Deficit Reduction Act of 2005--Conference Report

DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005--CONFERENCE REPORT

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, those who followed the conversation on the floor of the Senate this morning are aware of the fact we are still in session, as the House has left at least for the time being. Of course, we are close to the holiday season, when most Members assumed they would be home with their families, where we want to be. But instead we are here. I think it is worth noting why we are here.

At the risk of hurting some muscle in my body here, I want to lift what we are now considering in the Senate in the closing hours: 4,000 pages--4,000 pages--that come to us at the close of the session; 989 pages on the appropriations for the Department of Defense, about 1,628 pages on the Defense authorization bill, and roughly 1,400 pages on the Deficit Reduction Act.

I can tell you, having been around Congress for a few years, that within these pages are things which will come to embarrass us. Some of them we know. Some of them we will learn after we leave. Of course, people who are following this debate say: Well, Senator, haven't you sat down to read all this? The honest answer is, it is physically impossible because good craftsmen of legislation realize that changing punctuation in the law can change the meaning of the law, and so what appears to be just a cosmetic change on a page here turns out to have dramatic consequences. So we try our best. My staff has been working straight through since many of these bills have been produced to try to come up with an understanding of what is included in these bills.

But there are several things we do know about these bills. We know, for one thing, that the Defense bills are the last bills in the session, which is a dramatic change from the past. Historically, the Defense bills are passed early in the session, for obvious reasons. The argument is, for goodness' sake, before you get embroiled in a political controversy, take care of the troops. So historically we would pass a Defense authorization bill and a Defense appropriations bill early in the session and be done with them. That did not happen this time.

The Defense authorization bill was taken off the calendar by the Republican leadership in July so they could make room for special interest legislation from the gun lobby on the question of liability. So that bill was intentionally delayed by the Republican leadership, the bill for our troops. Now, here, in the closing hours of the session, the bill comes back in the form of an authorization bill of some 1,600 pages, at the close of the session.

The Defense appropriations bill has historically been a bill we considered first. It is the bill in which we want to make sure we take care of the troops, take care of the Department of Defense, and meet our obligation. Why is it last? Why is this 1,000-page bill coming at us at the last moment? I will tell you why. Because Senators have come to understand this bill has to pass. So they put some of the most controversial provisions, some of the most outrageous provisions in the bill for our troops and for our national defense.

There is a provision in here which is well known now and well reported, put in by the Senators from Alaska, for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That is put in the Department of Defense appropriations bill. Why? Why in the world would you put that provision, that controversial provision, in a bill which has to pass for our troops? Well, it is high noon. It is a showdown. It is a question about who will flinch first. If you load up the bill that has to pass with these outrageous and controversial provisions, the Senators who put them in there are defying the membership of the Senate to stand up and say no. And they want to be prepared to say: Oh, you are going to vote against the Department of Defense appropriations bill or hold it up. That is just an outrage.

I will tell you what is an outrage. An outrage is using this bill, which is designed for our troops and our soldiers, as a political vehicle.

There are things in here which are nothing short of amazing--not only this Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling, which has been debated for years around here, but an allocation of the resources from that drilling to the State of Alaska, and others, in ways that are very generous to that State, at the expense of other States and at the expense of the Treasury. There is a provision in this bill about the liability of pharmaceutical companies when they manufacture vaccines. That is in the Department of Defense appropriations bill.

Of course, there are provisions in here for Katrina victims. I am glad they are in here. I thought they would be part of some emergency appropriation, but it just shows you that this bill, and all its complications, is an example of why we are still here this week. It is a failure of leadership. It is a failure to really address the issues that present themselves to the Senate in a forthright manner.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, tomorrow we are going to have some significant votes in the Senate on issues of great importance, not the least of which is the Defense appropriations bill, one of the most important bills we consider in the course of our calendar year. This is the bill to provide the resources for our troops--literally, their pay, the equipment they need, the training they need, new weapons they need, the fundamentals we need to keep our Nation safe.

This has usually been a very bipartisan bill. Having served on the Appropriations Committee, I have seen it in the past with strong support from both sides of the aisle and rarely a real partisan issue. This time, however, this bill has been modified and changed. Added to this bill are provisions which have nothing to do with our Nation's defense. They are provisions that have been debated at length for many years in the Senate relative to controversial issues on many fronts. The most controversial, the lead issue, the one that has been spoken to time and again on the Senate floor over the last several days, is the authorization for drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Some may remember that at the time of the invasion of Iraq, then Republican House whip TOM DELAY gave a speech in which he said, ``Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes.'' That is what he said. Tens of thousands of American troops were gathered in the Kuwait desert waiting for the command to go to war, being warned they might face weapons of mass destruction, and the then majority leader of the House of Representatives TOM DELAY said, ``Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes.''

Here we are a thousand days later still at war. We have lost over 2,150 American soldiers, over 15,000 have been seriously wounded, and 150,000-plus soldiers now risk their lives in Iraq today as we stand in the safety of this Chamber and in this country.

As we consider this important bill to fund this war and to stand behind our troops, it turns out we learned nothing is more important to some Members of the Senate than to make sure that we take care of the oil and gas companies before we take care of the troops. How else can one explain it? How else can we have reached the point where the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil drilling is so critically important to America that we would jeopardize the passage of the Department of Defense appropriations bill in order to pass it? This is the kind of thing that gives the Senate a bad name.

How many times have we heard people ask--I have heard it many times--why do you let this happen? Why would you let a bill be amended at the end to contain things which have nothing to do with it?

We have some 4,000 pages of bills before us today, almost 1,000 pages in this Defense appropriations bill. In it are critically important items for our troops, but also in it is this permission to go into an Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drill for oil. Who wants this? Well, there are two groups that certainly want it. First, the oil companies. They are going to make money on this, as if they had not made enough. This year, with their kiting of gasoline and energy prices across America they have already had $100 billion in new profits. Well, here they come again. They want more and more. Some believe their profit margin is at least as important as providing the basic funds for our troops. That is why they would put that amendment in this bill.

How can it have reached this point, where the Senate will have walked away from its basic obligation to our men and women in uniform and said we are going to allow the use of an appropriations bill for this drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? Well, the people who crafted this brought in a number of Senators and Congressmen to support them by promising that some of the revenue from the drilling in Alaska would go to fund other programs and purposes. Relief for victims of Hurricane Katrina was one of the things that was also being promised. There are many other elements that are being talked about--LIHEAP, the low-income home energy assistance program. It is promised that they will have some money as a result of this. So many people have decided they can look at this positively because there is something in it for them.

How important is this bill and this vote to the Bush administration? So important that Vice President Cheney cut short his trip overseas to make sure that he is here tomorrow, if necessary, to cast the deciding vote for the drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the passage of this bill.

I think it tells us why it is important. Threatening to withhold funding for American troops during wartime and for Katrina victims in order to push through ANWR drilling has to rank as one of the lowest moments in the history of the Senate.

Let us put aside for a minute whether the ANWR language ought to be in this bill. Let us look at the language itself. This language has never been examined or closely debated by any committee, neither the House nor the Senate. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the specific ANWR language in this bill is different in several critical ways from any other ANWR drilling proposal considered by Congress, and one of the most important elements is the inclusion of a provision known as severability. One would have to go searching long and hard, but they will find on page 406 of the electronic version of this Department of Defense appropriations bill this severability provision. Here is what it means: If the State of Alaska decides to sue to have the 50/50 split of ANWR revenues called for in this bill declared illegal, then money this bill seems to promise for Katrina relief and low-income heating energy assistance and many other worthy causes could simply disappear.

It is a bait and switch. The proponents of this amendment lured supporters by saying, come on along for the ride. We are going to drill in ANWR and we are going to give you some money. We will give it to the Katrina victims and we will also give it to the poor people in America trying to heat their homes. So stick with us. Then they put in this provision. The money that would have gone primarily for those purposes could be removed almost entirely. How could it happen? It could happen by the State of Alaska asserting that instead of 50 percent, they want 90 percent of the revenues that come out of this bill.

Think about that for a moment. The big oil companies make their profits, the State of Alaska takes away virtually all the money, and all these other good causes find themselves with little or nothing to show for it.

You see, the Alaska Statehood Act already provides that any revenue from Alaska oil sales must be split 90-10, 90 percent to Alaska and 10 percent to the Federal Government. And what did the lone Congressman from Alaska, Don Young, say today in the Anchorage Daily News?

As for the revenue split, Young said he thinks the Governor (of Alaska) would sue to get the 90/10 split promised by the Alaska Statehood Act.

So in order to get extra votes for this provision, the sponsors offered to others in Congress this lure of money from the drilling that they can use for their purposes. It turns out, as soon as it is passed, we have the State's Alaskan Congressman saying the Governor is going to take away the money, virtually all of it.

In addition, Alaska State officials have made it clear that they intend to fight for 90 percent of the ANWR revenues. They passed a resolution signed by their Governor that said just that, they are not going to take anything less than 90 percent.

So the big winners from this ANWR provision in the bill will be the oil companies and the State of Alaska. They are prepared to jeopardize the passage of the Department of Defense appropriations bill because there is so much money on the table, so much to be made from the revenues from the drilling for this oil. Whoever drafted this language knew what they were doing by putting in this severability clause, which basically says we can switch after we baited you into this trap, and you can't do a darned thing about it. This could end up being one of the biggest bait-and-switch deals in the history of the Senate.

There is another reason to be skeptical about Katrina relief in this bill and other promises that are being made around the Capitol. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the revenues this bill assumes from ANWR drilling are wildly inflated. For example, this bill assumes lease bonus revenue from ANWR will total $10 billion. For that amount of money to be raised, every single one of ANWR's 1.5 million acres would have to produce an average of $6,666 in lease income. Since 1980, the average that has been produced is $60 an acre, less than one-hundredth of what has been promised.

Moreover, between 2001 and 2005, that average dropped to $45 per leased acre, despite record increases during that time in the price of oil.

Now look at the estimated royalties. The bill says 20 percent of these estimated royalties will be used to help Hurricane Katrina victims. To generate the $40 billion ANWR supporters are promising for the Katrina relief fund, oil prices would have to average $89 a barrel between 2015 and 2044. The U.S. Energy Information Administration's annual energy outlook projects a 1.3-percent annual increase in the price of oil between now and 2025. They can never reach the numbers that they are projecting to come up with this money.

The revenues in this bill supposedly promised for LIHEAP will also fall short for the same reasons.

The conclusion is this: For reasons I cannot explain, the Republican leadership in the Senate today has departed from the accepted practice of the Senate. There was a time when this bill was considered something special, a bill to appropriate money for our men and women in uniform and for our Department of Defense. It was the first priority in appropriations, the first passed, and the first to be signed by the President year after year after year. But this year, in order to accommodate the political agenda of some Members of the Senate, it is the last bill--second to the last bill that we will consider. Why did we wait so long? So that this bill could be a vehicle for a political agenda for the drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

To think that we would in any way jeopardize this bill for our men and women in uniform for this political deal at the close of the session is just something that the Senate cannot be proud of.

I urge my colleagues, stand up for the men and women in uniform. But stand up for the integrity of the Senate. It is about time that we made it clear that this kind of political horse trading that goes on at the close of the session, for an issue that has been debated for years on Capitol Hill, has to come to an end. This bill, the Department of Defense bill, should be a bill that is not the proving grounds or testing grounds for great political ideas. Let's focus on the men and women in uniform.

I urge my colleagues to do two things. First, defeat cloture. Let the Senator from Alaska know that this is not appropriate on this bill.

Second, hold him to his word that once we defeat cloture, he will move to strike this provision from the bill on ANWR, and we can move forward to funding our troops. The senior Senator from Alaska has said, both in his State and on the Senate floor, that if he can't clear this procedurally, that will be the end of the debate. We will then go to the Defense appropriations bill, as we should. Then let's pass this with a strong bipartisan rollcall, having taken out this politically unacceptable provision on ANWR.

This is one of the biggest bait-and-switch deals we have seen on the floor of the Senate. Back-room promises have brought this today to the Senate for a vote which we will face in the morning. Enough is enough. The Senate should reject this. The Senate should demand that ANWR be voted on the merits, and we should immediately pass a bill that does the right thing not only for our troops but for the Katrina victims and also to protect Americans from the threat of avian flu.

This Defense appropriations bill is a test. It is a test of whether this Senate has lost its way entirely; whether one Senator from one State can dominate a major piece of legislation, can put in a provision totally unrelated to our troops and their welfare, and can push a provision which provides greater profits for oil companies and great revenues for his home State of Alaska at the expense of taxpayers in the United States and at the expense of a wildlife refuge created over 50 years ago by President Eisenhower.

I urge my colleagues tomorrow, when we vote, vote against the motion for cloture. Let this Senator know, and others who are pushing this proposal, that we have reached the end of our rope in terms of allowing this kind of political back-room deal to come forward. It is unacceptable, and it should be rejected by the Senate.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. I rise today to talk about a few of the many ways that this spending reconciliation bill reinforces the misplaced priorities of the Republican leadership of this Congress.

With the 2 reconciliation bills--the bill that we are considering today that cuts services for the poor and the bill that we will see again in January that cuts taxes for the wealthy--we again are saying to the American people that we believe in shared sacrifice ..... so long as this sacrifice is made only by those who can least afford it. Especially in a time of war, this is wrong.

I didn't vote for the Senate version of the spending reconciliation bill a few weeks ago because I didn't think that it was right to try to reduce our huge budget deficit by cutting funding for those who need it most while cutting taxes for those who need it least.

Never mind, of course, that these two bills would actually increase the deficit, and therefore not even meet the purpose they were meant to serve.

Now we have received the conference report on the spending reconciliation bill, after the House passed this report late last night with almost no review or debate. The report cuts funding for the needy far more than the original Senate bill did, and therefore is even worse than the bill we saw a few weeks ago.

I will attempt to address 6 of the many areas in which this bill cuts services to those who need these services most: Medicaid, Child Support Enforcement, Child Care, Supplemental Security Income for the Disabled, Foster Care, and Higher Education.

First, this conference report asks for more from those who need Medicaid services while asking nothing of pharmaceutical companies and HMOs. In fact, this bill was a victory for big business.

This conference report allows States to increase the Medicaid copayments that many beneficiaries must pay in order to receive health care services and medications. The original Senate bill included no increases in copayments or premiums.

This conference report, however, reflects the House cuts, which overwhelmingly impact beneficiaries.

The House and Senate conferees also chose to leave a $10 billion Medicare slush fund for managed care companies intact.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, an independent commission appointed to advise Congress on Medicare spending, found that the $10 billion slush fund was unnecessary and unwarranted, and recommended its elimination.

The Senate included its elimination in the Senate-passed budget bill, but the managed care companies and the administration went to work on the conferees, and the slush fund lives.

That means the Secretary of Health and Human Services will have $10 billion to dole out to multimillion dollar managed care companies while States will be allowed to increase the copayments of patients making below the Federal poverty level, which is slightly more than $19,000 per year for a family of four.

The average compensation of the highest paid executive in each of the 11 largest managed care companies in America was approximately $15 million in 2002. These companies are not the ones in need of Government subsidies.

Another example of this conference agreement's choice of big business over working Americans is the giveaway to pharmaceutical companies while punishing poor seniors who need nursing home care.

The Senate version of this bill insisted that Medicaid get the best pharmaceutical prices by increasing the minimum rebates drug manufacturers are required to pay the Medicaid program.

In a victory for the pharmaceutical industry, this provision was stripped. Meanwhile, provisions that would substantially impact middle-income seniors in need of nursing home care were maintained.

Medicaid was not meant for people who have enough money to afford their own nursing home care, and rules restricting the transfer of assets to qualify for Medicaid are necessary.

However, the rules adopted by the conferees are overly restrictive and punish middle-income seniors.

Under the rules outlined in this conference report: A woman who helped her granddaughter with her college tuition 5 years ago would be penalized.

A widow who doesn't know what her husband spent their money on before he died 4 years ago would be penalized.

A senior whose home appreciated during the housing boom to $500,000 would be refused Medicaid, even if her house is modest. Medicaid has always had the right to collect from the home of a beneficiary through a lien. Now, we are going to deny coverage altogether to a senior who happens to live in an active real estate market.

The typical nursing home resident is a widow in her 80s with 3 to 5 medical diagnoses who needs help with most daily activities. Almost half have Alzheimer's disease or another dementia. Many have no immediate family. Why are we punishing them and rewarding HMOs and pharmaceutical companies?

A budget is more than a collection of numbers; it is a reflection of values. We should all value health care for the least among us.

This conference report makes many more cuts beyond the cuts to Medicaid.

Many low-income mothers cannot afford to lose the child support payments to which they are legally entitled simply because deadbeat dads can get away with not paying to support their children. Yet the House has created a conference report that cuts $1.5 billion over the next 5 years and $4.9 billion over the next 10 years from the funding for child support enforcement.

The CBO estimates that this will result in $8.4 billion being taken out of the pockets of mothers who are owed child support over the next 10 years.

This conference report includes $1 billion in additional funding for childcare. That sounds pretty good. But since the report would dramatically change the way the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program works, the negative effects on childcare of the conference report as a whole are simply huge.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this conference report provides $11 billion less than what States would need in order to support the new TANF work requirements that this bill requires and to maintain the existing childcare programs for low-income working families not on TANF.

Because of this shortfall in funding, many States will likely be forced to reduce the number of childcare slots available for TANF families. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an estimated 255,000 fewer low-income children will receive childcare assistance by 2010 compared to the children who received it in 2004.

This conference report also uses a budget gimmick to make it appear that the bill saves more money that it actually does. Shamefully, this gimmick comes at the expense of poor people who need supplemental security income.

Let me explain. Today, when disabled people are forced to wait for many months to be approved for supplemental security income by the Social Security Administration--and unfortunately this seems to happen quite often--the money that these disabled individuals are owed is paid in one lump sum once these folks are approved for this supplemental income. Under this conference report, however, these people would instead receive the support for which they are eligible in installments.

Why? So that when the savings of this conference report are calculated, it will appear that the savings are bigger than they really are, since some of these payments will be pushed outside of the 5-year ``budget window.'' But this accounting gimmick comes with a real cost: the disabled have to wait longer for the help that they need. That is just shameful.

The conference report also cuts $343 million in foster care funding, including cuts that will make it more difficult for some grandparents to raise their own grandchildren.

Finally, much has been said already about the $13 billion cut in Federal financial aid for college students in this bill. About one-third of the total cost-savings in the budget reconciliation bill come from the student loan program.

This bill dramatically increases the cost to middle-income families of borrowing money to send their kids to school.

The PLUS program, Parent Loans for Undergraduate Students, is available to families who have exhausted their Stafford loan eligibility, are credit worthy, but have run out of money for college before their kids are done with school.

Today, PLUS loans are made to parents at an interest rate of 6.1 percent. This conference report hikes that interest rate to 8.5 percent. For the 800,000 families with a PLUS loan, that is an average increase of $550 per year. Instead of paying $989 in interest, they will pay $1,541.

At a time when we should be doing everything we can to prepare our students to compete in the economy of the 21st century, it simply makes no sense whatsoever to make it harder for low- and middle-income students to go to college.

In summary, there is simply no reason why we should support this conference report which goes much farther in cutting support for the needy than the bill that we barely passed by a vote of 52 to 47 a few weeks ago. If we are going to ask some Americans to share in the sacrifice that wartime requires, we should ask all Americans to share in that sacrifice, not only those who are most in need.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, tomorrow morning we will consider the Defense appropriations conference report with very little debate. It is an important measure. Earlier I came to the floor to speak about one aspect of the bill which relates to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is a large bill, about 1,000 pages. It contains many things. I would like to address the other elements that are included in that bill.

This conference report provides $453 billion in defense spending, money for body armor, armored vehicles, protective equipment for our troops that they need and haven't always had. The conference reports includes $1 billion for equipment for National Guard and Reserve units.

In Illinois, our National Guard units have been forced to leave their equipment behind in Iraq for use by the units that follow. Other States' National Guard and Reserve units have done the same. Leaving their equipment thousands of miles away makes it difficult to train our guardsmen in my State and many others. It also makes it harder for Guard and Reserve units to respond to civilian disasters here at home. We saw that in Hurricane Katrina. I voted for the Leahy amendment, offered by the Senator from Vermont, to increase funding for Guard and Reserve equipment by $1.3 billion. I am pleased that most of this funding is included in this final conference report.

The bill also adds $10 million for the Rock Island Arsenal to ensure that this important military-owned-and-operated facility is ready to make the equipment our troops need when they need it. That Rock Island Arsenal proved its value to America when we needed to retrofit the humvees with armor plating to protect our troops. The men and women of the Rock Island Arsenal worked 24/7 to meet that need. It provides $20 million to purchase or refurbish the heavy construction equipment needed by the Navy Seabees and Army Guard and Reserve engineer units. I am proud that we make this gear in Illinois.

It includes more than $20 million for upgrades to Navy and Marine Corps FA-18 fighter aircraft because our pilots deserve the best equipment there is. This conference reports also includes $29 billion for Katrina disaster relief. It is important to note that not one dime of this $29 billion is new money; $5.1 billion is from the 1-percent across-the-board cuts in this bill as well as other rescissions. The rest, $23.4 of the $29 billion total, was already earmarked for FEMA. FEMA programs are being cut to pay for Katrina relief. Would you believe that this conference reports actually cuts FEMA's preparedness, mitigation, recovery, and response programs by $2 million? It cuts Federal programs, funds for programs such as catastrophic planning and planning for mass evacuations. It is hard to imagine, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, that we are reducing spending in this bill for planning for mass evacuations. God forbid we face another one in the near future.

Inadequate resources clearly was not the only reason FEMA was overwhelmed by Katrina. The main reason was cronyism and incompetence at the top. But does anyone seriously believe that cutting FEMA's disaster prevention and preparedness programs is the right way to respond to Katrina? It isn't. Of the $29 billion for Katrina relief, one-tenth of that total, $2.9 billion, is for Army Corps of Engineers projects including levee repairs. I am glad the administration has acknowledged the need for the Federal Government to take the lead to rebuild the levees. Homeowners can't rebuild, business owners won't relocate until New Orleans' levees are safe and rebuilt.

Let's be clear, $2.9 billion is a very small downpayment on what is needed to rebuild the levees and restore the wetlands. Estimates of what it will cost range from $18 billion to $32 billion to reach category 5 hurricane protection. Restoring the wetlands could cost an additional $18 billion. As any good environmental engineer will tell you, strong levees and restored wetlands are needed to fully protect New Orleans and the surrounding areas. In his nationally televised speech from New Orleans' Jackson Square in mid-September, President Bush promised the Federal Government would help New Orleans and Louisiana make the flood protection system stronger than it has ever been. The $2.9 billion in this bill is a small downpayment on that promise. We will look for the next installment next year.

The President should also make it clear right now that New Orleans' levees will be rebuilt to withstand a category 5 hurricane. If we don't want New Orleans to turn into a permanent ghost town, the people have to know that it is safe to return. Assurance from the President would make that difference.

What is missing in this bill? Unfortunately, several critically important provisions have been stripped out behind the closed doors of the conference committee. Let me tell you one that has become a perennial. The Reservist Pay Security Act, which the Senate has now passed four different times--I have sponsored this bill and it passed in the Senate four different times--is one of the measures that should be in this bill but always gets stripped out in conference. The same Senators who stand here and vote proudly for it can't wait to get behind closed doors and strip it out. Four straight years. What is it about? When Guard and Reserve members of top companies such as Sears, GM, and Home Depot are called to active duty, companies they work for make up their difference in pay. They can worry about defeating terrorism and don't have to worry about missing mortgage payments.

Thirty State governments do the same thing. They believe their workers who sacrifice to defend America are worth a helping hand. I introduced the Reservist Pay Security Act with a bipartisan team of Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, including my lead cosponsors Senator BARBARA MIKULSKI of Maryland, Senator GEORGE ALLEN of Virginia, LINDSEY GRAHAM of South Carolina, and others who believe the Federal Government should make the same commitment to the troops that other employers make. One out of every ten Guard and Reserve members is a Federal employee. Yet they don't have the same salary and income protection as those in the private sector. How can you possibly explain that? How can we say, as a Federal Government, we won't stand behind our troops when the private sector does, when State governments do, when local governments do?

Again and again that is passed on the Senate floor. We pat ourselves on the back and it heads to the conference committee and disappears. Think about this: The Department of Defense hands out awards to companies that stand behind the Guard and Reserve. The Federal Government should hand out a demotion to those in the Senate who consistently vote for this on the floor with a big smile on their faces, head to the conference committee and kill it every time. If they think they are getting even with me, that isn't what it is about. It is about helping our troops.

On a bipartisan basis, Members of the Senate have said it is time to get this done. This bill doesn't do it. The Department of Defense claims that it would cause disparity and discord if an activated reservist is being paid more than an Active-Duty soldier. Active-Duty soldiers don't stand around comparing pay stubs and what they are making back home. The Reservist Pay Disparity Act doesn't create disparities, it reduces them, by ensuring fewer soldiers have to sacrifice a substantial part of their income to serve the Nation. We talk all the time about supporting our troops. It is interesting, we support it when there is a rollcall on the floor. When it gets to the darkness of a conference committee, that support has been taken out time and time again.

I hope we will have a chance to pass this in the next session. I will offer it again. This time I hope the conference committee will give us a helping hand instead of turning its back on our guardsmen and reservists.

I am also deeply disappointed this defense conference report contains no relief funds for farmers who suffered serious income losses this year because of drought and other natural disasters. The year 2005 was a tough year for farmers from coast to coast. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the drought in the Midwest, the flooding in the upper Midwest, all of these things have taken their toll on my State and so many others. Year in and year out we have had a disaster assistance program for farmers. This year we need it and we need it badly in Illinois and many other States. When Senator BYRON DORGAN of North Dakota offered a $1.6 billion amendment in the conference committee to restore the disaster assistance program, it was defeated on the House side. The House Republican leadership refused to agree to an agriculture disaster assistance relief program. That is unfortunate. I hope that the Congressmen who represent farming areas will come back to Washington after the first of the year and encourage their colleagues to pass this.

We need it so a lot of farmers will have the resources they need to get back to work and back to farming this next year. What is also missing is this: At least 300,000 innocent people have died in the genocide in Sudan. The number may be 400,000. Nobody knows for sure. Two million people have been driven from their homes and 500 people die every day in refugee camps. We missed an important opportunity to stop or slow down that genocide in this conference report. We refused to help the work of the African Union Mission in Sudan in this bill. The United States provides approximately $8 million a month in support of the African Union Mission in Sudan. That amounts to one-third of their total funding. These funds are vital to the African Union peacekeeping troops in Darfur.

The Senate included $50 million in our version of the bill, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill, to support the African Union, which was dropped in conference. Secretary Rice said these funds are critical. She requested they be included in this Defense appropriations bill. The Secretary noted the State Department already had to reprogram $13 million that was intended to train the new Afghan Army and use it instead for our commitments in Africa.

United States funds for Africa will run out January 1. Without additional funding, the State Department will have to choose between diverting funds from other important priorities and making this genocide situation worse in Darfur. I will quote from Secretary Rice in a letter she sent to Congress:

We now face a critical juncture in supporting the African Union Mission in Sudan. ..... Through reprogramming of other peacekeeping monies, the administration has found a way to fund our contribution to AMIS through the end of this year. But the FY2006 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act provided no funding for this peacekeeping mission. We are in critical need of funding to continue this mission at a robust level into 2006.

She continued:

To meet ongoing operational costs and to provide adequate logistical and communications support, we are seeking at least $50 million for AMIS.

She went on to say:

I have discussed this matter with others in the administration and can assure you that taking immediate action to meet this unanticipated expense is of the highest priority.

Those are her words--``highest priority.''

Despite the urgency of the situation, the House Republican leaders removed the funds for the African Union Mission in Sudan from this conference report.

Just a few weeks ago, I was with Senator SAM BROWNBACK of Kansas in Rwanda. We stayed in that hotel in the movie ``Hotel Rwanda.'' That was the hotel that 11 years ago was a refuge for Rwandan victims of the genocide. At the direction of the manager of that hotel, he managed to secrete away and protect hundreds of people who otherwise would have been hacked to death and killed in the Rwanda genocide.

I remember that genocide as a Member of the House of Representatives, because my senior Senator and close friend, the late Paul Simon, was one of the few Senators to speak out. He said to the Clinton administration: What is going on in Rwanda is terrible. Whether you call it a genocide or not, with a few American troops, we can bring stability to the area and save innocent lives. Senator Simon's request fell on deaf ears. The Clinton administration did not respond and the genocide continued.

The death toll, when it was all over, is estimated at 800,000 people. I went to a Catholic church a few blocks away from this hotel in Rwanda. The church looked like an ordinary church, filled with people who came to worship at 6 a.m. in the morning. I learned later that a thousand people were hacked to death in that church. They came in there for refuge. They were, unfortunately, turned over to the rebels and killed on the spot. They thought they were saving a church.

That is what genocide is all about, the wanton killing of people. President Bill Clinton, when he does his assessment of his administration and lists the liabilities or negatives, is usually going to put at the top of the list his failure to respond to the Rwanda genocide. He deeply regrets the fact that our Nation didn't speak up and stand up to stop that genocide.

Fast forward now 9 or 10 years to the situation in Darfur in Sudan. We have a new President, George W. Bush; we had a new Secretary of State, Colin Powell; and now it is Condoleezza Rice. They were able to say the word about Darfur in Sudan which the Clinton administration would not say about Rwanda. They said we are dealing with a ``genocide.'' That is a word you have to use very carefully. It has happened rarely in the history of the world, but when it has, it has had cataclysmic consequences. So our administration, our Government, our country has declared that a genocide is occurring in Darfur in Sudan. The obvious question to us and those people around the world who care is: What are we going to do? We have not committed any American troops. Maybe we never will, but at the least we should be supporting the African Union troops who are trying to bring order there on the ground.

This bill we are going to consider tomorrow took out the money for these African Union troops, despite the pleas of Secretary of State Rice, despite the knowledge that we are dealing with a genuine genocide where innocent people are being killed, raped, and displaced every day. We could not find $50 million in a multibillion dollar budget to keep these troops there to protect the poor people in this region. It is unthinkable, yet it is a fact.

Earlier this year, the Senate unanimously approved the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, calling for the rapid expansion of the African Union force. That legislation stated that if the AU Mission fails to stop the ongoing genocide, ``the international community should take additional ..... measures to prevent and suppress acts of genocide in the Darfur region.''

In recent months, the violence has worsened. Some aid groups are leaving the region because of security concerns. Even the African Union troops have been the target of violence.

With the resurgent violence of Darfur, the Sudanese Government and its partners, the jingaweit militias, appear to be testing the resolve of the African Union, the West, and the United States of America. Not providing these funds--$50 million for troops to protect these innocent people--is inexcusable. It is a signal to the perpetrators of these atrocities that we cannot be bothered. We cannot afford to come up with $50 million to stop a genocide.

Mr. President, $50 million for AMIS won't resolve the crisis there, but it will enable the African Union to maintain its current size and scope of operations. It would allow this Nation, America, to stand on the right side of history against the repression and genocide in Darfur.

How can we in good conscience vow ``never again'' and then cut the funds needed to keep that promise? How can we watch genocide in our own time and refuse to do what is needed to stop it? What if a God-fearing, caring Nation such as America declares there is a genocide and does nothing? That is what we are up against in this bill.

I hope that men and women of conscience in the Senate on both sides of the aisle, as soon as we return in January, will do something immediately to provide the assistance they need in Darfur to provide the African Union the support they need.

I spoke earlier about ANWR. I will not go into that any further, other than to say it is truly unfortunate that a bill of this importance and this magnitude is being dragged down the road in an effort to provide this giveaway to the State of Alaska and to oil companies. Of all of the things we should be doing, this is the last--to be drilling for oil in a wildlife refuge set aside almost 50 years ago to be protected for generations, so some oil company can make a profit and the State of Alaska can end up benefiting.

This conference report contains also a huge gift of nearly unlimited immunity for the pharmaceutical industry, one of the wealthiest industries in America. When I first came to Congress, I would have to say the strongest lobby on Capitol Hill in the 1980s was the tobacco lobby. You could not beat them. I know because I tried several times unsuccessfully before I passed a bill banning smoking on airplanes. It was the first real loss they ever had on the floor of the House. And when it came to the Senate, Senator Lautenberg led the fight here and we won. It made the news because nobody beat them. The tobacco lobby was unbeatable. Now they have been replaced as the king of K Street. That distinction now goes to the pharmaceutical industry. Hardly a bill passes through here where the pharmaceutical industry and drug companies don't end up getting some little favor that has been offered by the majority in the Senate.

The Republican leaders in Congress exploited in this bill a real need to push through a big favor for wealthy special interests. To prepare for a potentially deadly breakout of avian flu, Senate Democrats, including Senators OBAMA, HARKIN, REID, KENNEDY, and others, sought twice to add as much as $7.9 billion for the avian flu prevention and response efforts.

In response, the President requested $7.1 billion for avian flu. This conference report provides $3.8 billion for avian flu, a little bit over half of what the President requested. How in the world will we answer our critics when they come forward and say, Did anyone speak out here in the face of this potential devastation from avian flu, that the funding in this bill was inadequate to the task? We know it is in Congress; the President knows it is. But when it comes to the conferees, they have decided: Let's save some money here. It is a false savings if this pandemic strikes the United States and endangers the lives of innocent citizens.

It also includes something that was not in the President's plan nor in the Senate Democrats' plans, and that is where the pharmaceutical companies come in again. It includes sweeping immunity protections that would shield pharmaceutical companies from legal responsibility, even when their mistakes result in injury and death.

In the middle of the night, after conferees were assured that the controversial liability immunity provision would not be included in the bill, after the report had been signed, after all of that, the Republican leadership added 47 new pages to the bill.

These new liability protections are not limited to avian flu vaccine, which is what the press releases said. Oh, it is all about creating a market for new vaccines to be made. Nope. These immunity provisions are so broad that they include drugs such as Tylenol, Advil, even Vioxx.

The Republican proposal would shield the drug industry from legal accountability for sickness, disability, and even death resulting from vaccines, drugs, and other products. The only exception is in cases of willful misconduct. Do you know what it takes to prove willful misconduct? You have to prove a drug company knew its product would injure or kill someone and went ahead and sold it anyway.

That is an unrealistically high standard, and it just means fewer people will have a day in court. If that is not bad enough, even if a drug company acts with willful misconduct, it is still shielded from immunity unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the Attorney General initiates an enforcement action. If no such action is taken, a drug company could knowingly kill hundreds or thousands of Americans and still not be held liable.

There are other loopholes. The Secretary of Health and Human Services can declare an emergency at any time. These declarations would also shield drug companies from legal accountability. They are not subject to appeal or to independent judicial review. This bill overrides State laws.

Supporters of this proposal claim it establishes a compensation fund for victims. However, the fund is operated under regulations established by the Secretary alone. It includes caps on compensation. There is no guarantee Congress will provide sufficient funds to make certain that victims receive any compensation. It could turn out to be nothing more than empty promises.

Think about the fact that virtually anyone in America, with two exceptions now, is held responsible for the products they sell. And if those products cause harm to individuals, they can be held accountable. That kind of standard is used for all of America and for all businesses, for the products, the goods and services they sell.

Just a few months ago, we decided to create the first exception. We decided that people who manufacture firearms should not be held responsible if those firearms injure someone or kill them. That is right, firearms. The gun lobby came in here, pushed the bill through, and the President signed it gleefully. Now comes the next one, the pharmaceutical industry, that they will not be held liable for the drugs and vaccines they sell in the ordinary course of business if they have been negligent in preparing those drugs or misrepresenting what those drugs will do to the American public.

Let's get down to business. None of these protections in this bill are really needed. The Federal Government already has authority to waive liability during a public health crisis. That authority is part of the President's pandemic influenza plans. These protections are not needed to lure drug companies into the vaccine. This is a lucrative market. Roche, the company that makes Tamiflu, estimates that sales of its antiviral will reach $1 billion this year, four times the 2004 level--$1 billion. And we are building into this law protections for drug companies that are so profitable when, in fact, they are not being held as accountable as other businesses.

Other biotech firms are competing to develop improved vaccines and see their stock value soar in the process. The most profitable sector in the American economy has scored another big one. It is Christmas on K Street for drug company lobbyists. I am sure there are big parties this week as they can't wait for this bill to be signed into law and escape liability.

Why has this bill been stuck into this conference report at the last minute? Here is a hint. Big PhRMA, the pharmaceutical companies, is the single largest influence operation in Washington today. They spent $123 million lobbying Congress in 2004, according to the Center for Public Integrity. Since 1998, pharmaceutical companies have contributed $87 million to Federal candidates, nearly all Republicans, but not exclusively, according to the same center. This is the worst kind of special interest dealmaking.

It is unfortunate that, once again, we are saying to the American people that we are creating a special class in America--a class of businesses that cannot be held accountable for their wrongdoing.

We are also saying to the victims of their wrongdoing: Sorry, you can't go to a jury in your neighborhood and in your community and ask them to judge whether you have been wronged improperly.

A third provision that ought not to be included in this bill is in the Katrina relief package. It would create the first national education voucher program. Under this proposal, a disproportionate share of school funding would go to private and religious schools at the expense of public education. At the same time, the bill removes all prohibitions against using Federal money for religious education and sectarian activity.

Using public education dollars for religious purposes is contrary to our Constitution, it is contrary to the feelings of most Americans, and it is contrary usually to the will of the Senate. The Senate version of the Katrina education proposal, which I supported, and I know Senator Landrieu supported it as well, contained assurances that Government funds would not be used ``for religious instruction, proselytization, or worship.'' That language was stripped out of the House bill.

This is a sad pattern in Congress. For example, the House version of Head Start reauthorization would repeal the longstanding civil rights protections that prohibited Head Start teachers and staff from being discriminated against based on their personal religious belief.

House amendments to the Workforce Investment Act would also repeal the important civil rights protections that prevent employment discrimination based on religion.

In the same manner, there is no language in the House conference report that bans schools that receive these funds under the Katrina relief provisions from practicing employment discrimination. If the private and religious schools refuse to hire people who don't share their religious belief, according to this bill, that is just fine.

The bill also says if your family is forced from your home because of Hurricane Katrina, and your child is now attending a religious school because it is the only option available where you are now living, your child will receive religious instruction unless you opt out. It places the burden on the parents. Yet there is no language in this bill requiring that parents and students be notified of the right to opt out of religious instruction.

We can have a debate about using public school dollars for private and religious schools, but to use an unprecedented disaster to in a backhanded way include religious school vouchers in the Federal budget without adequate public debate is just wrong. When you combine these back-door cuts to public schools, the 1-percent across-the-board reductions in educational programs designed to help poor children and children with disabilities, this bill makes a mockery of the promise to leave no child behind.

There was recently an editorial, a column in the Chicago Tribune on Monday, written by Dennis Burns, in which he was arguing for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. He believes Government should require that to be taught. He argued that faith-based belief is not inconsistent with science, and he felt the Government should step in and make it clear that you can include religious education as part of a public school curriculum.

What was interesting was the column next to it. It was a column by Charles Krauthammer, and it was about the President of Iran. If you have been following the lunatic ravings of the President of Iran about the fact that he believes there was no Holocaust and he believes that the Israelis have no right to their own homeland, you will find that his crazed beliefs are grounded in his strong religious convictions.

That tells us for a moment of the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, who understood the important necessity of separating church and state in America.

Our Constitution is explicit. It says that one has the right to believe what they want to believe, and if they want to believe in no God, they have that right in America, too. It is a matter of personal conscience. I believe they were absolutely right in that regard.

The second thing they said is this Government will not choose a religion, this Government will not have an official religion. That, too, was a very incisive and wise observation by those who founded this country.

I hope that many people who are now trying to force religious issues into appropriation after appropriation and issue after issue should consider for just one moment what they are doing. This time of year, when many of us turn to our religious belief to enrich this holiday season, I hope that everyone will say a little prayer that the intelligent design of the Constitution of the United States of America will be respected by the Congress.

Finally, this conference report includes a 1-percent across-the-board cut in all Federal programs except veterans and spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Managing the Federal budget is supposed to be about making responsible and moral choices. A calculator can cut everything by 1 percent, but not every line item in the budget is of equal importance. We have been sent here to use some judgment. Cutting every program is an abdication of responsibility and no way to manage a budget.

We could spend hours listing examples of why this thoughtless approach to budgeting is bad government, but in the interest of time, I will simply highlight a few, based on the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

To really understand what these across-the-board cuts mean to the people and the programs, we need to compare this year's funding with the 1-percent cut to the funding level in 2005 adjusted for inflation. That is the budgetary baseline of the Congressional Budget Office.

When we look at the funding levels we have already appropriated and in some cases already cut for each program in 2006 and then impose an additional 1-percent cut, the results are troubling. Let me go through them quickly. In education, a 1-percent cut in elementary and secondary education amounts to $1.2 billion cut in education for poor children, special education, school improvement efforts, and vocational and adult education. Senator TOM HARKIN of Iowa today told us that this is the first time we have lost ground in special education in recent memory. We will have less money to educate the children who are born with special needs and disabilities. In my State of Illinois, we will lose $49 million for those kids.

A 1-percent cut in child and family services means $350 million less for Head Start, less for services for abused and neglected kids, less for adoption-related services, less for abstinence education, less for services for homeless children and other programs. Funding for early education and health care through Head Start will be cut by $195 million, and that means 25,000 more children will not be included in Head Start next year. Childcare development block grants helping lower and moderate-income families afford childcare face a 1-percent cut, meaning 11,000 fewer children from low-income families, working families, trying to make sure their kids are in a safe environment, will not be helped because of this 1-percent cut. In my State of Illinois, we will lose $16 million.

In housing, the section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program is the Federal Government's main rental assistance program for low-income families. A 1-percent across-the-board cut means approximately 65,000 fewer low-income households receive rental assistance next year. Think of the struggle of working families in lower income categories to find decent housing. Section 8 is one of the fewer programs that helps them. We are going to make sure that 65,000 fewer people are helped next year. In my State of Illinois, we will lose 3,300 vouchers.

Community development block grant--a 1-percent across-the-board cut means $777 million lost. That is nearly 16 percent below this year's funding level. Illinois losses $24 million.

The Environmental Protection Agency provides Federal funding to States to improve water quality to construct and improve drinking and wastewater treatment. If we cut these programs by 1 percent, or $243 million, it means we are cutting them 12 percent below current levels. Illinois loses $11 million.

These examples are only the beginning. If one thinks these cuts are absolutely essential, remember that we will come back next year and consider another bill by this administration and by the Republican leadership in this Congress to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in America. In the midst of a war, facing the biggest deficit in our history, with Hurricane Katrina and its responsibilities looming over us, we are cutting basic programs for education, health care, childcare, and environmental protection to provide tax cuts for the wealthy. Those are the priorities of the Republican leadership, priorities reflected in this bill. Real fiscal discipline requires thoughtful choices. Across-the-board cuts simply hack away indiscriminately at all programs.

I know the hour is late, and I thank my colleagues for their patience. I thank those in the Senate, the staff in particular, as we draw closer to the holiday season, and they are all wishing they could go home, and I am, too. I hope we will consider these bills tomorrow. I hope the votes in the Senate will reflect the priorities and values of America.

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

http://thomas.loc.gov/