and for educating our next generation of scientists.

Just over a year ago, the National Academy of Science report, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm," focused national attention on a challenge of enormous significance. We are not doing enough to harness, and develop, our national brainpower.

Earlier this month, I joined a bipartisan group of Senators to introduce the America COMPETES Act, S. 761. This act is the result of a remarkable cooperative effort, involving three Senate committees and valuable contributions from a number of Senators. We have the support of the majority leader and the minority leader, and we are going to make this happen.

All of us that worked to write this legislation are deeply concerned about maintaining our Nation's ability to compete in the high-tech, global marketplace.

Our bill increases our investments in science and mathematics education at all levels--kindergarten through high school, college, and graduate school. The America COMPETES Act will also build on educational programs at Department of Energy laboratories. These programs will strengthen the teaching skills of math and science teachers throughout the country.

The America COMPETES Act authorizes a doubling of research dollars to key research agencies, including the Department of Energy Office of Science, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

The amendment we offer today will allow us to follow through on the promise of the America COMPETES Act. We need to devote the resources necessary to meet the goals of this important legislation.

We need to take action now to support our standard of living and ensure we continue to grow and prosper. If we do not, we can expect other nations to rival our global competitiveness--and one day to surpass us.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. DeMint: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set the pending amendment aside.

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 489

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

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will report the amendment.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an amendment numbered 489.

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

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a reserve fund for Social Security reform)

At the end of title III, insert the following:

SEC. __. RESERVE FUND FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM.

If the Senate Committee on Finance reports a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment is offered thereto, or a conference report is submitted thereon, that provides changes to the Federal Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Benefits Program established under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) by--

(1) requiring that the Federal Old Age and Survivors Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund are to be used only to finance expenditures to provide retirement income of future beneficiaries of such program;

(2) ensuring that there is no change to current law scheduled benefits for individuals born before January 1, 1951;

(3) providing participants with the benefits of savings and investment while permitting the pre-funding of at least some portion of future benefits; and

(4) ensuring that the funds made available to finance such legislation do not exceed the amounts of the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration's intermediate actuarial estimates of the Federal Old Age and Survivors Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, as published in the most recent report of the Board of Trustees of such Trust Funds; the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may make the appropriate adjustments in allocations and aggregates to the extent that such legislation would not increase the deficit for fiscal year 2008 and for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

Mr. DeMint: Mr. President, as we all came into this debate on the first Democrat budget, a lot of us had high hopes. If you think back to the November elections, it seemed, at least for a few months, that Republicans and Democrats, in many ways, were saying a lot of the same things. We all decided it was very important we stop wasteful spending. We talked about reducing the debt. We even talked about keeping some of the tax relief that had gotten our economy going and created more jobs, although there is certainly some disagreement as to which tax cuts should be kept in place.

As we see the Democratic budget at this point, there are certainly a number of us who are disappointed, particularly as we see this budget allows crushing tax increases to hit Americans at every income level, as well as tax increases on the businesses that provide us all our jobs. Even more, there is nothing in this budget that does anything to cut spending. We all know there is wasteful spending throughout this Federal Government. We need to get about the task of finding it and cutting it.

Perhaps the worst example of wasteful spending is when we take the taxes people pay for Social Security and, instead of saving them, we spend them on other things. For a number of years now, the amount of taxes all Americans pay in every paycheck for their future Social Security income--they have actually been more than we need to pay the benefits of current retirees. It is what we refer to as the Social Security surplus. But instead of saving this surplus over the years, we take that money and put it in the general fund and spend it on all kinds of things.

Even worse than spending Social Security on other things is we do not count it as debt when we talk about the deficit every year. So using the Social Security money is actually a way to hide even more wasteful spending without counting it as debt.

Now, for everything we borrow from Social Security, we put an IOU in this so-called trust fund, with this idea someday we are going to pay it back. But we need to try to remind the American people there are no plans in this Congress--and there never have been any plans--to pay that money back. Unfortunately, the Democratic budget that has been proposed over the next 5 years will spend over $1 trillion additionally in Social Security taxes, as well as the interest that is supposed to be paid on that money that has already been borrowed. So the money that should be saved for the future of Americans in their retired days is being spent every year, and it is being used to conceal more and more wasteful spending.

A lot of us have heard the news reports over the last year or two about the number of corporate pension plans that are going broke. The reason for that is, over the years not enough money has been put in those pensions to allow the companies to actually pay the benefits that have been promised. We call that an underfunded pension plan. It is creating huge problems for us throughout our country and for a number of workers who are counting on those pensions in their retirement.

But as we consider Social Security, it is a pension plan. It is a pension plan Americans pay into with the reasonable expectation that one day they will be able to get their promised benefits. But Social Security is not only an underfunded pension plan, it is a completely unfunded pension plan. Not one dime of all the trillions of dollars that have been put into Social Security over our lifetime is saved. As I said before, it is actually being used to obscure a bigger debt and to obscure more and more wasteful spending at the Federal level.

I commend Senator Bunning for his amendment that would require our budgeting needs not budget these Social Security dollars for other spending. I think it is very important that we take this a step further. Not only should we not spend the Social Security surplus, but we should take that money and put it in a reserve account so we actually save it for the future instead of giving it to the general fund to spend on anything we in Congress can come up with. Take the Social Security surplus--the cash itself will be about $80 billion this year; if you count the interest, it gets well more than that--put it in a reserve account and not spend it.

The amendment I have offered would allow us, within the budgeting process, to set this money aside and not spend it. Unless we support this amendment as part of the budgeting process, when we bring this up to actually get it done some time this year, there will be a point of order against it and it will not be allowed to pass. So it has to be done now. That is the purpose of this amendment.

Now, what will happen if we pass this amendment and we take this money off the table and no longer allow Congress to spend it? Then we are going to have to be honest about our debt, and we are probably going to have to cut some wasteful spending because this money is not going to be available for us to spend. It will put a lot of pressure on both parties, Republicans and Democrats, to figure out how to cut wasteful spending and how to save the Social Security money we promised to future generations. If we put it in a reserve account, we will also start the process to create a funded Social Security system, a Social Security system that has real money so we can keep our promises to future generations.

So I support Senator Bunning's amendment. I offer another that will take it a step further, so that the money we take off the table cannot be spent on anything else; it has to be in a reserve account and can only be spent on Social Security in the future. I wish to thank the Senator for allowing me to offer that amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, would the Senator be open to some questions with respect to his amendment so we might clarify it so we might have a floor understanding of the intention of the Senator?

Mr. DeMint: Yes, I will.

Mr. Conrad: Let me first say that in large measure, I am in agreement with what I hear the Senator saying. I have always thought we are engaged in "funny money" accounting around here, taking Social Security money and using it to pay other bills. That is the object of the Senator's amendment; is that correct?

Mr. DeMint: Well, that is part of the goal. The goal is not to spend it on other things but to actually set it aside so we don't spend it. In the past, as the Senator knows, we talked about lockboxes, where we don't spend it, but in effect we do spend it, even if it is paying down the debt.

The goal of the amendment is to take money that is surplused for Social Security and say it will only be spent for Social Security. This amendment doesn't take it any further than that. It doesn't tell Congress how the money should be saved or invested; it doesn't get into the more controversial aspects of will it go into personal accounts. It does not establish individual ownership at all. These are the things that have divided us in the past.

But I think we agree with the basic concept: Let's take Social Security off the table and somehow save it in a way that we can't spend it so we can be more honest in our accounting.

Mr. Conrad: That raises a whole series of questions, and that is another thing I wanted to ask the Senator about. If it is set aside, if it is not used to pay down the debt, how would those funds be invested under the amendment from the Senator?

Mr. DeMint: My amendment doesn't specify. Congress would have to determine that. As the Senator knows, as part of the budget process, this does not affect it happening. We would still have to perform the act of taking the money off the table. I think, again, as a majority Senator, you would have a greater determination of how that money is saved. There is no intent in my amendment to direct how it is saved. It could be T bills or something within the Federal Government. But the hope is we will put it in some type of holding or savings that is not part of the general fund anymore. It is not spent.

Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, is there anything in this amendment that would prevent it from being invested in some other securities other than Government bonds?

Mr. DeMint: There is nothing that allows for it or prevents it. So I assume, again, with my colleagues in control of what comes to the floor, there is no danger of it drifting into any controversial area. I think we can certainly agree on some safe savings that would be risk free for the American people.

Mr. Conrad: Is there anything that would prevent the funds from going to private accounts?

Mr. DeMint: It does not allow for that in any way. That would have to be a separate piece of legislation, so that would be determined by-- this legislation does not open the door for private accounts.

Mr. Conrad: I thank the Senator for his answers to those questions. Has the Senator sent the amendment to the desk?

Mr. DeMint: Yes.

Mr. Conrad: I appreciate that. We have an understanding that if there is a desire to have a side-by-side amendment, that will be open to our side. I thank the Senator for answering those questions and for offering the amendment.

Mr. DeMint: I thank the Senator.

Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, in the interest of trying to move things along with some dispatch, we have now had a number of amendments offered, including the Bunning amendment, the DeMint amendment, the amendment by Senators Bingaman and Alexander. We now want to make certain we are ready to go to the Allard amendment. We are told Senator Allard will be here momentarily. That would be the next amendment in order. We are trying then to go to the Baucus amendment. We are trying to reach his staff to see if that would be accommodated within his schedule. We also have Senator Collins. When would she be available?

Mr. Gregg: Mr. President, as I understand it, Senator Collins expects to be here by 11:45 to present her amendment. Then, as I also understand it, at 12:30, we go to an hour which is agreed to and under the rule they have an hour certainly available to them on the Humphrey- Hawkins, and that would be Senator Brownback and Senator Schumer, I believe, who have that hour.

Mr. Conrad: Let us check with Senator Baucus and see.

Mr. Gregg: We certainly want to accommodate Senator Baucus on our side.

Mr. Conrad: All right. Let's see if we can't work that out in the next few moments. Until then, I note the absence of a quorum.

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Conrad: I see Senator Allard has now come to the floor. We want to thank him for helping expedite the consideration of the budget resolution. We very much appreciate his coming on short notice to the floor to offer his amendment.

Senator Allard's amendment is now in order.

The Presiding Officer: Does the Senator seek unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment?

Mr. Conrad: Precisely so.

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Colorado is recognized.

Mr. Allard: Mr. President, while I am getting set up, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending business. I have two amendments at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent to call them up en bloc and send them to the desk.

Mr. Conrad: Reserving the right to object, we have only been noticed on this side about one amendment.

Mr. Allard: Yes. I plan on calling it up--I wish to call up both amendments so I have votes on them. The first amendment, and then the second amendment I plan on putting in the group of amendments we will vote on at the end, which we only allow a few minutes for debate. The first amendment I was going to call up--this will be the one we will debate and take up floor time.

Mr. Conrad: All right. Fair enough.

Mr. Allard: Mr. President, I wish to send up----

Mr. Conrad: Could we get the second amendment?

Mr. Allard: I will be glad to get those to my colleagues. Here is the one on discretionary spending, the one we will be debating during this time period. Would the Senator like the second amendment before I send it up?

Mr. Conrad: We have a procedure we try to follow so that we see amendments before they are sent to the desk. That would be very helpful to us. We were noticed on the Senator's first amendment. That is the amendment the Senator offered in the committee; am I correct?

Mr. Allard: That is the one that was offered in committee dealing with discretionary spending. The second amendment deals with mandatory spending.

Mr. Conrad: I appreciate that. If the Senator could send up the one we have seen and withhold on the other until we have had a chance to look at that.

Mr. Allard: That would be fine.

Mr. Conrad: I appreciate it very much.

Mr. Allard: I wish to make sure we get an opportunity to vote on the second amendment.

Mr. Conrad: Yes, the Senator's right will be protected to have both of these amendments voted on.

Mr. Allard: I thank the Senator very much.

Amendment No. 491

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will report the single amendment.

The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard] proposes an amendment numbered 491.

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

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

amendment no. 491

(Purpose: To pay down the Federal debt and eliminate government waste by reducing spending on programs rated ineffective by the Program Assessment Rating Tool)

• On page 4, line 6, decrease the amount by $4,270,000,000.
• On page 4, line 7, decrease the amount by $4,427,500,000.
• On page 4, line 8, decrease the amount by $4,675,500,000.
• On page 4, line 9, decrease the amount by $4,972,500,000.
• On page 4, line 10, decrease the amount by $5,284,000,000.
• On page 4, line 15, decrease the amount by $870,000,000.
• On page 4, line 16, decrease the amount by $2,752,500,000.
• On page 4, line 17, decrease the amount by $4,580,500,000.
• On page 4, line 18, decrease the amount by $4,877,500,000.
• On page 4, line 19, decrease the amount by $5,189,000,000.
• On page 4, line 24, decrease the amount by $870,000,000.
• On page 4, line 25, decrease the amount by $2,752,500,000.
• On page 5, line 1, decrease the amount by $4,580,500,000.
• On page 5, line 2, decrease the amount by $4,877,500,000.
• On page 5, line 3, decrease the amount by $5,189,000,000.
• On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $870,000,000.
• On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $3,622,500,000.
• On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $8,203,000,000.
• On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $13,081,000,000.
• On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $18,269,500,000.
• On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $870,000,000.
• On page 5, line 16, decrease the amount by $3,662,500,000.
• On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by $8,203,000,000.
• On page 5, line 18, decrease the amount by $13,081,000,000.
• On page 5, line 19, decrease the amount by $18,269,500,000.
• On page 25, line 12, decrease the amount by $20,000,000.
• On page 25, line 13, decrease the amount by $20,000,000.
• On page 25, line 16, decrease the amount by $102,500,000.
• On page 25, line 17, decrease the amount by $102,500,000.
• On page 25, line 20, decrease the amount by $270,500,000.
• On page 25, line 21, decrease the amount by $270,500,000.
• On page 25, line 24, decrease the amount by $487,500,000.
• On page 25, line 25, decrease the amount by $487,500,000.
• On page 26, line 3, decrease the amount by $719,000,000.
• On page 26, line 4, decrease the amount by $719,000,000.
• On page 26, line 12, decrease the amount by $4,250,000,000.
• On page 26, line 13, decrease the amount by $850,000,000.
• On page 26, line 16, decrease the amount by $4,325,000,000.
• On page 26, line 17, decrease the amount by $2,650,000,000.
• On page 26, line 20, decrease the amount by $4,405,000,000.
• On page 26, line 21, decrease the amount by $4,310,000,000.
• On page 26, line 24, decrease the amount by $4,485,000,000.
• On page 26, line 25, decrease the amount by $4,439,000,000.
• On page 27, line 3, decrease the amount by $4,565,000,000.
• On page 27, line 4, decrease the amount by $4,470,000,000.
• On page 41, line 9, decrease the amount by $4,250,000,000.
• On page 41, line 10, decrease the amount by $850,000,000.

Mr. Allard: Mr. President, I wish to make a few comments about the PART program in general, which is a program that has been put in place by the Congress through a piece of legislation that was passed more than a decade ago. This program directs the agencies to set up measurable goals and objectives, and then we go in later on and those goals and objectives are evaluated to see if the agency is actually meeting those goals and objectives.

The piece of legislation, which was passed more than a decade ago, was called the Government Results and Procedures Act. So these agencies have had time to work with this program for some time under the Clinton administration as well as the Bush administration.

When making funding decisions, Members of Congress should consider what they are buying for the taxpayer. Funded programs should be effective and efficient. The Federal Government has completed comprehensive assessments of the performance of almost 1,000 programs, representing 96 percent of the total program funding using this Program Assessment Rating Tool, which is referred to as PART. These detailed program assessments and the evidence on which they are based are available for the public to view at www.expectmore.gov. It is a very good reference for the public to use--for, in fact, Members of Congress or any agencies to know exactly where they stand as far as where their performance standards are concerned.

These assessments represent the combined wisdom of career officials. This is not a political process, these are objective evaluations done by career officials at agencies and OMB--the Office of Management and Budget--and are based on evidence of that program's performance.

Programs assessed with the PART receive an overall rating. The best rating they can get is "effective." Then it goes to "moderately effective," "adequate," "results not demonstrated" or "ineffective." While a program's overall rating should not be the sole determinant of its funding, Congress should prioritize funding programs that perform well. Ineffective programs, in particular, should be scrutinized to determine if the resources they use could be better spent elsewhere and if their goals could be achieved through another means.

When determining where to invest resources, Members of Congress can look to the PART for important information. No. 1: Does the program address an existing problem, interest or need, and those that do not should not be funded.

The other question to be asked is: Does the program have performance goals that relate to the outcomes the American people want? Those that do not may not be worthwhile investments of taxpayer dollars. Do independent, rigorous evaluations demonstrate that the program is effective? If not, Congress may want to reconsider whether to fund the program.

If evaluations have not been conducted, Congress may want to consider investing some money in an evaluation to determine if the program is having its intended impact.

Is the program working to improve its performance is another question we ask. A program that does not have an improvement plan in place or is not working aggressively to improve may not be the best investment of resources.

The other question: If an increase in funding is requested for a program, has the program explained how the additional funding will impact its performance? Programs that cannot articulate how they will use their resources simply aren't the best candidates for investment.

So that is what the PART Program is all about. It is a good program, and it is being implemented more and more throughout the agencies.

Some of the PART findings are programs that have been ineffective. Let's look at a few of those.

PART found that actual additional natural gas reserves attributable to technology developed by the Natural Gas Technology Program have been relatively small. Moreover, as noted by the National Academy of Sciences:

It is difficult to separate the contributions made by the Department of Energy and contributions made by industry and others.

Another program rated ineffective by PART is the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Program, which may not concentrate enough on providing training and employment. Each year, more than 60 percent of the program's approximately 30,000 participants receive only supportive services, such as emergency cash assistance. They don't carry on with the goal and objective, which is training and employment. Although these services are important, they are not contributing significantly to helping participants gain stable, year-round employment. If we want to train them, we need to look at that program.

PART found the same thing with the Health Professions Program. One study found that only 1.5 percent of the physicians trained by institutions receiving the program's family medicine training grant provided health care in areas with a physician shortage, compared to 1.1 percent of physicians trained by other institutions. There is only a four-tenths of a percent performance difference. What is that program accomplishing?

PART found no evidence that the Radiation and Exposure Screening and Education Program reaches the maximum number of beneficiaries or the beneficiaries who are at the greatest risk. There is not even an estimate of the number of people potentially affected by uranium and nuclear testing activities and where they might live.

Another program rated ineffective by PART is the Juvenile Accountability Block Grants Program. It was found ineffective because it has no measurable impact on either juvenile crime or the juvenile justice system to date.

These are only a few of the programs that have been looked at by the PART Program. I think they provide the information Members of Congress need to evaluate whether programs are ineffective.

The amendment before us just addresses a portion of discretionary spending. The full PART Program evaluates mandatory programs and discretionary programs.

I put forward two amendments. The amendment before us is the discretionary program where we will get a considerable amount of debate. The mandatory amendment is one the chairman asked be reviewed, and he assured me I will have an opportunity to offer that amendment at a later time.

So I rise today asking Members to support this amendment where we deal with the discretionary spending as the PART Program is being applied. The overall purpose of the amendment is to pay down the Federal debt and eliminate Government waste by reducing spending on programs rated "ineffective" by the Office of Management and Budget's PART program. This is through the career professionals in the agency. This is not driven by any kind of political agenda. PART is a Government-wide assessment of the performance of almost 1,000 programs, again, representing 96 percent of total program funding.

If we look at programs in the discretionary spending area which are rated ineffective, it amounts, over the time period of this budget, which is 5 years, to $88 billion of program spending. My amendment says we will reduce 25 percent of the spending in this area, which is about $17 billion over the period of 5 years. We will say that those programs are ineffective and we need to reduce spending for those so that we motivate the agencies to redo their programs, so they truly are accomplishing what was laid out for the original purpose of the program.

What happens in our budget that is before us is we have $900 billion in increasing taxes by default because we don't do anything to extend those tax provisions which are expiring in 2010 and before. So my point is this: We are forcing the taxpayers to pay more into the Federal budget, and at the same time we are spending $88 billion on ineffective programs.

My amendment says we are going to take a portion of the $88 billion-- about $18 billion--out of here for a strong signal from the Congress that we want to support effective programs and we want the taxpayer dollars spent in a responsible way. My amendment doesn't take all of the $88 billion, realizing there may be points in time when another program is not meeting its goals and needs more money. So that flexibility is allowed in this particular amendment. It doesn't target any specific program. Those programs which I recounted to you are just representative of some of the efforts that happen under the PART Program. It is a wonderful way for the Members of Congress to begin to evaluate whether a program is effective, and then not just leave it there but say, through the budget, to those agencies: You have to get your act together; we don't tolerate using taxpayer dollars--particularly when we are increasing your taxes--to allow those programs to go on in an ineffective manner.

Almost worse than being rated ineffective, we have programs out there that have made absolutely no effort at all to measure their results. I believe these are the worst offenders. In the following years, I hope Congress will look at those programs. They have absolutely refused to do anything to create accountability so that the Members of Congress can evaluate what is going on in those programs.

So that is what my amendment is all about. It is about saving taxpayer dollars in a responsible way; it is about forcing managers of these programs to put in effective goals and objectives so that they accomplish what the legislation intended. The budget authority is about $4.3 billion in each year, from 2008 to 2012. That comes close to about $18 billion or so, which is used to pay down the Federal debt.

I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in trying to bring forward more accountability in the programs we have passed. I think this is a wonderful tool we have for whatever administration is in control. This is a direct message to the agencies to get their act in order, because we are concerned about how taxpayer dollars are being spent. This is not an onerous amendment. It is trying to bring accountability to Government programs that we pass.

I reserve the remainder of my time, Mr. President.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.

Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, I say to Senator Allard, as I expressed in the committee, the only problem I have with this amendment is that, unfortunately, a budget resolution cannot assure the right things would be cut. As you know, we don't really have that power. We just give a block of money to the Appropriations Committee and they decide how to spend it.

Mr. President, does the Senator need more time or could we go to Senator Baucus?

Mr. Allard: Mr. President, let me summarize my comments and respond. I think if we look at our budget process, we hopefully--maybe not this year but next year--will be able to put in some instructions to the committees. I understand we cannot specifically tell them but, as budgeteers, we have an opportunity to put in instructions to the various committees to participate.

I hope this passes, and maybe we can deal with this in conference. If not, maybe the chairman would look at it either in conference committee or in future years and we can put in some kind of instructions and say: Look at those programs under your jurisdiction and look at the ones classified as ineffective and begin to demand more accountability on those particular programs.

I hope we can get a "yea" vote on both of these amendments to send a message, if nothing else, to the conference committee to get it passed. If it doesn't work out this year, maybe we can work it out in future years.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Citizens Against Government Waste in support of both of my amendments be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. Allard: I yield back my time.

Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, I think now would be a good time to go to Senator Baucus. I apologize to the Senator from Montana for the miscommunication that occurred this morning. I apologize to him for that. As a result, he came at 10 o'clock seeking time, which we all agreed was to be his time. Through a miscommunication, we wound up going to another Senator. I very much thank the Senator for his acceptance of the apology.

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, the Allard amendment is set aside.

The Senator from Montana is recognized.

Mr. Baucus: Mr. President, I thank my good friend from North Dakota, Senator Conrad. He has done a super job, almost impossible job putting this budget together. It is tough enough to get agreements in this body, and it is more difficult when it is a budget resolution. I compliment my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their excellent and diligent work. I also say to him I appreciate his offer of an apology with respect to the misunderstanding and miscommunication. This Senator is probably as much a part of the miscommunication as anybody.

Amendment No. 492

Mr. Baucus: Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and.

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will report.

The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus], for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Nelson of Florida, proposes an amendment numbered 492.

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

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide tax relief to middle class families and small businesses and to expand health insurance coverage for children)

• On page 3, line 13, decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
• On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $52,700,000,000.
• On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $126,916,000,000.
• On page 3, line 22, decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
• On page 3, line 23, decrease the amount by $52,700,000,000.
• On page 4, line 1, further decrease the amount by $126,916,000,000.
• On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $5,000,000,000.
• On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $5,000,000,000.
• On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $5,000,000,000.
• On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $5,000,000,000.
• On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $5,000,000,000.
• On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $5,000,000,000.
• On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $5,200,000,000.
• On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $57,700,000,000.
• On page 5, line 3, increase the amount by $131,916,000,000.
• On page 5, line 9, increase the amount by $5,200,000,000.
• On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $62,900,000,000.
• On page 5, line 11, increase the amount by $194,816,000,000.
• On page 5, line 17, increase the amount by $5,200,000,000.
• On page 5, line 18, increase the amount by $62,900,000,000.
• On page 5, line 19, increase the amount by $194,816,000,000.
• On page 18, line 20, increase the amount by $5,000,000,000.
• On page 18, line 21, increase the amount by $5,000,000,000.
• On page 18, line 24, increase the amount by $5,000,000,000.
• On page 18, line 25, increase the amount by $5,000,000,000.
• On page 19, line 3, increase the amount by $5,000,000,000.
• On page 19, line 4, increase the amount by $5,000,000,000.
• On page 49, line 6, decrease the amount by $15,000,000,000.

Mr. Baucus: Mr. President, I again commend the chairman for his able work in bringing this budget to the floor. He has done a superb job.

The budget resolution before us leaves a surplus of $132 billion in the year 2012. The amendment I now offer on behalf of Senators Landrieu, Pryor, Bayh, and Bill Nelson would state the Senate's will on what we should do if that surplus materializes.

In sum, our amendment says that the Senate's highest priority for any surplus should be American families. Our amendment would put children first. It would take $15 billion out of that $132 billion and devote it to improving children's health care coverage under CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program. The budget resolution already recognizes this priority in a deficit-neutral reserve fund.

Our amendment would also reduce the amount in that reserve fund. So we are not increasing the net amount of spending on CHIP. It will be the same. We are just making that work on CHIP more likely.

We are saying if we have a surplus in 2012, then we ought to spend some part of that surplus on children's health, and we are saying if we have a surplus in 2012, we should not raise taxes to pay for all of the Children's Health Insurance Program. If we have a surplus in 2012, we should not cut Medicare to pay for all of CHIP. Rather, we should use some of that surplus to fund children's health; that is, put children first.

Then our amendment takes the rest of the surplus and returns it to the hard-working American families who created it. Our amendment devotes the rest of the surplus to the extension and enhancement of tax relief for hard-working American families.

Here are the types of tax relief about which we are talking. We are talking about making the 10-percent tax bracket permanent. That is a tax cut for all taxpayers. Obviously, if the 10-percent tax bracket is made permanent--that is, for all years--all taxpayers who pay income taxes, irrespective of their income, irrespective of their bracket, get a tax break.

We are talking about extending the child tax credit. That provides a $1,000 tax credit per child. This tax credit recognizes a family's ability to pay taxes decreases as family size increases. Unless we act, the child tax credit will fall to $500 per child. Currently, it is at $1,000. The child tax credit should be made permanent. We need to recognize the financial responsibilities of childbearing.

We are also talking about continuing the marriage penalty relief, which is a tax cut on which the American family has come to rely. It is going to continue. We know that. We should recognize that fact. Marriage penalty relief makes sure a married couple filing a joint return has the same combined tax liability as they would have if they were not married.

We are also talking about enhancing the dependent care credit. Clearly, this credit is very important to working families. It recognizes the additional cost for raising children in this fast-paced society.

We are talking about improving the adoption credit. The majority of adoptions cost over $20,000. This provision offers a credit of $10,000 for those willing to give a home to a needy child.

We are talking about providing combat pay under the earned-income tax credit, otherwise known as the EITC. Under current law, income earned by a soldier in a combat zone is exempt from income tax. That is good. This actually, however, hurts low-income military personnel under the EITC. If not for the EITC combat pay exception, combat zone pay would not count as earned income for purposes of determining the credit. This amendment makes that exception permanent so that military families can get the full benefit of the EITC.

We are talking about reforming the estate tax. We want to try to give American families certainty. We want to support America's small farmers and ranchers, and in this amendment, we have allowed room for estate tax reform that will do that.

And we talk about returning surplus revenues to hard-working American families.

That is what our amendment does. It is very simple, very straightforward. It says we should put America's kids and families first. It says if we have a surplus, these are the priorities it should be used for. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

The Presiding Officer (Ms. Klobuchar): The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.

Mr. Conrad: Madam President, they have changed presiding officers on me. It is good to have you in the chair.

Madam President, I thank very much Senator Baucus for his leadership on this very important amendment. This amendment is to reassure all those who have benefited from the middle-class tax cuts that those tax cuts will go forward, that those children who are not now currently covered under the SCHIP legislation will have the opportunity to be covered.

The Senator has also provided for small business because we have a number of provisions that are critically important to small business and, of course, to prevent the estate tax from having this bizarre outcome, which is now in the law, where the exemption would go down to $1 million from $3.5 million just two years before. That makes no sense. So the Senator provides for room in this amendment to deal with estate tax reform.

The precise contours of that will be up to, obviously, the Finance Committee. The Senator is providing the resources to provide for the middle-class tax cuts, to have estate tax reform, to have SCHIP funded so those kids will be funded, and to have critical elements of small business covered as well.

I appreciate very much the leadership the Senator has provided in putting this amendment together. All of us know if those provisions came to the floor, they would enjoy broad bipartisan support. In fact, they would probably get supermajorities. They might get 70 votes on the Senate floor. So it makes sense to have them in the resolution.

I thank Senator Baucus. He has spent a lot of time energy, and effort bringing colleagues together around this amendment. I, for one, appreciate it. I hope my colleagues will support the Baucus amendment. I know there have been dozens of colleagues--I think virtually every member of our caucus--who have been involved in the discussions about the elements of the amendment that the chairman of the Finance Committee has offered.

Madam President, would the Senator like more time?

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Montana is recognized.

Mr. Baucus: Madam President, I believe this amendment should be adopted by every Senator because essentially it is saying if we have a surplus in 2012, as contemplated by the budget resolution, these are priorities all of us support. If these were before the Senate today as actual tax provisions--and they will be, I am sure, at some future date because the current tax cuts don't expire until 2010--that we will vote for them anyway because it is the right thing to do.

Marriage penalty relief, child tax credit, the combat pay exception for soldiers, adoption credit, the 10-percent bracket--these are all provisions that are very important. The American public deserves them. I hope very much this amendment will be adopted by all Members because I think it is something all Members and all the citizens of our country support.

I see the ranking member is on the floor. I would be interested in knowing the degree to which he enthusiastically supports the amendment.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.

Mr. Gregg: Madam President, I suspect I will support it, although I don't know, but I wish to ask the chairman of the Finance Committee a few questions so I get more specifics on the amendment.

What is the total cost of this amendment?

Mr. Baucus: It is approximately $195 billion. It allocates the projected surplus that is in the budget resolution.

Mr. Gregg: If I might ask, Madam President, further, of the chairman, the surplus, however, is in the year 2012. So what happens to these rates in 2011 that will expire? Are those picked up?

Mr. Baucus: That is a good question. The answer to that is essentially this is a 5-year budget resolution, so we want to balance the budget in 5 years, in 2012. But because the tax cuts that are mentioned in the amendment currently expire in 2010, the Senator raises the question about 2011, 2012. If I understand the import of the question of the ranking member of the Budget Committee, it is what happens in 2011.

Mr. Gregg: Or 2010.

Mr. Baucus: In the earlier years, 2010, there would be a deficit, but by the time we finish the 5 years, there would be a surplus. We have written this amendment in a way to prevent a yo-yo, on-off effect of the tax provisions. To make it perfectly perfect, so there is not a deficit in any year, 2010, 2011, or 2012, we can have the tax cuts go up or down, and so forth, but I think it is best for the American people not to have a yo-yo effect, not go up and down, but to extend across the board those provisions which are contained in the amendment at the end of the day would not be a deficit.

Mr. Gregg: Would it be appropriate--if I can ask the chairman of the Finance Committee or the chairman of the Budget Committee--I want to get to what the tax cuts are specifically, but they would be extended if they expired in 2010, 2011, or 2012, they would be extended through that period. If that is the case, then the Senator must be using more than the surplus in 2012. He must be using some number in 2010 by which you increase the deficit and 2011 by which you increase the deficit.

My question is, what is the number the Senator is using for 2010 and 2011 to account for those extensions in those years?

Mr. Baucus: It is true, in those years there is deficit spending, but it comes in balance in 2012.

Mr. Gregg: But how do they score in those 2 years?

Mr. Baucus: I think it is $194 billion for those 3 years 2010, 2011, 2012.

Mr. Gregg: So there is another $60 billion on top of the surplus that is used; is that correct?

Mr. Baucus: Approximately.

Mr. Allard: I have a question, if the Senator will recognize me for a question, if the Senator will allow me to ask a question of Senator Baucus. I think the Senator from New Hampshire has the time.

Mr. Gregg: I think I have the time for the purpose of asking questions.

The Presiding Officer: The question by the Senator from New Hampshire is pending.

Mr. Allard: I have a question.

Mr. Gregg: I yield to the Senator to ask whatever questions he has. I have additional questions.

Mr. Allard: In effect, this adds to the debt?

Mr. Baucus: Sorry?

Mr. Allard: In effect, this amendment adds to the total debt?

Mr. Baucus: No, we are back in balance by 2012 at the end of the 5- year period contemplated by this amendment. In the meantime, we are in deficit for the years 2010 and 2011.

Mr. Gregg: I think the answer to your question, if I might interject, is it increases the debt by $195 billion.

Mr. Allard: I had $194 billion, but $195 billion. That seemed to me it did increase the debt. Maybe we can check that out.

Mr. Gregg: That would have to be what it does.

May I ask a further question of the Senator. It costs $195 billion over the 3 years to extend these tax cuts. Is the education tuition tax credit presumed in that number?

Mr. Baucus: There is an underlying answer to all these questions; namely, these are questions the Finance Committee is going to address and find the appropriate offsets and deal with the pay-go when it comes up at that time. But essentially, education tuition tax credits are not provided for in this amendment, but are in the budget resolution.

Mr. Gregg: If I may ask further, Madam President, would the expensing section 179 accounts be included in that number?

Mr. Baucus: Section 179 expensing is not contemplated.

Mr. Gregg: In this number. Is capital gains contemplated in this number?

Mr. Baucus: It is not.

Mr. Gregg: Is continuing the dividend rate contemplated in this number?

Mr. Baucus: It is not.

Mr. Gregg: I thank the Senator. I think that answers my questions. I am presuming what is contemplated in this number then will be the marriage tax penalty and the child credits; is that correct?

Mr. Baucus: Those two and some others, correct, including the 10- percent bracket.

Mr. Gregg: And the 10-percent bracket. I am presuming I certainly will be supportive of this amendment in its present form. However, I do suspect we are going to have an amendment which picks up the other extensions.

Mr. Baucus: I expect we will.

Mr. Gregg: It is the arbitrariness of the process around here that the Senator from Montana is first to the surplus that was left, but the practical effect of our amendment will be essentially the same as the Senator's, which is to extend the tax credit rates. That is tax deductions--tax rates. I also think the ones we are going to suggest we extend--and we will get to this in our debate--are ones which are more oriented toward economic activity, generating or creating economic activity, than the extensions which are included in the chairman's proposal, which are all good and appropriate but which don't translate other than through maybe greater consumption directly into economic activity, such as the capital gains and the dividend rate does, and the expensing, obviously.

We will have that discussion when we offer ours, and I appreciate the chairman's courtesy in allowing me to ask him these questions.

Mr. Baucus: If the Senator will yield.

Mr. Gregg: Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. Baucus: Madam President, I will say to the body, the world, and also primarily to the Senate and the ranking member of the Budget Committee, of course, these are all issues--that is, those issues raised basically by the ranking member of the Budget Committee--that the Finance Committee is going to work on over the next several years. It is up to us, up to the committee, and up to this body to find the offsets to pay for them. We will do the very best we can. I think we don't want to get into a deficit situation.

Mr. Gregg: Madam President, if the Senator will yield for one further question, what is the chairman, within his score, what is he anticipating as to how the death tax treatment would be dealt with?

Mr. Baucus: The estate tax provision.

Mr. Gregg: The death tax.

Mr. Baucus: Some people call it the death tax. We all know what we are talking about. This amendment contemplates extending the estate tax provisions that are in effect in 2009 permanently.

Mr. Gregg: If the chairman will yield further, and through the President, I would ask, in 2009, what is the exempted amount?

Mr. Baucus: Again, under current law I think the exempted amount is $3.5 million.

Mr. Gregg: That would be the minimum in 2009 also?

Mr. Baucus: The 2009 extension. The point is that the resolution also contemplates--well, it has an additional $4 billion that can be used for other tax purposes, including changing the provisions of the Federal estate tax.

Mr. Gregg: Madam President, I thank the chairman for his courtesy.

Mr. Conrad: Madam President, I again want to thank very much Senator Baucus for offering this amendment, which is to protect the middle- class tax cuts and to make certain we don't have this anomaly of the estate tax being at $3.5 million in 2009 and then going down to $1 million. That makes no sense. The Senator has said very well that the amendment he has provided would prevent that from occurring, and there are some additional funds that would be used to make those provisions even more attractive, or they could be used for other tax provisions.

The truth is, the budget resolution doesn't cite that. We give certain instruction to the Finance Committee and, ultimately, the Finance Committee is going to make these judgments. What the chairman of the Finance Committee has said is that it is his intention to have estate tax reform to protect the middle-class tax cuts and also to have the resources to extend children's health care coverage to every child in America. Every single witness before our committee, and I think it is fair to say virtually every witness before the Finance Committee, has said that covering children, as the Senator from Montana has so aggressively pursued--coverage for every child in America is the right thing to do substantively for this country. Covering children is the least expensive thing to do and has the greatest payoff as an investment because a child's entire life is then improved if they catch a health care problem when they are young.

I think the Senator from Montana has put together an amendment that deserves the support of every Member of the body.

Mr. Baucus: I thank the Senator. I might ask the question, Madam President: Basically, what are budgets? Budgets are an expression of priorities. This budget is designed to express what this body thinks, what so many of us think are the proper priorities for this country. Since the resolution has about a $132 billion surplus, we think the strong priority should be to use that to help middle-income Americans.

The provisions in this amendment provide for that and clearly help kids get health insurance. A major problem in this country, clearly, is health care. We spend so much on health care. Yet there is some question what we get out of it. This country spends $6,300 per person-- that is per capita--on health care, which is almost twice as much as the next most expensive country. Yet we are not twice as healthy. The problem, clearly, is coverage; that is, not everybody has health insurance. Everybody in America should have health insurance.

The other question is cost, but this amendment addresses the coverage side of it; that is, trying to help more people get health insurance, people who do not now have health insurance. Where do we begin? We think we begin with kids. Currently, there are about 6 million children who are covered under the Children's Health Insurance Program. There are about 6 million others who are eligible but not covered. We believe, and this amendment states, that if we begin providing health insurance coverage for more Americans, we should certainly begin with kids. When we begin with kids, let's help those kids who don't have the same financial means that other kids have.

A lot of other kids, fortunate for them, their families, father and mother, have a good job and health insurance is part of the job. But we are talking about kids who don't have that. These are kids whose income levels, or their parents' income level, is just above the qualifying rate for Medicaid. Medicaid does provide health insurance for kids, but there are a lot of kids who don't get health insurance because their family's income is just above the Medicaid cutoff. That needs to be covered under the Children's Health Insurance Program, on which this amendment is designed to expand.

So I would summarize by saying that I think it is a proper set of priorities, given the resources we have, and I hope every Senator supports this amendment.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 480

Ms. Collins: Madam President, I call up amendment No. 480, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, the pending amendment is set aside, and the clerk will report the amendment.

The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Smith, proposes an amendment numbered 480.

Ms. Collins: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for a deficit-neutral reserve fund for permanently extending and increasing the above-the-line deduction for teacher classroom supplies and expanding such deduction to include qualified professional development expenses)

At the end of title III, add the following:

SEC. ___. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR EXPANSION OF ABOVE-THE-LINE DEDUCTION FOR TEACHER CLASSROOM SUPPLIES.

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and other levels in this resolution by the amounts provided by a bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that would permanently extend and increase to $400 the above-the- line deduction for teacher classroom supplies and expand such deduction to include qualified professional development expenses, provided that such legislation would not increase the deficit over the total of the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012.

Ms. Collins: Madam President, the amendment that I have proposed, with my colleagues, Senator Warner and Senator Smith, would establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to allow for the expansion of an existing tax credit for schoolteachers and other educators who buy supplies for their classroom. The reserve fund that our amendment creates would allow for an increase in the current $250 deduction to $400, and it would make it permanent. This tax deduction is available to educators who incur out-of-pocket expenses in order to improve the educational experience of their students.

The amendment would also allow this above-the-line tax deduction to be claimed for expenses related to professional development.

This amendment builds upon a $250 tax deduction in the current law that Senator Warner and I authored in 2001. It became law as part of the tax relief package that passed that year. This tax relief was later extended through the end of this year, and I would suggest that there is no reason for us to have the uncertainty about the continuation of this valuable tax deduction. We should move to make it permanent.

Teachers who buy classroom supplies in order to improve the educational experience for their students deserve more than just our gratitude. They deserve this modest tax incentive to thank them for their commitment and their hard work. So often teachers across this country, and certainly in the State of Maine, earn modest salaries. Yet they dig deep into their own pockets to spend money to improve the classroom experience of their students.

A survey by the National Education Association found that teachers spend, on average, $443 a year on classroom materials. Other surveys show that they are spending even more than that. In fact, a survey conducted by the National School Supply and Equipment Association has found that educators spend, on average, $826 to supplement classroom supplies, plus an additional $926 for instructional materials on top of that; in other words, a total of $1,700 out of their own pockets.

I have spoken with literally dozens of teachers in Maine who tell me that they routinely spend far in excess of the $250 deduction limit that is in current law. I have made a practice of visiting schools all over Maine. In fact, I visited approximately 160 schools during the past 10 years, and I have seen firsthand the dedication of our schoolteachers to their students. At virtually every school that I have visited, teachers are spending their own money to benefit their students.

Year after year, teachers spend hundreds of dollars on books, bulletin boards, computer software, construction paper, stamps, ink pads, just about anything you can think of. Let me give a couple of examples. There are two elementary school teachers in Augusta, ME, Anita Hopkins and Kathy Toothacher, who purchased books for their students so they could have a classroom library, as well as workbooks and sight cards. They have also purchased special prizes to give to their students as positive reinforcement. Mrs. Hopkins estimates that she spends between $800 and $1,000 of her own money on extra materials to make learning more enjoyable and to create a more stimulating classroom environment.

In addition to increasing the amount of this deduction, I think we should also expand it so that it can be used by educators who are paying for their own professional development. We hear a lot of discussion about the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act and about the need for highly qualified teachers. One of the best ways for teachers to improve their qualifications is through professional development. Yet in towns in my State, and I expect throughout the country, school budgets are often very tight and money for professional development is often very small or even nonexistent.

That is why I think we should allow this tax deduction to also be claimed when a teacher takes a course or attends a workshop and has to pay for it out of his or her own pocket. In my view, it is the students who are the ultimate beneficiaries when teachers receive professional development to sharpen their skills, or perhaps teach them a more innovative way to teach the material and present it to their students.

Studies have consistently shown that other than involved parents, the single greatest determinant of classroom success is the presence of a well-qualified teacher. I know from talking to educators across Maine that they are eager to take advantage of professional development opportunities in order to make an even more positive impact on their students.

The teacher tax relief that we have made available since 2001 is certainly a positive step, and I am very proud, along with my colleague, Senator Warner, to have authored that law. Today, we can set the stage for making that deduction permanent, for expanding it to include professional development, and to increase it to $400 to more accurately reflect what educators really spend in the classroom.

This amendment is a small but appropriate means of recognizing the many sacrifices that teachers make each and every day to benefit children across America. I am very pleased that the National Education Association has endorsed this amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the NEA supporting the amendment be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Ms. Collins: Madam President, I hope the managers of the bill might be willing to act on this amendment shortly.

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

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.

The journal clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Conrad: Madam President, we have a unanimous consent request we are working on. I do not yet have that printed version before us so that Senator Gregg and I might be able to enter into that.

I would like to talk for a moment to the Senator from Maine about her amendment. If the Senator from Maine could tell me, what is the cost of her amendment and what is the proposed way of paying for it?

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Maine is recognized.

Ms. Collins: Madam President, the way I have drafted the amendment is to use a technique that has been commonly used in the budget resolution of creating a deficit-neutral reserve fund. That means the committee of jurisdiction, the Finance Committee in this case, would be required to come up with an offset for the cost to avoid an impact on the budget. I do not have a cost estimate from CBO yet on the proposal. It is not an expensive tax incentive, but we have followed the wisdom and advice of the leaders of the Budget Committee by drafting it in such a way that it would not have a budget impact.

Mr. Conrad: I thank the Senator. Does the Senator have a rough, even back-of-the-envelope estimate of the cost?

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Maine is recognized.

Ms. Collins: Madam President, I would say to the chairman of the Budget Committee that we have requested an estimate, but we have not yet received one. Because of that uncertainty, we did go the route of the deficit-neutral reserve fund so that, regardless of the cost, it would be offset by the decisions made by the Finance Committee.

Mr. Conrad: I thank the Senator for the thoughtfulness of her amendment. I thank her for doing it as a deficit-neutral reserve fund so it does not impact the budget and says to the committee of jurisdiction that, if they come forward with the proposal, they will find a way to offset the costs. I certainly appreciate what the Senator has done so as to not have an adverse impact on the budget. We do appreciate that.

Madam President, does the Senator require a rollcall vote?

Ms. Collins: Madam President, I do not.

Mr. Conrad: Madam President, we have to check with the Finance Committee before we can take this on a voice vote, but it is my intention, if we get clearance, to try to do that at the appropriate time. I thank the Senator from Maine.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Maine.

Ms. Collins: Madam President, I thank the chairman and ranking member for working with me on this issue. I think it is a modest approach that can make a real difference to the thousands of teachers across this country who dig deep into their own pockets in order to enrich the classroom experience for their students. It is a modest but appropriate way for us to recognize their financial sacrifice. I hope the two managers of the bill will be able to clear the amendment.

Mr. Conrad: Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. Gregg: Madam President, I have given an amendment, which I hope to bring up at this time, to the majority as a courtesy. I am waiting for them to take a look at it before I offer it.

Essentially, this amendment deals with reconciliation. Reconciliation is a fairly arcane exercise, but it has significant impact around here. Reconciliation is the tool the Budget Committee has, to put some teeth into our efforts to try to control spending. There are no reconciliation instructions in the majority proposal. I wish there were. I wish there were reconciliation instructions on entitlements, and I wish those reconciliation instructions had followed the suggestions of the President, as I said in my opening statement, where he made recommendations that were very reasonable and would not have affected beneficiaries but would have saved $8 trillion over the 75- year life of Medicare and would have helped move them toward balance by getting the providers paid correctly and by having very high-income individuals contributing to the cost of their insurance, especially drug insurance.

But there is also another side to reconciliation, and that is, as committees are given reconciliation instructions which save money, sometimes they take that money and they spend it, which is not the purpose of reconciliation. Reconciliation should not be used for a cover event for the purposes of spending money.

The majority has put in place a point of order that would make it very difficult to use reconciliation for the purposes of reducing taxes. It is perfectly reasonable that we should also make it very difficult for doing that for purposes of spending money. I didn't want to eliminate the ability to spend money. Some money is going to be needed, at least that these programs as they get adjusted in reconciliation should have, maybe, some adjustment. For example, 2 years ago, when the HELP Committee received reconciliation instructions on education accounts, they basically reduced the subsidy that went to lenders by approximately $20-some-odd billion, I think $21 billion or $22 billion. At the same time, they took some of that reduction in subsidy and put it toward expanding the Pell Grant Program, especially for people who were going into the math and science disciplines.

That was a good policy decision, and I don't want to tie the hands of our authorizing committees excessively, but I think there has to be an understanding that reconciliation is primarily an effort to control spending and to discipline spending on the entitlement side of the accounts. It doesn't deal with discretionary spending.

This amendment will essentially say that for every $10 you save under reconciliation expense, no more than $2 could be actually spent. So it says you can't spend more than 20 percent of the savings that are generated in a reconciliation exercise. It is an attempt once again to put some discipline in here.

Why is it relevant to a budget that doesn't have any reconciliation at all? As I said, I wish this did have reconciliation. It is relevant because the House has put reconciliation instructions in, a very small amount. It appears to me the intention of the House honestly is to use reconciliation as a cover for spending, not as a cover for controlling spending--which would be, in my opinion, an inappropriate action. That is why I brought forward this language. I hope others would agree with me that that would be inappropriate and certainly inconsistent with reconciliation as a concept.

I am handed a note to point out that when we did the reconciliation instruction in 2005, we had net savings in that of approximately $40 billion, which was the most recent large reconciliation instruction we pursued in this Congress and which was constructive and which actually, in the outyears, turns into very significant savings.

This is basically to put in place a discipline which will allow us to be sure the Budget Act's purposes are not abused and it is not used to run interference and allow an easier path to greater spending on the entitlement side of the account.

It is a very reasonable approach. It doesn't totally bind the hands of the authorizing committees but makes it clear that a budget should be for the purposes of a budget, which is to discipline the spending of the Federal Government, and having this discipline in place is appropriate.

I would like to offer that amendment, hopefully in the near term, so we can get it in the queue here.

At this point, I yield the floor.