CongRecords at Liberated text's Terrorizing Natural Liberty logo

Congressional Record : Pages S3482-S3492
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access - DOCID:cr21mr07-169: Part 4

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

coverleft (1K)

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Iowa.

Mr. Grassley: I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his support, not only this year but over the long period of time we have been fighting this battle.

I send this amendment to the desk, and I would then like to make a unanimous consent request and also a request of some abeyance by my colleagues--if I could have permission in the 5 minutes I have left-- to, first of all, set the amendment I sent up to the side and then to call up another.

Amendment No. 464

The Presiding Officer: The Senator will suspend for a moment. The clerk will report.

The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley], for himself and Mr. Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 464.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To limit farm payments to $250,000 per person per year and apply the savings to renewable energy/rural development, conservation, and nutrition)

Amendment No. 502

Mr. Grassley: I ask unanimous consent to set that amendment aside for the consideration of an amendment dealing with the Smithsonian.

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

The clerk will report the amendment.

The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment numbered 502.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To ensure the appropriate use of funds provided for the Smithsonian Institution, and for other purposes)

On page 41, line 9, decrease the amount by $17,000,000.

On page 41, line 10, decrease the amount by $15,000,000.

At the appropriate place insert the following:

SEC. __. ADJUSTMENT FOR SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION SALARIES AND EXPENSES.

(a) In General.--The Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget may revise the allocations, aggregates, and discretionary spending limits for one or more bills, joint resolutions, motions, amendments, or conference reports that make discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for an amount appropriated, but not to exceed $17,000,000 in budgetary authority and outlays flowing therefrom, once the Comptroller General of the United States has submitted a certification to Congress that since April 1, 2007--

(1) the Smithsonian Institution does not provide total annual compensation for any officer or employee of the Smithsonian Institution greater than the total annual compensation of the President of the United States;

(2) the Smithsonian Institution does not provide deferred compensation for any such officer or employee greater than the deferred compensation of the President of the United States;

(3) all Smithsonian Institution travel expenditures conform with Federal Government guidelines and limitations applicable to the Smithsonian Institution; and,

(4) all Smithsonian Institution officers and employees are subject to ethics rules similar to the ethics rules widely applicable to Federal Government employees.

(b) Criteria for Certification.--In making the certification described in subsection (a), the Comptroller General of the United States should take into account the following:

(1) The Smithsonian Institution is a premier educational, historical, artistic, research, and cultural organization for the American people.

(2) The Inspector General for the Smithsonian Institution recently issued a report regarding an investigation of unauthorized and excessive authorized compensation, benefits, and expenditures by the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution.

(3) The Inspector General's findings indicate that the actions of the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution are not in keeping with the public trust of the office of the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution.

(4) Priority should be given to funding for necessary repairs to maintain and repair Smithsonian Institution buildings and infrastructure and protect America's treasures.

(5) Priority should be given to full funding for the Office of the Inspector General for the Smithsonian Institution so that the American people and Congress have renewed confidence that tax-preferred donations and Federal funds are being spent appropriately and in keeping with the best practices of the charitable sector.

Mr. Grassley: Mr. President, this amendment, as I said, focuses on the Federal Government's support for the Smithsonian Institution. The American people, I believe, have been shocked and outraged to read in newspapers and see on their TVs a story about the out-of-control spending at the Smithsonian by the Secretary of the Institution: First- class air travel for the Secretary and his wife, a palace for an office, and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on the Secretary's own home for things such as chandelier cleaning and pool heaters are impossible to justify. As my colleagues know, the Federal Government provides over 70 percent of the Smithsonian's approximately $1 billion budget. Most of the rest of the budget comes from tax-preferred charitable donations. Directly or indirectly, the Federal taxpayers pay for almost everything in the Smithsonian.

My amendment is very straightforward. The budget resolution provides for a $17 million increase for the Smithsonian. I commend the chairman of the Budget Committee for increasing the spending for the Institution, and I support that action. As a report issued today from the Smithsonian Arts External Review Committee made clear, there are very significant problems at the Smithsonian in terms of maintaining and protecting the Smithsonian infrastructure and exhibits. The Smithsonian is the keeper of America's treasures, and we want a museum we can all be proud of. So I support the additional $17 million.

But similar to many Americans, my reaction to the Secretary's spending is I want to make sure we are not having new money used to order another round of champagne. My amendment basically fences the $17 million increase but allows the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations--effectively to release the $17 million in new spending--once and only after the General Accounting Office has certified the following:

No. 1, that no one at the Smithsonian is getting paid more than the President of the United States, as was proposed by the House Appropriations Committee last year; no more paying for French doors at the Secretary's home, in other words. There are many fine museums and charities that receive the same amount of charitable donations as the Smithsonian that are able to hire very able directors for what we pay the President of the United States.

No. 2, the Smithsonian must follow the travel expenditure guidelines of the Federal Government. No more first-class flights with wife and Secretary to Hawaii to enjoy Thanksgiving.

No. 3, the Smithsonian must have ethics rules similar to the ethics rules of Federal Government employees. No more sitting on corporate boards, making big, big money--corporations that have contractual relations with the Smithsonian and possible conflicts of interest.

The amendment also makes clear that the actions of the Secretary are not in keeping with the public trust of the office.

Finally, the amendment states that a priority should be given to funding for repairing and maintaining the Smithsonian and to fully fund the Office of Inspector General at the Smithsonian so the American people and the Congress can have renewed confidence that the $700 million-plus in Federal funds the Smithsonian has is used properly and appropriately.

I am still working with the chairman and with Senator Gregg to make certain this amendment is drafted in a manner that meets their concerns. I am confident we can do that.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, very briefly--because I know Senator Lincoln is waiting and we will be giving her 15 minutes and giving Senator Chambliss 10 minutes to respond to this--on the most recent amendment, I would say to Senator Grassley, do you need a rollcall vote or is this something we can take on a voice vote?

Mr. Grassley: We do not need a rollcall vote.

Mr. Grassley: We do not need a rollcall vote.

Mr. Conrad: That would be enormously helpful. If we could spend a little time working together so we make sure we get this drafted so this works with the larger resolution, I think it is something we can take on a voice vote. But let's make sure we have it drafted in a way all of us intend.

Mr. Grassley: I am sure we will be able to work that out.

Mr. Conrad: I thank the Senator from Iowa very much.

Now we are back to the question of payment limits. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Cardin): The Senator from Arkansas.

Mrs. Lincoln: I thank the chairman for his tireless work. He and his staff are remarkable in the way they go at this budget. They do a tremendous job of trying to balance so many different items of interest to this diverse body, and certainly to the priorities of the American people. I compliment him on the hard work he has put into this effort.

I know the Senator from Iowa knows the great respect I have for him. He and I have worked together on the Finance Committee on multiple things. Unfortunately we come today with a large disagreement. I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa regarding further payment restrictions, because we did deal with this issue in the 2002 farm bill.

We came to a compromise, and a compromise is just that: It is where two sides come together and figure out something that is reasonable for everybody. But this amendment goes farther on payment restrictions on the farm safety net offered by Senator Grassley and Senator Dorgan. This issue of payment limitations is not a new topic of debate. Yet, unfortunately, it will no doubt be a topic of much debate as we work to craft a new farm bill this year. I have been here in the Congress during two debates, two farm bills. We have produced two farm bills, and I have been a part of that.

I realize that is an important avenue and the place where this debate should be taken. In my view, it is within the context of our farm bill, not the context of this budget debate, that this issue should be debated. We do not need to be here talking within the context of the budget about policy decisions that should be debated and decided in the farm bill through the Agriculture Committee.

This issue remains largely misunderstood for many both inside and outside the beltway. While I wish this were not the case, I gladly take this opportunity to provide some clarity to this issue, hopefully some passion as well, because as a farmer's daughter I take a tremendous amount of pride in telling others about the farmers whom I represent and what American farmers provide this Nation and this world.

Just as Senator Dorgan talked about the solidness of the names of his farmers, guess what. The names of my farmers are not any less American or any less solid. I have got to say, I am as proud of those farmers in my State who plant seed in the ground and help to provide food and fiber for this world and for our country as he is. It does not necessarily mean how wholesome your name might be whether you are a good American farmer.

They talk about 10 percent of our farmers get roughly 72 percent in terms of these payments. Well, I will also let you know the other side of that coin, and that is 10 percent of our producers out there represent 90 percent of what is produced in this country.

Yes, we have some large farmers. We have farmers who are hardcore and diligent and as red-blooded and as American as some of the smaller farmers are. Yes, they do produce a tremendous amount, 90 percent of the food and fiber we have in this country. It is critically important to remember that. It is not size that is important. The dollars, these dollars we talk about, do not go into their pockets, these dollars go to the banker, the local seed dealers and the implement dealers to pay off the notes it takes to farm, particularly in southern parts of this country because of the capital-intensive crops we grow.

Senator Dorgan brings up dead individuals who get payments. I would propose that that is illegal. That is not a problem this issue takes care of. That is a problem for USDA, and it is one that should be taken care of. But it misrepresents what the debate here today is all about. That is what I want to bring people back to.

Above all else, our farm policy seeks to do one thing for all of our farmers, whether you are in one region of the country or another. It seeks to provide for those producers of commodities a strong level of support, a safety net, not a hammock but a safety net, to protect these producers against low prices brought on by factors that are completely beyond their control, including but not limited to foreign tariffs and subsidies some five or six times greater than the help that is provided to farmers across this globe and what we provide our growers. Yet they still provide us with the safest, most abundant, and affordable food supply in the world.

One of the fatal flaws of the 1996 bill, which was called Freedom to Farm, was its lack of an adequate safety net in the face of foreign subsidies and tariffs that dwarf our support of U.S. producers.

I know Senator Grassley and Senator Dorgan and many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle recognize the challenges our U.S. producers and industries face in an uncertain and often, quite frankly, unfair global marketplace. I am proud to say the 2002 farm bill corrected that mistake. It was a hard-fought compromise, as I mentioned. We came to the table and we agreed each other had points to be made, and we came up with something that was in the middle of the road, and would at least be acceptable by both.

The amendment now before us would seek to further limit that very support at a time the producers need help the most, creating a gaping hole in the safety net for farmers. Furthermore, during hearings and listening sessions on the proposals for a new farm bill, most farm organizations support the compromises agreed to in the 2002 bill, and they recognize that future arbitrary limits on farm payments only serve to diminish our producers' ability to compete globally.

Proponents of tighter limits continue to sensationalize this issue by citing misleading articles about large farm operations receiving very large payments as a reason to target support to smaller farmers. Because my farmers are larger does not mean they are not family farmers or they are not young farmers; it means they are doing what they have to do to compete.

Unfortunately, sensationalized stories only serve to cloud this misunderstood issue further. Senators need to understand this amendment has very serious implications. Let me attempt to provide a bit of clarity on this issue of farm size.

First, payment limitations have disproportionate effects on different regions of this country; there is no doubt about it. Simply put, the size of farm operations is relative to your region. Put even more simply, a small farm in Arkansas may be a huge farm in another area of the country, which leads me to my next point. This amendment continues to unfairly discriminate on a regional basis because it does not differentiate between crops that are extremely cost intensive and those that are not cost intensive. In Arkansas, we raise rice and cotton, two of our largest commodities, and we do so because that is what we are suited to grow; that is what any farmer would grow. These crops happen to be the most expensive crops to produce in the entire country.

This amendment would lump cotton and rice into the same category with crops that require half as much of an input in terms of cost.

Finally, on the issue of size, farmers of commodities are not getting larger to receive more payments. They do not want to have to become larger farmers; it creates more of a challenge and certainly more obstacles for them. They get larger in an attempt to create an economy of scale, to remain competitive internationally. You can see it in business. How do they offer lower prices to their consumers? They create an economy of scale that allows them to be able to do that. That is exactly what our farmers are doing in the southern growing areas of the country. At a time when we were telling our farmers to compete on the global market, we now hear of in this budget debate an amendment that would discourage farmers from acquiring the very economies of scale they will need to compete in that global marketplace.

If you limit the amount of support farmers may receive, you are placing on them a substantial domestic disadvantage before sending them out to compete in an international marketplace that is already unfair for our producers. This is not the case in Europe and other foreign markets where agricultural subsidies and tariffs are at a level far higher than we see in the United States.

Finally, I say to those who feel farmers are getting rich at the expense of the taxpayer, there is a reason why our sons and daughters are not rushing back to the farm and their family's heritage. It is because farming is a very tough business with a lot of challenges. Senator Dorgan mentioned the challenges his farmers face. My farmers face similar challenges, if not greater challenges, in terms of demographics and climate, in terms of pests and all of the many problems they face, as well as the international marketplace, trade barriers, and a multitude of other things.

Farms that have been in families for generations are being sold because farm income is insufficient to meet the rising input cost associated with raising a crop, particularly in our area. I have to tell you, I have a wonderful farm family farming 5,000 to 6,000 acres, which in some places would seem to be a very large farm. It is a farmer with two sons who farm the land of three widow women who live down the lane from him, and several, yes, inheritants of farm land who want to keep their farm in their family, perhaps for their children who do not live there any longer.

Do they not have the right to maintain their farms to ensure that if there is a farmer there who can increase his amount of land enough through rental property and others, to be able to keep that land in production, to keep his family farm alive and theirs as well? He reaches to that economy of scale because it is the only way he can survive, he and his two children.

I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity to send a strong message to all of our farmers, not one region of the country or another, one that tells them their Government will stand behind them and their rural communities they support.

I have to say, we are coming dangerously close to a trade deficit in agriculture. Do we want to see that happen? You know, it is unfortunate the American people have become very accustomed to almost taking for granted the fact we not only produce an abundant food supply but that we produce a safe and affordable one, the lowest per capita of any other developed nation in what we pay for food for our families, not to mention our growers grow our crops in regard to all of the regulations, whether it is the regulation of their chemical application and the tests they have to take, whether it is making sure they are meeting the guidelines of keeping wetlands conservation areas, making sure they are not stripping the land or not using the land properly, but they are doing it in the best sense of what it means to everybody involved to be good conservationists.

We do that, and we do that at a small cost, a small cost, which is a safety net program that is less than one-half of 1 percent of the overall budget, the agriculture budget. What an investment for our children to know they will be able to maintain not a trade deficit in agriculture but maintain domestic production of crops, food, and fiber that they know are going to be healthy and that are going to be grown with the kind of regulations that produce a crop that is safe, not an imported crop that is being grown with chemical applications that we banned 10 years ago, or practices that are less than phytosanitary conditions. We want to make sure--and this is the way we do it--to provide the safety net for all farmers in a way that they can maintain the economy of scale. They have to in order to be able to be competitive.

I have to say, if we do not stand behind the farmers of this country, the producers--all of them--and assure them their Government will support the production of food and fiber in this country, recognizing the regional differences and the challenges our producers face in the global marketplace, making sure that for them we will appreciate the safe and abundant food and fiber supply they provide, we will have made a sorry mistake.

We have to make sure that we assure them that we are not going to outsource our food production but, rather, that we are committed to ensuring that production stays here where it belongs. I urge my colleagues to think sensibly about this amendment, to vote against this amendment, and not to unfairly disadvantage farmers in one region of the country, in my State and elsewhere. Furthermore, the budget resolution is not the appropriate venue for this debate.

I ask my colleagues to oppose the Grassley-Dorgan amendment. Let's deal with this in the farm bill, the appropriate place. Let's come together. If there needs to be a compromise, we will come to a compromise as we did last time. We worked hard. We got a good one. I do not think this amendment is necessary.

I thank my colleagues for their time and attention. I hope they will thoughtfully review what we have presented today and not support the Grassley-Dorgan amendment.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: Who yields time?

The Senator from Georgia.

Mr. Chambliss: I think I have 10 minutes.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Georgia is recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. Chambliss: Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Arkansas for a forceful, correct, and direct argument on this issue. Here we go again. This is the annual debate we have over whether the farm bill should be rewritten during budget resolution, which is what was tried last time, when the appropriate place to write the farm bill is during debate on the farm bill. That is going to take place later this year. Once this budget is completed, we will have the numbers to move ahead in deciding what the new 5-year farm bill will be like. We are in the sixth year of the current farm bill that was written in 2002. Yet here we are, in the last year of the farm bill, debating a major provision of that legislation.

Frankly, if one goes to farmers all across America--and I say this because I have done it. Senator Grassley, who is my dear friend, has not. I held eight field hearings all across America last summer as chairman of the Senate Ag Committee in which we asked farmers: What do you think about the 2002 farm bill? We even got specific and talked about payment limits: What do you think about the payment limit provision?

There is a general, overwhelming consensus all across America that the 2002 farm bill is working exactly the way farmers and ranchers wanted it to work; that is, it has been a very market-oriented farm bill. In years when prices have been low, there have been Government payments to farmers. In years when prices have been high, there have been a minimal number of payments going to farmers.

As a result of that farm bill being very market oriented, we have saved $17 billion over the projected amount of the expenditure in the farm bill from 2002. Nobody is talking about that. Nobody is talking about the fact that our farmers have been very efficient. They have done whatever is necessary to go back and rework their operations to make sure they maximize efficiency. As a result, they have saved that $17 billion.

What Senator Grassley has done today is to stand up and say: If you make this change, and we limit these big payments to farmers, we are going to save $486 million. The fact is, he is not going to save one dime because what he does is, he takes that $486 million and spends it elsewhere. So we are saving not one dime with the passage of this amendment.

What does this amendment do? It takes the 2002 farm bill and interrupts it during the last year of the farm bill so that farmers and ranchers across America, and the bankers who have financed those farmers and ranchers, now are going to be in a state of flux as to whether what we decided in 2002 was going to be proposed for our farmers and ranchers for a 6-year period of time will, in fact, be lived up to by the U.S. Congress. The appropriate time and place to debate any payment limit proposal is during reauthorization. That is going to be coming up shortly.

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 authorized a commission on payment limitations for agriculture. That commission has already been referred to by Senator Grassley. The purpose of this commission was to conduct a study on the potential impact of further payment limitations on direct payments, countercyclical payments, as well as the marketing assistance loan benefits on farm income, land values, rural communities, agribusiness infrastructure, planting decisions of producers affected, and supply and prices of covered and other agricultural commodities. In other words, this commission was to look at all aspects of farming and decide what would be the effect of changing payment limits on agriculture in general.

The first recommendation of the commission stated:

Any substantial changes should take place with reauthorization of the next farm bill.

No other aspect of Federal farm policy has been studied as extensively as payment limitations. The top recommendation of those who studied this issue was not to make any change. I admit I come from a State where we would be negatively impacted by tighter payment limits.

I want to take note of the commission members. This was a balanced panel from all across the Nation. The commission consisted of 10 members. They were from Kansas, Texas, Mississippi, Illinois, North Dakota, Iowa, Georgia, Arizona, and USDA. They agreed to recommend that no substantial changes in payment limits should take place outside of the reauthorization of the farm bill.

Another recommendation of the commission stated as follows:

Changes in payment limits should be sensitive to differences in commodities, regions, and existing agribusiness infrastructure.

We talk about where the major portion of the payment limits issue comes from. It actually comes from all over the country. But farmers in the Southeast will be negatively impacted, probably more so than most others. Guess where the largest number of payments goes to farmers. It doesn't go to my home State of Georgia. It goes to Senator Grassley's State of Iowa. Do I have a problem with that? Absolutely not because I know he has farmers who get dirt under their fingernails. They know how to change oil in their tractors. They know how to farm their farms the way they can most effectively derive an income from them, and they deserve to have support when times are tough. I have no problem with that. They are doing exactly what the farm bill allows them to do and that is absolutely fine.

One common misconception in regard to farm program payments is that 10 percent of farmers--and this has been stated today--receive 80 to 90 percent of farm program payments. That is simply wrong. According to Kansas State University Economics Professor Dr. Barry Flinchbaugh, those numbers are far from the truth. It should be noted that Dr. Flinchbaugh was chairman of the USDA Commission on the Application of Payment Limits. Dr. Flinchbaugh makes the point that small farms, those defined with gross sales of less than $100,000, make up 84 percent of the farms in the United States. They receive 30.5 percent of the payments while producing 21 percent of the food supply. Medium-sized farms, which are defined as farms with sales between $100,000 and $500,000, comprise 12.2 percent of total farms while producing 28 percent of the food supply and receive 42.7 percent of farm program payments. Large farms that have sales in excess of $500,000 and consist of 3.8 percent of the farms, receive 27 percent of farm program payments and provide over 50 percent of the food supply.

In the words of Dr. Flinchbaugh:

These programs are designed for the medium-sized farmers. They've done what they were supposed to do. So what's the issue? It's a farce.

My point is that Senator Grassley's amendment is not simply a budget- saving measure; it is a complex issue that deserves thorough discussion when all farm policies are reviewed later this year, not during the budget debate. The Grassley amendment substantially alters farm policy rules that farmers and their bankers expect to be in place through the life of this farm bill. His amendment fails to recognize differences in commodities, regions, as well as agribusiness infrastructure. Senator Grassley blatantly ignores the recommendations of the commission that studied this issue extensively, an issue that has been studied more than any other aspect of Federal farm policy.

Let me close by saying the Senator from North Dakota, who is also a great friend of agriculture and a good friend of mine and I have great respect for him, brought up the fact that dead farmers are receiving payments. I agree with my colleague from Arkansas. If that is the case, then that is the individual who ought to be gone after, not the payment limits in the farm bill. But if somebody is getting a payment that ought not to receive a payment, there ought to be a fraud charge filed and pursued against that particular individual. That is easy enough to do. If anybody has the names, if they get them to me, I will get them in the right hands, and they are going to be pursued from a fraud standpoint. That is the issue involved there, not whether payment limits are a problem with those particular individuals.

The other issue, we talk about farm payments in general. I think all of my farmers in the southern part of the United States would just as soon not get farm payments. The fact is, though, the Europeans pay subsidies, true subsidies in the amount of four times greater than the payments that are made under the farm bill.

I urge a "no" vote on the Grassley amendment at the appropriate time.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. Conrad: 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. 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: How much time remains?.

The Presiding Officer: There is 2 minutes.

Mr. Conrad: I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson.

Mr. Isakson: Mr. President, I rise in full support of Senator Chambliss, the farmers of Georgia, and farmers around the United States of America. This amendment, while I am sure it is well-intended, has the effect of destroying agriculture in the South and in particular in Georgia. The cost of operations in Georgia is tremendous. To have an arbitrary cap such as this will be absolutely destructive to our part of the State and to the No. 1 industry in the State of Georgia.

Why are we trying to hurt farmers who only wish to provide a decent living for their families? This is a diverse and distinguished Senate with Members who have all kinds of experience. But I doubt anyone here has ever bought a cotton picker--not one, not two. Many Georgians have to have two. When they buy them, they buy them at a quarter of a million apiece. That investment in infrastructure alone, added to the trucks, the pickers, the bins, and all the other facilities one needs, shows that this limitation would be absolutely punitive to the farmers of the South.

While I respect greatly the Senator from Iowa and those who bring this amendment forward, I strenuously object to it on behalf of the farmers of Georgia. I concur with the other Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, that we should join other Members of the Senate in ensuring defeat of the Grassley amendment.

Passage of this amendment would result in many traditional family farms going out of business in many, many States.

The Farm Service Agency is already going to be overwhelmed by many of the new programs included in this bill. This amendment would result in increased costs to the government and to farmers.

Supporters of this amendment say that these payments go to the few and the big. I could not disagree more.

This amendment punishes the farmer whose livelihood depends solely on the farm. In my part of the country, a farmer must have a substantial operation to make ends meet.

In the name of common sense, why should anyone want to punish family farmers who have made large investments in order to become competitive in an international marketplace?

Why are we trying to hurt farmers who only wish to provide a decent living for their families even though they are facing soaring cost of production?

As I have stated, this is a diverse and distinguished Senate with Members that have all kinds of experience. But I doubt anyone here has ever bought a cotton picker. You know what a cotton picker costs today? The average price for a new one off the John Deere lot in Albany, GA, is about a quarter million dollars.

If you're an average farmer in south Georgia, you're going to need two of them. That's just the beginning of the equipment needs. There's tractors, grain carts, trucks--are all needed to put a crop in.

By the way, you know where those cotton pickers are made? In a great State: Iowa. I wonder if those employees at that manufacturing plant support this amendment?

The cost of producing crops today costs several hundred dollars per acre. Reduced payment limits and increased benefit targeting flies in the face of skyrocketing production costs and record-low commodity prices.

In fact, this amendment would give less support to Southern farmers than the current farm bill does.

My colleagues, I will not stand witness to the demise of farming the South. Therefore, I oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 3:15 be on the subject of SCHIP and controlled by our side; from 3:15 to 4:15 be controlled by Senator Kyl, and that is equally divided.

Mr. Gregg: Do we equally divide the time? Why don't we give Senator Kyl 40 minutes and your side 20 minutes.

Mr. Conrad: All right, 40 minutes to Senator Kyl, 20 minutes to our side. Then we have Senator Cornyn from 4:15 to 4:45.

Mr. Gregg: On SCHIP.

Mr. Conrad: We may need 10 minutes in response to him. Then from 4:50, 5 minutes, to respond to Senator Cornyn, 4:50, Senator Dorgan, and then we are going to go to votes.

The Presiding Officer: Let's make sure we have that correct. Would the Senator repeat the unanimous consent request.

Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, I would be happy to: that the time until 3:15 be controlled by our side on the subject of SCHIP; from 3:15 to 4:15 on the subject of the Kyl amendment, with 40 minutes for the minority, 20 minutes for the majority; then from 4:15 to 4:45 the time to be under the control of Senator Cornyn on SCHIP, with 10 minutes after that reserved for a response by our side on the Cornyn amendment; and then----

Mr. Gregg: The last 5 minutes.

Mr. Conrad: The last 5 minutes under the control of Senator Dorgan.

The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?

Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, we should also make clear we have not done second degrees. We are not doing second degrees. That is an understanding we have on both sides.

The Presiding Officer: Is there objection to the unanimous consent request?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Montana is recognized.

Mr. Baucus: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all the pending amendments be temporarily laid aside.

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

Amendment No. 504

Mr. Baucus: 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 Montana [Mr. Baucus], for himself, and Mr. Rockefeller, proposes an amendment numbered 504.

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 affirm the Senate's commitment to the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program)

On page 48, line 19, before "The" insert the following:

(a) Priority.--The Senate establishes the following priorities and makes the following findings:

(1) The Senate shall make the enactment of legislation to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) its top health priority for the remainder of fiscal year 2007, during the first session of the 110th Congress.

(2) Extending health care coverage to the Nation's uninsured children is an urgent priority for the Senate.

(3) SCHIP has proven itself a successful program for covering previously uninsured children.

(4) More than 6 million children are enrolled in this landmark program, which has enjoyed broad bipartisan support in Congress, among our Nation's governors, and within state and local governments.

(5) SCHIP reduces the percentage of children with unmet health care needs.

(6) Since SCHIP was created, enormous progress has been made in reducing disparities in children's coverage rates.

(7) Uninsured children who gain coverage through SCHIP receive more preventive care and their parents report better access to providers and improved communications with their children's doctors.

(8) Congress has a responsibility to reauthorize SCHIP before the expiration of its current authorization.

(b) Reserve Fund.--

Mr. Baucus: Mr. President, I am offering an amendment that I hope will garner unanimous support. The amendment simply puts children first in America's budget.

The amendment I am offering today, along with Senator Rockefeller, says reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Plan, otherwise known as SCHIP, is the top health priority of this Congress.

I applaud the work of Chairman Conrad and other members of the Budget Committee for reporting out a budget that provides up to $50 billion over 5 years for reauthorization of CHIP.

I am hopeful that the Senate will adopt the other amendment that I offered earlier today. That amendment will move $15 billion of that CHIP funding from the reserve fund into the numbers of the resolution. It would make the funding even more likely to happen.

The $50 billion level of funding in the budget will ensure that CHIP can meet the demand for services. This funding will ensure that CHIP fulfills its promise of providing health coverage for children who are eligible for CHIP and Medicaid but not enrolled.

Congress has a historic opportunity to help millions of children and families this year. We must get this right.

As we look at CHIP's track record, we can be very proud of its accomplishments over the past decade.

Since 1997, the share of children without health insurance has dropped by one-fifth. Among the poorest children--those with family incomes less than twice the poverty level--one-third fewer children are uninsured today than in 1997. Just as Congress intended, the Children's Health Insurance Program is making inroads to help more children get health coverage.

The Children's Health Insurance Program has also helped to decrease racial and ethnic disparities in children's coverage. Today, the poorest African-American children are one-third more likely to have health coverage, and Hispanic children are one-quarter more likely to have health coverage than they were in 1997.

The Children's Health Insurance Program has also helped to improve the quality of care children receive by increasing the likelihood children have a "medical home"--that is, a doctor, clinic, or HMO they routinely visit for care. Research demonstrates that 97 percent of children enrolled in CHIP and Medicaid have a "medial home." That is much better than the 72 percent of uninsured children.

We can all agree--CHIP is a great program that has had tremendous benefit for millions of children. But we also know that we can do much better.

Today, three-fourths of the 9 million uninsured children in our Nation are eligible for--either Medicaid or CHIP; but they are not enrolled. CHIP reauthorization holds the promise of helping us make a difference in these children's lives.

CHIP provides a funding stream to help States provide health coverage to children in need. But that funding stream is often unpredictable and does not always track the demands for coverage in the State. We can do better.

But we will not be able to address these problems unless we move forward with reauthorization this year. And we must do so quickly.

If Congress does not enact a reauthorization bill before CHIP funding expires on September 30, we will lose the $25 billion in CHIP funds that are now in the Congressional Budget Office baseline.

We simply cannot afford to miss this deadline. We cannot tell States that we just could not get it done. We cannot tell millions of children that they will have to lose coverage. Failure is not an option.

CHIP is certainly not the only solution to the health care problems facing our Nation. I share the concerns voiced by so many of my colleagues about the need for broader health reforms. But CHIP can be a first step toward this broader goal of health reform.

This amendment commits the Senate to move forward to reauthorize CHIP before the deadline, this year. It is a simple statement about the program's importance and of our will to put children first in our work this year.

Let me be clear. CHIP is not a Democratic priority or a Republican priority. This program was created in a bipartisan spirit fostered by the late Senator John Chafee and Senator Hatch, working together with Senators Kennedy and Rockefeller.

Reauthorization must also be a bipartisan priority. I intend to continue in this spirit and work with my colleague, Senator Grassly, and other members of the Finance Committee to get this done the way it should be this year.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to reinforce our bipartisan commitment to reauthorize CHIP this year. Our children are depending on us. We must not let them down.

I strongly urge adoption of this amendment at the appropriate time.

In conclusion, we can all agree this is a great program with tremendous benefit for millions of children. We also know we can do much better.

Mr. President, we have a list of cosponsors on this amendment which I do not have with me at the moment. We will get that later for the Record. But I strongly urge the adoption, at the appropriate time, of this amendment because we then would be putting children first.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague from Montana be given 3 minutes at this time. He has been waiting very patiently.

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

The Senator from Montana is recognized.

Mr. Tester: Mr. President, I thank Senator Baucus for allowing me to speak. I also thank the good Senator from North Dakota.

Amendment No. 464

Mr. President, I rise to speak on amendment No. 464, the Grassley- Dorgan amendment on farm payment limitations, making those limitations max out at $250,000. That is a quarter of a million dollars. That is how much money that is going to be maxed out for individual family farmers to get. That is a reasonable request. I think it makes the farm bill more defendable to the American people.

I am a family farmer. I understand family farmers are the backbone of this country. They keep our food security there so we do not have people going hungry. What the farm program has meant to do, and has always been meant to be, is a safety net for farmers so when market prices drop they have that safety net to depend upon. There is not one farmer I know of who does not want to get their income from the marketplace. So we need to keep it that way.

We need to encourage fair trade deals. We need to encourage more competition in the marketplace. We need to make sure our freight rates are, what I would call, not abusive, if we are going to keep family farmers on the land.

Some 30 years ago, the student body in the high school I went to in a farming community had 160 kids in it. Today, that same student body is less than half that size because we have not had a farm bill that has worked for the farmers.

This amendment makes sense because it puts a cap of $250,000 on the benefits from farm program subsidies and eliminates those big agribusinesses that have been taking money they do not need, quite frankly. They do not need that safety net that the farm program subsidies provide in our farm program.

So with that, Mr. President, I ask that all the Members of the Senate support amendment No. 464, the Grassley-Dorgan amendment, because it is the right thing to do.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from West Virginia.

Amendment No. 504

Mr. Rockefeller: Mr. President, I speak today in support of the budget resolution. I have many highly complimentary things I could say about Senator Conrad, who has probably the toughest job in the Senate. He has proceeded brilliantly, fairly, calmly, and within the public interest. The public interest is, to me, the most important. He has shown that commitment by including $50 billion for the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program.

I reserve a note of personal privilege. I first became aware of what happens to children--in this case, in rural America--when I was a Vista volunteer in West Virginia in 1964 and 1965. I saw children and their families who had no concept of health care. Never in their lives did they have health care or most anything else that really counted in terms of giving them hope. So that has been kind of my moral compass ever since. It is the way I vote, it is the way I feel, and it is who I am.

I know this budget was not easy for the chairman of the Budget Committee. But I am so proud the chairman and the Democrats are standing up for children and making CHIP reauthorization the top health priority of this year. This is not a Democratic program. This is not a Republican program. If there is anything at all that was ever an American program--Governors, everybody--nobody can disagree on the power of this program, with the exception that it is now in deep stress. It has been cut by two-thirds from its present inadequate funding.

This amendment would not only restore the full 6 million children who are not covered--and, again, I want you to contemplate a child not covered, a child who develops a toothache, a child who develops a stomachache, a child who is miles from a hospital and whose family may not have a car to get that child there.

Children's health insurance means everything. Immunization, preventive care--CHIP is the only program that has ever done this. We did this with Medicare in 1965. We did it 30 years later with the Children's Health Insurance Program. I think it is the single most accepted Federal program in my State of West Virginia, with the exception, obviously, of Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.

The problem is the budget was cut. So of the 6 million who originally were covered, many are now not covered. We have many problems facing us. The budget chairman, Senator Conrad, has corrected these problems. He has included not only the 6 million who were on it but many of whom were cut or would be cut, and then he has included the 6 million more who are eligible because they qualify in every way except there is not the money to cover them. There would now be the money to cover them.

I have never faced the problem, to be honest, could I make it in life in some way or another, where was my next meal coming from, what would happen if I had some kind of an illness. That is not the typical experience in lots of rural America and urban America. That is where my heart lies, with those people. I think we have a sacred responsibility as a Senate, on the most bipartisan issue I can possibly think of, to remedy this problem and to take care of it quickly by adopting this piece of legislation.

We remember, in 1977, there were 10 million uninsured children. The failure of health care reform in the early 1990s took away our will, took the wind out of our sails. It turned us into incrementalists. So we did not start thinking about the big picture, how to cover Americans broadly.

I can remember standing on the floor of the Senate with the senior Senator from Massachusetts. People were saying: Well, this is nationalized health insurance. We were waving our Blue Cross-Blue Shield cards. It did not make any difference, once it was labeled that was it: dead on arrival. That was a tragedy and now is a particular tragedy with respect to children.

So today we have almost 9 million children under the age of 18, and they still have absolutely no health insurance. How does one walk into this body, with the health insurance we have, with the people we represent, and allow a situation like that to continue? It is a profound moral issue. It takes the form of legislation, it takes the form of goodwill and determination, but it is a profound moral obligation of the richest country in the world.

So I am strongly for this Baucus legislation. I think we have an obligation to adopt it. I hope we have the courage and the skill to do so.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: Who yields time?

Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts, how much time does he desire?

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. President, 7, 8 minutes.

Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, I yield 7½minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. President, will the Chair let me know when there is a minute and a half remaining?

Mr. President, first of all, I think all of America ought to understand a basic and fundamental principle: this budget debate is really about national priorities. It is about a national priority. That is why we rise here.

Senator Baucus, Senator Rockefeller, myself--it is not just the Democrats on this issue of the Children's Health Insurance Program, but Republicans as well--but we have been around here for many years, and what a difference a year makes because in this particular budget we are putting children first. We are putting children first. We are putting children's health care first, and we are putting children's education first. What a difference it is from the recent years where all we had is tax breaks, after tax breaks, after tax breaks. This budget is different. This budget is very different. It says children are going to be first.

Secondly, it says that we know there are probably 9 million children who do not have any kind of health insurance, but about 6 million of them are eligible for Medicaid and CHIP. We find that working Americans are having more and more difficulty affording health insurance. One of their great concerns is not just for themselves but for their children.

Help is on the way with this budget because with this budget makes a commitment of $50 billion, to help those working families get health insurance for their children. So if their child has an earache, if that child is suffering from asthma, if that child has intestinal flu, the parent will not have to stay awake all night and wonder whether that child is $225 sick, because that is what it is going to cost that working family to take that child down to the emergency room. They won't have to worry about sending that child to school sick while they go out to work. That day, the child will be able to get good, quality health care. That is what we stand for on this side.

We see the success of this program. We have seen over the period of these last years the growth of millions of enrolled children, up to 6 million children, and we know this program can work for an additional 6 million children.

But we are faced with a budget on the opposite side by the Republicans, and what would that do? It would effectively drop almost half of the children who are currently covered.

Here is a map which says 14 States will run out of SCHIP funds in fiscal year 2007 under what the administration has proposed. Big alternative. You asked about alternatives. Our budget would provide the full coverage. This is what happened in the red States on the chart. If you live in those red States and have children, you are in big trouble. Here it is in 2008, an increasing number of States that are going to be excluded.

Finally, by 2012, under the Republican budget--look at this-- virtually 80 percent of the States will see a drop in the coverage for their children. With the program that has been put forward by Senator Conrad and others, it will mean all of this will be white because we will make sure all of those children are covered.

Now, what is the impact in terms of health disparities? Let's talk now about the impact on children. We talked about the numbers. We talked about the budget. Let's talk about what the health impact is on the children.

The SCHIP program reduces health disparities. This chart shows the disparities between the various groups before the enrollment--between White, African American, and Hispanic--and after enrollment. Look at this dramatic reduction in terms of the disparities.

Health disparities are one of the principal problems we are facing in our health care system today. This is one of the best ways to resolve the health disparities, with the Baucus amendment, to try to make sure that there is coverage for every child in America, because of all of the long-range implications of reducing the costs of health care, but most of all because we care about the children.

This shows one particular disease: asthma. We have seen the rate of asthma virtually double over the period of the last 5 years. The principal reason for that is because this administration has relaxed environmental protections and increased numbers of toxins that are in the air. We have double the number of children who are dying from asthma now, this year, than we had 9 years ago.

But look at what this does for those children who have asthma, before enrollment and after enrollment--the dramatic reduction. Here are the number of asthma attacks, the number of medical visits, and we see the dramatic reduction of attacks in terms of the children of this country.

So it really comes down to this: This chart demonstrates the alternatives, what is included in the Baucus-Rockefeller amendment and what we have with the Republican proposal. Their proposal is less than half than what is needed to maintain the current services--the current services; not increasing and providing the health care coverage for children but just for current services--and the Senate budget resolution is the $50 billion to cover all eligible children. That is the issue. This budget puts the children first, and the most dramatic example of that is the strong commitment to ensure that all the 6 million children who are eligible for CHIP and Medicaid are covered. Those who are basically the sons and daughters of working families in this country will know that under this budget, help is on the way. This will be true in every State across this country.

This has been a success, and it has been bipartisan. I take my hat off to my colleagues and friends, Senator Hatch, Senator Snowe, and Senator Smith--all Republicans. Republicans and Democrats have worked together. But on this issue in terms of priorities, which is a key element in this budget debate and a key difference between the two views about the budget, this amendment is an essential aspect of the budget proposal, and I commend Senator Conrad and those on the Budget Committee for supporting it.

I yield back the floor.

The Presiding Officer: Who yields time?

Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Massachusetts and thank those who have spoken on SCHIP.

I note the absence of a quorum.

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.

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

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

Who yields time?

Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, could we do 5 minutes?

Mr. Kennedy: Five minutes, yes.

Mr. Conrad: I thank the Chair.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from North Dakota yields 5 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. President, if you would let me know when there is 1 minute left.

I would like to take a few minutes to respond to the points the senior Senator from New Hampshire made yesterday regarding the track record of the administration and the Republican Congress on education funding.

Senator Gregg points to the historic increases in the No Child Left Behind Act funding under President Bush, but what he doesn't point out is that most of the increase happened after the first year of enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act when Democrats controlled the Senate and demanded a substantial increase. Since then, new funding for elementary and secondary education has plummeted.

These are the figures. The President's budget for fiscal year 2002 contained virtually no increase in funding for No Child Left Behind. In the two years following that, he actually proposed cuts in funding for No Child Left Behind. The year after that saw a minimal increase and then No Child Left Behind was actually cut. In fact, since President Bush has been in office, most increases in funding for education have come about due to pressure from Congressional Democrats.

No Child Left Behind is only half the story. Under Republican control of the Senate, increases in funding for education programs overall have gotten smaller year after year.

Two years ago, funding for education was actually cut by over half a billion dollars. Last year, the President proposed the largest cut to overall education funding in the history of the Department of Education--$2.2 billion--and again this year, the President's proposal is an overall cut of $1.3 billion.

So my colleague from New Hampshire is right. President Bush claims to include an increase of $1 billion in No Child Left Behind funding in his budget for this year, but that is not a real increase. First, it does nothing more than fill the cut that was enacted in 2006, and worse, as he has time and again, the President robs other education programs to pay for it.

As I mentioned, he proposes a $1.3 billion cut to education programs overall. That is not providing new resources for our schools; that is a shell game. But even more important than these points is the fact that the funding which has been secured is simply insufficient to fulfill the bipartisan promise to leave no child behind. That was a promise, not a political slogan. But year after year of broken promises by the White House and the Republican Congress have left 3.7 million children behind. Their budgets have meant larger, not smaller, class sizes. They've meant fewer teachers trained. This irresponsible neglect comes at a time when schools are being asked to do more.

We had the debate and the discussion yesterday, and my colleagues listened to my friend and colleague from New Hampshire talk about all the increases in education. Go ask any school board in this country, go ask any superintendent in the country, go ask any teacher in this country what has happened in their school and what has happened in their district and what has happened in their community on education. You will hear the answer: It has been cut, cut, cut, cut. That has been the answer. You can make all the charts in the world. But go out and ask the schoolteachers, go out and ask the superintendents of schools, and they know what has been happening. It has been as we have described here.

That has certainly been true as well in the Republican reconciliation bill last year, which my colleague from New Hampshire claimed provided $9 billion in student benefits and did not cut $12 billion from the student loan programs. The facts are that $22 billion was cut from the student loan programs. About $9 billion was spent by that bill more than half of it on sweetners for the banks, such as increased loan limits on federally subsidized loans and reduced origination fees which translate to increased profits for banks.

A small grant program was included, but as my friend from New Hampshire acknowledged yesterday, 90 percent of students are not eligible for that program. 4.7 million Pell eligible students were left out in the cold.

The Senate bill included $6 billion in grant aid for all Pell eligible students, but the Republicans jettisoned that proposal in a partisan conference. This program also wrongly limits eligibility to students enrolled in school full time. So forget it if you're trying to support a family and have to work while you're trying to get your degree. This limitation and others related to curriculum also exclude virtually all community college students.

But the most important fact is one conceded by the Senator from New Hampshire. The vast majority of the cuts to student loan programs were not dedicated to student aid. Instead, $12 billion was used to offset tax giveaways for the wealthy.

Our schools, children and families deserve more than accounting gimmicks. Our schools need new resources to make progress on reform, and families need real help to afford a college education for their children. Republican budgets have provided neither.

How much greed do those lending companies want? Has anybody read the New York Times recently about what is happening with the investigations of the student loan program, those billions of dollars going to the student loan program? Sallie Mae--the value of its stock was $3.17 in January 1995; it has traded above $50 per share for most of this year. That is coming from students and from low- and middle-income families.

But when you talk about investing in children, don't listen to the Senator from New Hampshire and don't listen to me; listen to your superintendent of schools, listen to the schoolteachers, listen to parents, and you will find out what has been happening and where the cuts have been over the past years. If there is a question about what has been happening in student loans, ask any middle-income or low- income family. Ask any students who are going to our fine public and private colleges. You will find out the tuitions have been going up through the roof, and a substantial part of that is by the fact that we have a student loan program that works for the banks and not for the students.

The Presiding Officer (Mrs. McCaskill): Who yields time?

Mr. Conrad: Madam President, unfortunately, we have two Senators and we have about 12 minutes remaining. Senator Reed, how much time do you need? Mr. Reed: Five minutes.

Mr. Conrad: Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Reed and then the remaining time to Senator Murray.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.

Mr. Reed: Madam President, I thank the Senator for his gracious yielding of time and for his exceptional work on this budget.

I wish to speak particularly to the issue of SCHIP. Shortly, Senator Cornyn will offer an amendment that was offered in the Budget Committee and defeated there, and it should be defeated on the floor of the Senate. His amendment seeks to tie the hands of the Finance Committee and make policy determinations on a program that has direct impact on millions of American families and children.

Millions of low-income Americans receive their health care under the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. This program is a safety net for low-income families. Rhode Island has provided extraordinary support to families working and struggling to provide health care for their children. By most estimates, the number of uninsured is going up in this country--most recently estimated at about 46 million. If we undermine the SCHIP program, those numbers will increase and particularly, obviously, in the ranks of uninsured children.

SCHIP provides approximately 20,000 Rhode Islanders with health insurance coverage. My State worked hard on a bipartisan basis-- Republican Governors, Democratic Governors, and the Democratic assembly--to build a health care system for children that works. A few years ago, we had one of the lowest rates of uninsured children in the Nation because of SCHIP and local efforts. In the last several years, the rate of uninsured children, even in Rhode Island, has gone up.

We have to have the resources to keep this program going forward. These dollars mean the difference between children getting access to health care and being denied health care. It affects their ability to learn in school and their long-term ability to be productive and contributing citizens. This is a vital program.

We see these shortfalls perennially in some States that aggressively support the SCHIP program. We have been able to make fixes in the past, redistributing funds. This time, we need a budget--and Senator Conrad has provided it--that will give us the resources and flexibility to reauthorize SCHIP so it will work in the future.

Senators Boxer, Conrad, and Rockefeller have put forth responsible amendments to deal with the SCHIP policy issue. Unlike the proposed amendment of Senator Cornyn, the Baucus-Rockefeller amendment puts the needs and interests of children first in the context of reauthorization.

I believe this budget, including up to $50 billion to expand SCHIP, is exactly the right direction. When you go to Rhode Island, or any State, and you talk to particularly the working people who are struggling to make ends meet, the No. 1 issue on their minds is: How can I afford health care insurance?

I had a neighbor rush across the street last Friday morning, while I was clearing the snow off my car, who said: I don't know what I can do; my health insurance just went up 66 percent. That is the crisis real Americans face every day. This is a response--a very important response--but not a final answer to health care in the United States. Goodness gracious, if we cannot take care of children and give them health care, then what else should we do? What is more important than that?

I think we have to recognize that some States, such as mine, have been able to expand this program to include the parents of some of these children. That is a positive step because it provides better health care for the whole family. In fact, the statistics and analyses show if you can have a family treated as a whole, you have a better health outcome. Also, it provides, again, another way to stop the ever increasing number of uninsured Americans, be they children or adults.

I congratulate Chairman Conrad for his work and commitment. I hope when we leave this budget debate, we can proclaim loudly and proudly we have expanded coverage health care coverage for children in this country. That is something I think we can all take great pride and claim satisfaction in doing. I urge us to reject the Cornyn amendment and support this budget. I commend Senator Conrad for what he has done.

I will make several quick points about the budget. It restores fiscal discipline. I commend the chairman for that. It adds important assets and commitments to affordable housing funds. The language allows us to go forward on that. Education and veterans are important priorities. This budget is one of which the people can be proud. I know the people of Rhode Island will be.

I yield the floor.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Washington is recognized.

Mrs. Murray: Madam President, I rise to support the Baucus amendment as opposed to the Cornyn amendment. I am thrilled this budget before us addresses health care in a responsible way in the amendment from this side. We provide up to $50 billion for this critical Children's Health Insurance Program over the next 15 years that will allow eligible children, who are not today enrolled, to be able to get the coverage they so necessarily need, and it is a critical step.

I commend the authors on this side and Senator Conrad for his tremendous work on that amendment. I rise also to thank Senator Conrad for his tremendous leadership in finally bringing us a budget that redirects the priorities of America's working families. Our families across the country want us to focus on strengthening our country from within. That starts by investing at home in our schools, as Senator Kennedy talked about, and in our infrastructure, and in our communities. That is exactly what this budget does. It still provides every dollar the President asked for for Defense spending over the next 5 years.

Americans want us to make investments in our future in a responsible way. Every family knows the importance of fiscal discipline and the importance of keeping a balanced budget. They expect the Federal Government to share that responsibility. With this budget, we are restoring an important pay-as-you-go rule that means we are being responsible today, and we are not burdening our grandchildren with new debt tomorrow.

American families, we know, also need relief from taxes that are too much today squeezing the middle class, and the budget Senator Conrad has put forward provides relief from the alternative minimum tax for 2 years and avoids any tax increases. I commend him for his responsible approach.

With this budget, we are proving we can invest in our people and our communities and our security without sacrificing the future. It is important to note, as we debate the budget today, that it reflects a new direction for our country. I recall last November when the American people demanded a change, and this budget reflects that call. It says across this country that we will no longer see our veterans shortchanged on their medical care; we will no longer see our communities facing very painful cuts in housing; we will no longer have our ports having gaping security holes they have faced for too long; no longer will our schools be so underfunded; no longer will community health care be undermined continuously at the Federal level; and importantly, no longer will we keep forcing more debt onto our children and grandchildren, without a plan to bring this budget back into balance.

On this side, we have said for a number of years there is a better way, and this budget proves that. I recognize, as we all do, we cannot fund everything everybody wants. No budget can. But this budget, I believe, moves us in the right direction in a responsible way, and that is a dramatic new start for this Senate. Last year, we were struggling to protect critical needs. This year, we are investing in them.

I wish to highlight some of the national priorities in this budget. We know the Bush administration has not adequately funded veterans health care. Now, as we begin the fifth year of this war this week, that becomes more and more evident across the country--whether it is our veterans, who have been struggling to get mental health care, or are waiting in long lines for benefit claims, or a lack of focus on the signature issue of this war, traumatic brain injury, that we have seen highlighted in the press over the last several weeks, or seeing that veterans are shortchanged at medical facilities, as we saw with Walter Reed.

This budget we are presenting to America increases our support for veterans by $3.5 billion over the President's proposal. In fact, the total $43.1 billion we are now investing in veterans' care represents a full 98 percent of the independent budget. That is the budget that has been devised by our veterans service organizations that, as we all know, clearly have proven to be fairly accurate in what they have told us they needed over the last years.

Our budget also, importantly, rejects the President's proposal that would have imposed new fees and higher drug copayments on some of our veterans. Those fees would force more than 100,000 of our veterans to leave the VA health care system, and that was wrongheaded.

I have seen personally the detrimental effects of underfunding veterans health care. As everybody knows, I have fought very hard on this floor to fix the administration's funding blunders and had to work hard here to increase veterans funding by $3 billion in 2005 and 2006. By increasing funding for veterans, this budget finally does what the administration has failed to do, and that is recognize the service and sacrifice of those men and women who have paid the price of this war.

We heard Senator Kennedy a few minutes ago make a strong statement on education. This budget begins to invest here at home in our schools. We have seen years of painful cuts. After that time, we have produced a budget today that addresses the needs of American families who worry so much about finding and affording educational opportunities for their children. This budget provides the largest increase in funding for elementary and secondary education programs in 5 years. That is going to make a real difference for families across this country. We increase funding for the Department of Education by $6.1 billion above the President's budget and restore all of the painful cuts he proposed--in Perkins grants, Pell grants, Head Start, No Child Left Behind, and the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Those are not just names of programs; those are real children who are impacted by the lack of funding we have seen, and this budget restores that.

I can tell my colleagues that as a former educator and a parent, I know the importance of having the full partnership of the Federal Government in supporting our children and our students. I am so glad this budget strengthens the partnership and eliminates harmful cuts.

I also wish to mention the important investment in this budget in securing our ports. Last year, I worked with other Senators on both sides of the aisle to pass the Safe Ports Act. Unfortunately, even with the passage of that authorization, the President didn't adequately fund this vital program for the security of our country. We, in this budget, increased funding for the Safe Ports Act and provided $400 million for the Port Security Grant Program. That funding means more radiation detectors, more partners in safe trade, and more customs officials who are needed in order to facilitate our trade.

I am very proud that this budget takes real steps, concrete steps to improve port security, while also making sure we maintain and improve our trade efficiency.

Finally, I give my personal thanks to Senator Conrad and his staff for their tireless work in leading the fight on this budget. It has been a privilege to stand at his side on the Budget Committee and to work with him to right this fiscal ship.

This budget, once again, invests in the true priorities of the American people while keeping the needs and aspirations of our future generations in mind. I look forward to passing this budget so we can move forward with the new direction the American people have demanded.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Liberated Text Footer logo Quantum Polity footer logo

Congressional Records: Iraq War 2007 is
a project of Liberated Text dot org
Web Design by Impietease

Restore Habeas Corpus Rights for Detainees
Congressional Records
Iraq War - 2007
JanFebMarApr
MayJunJulAug
SepOctNovDec
March
House-March 6-Kucinich
Senate-March 7
Senate-March 12
House-March 13
Senate-March 14
Senate-March 15
Senate-March 21
Budget FY 2008 - Part 1
Budget FY 2008 - Part 2
Budget FY 2008 - Part 3
Budget FY 2008 - Part 4
Sen Grassley
Amendment 464
Sen Lincoln
Sen Chambliss
Sen Isakson
Amendment 504
Sen Baucus
Sen Tester
Amendment 4694-2
Sen Rockefeller-Amend 504
Sen Kennedy
Sen Reed
Sen Murray
Budget FY 2008 - Part 5
Budget FY 2008 - Part 6
House-March 21
House-March 22
House-March 23