[Pages S11642-S11653]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DISABLED VETERANS AND OTHER PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a
colloquy with Senator DeWine to discuss an amendment that we were going
to offer on behalf of our Nation's disabled veterans and other persons
with disabilities.
I know that we are all concerned about taking care of our returning
service men and women, especially those who were wounded in action and
are now disabled, some severely. The amendment that was to be offered
today would have immediately increased employment of the disabled while
potentially saving taxpayer money.
In October 2004, Congress enacted the American Jobs Creation Act of
2004, providing for outsourcing by the IRS of collection of unpaid and
past due Federal income taxes. The administrative process for issuing
contracts to qualified private sector debt collection companies is
about to be completed. It is estimated that these contracts will create
up to 4,000, well paying private sector jobs.
If the same tax collection activities were conducted by Federal
employees, provisions of current law would give preferences in
employment to disabled veterans in filling those Federal jobs. In
addition, if other persons with disabilities were employed by the
Federal Government in those jobs, those disabled persons would benefit
from the Federal Government's long history of nondiscrimination and
policies of promoting job opportunities for the disabled. By enacting
legislation to improve the IRS's tax collection efforts and placing
those efforts on a sound commercial footing by outsourcing or
privatizing the initiative, Congress certainly did not intend to
curtail the national commitment to creating meaningful job
opportunities for disabled veterans and other persons with
disabilities. Indeed, the contracts which the IRS will soon execute
with private sector debt collection companies provide a unique
opportunity for the Federal Government to stimulate creation of well
paying jobs for disabled veterans and other persons with disabilities.
To realize this opportunity, however, Congress must act to assure
that existing Federal employment preferences for disabled veterans and
Federal policies promoting opportunities for other disabled persons are
carried forward as a part of the IRS's contracting criteria.
The language in the proposed amendment would have established a
preference under the debt collection contracting program for
contractors who meet certain threshold criteria relating to employment
of disabled veterans and other disabled persons. Furthermore, the
amendment would have required that at least a specified percentage of
the individuals employed by the contractor to provide debt collection
services under the contract with the IRS qualify as disabled veterans
or disabled persons.
Some have expressed concern over this proposed amendment because they
believe this could possibly derail the selection process currently
underway.
It is not my intention to stall this process, but rather to make it
better. As such, I have chosen not to offer the language at this time.
But it is my intention to find the appropriate legislative vehicle for
language mandating the hiring of persons with disabilities
prospectively.

[[Page S11643]]

I wish to ask the Senator from Ohio to work with me on this very
important matter.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am happy to join my friend from Nebraska
in bringing this very important issue to the attention of the Senate.
As my good friend has mentioned, the provisions contained in the
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 have created a unique opportunity to
advance the futures of returning patriots and other persons with
disabilities, while improving the fiscal outlook of our country.
A little over a year ago, the U.S. Army established the Disabled
Soldiers Support System, or DS3, to provide its ``disabled Soldiers and
their families with a system of advocacy and follow-up to provide
personal support that assists them in their transition from military
service into the civilian community.'' The program has been combined
with the Recovery and Employment Assistance Lifelines, or REALifelines,
initiative as a joint project of the U.S. Department of Labor, the
Bethesda Naval Medical Center, and the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
The joint effort aims to create a seamless, personalized assistance
network to ensure that seriously wounded and injured servicemembers who
cannot return to active duty are trained for rewarding new careers in
the private sector.
In employing the new private debt collection provisions of the
American Jobs Creation Act, private collection agencies would be in the
unique position of being able to provide these veterans with well-
paying and challenging jobs. Studies in the Worker's Compensation
industry point to heightened degrees of vocational success when return
to work efforts occur early. It is important that our returning
disabled servicemembers be reincorporated into a stable work
environment as soon as possible so that they do not become depressed
and develop feelings of uselessness.
As the Senator has stated, some have expressed concern due to the
selection process currently underway. Therefore, I agree with him that
it is best not to offer this language at this time.
But notwithstanding, Senator Nelson of Nebraska and I plan to work to
find the appropriate legislative vehicle to attach language that will
mandate the hiring of persons with disabilities prospectively. I urge
my fellow Senators to join me in supporting this effort. This is an
innovative and cost-effective plan for increasing employment of
disabled veterans and other disabled citizens. We owe it to our service
men and women to improve their futures any way we can.

setaside funding for public housing agencies

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
chairman and ranking member of the Transportation-HUD Appropriations
Subcommittee. There has already been much discussion about the critical
role of the section 8 program in providing millions of Americans with
affordable, safe housing. As my colleagues know, the 2005 funding year
budget is based on a ``snapshot'' of verified VMS leasing and cost data
averaged for the months of May, June, and July of 2004. I commend the
chairman and ranking member for including a setaside of $45 million in
the Senate bill to adjust the allocations of the housing agencies whose
snapshot did not accurately reflect the real leasing levels and costs
for 2004.
Unfortunately, the provision as drafted does not take into account
reduced leasing levels resulting from the public housing agency: One,
following HUD directives to not reissue turnover vouchers, two,
accepting 1,000 or more additional vouchers through Housing Conversion
Actions or enhanced vouchers, or three, accepting assigned vouchers/
voucher portfolios from other public housing authorities. Without these
additional criteria, many public housing agencies, including the
Michigan State Housing Development Authority, will be unfair1y denied
any of the setaside funding that is provided under this bill to make
them whole. I urge the chairman and ranking member to improve this
provision in conference to provide for a fairer distribution of this
setaside funding.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Michigan and concur with her that this is a problem that must be
addressed in conference. I will work with the Senator from Michigan to
ensure that the final conference report includes a fair distribution of
this setaside funding for public housing agencies. As you know, we
included a provision to protect the use of project-based vouchers in
the distribution formula.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator bringing this
issue to our attention and she can be sure that her concerns will be
given every consideration in conference.
Ms. STABENOW. I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member
of the subcommittee.

judicial resources for the u.s. district court for the district of new
mexico

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the pending
Transportation, Treasury, Judiciary and HUD Appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2006. I would like to discuss the special needs of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico due to its
disproportionately heavy caseload.
I thank the distinguished chairman of the Transportation, Treasury,
Judiciary and HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Bond, and the
distinguished ranking member, Senator Murray, for their willingness to
address the difficulties faced by courts on the United States-Mexico
Border due to lack of resources. This issue is one of great importance
to the citizens of New Mexico.
The District Courts along the United States-Mexico border face
particularly pressing needs as they must deal with many immigration
issues in addition to the typical cases filed in federal court. For
example, for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2004, 364 felony
cases per judge were filed in the District of New Mexico, compared to
the national average of 88 cases per judge. The Las Cruces, NM
division, which deals with a significant number of Spanish speakers,
currently has only one staff interpreter to support five judges and
magistrates. District judges from across the state travel to Las Cruces
weekly to help manage the over-crowded docket in the southern part of
the State, so they need additional travel funds. Finally, courtroom
technology, such as video conferencing equipment, is needed to allow
judges to hear motions without traveling across the State.
May I inquire of the distinguished chairman if it is the intention of
the subcommittee to encourage the Administrative Office of the Courts,
as they prepare their funding formula for the distribution of fiscal
year 2006 funds, to take into account the above mentioned special needs
of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico is correct. The
U.S. Court for the District of New Mexico faces an extraordinary need
for interpreters, travel funds for judges, and improved courtroom
technology, and I ask the Administrative Office of the Courts to
consider these necessities in their allocation of fiscal year 2006
funds.
Mrs. MURRAY. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Missouri and
request that the needs of the U.S. Court for the District of New Mexico
be considered by the Administrative Office of the Courts. I have also
been made aware of these concerns earlier in the year by the other
Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my colleagues for their concurrence regarding
the special circumstances and requirements of the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Mexico. I also thank the chairman for his
willingness to attempt to address this issue in conference.

FEDERAL FUNDS FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RESIDENT TUITION ASSISTANCE

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly about a
particular Federal funding provision in the appropriations measure for
the District of Columbia, which has been fully incorporated as part of
this bill. The bill provides $33.2 million in Federal funds for the
District of Columbia Resident Tuition Assistance Program, also known as
DC TAG.
The District of Columbia Resident Tuition Assistance Program provides
funds which allow eligible District students to attend out-of-State
public colleges and universities at in-State tuition rates. It also
provides stipends for District students to attend private Historically
Black Colleges and Universities, HBCUs, across the country and

[[Page S11644]]

private colleges in the District of Columbia metropolitan region.
I have had a long-standing interest in this program. I recall a
meeting in my office in early 1999 with Donald Graham of The Washington
Post. He was spearheading an effort to involve the Congress in creating
and funding a program to work in tandem with a successful program that
local business leaders established in the local schools to provide
guidance to students exploring post-secondary educational
opportunities. I was impressed with the concept and pledged to help get
it done.
As ranking member of the District of Columbia oversight subcommittee,
I worked closely with Senator Voinovich in shepherding through to
enactment the legislation that initially established this program, the
District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999. Then as subcommittee
chairman in 2001, I worked to ensure that the District of Columbia
College Access Improvement Act of 2002 to expand and strengthen the
program was signed into law. More recently, I was an original cosponsor
of bipartisan legislation last year to reauthorize the program.
This unique program has enjoyed remarkable success. District
officials are to be commended for their efforts to quickly launch and
implement the program within a short period following its
authorization. The fact that the Federal funds have enabled over 8,000
District residents to achieve their dream of attending college at some
institutions in 46 states is extraordinary.
Yet despite my long-standing, ongoing support for the TAG program and
its continued viability, I do have significant concerns. These are not
new.
First, this Program's source of revenue for its operation is strictly
and wholly a Federal contribution. There are--and have been--no non-
Federal funds invested in the Program. While the Mayor can be proud of
how much it has accomplished in the past six years, there is no
demonstrated financial commitment to it on the part of the local
District government.
Secondly, in the past 2 fiscal years, this program has enjoyed a
significant boost in annual funding. In FY 2005, the President
requested $17 million, the equivalent level Congress provided in each
of the previous five years. However, the District sought $25.6 million.
The fact that the District at the time appeared to also have some $9
million in unspent reserve funds prompted me to amend the Senate bill
in committee to provide for $21.2 million, with a directive that the
District use the reserve funds to fully fund the program in fiscal year
2005 and work with the Senate and House authorizing and appropriations
Committees to develop a plan involving Federal/non-Federal cost sharing
for DC TAG for future fiscal years. The conference ultimately approved
the full $25.6 million.
Now this year, the proposed funding level for fiscal year 2006 of
$33.2 million represents a 30 percent increase over the $25.6 million
allowed for fiscal year 2005, which itself represented a 52 percent
hike over the $17 million appropriated for fiscal year 2004. In
response to questions I raised seeking further explanation and
justification for this increase, Mayor Anthony Williams sent me his
written assurance that ``the last two years' requests for significant
appropriations increase will not occur again.'' I ask unaminous consent
that a copy of the Mayor's letter of July 20, 2005 be printed in the
Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1)
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I also note that 2 years ago, the Congress
directed the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the DC TAG
program to determine whether adequate controls are in place to protect
the Federal interest, such as those pertaining to student eligibility,
cash management, and administrative expenses, as well as assess
relevant performance and demographic information.
I understand that the GAO's work on this mandated study may be in its
final stages, and that a written report is anticipated soon. To the
extent that GAO identifies any particular concerns which may put the DC
TAG program and the Federal taxpayer dollars it receives at risk, I
would urge that in response, the Mayor take immediate steps to promptly
correct any identified weaknesses in the operations and financial
management of the program, and advise the Congress of the District's
plans and outcomes.
Additionally, to the extent that the GAO findings and recommendations
are available in advance of the conference on this bill, I would
recommend that the conference agreement include explicit directives to
the Mayor and other appropriate District officials to address the GAO
findings in order to help bolster the future fiscal management of this
program without inordinate delay.
Furthermore, it would be prudent, prior to our consideration of the
FY 2007 funding request for this program, that the District of Columbia
appropriations subcommittee conduct a comprehensive oversight hearing
on the DC TAG program. This could provide a forum to not only showcase
the program's accomplishments and strengths, but to identify any
weaknesses in the fiscal operations, program policies, and managerial
structure which affect the efficient and effective use of Federal
funds. It may afford an opportunity to collaborate with the authorizing
committee to ensure that any necessary legislative and administrative
reforms can be instituted. Any efforts we can take to improve this
program as it matures and continues to benefit District residents in
their educational pursuits will be time well spent.

Exhibit 1

July 20, 2005.
Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Senate Committee on
Appropriations, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Durbin: I would like to thank you for your
long history of support for the District of Columbia Tuition
Assistance Grant Program (DCTAG). As a result of your
leadership for both the authorization and significant
appropriations for this most beneficial program, DCTAG has
helped more than 8,000 students throughout the District of
Columbia attend college.
The program's success has necessarily and predictably
resulted in rising costs and I acknowledge your concerns
about the rate of growth in program costs over the last two
years. Moreover, I acknowledge your concerns about our
current out-year cost projections. I can assure you that the
last two years' requests for significant appropriations
increase will not occur again. These increases were largely
the result of two factors: 1) the program's annual carryover
is virtually depleted meaning that we must request the actual
operating costs (rather than relying, in part, on carryover
surpluses) and 2) the program has been adding entire classes
of students during its implementation phase (and we no longer
will be adding new cohorts or categories of newly eligible
persons.)
As Mayor, I am committed to undertaking measures to reduce
the current cost projections in FY 07 and beyond, including:
Negotiating tuition decreases based upon volume of students;
aligning program requirements in line with those of the U.S.
Department of Education; and revising maximum award
calculations based on type of school.
Program officials have already discussed these scenarios
with the authorizers and after appropriate consultation with
you and others, we will begin to implement a range of cost
containment measures. Attached is a copy of my testimony last
month before the DC appropriations subcommittee which
reiterates this commitment.
I once again thank you for support of the DCTAG program.
This program has had a demonstrable impact on the quality of
life for thousands of District families, Were it not for this
program, the dream of a college education would not be a
reality for many of these families. My staff and I are eager
to continue our partnership with you and your staff in the
management of this program to the benefit of the citizens of
the District of Columbia.
Sincerely,
Anthony A. Williams,
Mayor.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I like to thank the Senator from
Illinois, Mr. Durbin, for his concerted oversight of the DC Tuition
Assistance Grant Program. This program is an important aspect of
Congress's investment in educational opportunities for DC students. I
appreciate Senator Durbin's insight into the management of the program
as he brings to our appropriations subcommittee on the District the
perspective of the authorizing committee on which he served as well.
As Senator Durbin noted, Congress engaged the Government
Accountability Office to conduct a comprehensive review of the Tuition
Assistance Grant Program--TAG--in 2004. We understand this report is
forthcoming and are eager to review these findings with our colleagues.
This unique program was created to fit the unique need that

[[Page S11645]]

the District of Columbia does not have a public university system
similar to states across the country. TAG supports the opportunity for
DC students to have choices to further their education in small or
large universities around the country. The program has been lauded as a
significant tool for increasing college attendance, but I am
particularly interested to learn from the GAO the college graduation
rates of TAG recipients. This, and answers many other questions, will
enable the authorizers and appropriators to continually examine this
program for performance.
As a unique program, tailored to the needs of the District, we also
must ensure the program is meeting the goals set out by the Congress
and the needs of the community. We understand the GAO has found that
several management and financial controls are lacking. Because we have
limited resources every program must be responsive to the community and
operate in an accountable and rigorous manner. I am encouraged by the
recent management improvements Mayor Williams has made, but as Senator
Durbin noted, there is still work to be done.
I appreciate Senator Durbin raising these important concerns to
Chairman Brownback and me. I will work with the other conferees to
ensure that funding for the TAG program meets the current need in the
community, and that proper controls are in place for strict management
of these funds. In addition, I welcome an opportunity for the Committee
to examine the TAG program in our hearings next spring. I hope we are
able to collaborate with the authorization committee so we may continue
to manage and fund this program to generate the best benefit for all DC
students attending college.
Senator Durbin, I thank you for bringing these recommendations to our
attention.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the pending Departments of Transportation,
Treasury, HUD, the Judiciary and Related Agencies appropriations bill
for fiscal year 2006, H.R. 3058, as reported by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations provides $84.806 billion in budget authority and
$141.037 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2006. Of these totals,
$18.987 billion in budget authority and $18.973 billion in outlays are
for mandatory programs in fiscal year 2006.
The bill provides total discretionary budget authority in fiscal yer
2006 of $65.819 billion. This amount is $5.689 billion more than the
President's request, equal to the 302(b) allocations adopted by the
Senate and $47 million less than fiscal year 2005 enacted levels. This
legislation is also equal to the 302(b) outlay allocation.
For the information of my colleagues, I must note that this
legislation contains several provisions that will result in spending in
2007 and subsequent years. I must inform my colleagues that the
provisions creating these advance appropriations would be subject to a
budget point of order under section 401(b) of the 2006 budget
resolution. It is my hope that these problems can be addressed by the
bill managers so that we will not have to consider points of order
against this bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the
Budget Committee scoring of the bill be inserted in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

H.R. 3058, 2006 TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, JUDICIARY, AND HUD
APPROPRIATIONS--SPENDING COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
[Fiscal Year 2006, $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
purpose Mandatory Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget authority............. 65,819 18,987 84,806
Outlays...................... 122,064 18,973 141,037
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority............. 65,819 18,987 84,806
Outlays...................... 122,064 18,973 141,037
2005 Enacted:
Budget authority............. 65,866 18,580 84,446
Outlays...................... 116,866 18,532 135,398
President's request:
Budget authority............. 60,130 18,987 79,117
Outlays...................... 119,218 18,973 138,191
House-passed bill: \1\
Budget authority............. 66,934 18,987 85,921
Outlays...................... 120,949 18,973 139,922

Senate-Reported Bill Compared To:

Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority............. 0 0 0
Outlays...................... 0 0 0
2005 Enacted:
Budget authority............. -47 407 360
Outlays...................... 5,198 441 5,639
President's request:
Budget authority............. 5,689 0 5,689
Outlays...................... 2,846 0 2,846
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ House and Senate bills having different jurisdictions.

Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
Transportation/Treasury/HUD appropriations bill and my trade amendment
that was adopted by unanimous consent this morning. This amendment will
send a strong signal to our major Asian trading partners that we are no
longer going to tolerate their trade violations that are costing us
jobs here at home--especially in my State of Michigan.
As my colleagues may know, Treasury Secretary Snow has been traveling
in China for the last week to advance a trip that President Bush is
taking to China and Japan in November. Unfortunately, he seems to be
making little progress in our attempt to get China to stop its illegal
trade practices like currency manipulation.
The President's upcoming trip could not come at a more important
time. Currently, Chinese and Japanese trade policies are literally
destroying U.S. industries, costing us jobs and hurting our middle-
class families.
In order to help President Bush as he pushes China and Japan to stop
their currency manipulation, to crack down on the counterfeiting of
American manufactured goods, and to cease the pirating of intellectual
property, I believe the Senate should go on record to show that our
Government is united in opposition to these illegal trade practices.
Just last week, Delphi, our Nation's largest auto parts supplier,
declared bankruptcy, threatening 15,000 jobs in Michigan and more than
33,000 across the country.
In terms of assets, this bankruptcy is the largest ever in the United
States, surpassing the reorganizations of K-Mart and Worldcom.
The Delphi bankruptcy should serve as a wake up call to the Congress
and the administration that we can no longer tolerate unfair trade
practices. Unless we put a stop to them, our economic spiral downward
will continue and the American middle class way of life will be in
jeopardy.
In Michigan, we are experts at many things, but we excel at making
things and growing things.
Whether it is cars or office furniture, apples or cherries, we lead
the way in manufacturing innovation and efficiency.
And manufacturing jobs are the life blood of almost every community
in Michigan.
Even though Michigan has growing, cutting-edge industries, such as
biotechnology and nanotechnology, it still has one of the highest
unemployment rates in the country because of our troubled manufacturing
sector.
Our current economy is moving through a period of great uncertainty.
It would be easy to blame this on a particularly bad business cycle--a
business cycle that will eventually correct itself. But, to do so would
require us to overlook a very real threat to our economy and our way of
life.
That threat is the lack of a level playing field for American
businesses and workers in the global marketplace.
As my colleagues know, China currently exports to the United States
some $160 billion more than it takes in.
A significant portion of this deficit is driven by consumer demand
here in the United States, but a shockingly large portion of it is due
to illegal trade practices, namely currency manipulation,
counterfeiting and the theft of intellectual property.
Since 1995 China has pegged its currency and has not allowed it to
``float.''
The impact of this illegal action is clear. It gives a distinct
advantage to Chinese companies that export into the United States and
diminishes our ability to export to the Chinese market--therefore,
China is effectively giving its exporters an exchange rate subsidy.
This manipulation increases the price of our goods while making their
goods appear cheaper here at home.
For example, a mid-sized American car sold in China or Japan is
$2,000 more expensive than it should be because of currency
manipulation. This really hurts our automobile industry.
Earlier this year, I spoke with employees of a large auto parts
supplier who told me they had recently lost a parts contract to a
Chinese company despite the fact that they were the lowest bidder.
The reason: when you factored in the impact of the artificially low
yuan, the Chinese company had a cheaper bid.

[[Page S11646]]

As we all know, such currency manipulation is illegal under the terms
of China's International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization
membership.
Some economists have calculated that this price differential may
amount to as much as 40 percent. It is simply devastating our
manufacturers in Michigan and it is costing us jobs everyday.
In July, China announced that it would stop pegging its currency, but
after rising 2 percent on July 21, the yuan has barely budged.
This is an unacceptable situation that calls for immediate action.
I think it is important to note, though, this is not just a China
problem. This is a pan-Asian problem that includes Japan among the
offenders.
Unfortunately, currency manipulation is not the only illegal trade
practice we need to address.
Chinese counterfeiting and Intellectual property theft are enormous
problems for manufacturing in my home State of Michigan.
Let me give two examples of the problem that we in Michigan currently
face with regard to this unfair competition.
Counterfeit automotive products not only kill American jobs, they
have the potential to kill American families--when shoddy counterfeit
automotive products replace legitimate ones of higher-quality our
manufacturers lose, and our consumers are put at risk.
The Federal Trade Commission estimates that the automotive parts and
components industry loses an estimated $12 billion annually in sales on
a global basis to counterfeiting.
It is estimated that if these losses were eliminated, and those sales
were brought into legitimate companies, the automotive industry could
hire 200,000 additional workers.
And we don't even keep statistics on the potential loss of life--when
shoddy counterfeit auto parts fail and cause car accidents.
We should understand that, if left unchecked, penetration by
counterfeit automotive products, as well as other manufactured goods,
has the potential to undermine the public's confidence and trust in
what they are buying. We can't let that happen.
The second example I want to share involves a small manufacturer
located in western Michigan.
Peter Perez is the president of Carter Products Company located in
Grand Rapids. He is also the national president of the Wood Machinery
Manufacturers of America.
Carter Products employs 15 people and holds numerous patents--one of
which belongs to this small piece of equipment--the Carter Stabilizer
Guide.
It is used to support a band saw blade in such a way as to allow for
a wood worker to make nearly any type of angled cut.
Shortly after introducing the Stabilizer--the product, its
installation instructions, and instruction photos were copied by a
Chinese company and resold into the American market.
Under normal circumstances, the Stabilizer would cost a retail
customer about $70. The pirated product was being sold for less than
$10--which is far below the cost of the raw materials necessary to
create the product.
Carter Products had to launch a case at its own expense to stop this
illegal trade violation. After spending more than $20,000 the company
was able to keep the illegal product out of the U.S. market by stopping
its distribution in markets covered by the company's patents.
But what company can ever be sure that they have achieved victory
against this type of illegal behavior if the country of origin--in this
case China--is not going to abide by their obligations under the WTO?
Second only to our human resources, intellectual property is our
Nation's most valuable asset. As the United States freely trades with
the world's nations, we are discovering new opportunities and new
challenges.
International rules and institutions have been set up to protect
intellectual property, but China falls short when it comes to following
those rules and keeping their commitments.
They are seeking to gain an advantage over American companies and
American workers by breaking the rules. In April, I proposed bipartisan
legislation to strengthen our Government's ability to protect the
rights of American companies and American workers in world markets;
that includes protection of our intellectual property rights. The Chief
Trade Prosecutor Act should be passed into law immediately so we may
defend our companies and workers from those who seek to gain an
advantage by breaking the rules.
It is time to send a message to the Chinese and Japanese governments.
It is time to say we are fed up and we will not take it anymore. Let's
give them a shot across the bow. Let's make it loud and clear that they
will have to change now--not later--or we will take real action against
them.
Workers across the country are losing their job. For their sake and
for those who are clinging to their jobs, let's stand up to the Chinese
and Japanese governments and stand up for our working families.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as this bill now moves to conference with
the House, I strongly urge our Senate conferees to reject an
unfortunate amendment adopted by the House prohibiting the allocation
of any funds for the District of Columbia to enforce its firearms
registration law and its requirement for DC residents to keep their
firearms unloaded and disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock. In
effect, the House amendment would repeal the DC Government's
longstanding ban on firearms and would be a disastrous blow to gun
safety in the District. For almost three decades, DC's ban on handguns
and assault weapons bans have helped reduce the risk of deadly handgun
violence. City residents and public officials overwhelmingly support
the ban, and the courts have upheld it. Representative Eleanor Holmes
Norton, Mayor Anthony Williams, and Police Chief Charles Ramsey all
strongly oppose the House amendment.
Mayor Williams has called this effort to repeal the city's gun ban
``a slap in the face.'' Chief Ramsey has said that a repeal of DC's gun
ban would have a ``scary'' impact. Without question, more guns mean
more violence. More than half of the robberies and 20 percent of the
aggravated assaults in the city are committed with a firearm. In 2004,
nearly 80 percent of District homicides were committed with firearms.
The youngest victim was only 7 years old.
It is difficult to understand how weaker gun safety laws will make
residents and visitors safer. This effort by Congress to prevent the
enforcement of the DC gun laws will only serve to increase the number
of homicides, suicides and accidental shootings. Greater availability
of firearms will make it more likely that deadly handgun violence will
erupt in public buildings, offices, and public spaces. Over 20 million
visitors come to Washington each year, and this amendment puts the
safety of all of them at needless risk.
The amendment is also an attack upon the well-established principle
of home rule for the District. It tramples the rights of the city's
elected leaders and local residents to govern their homes, streets,
neighborhoods, and workplaces. It is an insult to the 600,000 citizens
of the District of Columbia.
Statistics show that crime prevention is working in the District.
Crime decreased 18 percent last year and homicides went down 17
percent. In the first 5 months of 2005, the Metropolitan Police
Department confiscated more than 1,000 firearms on city streets. Only a
tiny percentage of recovered firearms are registered in the District.
The city continues to face serious concerns about firearms illegally
brought into the city from other jurisdictions, and the House amendment
would unfairly limit the ability of DC officials to combat this
problem.
Congress should respect the public safety efforts of this city's
leaders and let the District decide what firearm regulations are best
for its citizens. I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless,
special-interest amendment that will endanger the safety of all who
live or work or visit here.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues
Senators Thune and Collins, in support of an amendment to the
Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development
appropriations bill. I would like to commend the managers on both sides
of the aisle for their efforts to shepherd along this extremely vital
legislation to passage in the Senate.

[[Page S11647]]

They have shown a great eagerness to work with Senators to improve the
overall legislation, and have done so in a sincerely bipartisan way
that is so rarely seen in the Senate nowadays.
This amendment will offer some small measure of protection to
employees at our flight service stations scattered across the country.
In Bangor, ME, our flight service station, highly skilled workers
decipher flight plans and help pilots navigate the tricky summer fog of
coastal Maine and the constantly changing winter weather.
As many of you know, our Nation's flight service stations have been
contracted to Lockheed-Martin. While some may dispute the wisdom of
such a decision, I do not come to the floor to discuss that issue. I
do, however, wish to prevent unforeseen and serious damage to the
financial future of many of our employees who have so diligently and
skillfully protected our pilots and aviators for so many years.
Hundreds of flight service station employees who are years, months,
or in some cases weeks away from a well-deserved retirement would be,
if not protected, stripped of their Federal pensions and benefits as
the stations are transferred over to Lockheed-Martin. The aerospace
company has operated in good faith, there can be no disputing that, but
many of these individuals have been counting the days until their
retirement, complete with the Federal benefits they have so rightly
earned. To take those away from them, with but a few weeks to spare, is
quite obviously cruel and uncalled for.
This amendment would allow those workers who are eligible for
retirement in 2 years or less to remain on the Federal Aviation
Administration's payroll, to retire at the end of those 2 years, and
receive the Federal retirement benefits they have worked so long to
earn. This cost will be offset by reducing the payout of the contract
to Lockheed-Martin.
For years, pilots have been clamoring for better technology in our
flight service stations, and Lockheed will do an excellent job
providing that. What will be missing will be the local knowledge and
eyes on the ground that those same pilots have come to rely on. This
amendment, in its own small way, attempts to honor those individuals
who have proven so reliable over the years.
I urge my colleagues to support this very simple amendment, and would
like to thank Senators Collins, Thune, Johnson, Santorum, and Specter
for their steadfast efforts on this amendment as well.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the amendment that
Senators Leahy, Coleman, Sarbanes, Graham and Reed have offered to
protect funding for three programs critical to working families and
low-income communities: the Community Development Block Grant, the
Section 8 Voucher Program, and the Public Housing Operating and Capital
Funds.
These programs expand opportunities to home ownership for working
class families and help communities across the country pursue growth
that develops poor communities without pushing out the poor themselves.
Let me talk about how each of these programs supports communities of
hope and opportunity.
The Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, program makes it
possible for our communities to improve their infrastructure, develop
new businesses, provide important social services, and rehabilitate
homes--all of which translates into expanded opportunity for people.
This year, Illinois will receive more than $196 million in CDBG
funds. The State-level CDBG program alone has invested more than $33
million in projects around the State. As a result, 66,000 of my
constituents received improved water, sanitary and storm water systems;
small businesses were assisted in creating or retaining more than 1,000
jobs; and 313 homes in 27 communities were rehabilitated to address
health and safety issues.
Cities throughout Illinois also leverage CDBG funds for 2,500
affordable housing units, economic development in 70 communities, job
training and placement for nearly 900 low-income residents, and health
care services for more than 235,000 people.
And beyond being good policy, these programs are fiscally
responsible. For the State-level CDBG program, every dollar invested in
Illinois infrastructure and housing yielded over three additional
dollars in other private or public investment. That translates into
$109 million in additional dollars for communities across Illinois. If
only all government investments could yield that kind of return.
The other economic development programs this amendment would protect
are funding for the Section 8 Voucher Program and the Public Housing
Operating and Capital Funds. These two programs form the foundation of
housing support in this country for low-income individuals and
families.
Over a million households in Illinois spend more than 30 percent of
their income on rent. The Section 8 program addresses this problem by
making more than 76,000 Housing Choice Vouchers available to Illinois
residents each year. But that still leaves 56,000 households in
Illinois on Section 8 waiting lists, and the lists are getting longer.
Families waiting on Section 8 vouchers are either paying too much of
their income on housing--and too little on food and healthcare--or they
are joining the ranks of the more than 8 percent of Illinoisans who
have experienced homelessness at some point in their lives. This
situation is unacceptable, and this amendment begins to address it.
The amendment also shores up funding for the Public Housing Operating
and Capital Funds. Millions of Americans call public housing ``home,''
and more than 62 percent of public housing residents are families with
children or elderly households. The operating fund helps these
residents by making money available for building maintenance,
utilities, and the salaries of Public Housing Authority employees. And
the capital fund is a critical tool for maintaining housing
infrastructure. It helps local housing authorities modernize,
rehabilitate or replace aging units, thereby assuring that families
live in safe homes.
Communities and families across my State, and indeed across the
country, depend on these programs to help them move forward. As housing
stock and infrastructure continues to age, and voucher waiting lists
continue to grow, we cannot afford to take money away from the working
class folks who need it most. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am expressing my support of an amendment
to provide additional funding for the Community Development Block
Grants, CDBG, Program.
I share the concerns of many of my colleagues that some government
programs are overreaching and duplicative. I remain committed to goals
of limiting the size and scope of the Federal Government, but as we
fulfill this mission, Congress must work to ensure that we continue to
support programs that truly serve the needs of our constituents.
CDBG grants have benefited almost 130,000 people in South Carolina
alone. Further, over ten thousand jobs have been created through CDBG
projects. The CDBG program is one of HUD's most successful programs. It
should be held up as an example of local communities, coordinating with
their state, to using Federal dollars to foster growth and encourage
citizen participation.
In listening to community leaders across the state of South Carolina,
the CDBG program gives them flexibility to execute plans that
accurately address their situational needs, which in turn pay great
dividends for the community. To put it simply, the CDBG program works
and I am a proud to be an original cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, we are staring at an approaching disaster.
Again, we face a disaster that will largely affect the poor,
underprivileged, elderly, and handicapped. Again, it is a disaster that
will threaten lives and drive people into bankruptcy. But this time
Congress can take action to avoid this disaster. The question is will
we act?
Today the approaching disaster is not a hurricane but high energy
prices. Estimates are that the costs of heating the average home with
natural gas will skyrocket 70 percent over last year in the Midwest.
This is on top of the double-digit increases between 2003 and 2004.
Utility companies in the State of Wisconsin believe that the homeowners
will face heating bills in my State that are 40 percent higher than
last year. For working families, these dramatic

[[Page S11648]]

increases come on top of several months of increasing prices at the gas
pump.
These high prices will force many to make difficult choices about how
to spend their money, which bills to pay, and which to avoid. For many,
the thermostat will be turned down to dangerous levels, prescriptions
will go unfilled, and groceries will not be bought. For many elderly
folks, the choice to stay warm will be dangerous, even fatal. Many
disabled Americans will endanger their own health in an effort to keep
their bills low.
The Federal Low-Income Home Heating Assistance, or LIHEAP, can help
make some of these choices easier. LIHEAP is an extremely effective
program that allows low-income people around the country to avoid being
delinquent on their heating bills. The problem is that there has not
been a significant increase in the funding of this program for many
years, and now the rising prices have made the current funding levels
unacceptably low. In past years LIHEAP has only been able to help
roughly 17 percent of the eligible households, but now with rapidly
rising prices the $2 billion in funding will not even be able to meet
that level.
Adding $3.1 billion to LIHEAP will allow us to head off this
impending catastrophe. I have voted for this amendment before, and I am
glad to have the opportunity to support it again today. This money is
absolutely necessary to keep my constituents safe and warm through the
long Wisconsin winter. Without this money more working class people in
my State will face high utility bills this winter and utility shutoffs
come spring. Until Congress and the administration can figure out some
way to bring energy prices down, relieving the pressure on low-income
Americans should be a top priority.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, families all over this country are going to
pay more to heat their homes this winter than they ever have before.
The average heating bill may climb more than $600, and that comes on
top of a record increase last winter. This is going to be one of the
most expensive winters on record.
Last week, the Energy Information Administration, EIA, released its
Short-Term Energy Outlook. The report shows that families--particularly
low-income families and seniors--are facing an increasingly more
expensive heating season. According to the EIA, this winter,
residential space-heating expenditures are projected to increase for
all fuel types compared to last year. On average, households heating
primarily with natural gas are expected to spend about $350--48
percent--more this winter in fuel expenditures. Households heating
primarily with heating oil are expected to pay $378--32 percent--more
this winter. Households heating primarily with propane can expect to
pay $325--30 percent--more this winter. If our weather is colder than
usual, expenditures will be significantly higher.
Millions of families who simply need to heat their homes are going to
face prices they cannot afford. They will choose between medicine,
food, and warmth. It is a tough choice to make. The National Energy
Assistance Directors' Association, NEADA, just found that 32 percent of
families sacrificed medical care; 24 percent failed to make a rent or
mortgage payment; and 20 percent went without food for at least a day.
We must act now.
Just 2 weeks ago, I offered a bipartisan amendment with more than 20
cosponsors to fully fund the LIHEAP program at $5.1 billion. The
amendment had support from across the country. It was endorsed by
community groups, Governors, and national organizations, such as the
AARP, which knows rising energy prices are especially tough on seniors
living on a fixed income. And the amount of funding we are seeking is
equal to the amount authorized in the Energy bill the President has
signed into law. That amendment got 50 votes, enough to win, but in the
end it was defeated on procedural grounds.
Senators Reed, Collins, Kennedy, myself and others are back again
this week offering the amendment to the Transportation appropriations
bill. I understand that the leadership can block this amendment
procedurally like they did before. I hope they do not. It is
bipartisan. It is not our preference to attach it to the Transportation
appropriations bill, but it is our only option for now.
I do not want this issue to be political. And so it bothered me when
I read this week that the White House, which has opposed more funding
for LIHEAP, is worried not about high energy prices but about the
politics of high energy prices. To the White House this is a political
problem--not a problem for working families, seniors, the disabled, and
millions of others who will need help during this cold winter. A
Republican strategist who works closely with the White House has
reportedly called winter heating costs ``a sleeper issue.'' Well, it is
time the White House wakes up.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the bipartisan Reed-Collins-
Kerry amendment and ensure the total $5.1 billion in emergency funding
is available for LIHEAP.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I originally filed an amendment that would
prohibit the use of funds within this appropriations bill for the Debt
Indicator program. The Debt Indicator program is an acknowledgment from
the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, to tax preparers stating whether the
taxpayer's refund will be paid or intercepted for Government debts. I
continue to be outraged that the IRS provides the service of the Debt
Indicator program to predatory refund anticipation loan, RAL,
originators while cutting essential services to low-income taxpayers.
The Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC, is a refundable Federal income
tax credit that is of great benefit to low-income working individuals
and families. Many taxpayers who earn the EITC receive their tax
refunds through predatory RALs. The excessive interest rates and fees
charged on RALs are not justified because of the short duration of
these loans and the minimal risk of repayment that they present. The
IRS Debt Indicator program further reduces risk by assuring RAL lenders
that the taxpayer's refund be issued and thus the loan will be repaid.
The EITC was diminished by an estimated $1.75 billion in 1999. I am
concerned about the aggressive marketing of RALs in low-income
neighborhoods where EITC recipients often live. These loans take money
away from the day-to-day needs of lower-income families.
RALs carry little risk because the Debt Indicator program informs the
lender whether or not an applicant owes Federal, State taxes, child
support, student loans, or other government obligations. This service
assists the tax preparer in ascertaining applicant ability to obtain
their full refund. In 1995, the use of the debt indicator was suspended
because of massive fraud in e-filed returns with RALs. This suspension
caused RAL participation to decline. RAL prices were expected go down
as a result of the reinstatement of the debt indicator in 1999.
However, this has not occurred. The debt indicator should once again be
stopped. The IRS should not be facilitating these predatory loans that
allow tax preparers to reap outrageous profits by exploiting working
families.
H & R Block Chief Executive Officer Frank L. Salizzoni remarked, upon
the reinstatement of the debt indicator, that it ``is good news for
many of our clients who opt to receive the amount of their refund
through RALs. The IRS program will likely result in substantially lower
fees for this service.'' This has not happened. According to the
National Consumer Law Center's report entitled, ``Corporate Welfare for
the RAL Industry: The Debt Indicator, IRS Subsidy, and Tax Fraud,''
prices for RALs dipped in 2000, but since then have gone up beyond pre-
debt indicator levels. The report also points out that the ``main
effect of the debt indicator appears to be, not in lowering RAL fees,
but in higher RAL profits.''
The NCLC report also indicates that the reinstatement of the debt
indicator ``generates more fraud related to RALs, which the IRS must
spend enforcement dollars to address.''
The debt indicator serves only to facilitate the exploitation of
taxpayers. The reinstatement of the debt indicator has not helped
consumers to access cheaper RALs nor has it reduced RAL related fraud.
If the debt indicator is removed, then the loans become riskier and the
tax preparers may not aggressively market them among EITC filers. The
IRS should not be aiding efforts that take the earned benefits away
from low-income families.

[[Page S11649]]

RALs are extremely short term loans that unnecessarily diminish the
EITC. There are alternatives to speeding up refunds such as filing
electronically or having the refund directly deposited into a bank or
credit union account. Using these methods, taxpayers can receive their
returns in about 7 to 10 days without paying the high fees associated
with RALs.
Instead of offering my amendment to prevent the use of funds for the
DI, I chose to modify my amendment to have the Internal Revenue
Service, along with the National Taxpayer Advocate, study the use of
the debt indicator, the debt collection offset practice, and
recommendations that could reduce the amount of time required to
deliver tax refunds. In addition, the report shall study whether the
debt indicator facilitates the use of RALs, evaluate alternatives to
RALs, and examine the feasibility of debit cards being used to
distribute refunds.
I look forward to reviewing the results of the study. I welcome the
opportunity to work with the Internal Revenue Service, the National
Taxpayer Advocate, and my colleagues to reduce the use of RALs and to
expand access to alternative methods of obtaining timely tax refunds. I
want to thank Senator Bond and Senator Murray for working with me to
incorporate this language into the legislation and hope it will be
maintained in the conference report through conference negotiations
with the other body.
I ask unanimous consent to print the above-referenced report in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the National Consumer Law Center, June, 2005]

Corporate Welfare for the RAL Industry: The Debt Indicator, IRS
Subsidy, and Tax Fraud

(By Chi Chi Wu)

Executive Summary

The debt indicator is an acknowledgement from the IRS
telling tax preparers whether a taxpayer's refund will be
paid versus intercepted for government debts. The debt
indicator has proven to be a substantial benefit to the
refund anticipation loan (RAL) industry, as it about doubles
the number of RALs made by the industry.
The debt indicator has helped boost RAL profitability. The
IRS terminated the debt indicator in 1994 due to RAL fraud,
and the price of RALs rose significantly, from $29-$35 to
$29-$89. The IRS reinstated the debt indicator in 1999 partly
to lower RAL prices. RAL prices dipped for a year in 2000,
but have gone back up to pre-indicator levels. Meanwhile, the
amount of RAL fraud has multiplied since the debt indicator
was reinstated.
The debt indicator raises significant privacy issues. It is
unclear whether taxpayers realize they are allowing the IRS
to provide sensitive personal information to tax preparers
about debts owed to the federal government, such as child
support and student loan debts.

A. History of the Debt Indicator

The debt indicator is a service provided by the Internal
Revenue Service that screens electronically filed tax returns
for any claims against a taxpayer's refund. The debt
indicator informs the preparer whether a taxpayer's full
refund amount will be paid and not offset by other
obligations collectible by the federal government, such as
prior tax debt, child support arrears, or delinquent student
loan debt.
When the IRS first provided the debt indicator in the early
1990s, it was called the ``direct deposit indicator.'' In
1994, the IRS terminated the debt indicator due to concerns
over massive fraud in e-filed returns that involved refund
anticipation loans (RALs). The elimination of the debt
indicator elicited ``screams of rage'' by the RAL industry.
In addition to cutting into their profits, the RAL industry
claimed there would be multitudes of disappointed clients who
could not get their RALs. Two of the four major RAL lenders,
Mellon Bank and Greenwood Trust, stopped making RALs and left
the market.
Over the next few years, the RAL industry pressed for
reinstatement of the debt indicator. Then, in 1998, Congress
imposed a goal on the IRS to have 80 percent of returns
electronically filed. Not coincidentally, a year later, the
IRS announced it was re-instating the Debt Indicator.
However, note that the Congressional 80 percent e-file goal
is not mandatory, but merely exhortatory, in that the
statutory language actually states ``it should be the goal of
the Internal Revenue Service to have at least 80 percent of
all such returns filed electronically by the year 2007.''
The first year of the reinstatement of the debt indicator
was a pilot. Subsequently, the IRS decided to make the debt
indicator permanent and provide it for all e-filed returns,
not just returns associated with a RAL application.

B. The Debt Indicator Increases RAL Volume

The debt indicator has had a dramatic effect on the volume
of RALs and electronically filed returns. In 1994, prior to
the elimination of the debt indicator, the number of RALs had
risen to 9.5 million. After the termination of the debt
indicator, RAL volume dropped and by 1999, the number of RALs
had fallen to 6 million. When the debt indicator was
reinstated effective the 2000 tax season, the number of RALs
rose sharply to 10.8 million. The number of RALs continued to
increase to 12.1 million in 2001 and 12.7 million in 2002.
Data from individual companies in the RAL industry showed
similar trends. In 1994, the nation's largest commercial
preparation chain, H&R Block, processed 5.5 million RAL
applications. After the debt indicator was eliminated, that
number dropped to less than half, 2.35 million in 1995. By
1999, that number was at 2.8 million. When the debt indicator
was reinstated, RAL volume rose to 4.8 million for Block.

(In millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block #
Year Overall # of RAL
of RALs applications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994......................................... 9.5 5.5
1995......................................... NA 2.3
1996......................................... ........... 2.4
1997......................................... ........... 2.6
1998......................................... ........... 2.4
1999......................................... 6 2.8
2000......................................... 10.8 4.8
2001......................................... 12.1 4.5
2002......................................... 12.7 5.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other industry player reported similar trends. In 1994, all
but 10,630 of the returns prepared by Jackson Hewitt were
associated with RALs. After the debt indicator was dropped,
the number of returns without RALs at Jackson Hewitt rose to
138,000 by late February 1995. RAL lender Santa Barbara Bank
& Trust reported a sharp increase in loans versus non-loan
refund anticipation checks following reinstatement of the
debt indicator.
The debt indicator also had similar effects on the volume
of electronically-filed returns in general. The IRS reported
there were 14 million e-filed returns in 1994, but only 12
million in 1995. H&R Block reported that its e-filed returns
declined 22 percent in 1995. This decrease reflects the close
link between e-filed returns and RALs that existed in the
mid-1990s.
When the IRS reinstated the debt indicator, it publicly
acknowledged that it expected the program to produce 2
million more e-filed returns than if it were not reinstated.
With the close link between e-filing and RALs, the IRS surely
must have been aware that there would be a corresponding
increase in the number of RALs. Indeed, RAL issuers predicted
that the reinstatement of the debt indicator would increase
RAL demand by 50 percent. These predictions proved correct,
as Block alone nearly doubled its RAL volume and made 2
million more loans (and thus e-filed returns) in 2000. Thus,
much of the expected increase in e-filed returns was actually
an increase in the number of RALs.

C. The Debt Indicator and RAL Approval Rates: The IRS Security Blanket

The debt indicator promotes RALs by assuring lenders that
the taxpayer's refund will be issued and thus the loan will
be repaid. For the pre-1995 debt indicator, if the indicator
came back showing there was no federal offset, there was an
over 99 percent chance the IRS would issue the refund. At
that time, the approval rate for RALs was 92 percent--and all
but 0.5 percent of loan denials were turned down based on the
debt indicator. As one IRS employee stated, the debt
indicator was a ``federally supplied security blanket'' and
``we were doing their credit check for them.''
The elimination of the debt indicator in 1995 significantly
lowered RAL approval rates. The approval rate for Beneficial
(which became Household) dropped from 92 percent to 78
percent. This 78 percent rate includes partial approvals; the
approval rate for a RAL of the taxpayer's full refund was
only 40-50 percent. Banc One's approval rate for RALs also
dropped by 25-30 percent. Even with the decrease in approval
rates, Beneficial ended up with significant losses on RALs in
1995.
With the reinstatement of the debt indicator, RAL approval
rates appear to be back around 90 percent. Thus, the debt
indicator helps increase RAL approval rates and RAL profits.
Of course, this service is not without its cost. One question
is how much does it cost IRS to provide the debt indicator?
While we do not have definitive information, note that in
1994, the IRS suggested imposing a fee for the debt indicator
of $8 per return.

D. Reinstatement of the Debt Indicator Has Not Lowered RAL Fees

The existence of the debt indicator has had an impact on
RAL fees as well, although in the end it appears to be more
of a profitability boost for RAL lenders. Prior to the
elimination of the debt indicator, the loan fee for RALs was
approximately $29 to $35. The largest RAL lender, Beneficial,
charged a flat fee of $29 per RAL. Bank One charged a flat
fee of $31, while the lender for Jackson Hewitt charged $29
to $35.
After the debt indicator was eliminated, RAL fees jumped
dramatically. Beneficial began using a tiered fee structure,
with fees of $29 to $89, depending on the size of the loan.
Banc One began charging $41 to $69 and Jackson Hewitt charged
$69 to $100. By 1999, Beneficial loans made through H&R Block
cost $40 to $90.
One of the benefits that the IRS and industry touted for
reinstating the debt indicator

[[Page S11650]]

was lower RAL fees. In fact, lower RAL fees constituted one
of four measures by which the success of the pilot program
for reinstatement was to be judged. The IRS Assistant
Commissioner for Electronic Tax Administration, Bob Barr,
threatened to end the debt indicator if RAL prices did not
decrease. Industry expressed its agreement that fees would
decrease, with one RAL issuer claimed that its fees would be
reduced 30 to 40 percent.
When the debt indicator was reinstated, RAL fees did go
down. However, this decrease turned out to be temporary. For
example, RAL fees at H&R Block and Household Bank dropped for
one year, but then shot back to pre-Debt Indicator levels.
After the IRS reinstated the debt indicator, Household and
Block's fees went from $40-$90 to $20-$60 for the 2000 tax
season. Both the IRS and industry touted this decrease in RAL
fees. However, fees went back up in 2001, with Block/
Household charging $30 to $87--close to the fees charged
prior to reinstatement of the debt indicator.
Also, part of the decrease in RAL fees in 2000 occurred
because Block offered a ``no fee'' RAL in six markets,
including entire state of California. However, Block and
Beneficial appear not to have offered this ``no fee RAL''
after the 2000 tax season. One reason was probably that the
``no fee RAL'' program was subject of a lawsuit for deception
by a competitor.
RAL fees never went down again after 2001, but RAL profits
have increased. The increase in RAL fees from 2000 to 2001
for H&R Block/Beneficial resulted in Block's RAL revenues
increasing by 49 percent from 2000 to 2001. Most of the
revenue increase appears to be the result of the higher RAL
fees, because per-RAL-revenue rose by 43.9 percent, while
sales volume only increased by 2.7 percent.
Thus, the main effect of the debt indicator appears to be,
not in lowering RAL fees, but in higher RAL profits. If the
reinstatement of the debt indicator had really lowered RAL
fees back to pre-1995 prices, a RAL would only cost a flat
fee of $37.53 or $45.91 in 2005 (the equivalent of $29 or $35
in 1994 adjusted for inflation). Instead, they currently cost
about $35 to $115, with Block and its lending partner
charging a fee of $100 for RALs for the average refund of
slightly over $2,000. These fees translate into effective
annual interest rates (APR) ranging from about 40 percent to
over 700 percent.

(In dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAL Price--Beneficial/ RAL Price--Jackson
Year Household & Block RAL price--Bank One Hewitt
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994................................ $29....................... $31................... $29 to 35
1995................................ 29 to 89.................. 41 to 69.............. 69 to 100
1996................................ 29 to 89..................
1997................................ 40 to 90..................
1998................................ 40 to 90..................
1999................................ 40 to 90.................. ...................... 49 to 80
2000................................ 20 to 60..................
2001................................ 30 to 87..................
2002................................ 30 to 90.................. 34 to 87..............
2003................................ 30 to 90.................. 34 to 89.............. 34 to 89
2004................................ 30 to 100................. 34 to 89.............. 29 to 94 (& 5 for
EITC)
2005................................ 30 to 110................. 34 to 99.............. 29 to 99 (& 5 for
EITC)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It appears the debt indicator is an IRS subsidy that
increases profits for the RAL industry. The debt indicator
has made each individual RAL more profitable, encouraging RAL
lenders to aggressively promote RALs and increase RAL volume.

E. Privacy Issues

In addition to being a taxpayer-funded subsidy to the RAL
industry, the debt indicator program raises significant
privacy concerns. In fact, the IRS may be violating its own
privacy law in providing the service to tax preparers. The
IRS Code contains broad and strong privacy protections for
taxpayer information. Section 6103 of the IRS Code states
that all ``[r]eturn and return information shall be
confidential'' and shall not be disclosed. ``Return
information'' is broadly defined and includes the taxpayer's
``nature, source, or amount of his . . . liabilities . . .''
Therefore, information as to whether a taxpayer is subject to
a refund offset would be information about the nature or
amount of a taxpayer's liabilities.
It would seem that the information disclosed by the IRS to
a RAL provider would constitute a violation of the IRS
privacy statute, unless there is an exemption. One possible
exemption would be the provision that allows the IRS to
disclose return information with a taxpayer's consent.
However, the IRS regulations set forth clear and definite
requirements for such consent, including that the consent be
set forth in a separate written document pertaining to the
disclosure, and that the document reference the particular
data item of return information to be disclosed.
A document that conceivably grants such consent is IRS Form
8453, which is used to authenticate an e-filed return. Yet
the consent to disclose information in Form 8453 is not a
separate, stand-alone document pertaining solely to the
disclosure. Furthermore, the consent is buried in small print
inadequate to clearly inform taxpayers that they are
permitting the IRS to disclose personal financial information
to their tax preparers about whether they owe a child support
or student loan debt.
Another exemption allows the IRS to send an acknowledgement
to an e-file provider without the need for a stand-alone
consent form, along with ``such other information as the
[IRS] determines is necessary to the operation of the
electronic filing program.'' Because RALs increase the number
of e-filed returns, the IRS may argue that this language
permits it to send the debt indicator in the e-file
acknowledgement (as it currently does) without a stand-alone
consent form. However, while it increases the number of e-
filed returns, that is not a factor that is ``necessary'' to
the operation of the e-file program.
Even if IRS can legally provide the debt indicator, there
still remain significant privacy issues regarding the
program. With the debt indicator, the IRS is providing an
indicator that communicates personal and potentially
embarrassing financial tax information to the tax preparer.
Indeed, when the IRS proposed requiring a similar indicator
on tax returns filed through the Free File Alliance,
commercial preparers objected strongly, citing privacy
concerns. National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson noted
ironically ``These businesses already rely heavily on returns
flagged with an indicator to tell them that this return has
other outstanding refund offsets'' and ``Let's use the same
argument to say the debt indicator should be eliminated.''
Given the lack of prominence of the consent in Form 8453,
it is unclear whether most taxpayers actually realize they
are giving permission for IRS to reveal the presence of
government debts to their preparer. It is even unclear
whether they know about the debt indicator itself or
understand what it is.

F. Re-Emergence of Fraud

The debt indicator represents an IRS subsidy in another
respect, that is, in the amount of fraud it promotes and the
taxpayer dollars spent combating that fraud. As discussed
above, the IRS dropped the debt indicator in 1994 due to
concerns over mounting fraud in refund claims. IRS data had
indicated that 92 percent of fraudulent returns filed
electronically involved RALs. It was believed that the debt
indicator led to tax fraud because of its role in supporting
RALs, whose quick turnaround period makes fraud detection
difficult.
The elimination of the debt indicator seems to have had its
intended effect. According to the Assistant Attorney General
in charge of the Tax Division at the Department of Justice,
eliminating the debt indicator, along with other fraud
prevention measures, successfully reduced the number of
fraudulent claims.
When IRS reinstated the debt indicator in 1999, it
attempted to address the fraud issue by requiring tax
preparers to institute fraud prevention measures. The first
year of the debt indicator was termed a pilot, and only
certain tax preparers who entered into memoranda of agreement
with the IRS were eligible to receive the debt indicator. As
a condition of the agreement, tax preparers were required to
actively screen returns for potential fraud and abuse, using
measure such as requiring two valid forms of identification
and verifying questionable W-2s. However, after the 2000 tax
season, the debt indicator is no longer a pilot and is
provided to all taxpayers who e-file. Thus, it is unclear
whether these fraud prevention measures are still mandatory.
Whether or not these fraud prevention measures are in
effect, fraud is still a significant issue with respect to
RALs. Gary Bell, Director of the IRS Criminal Investigation
Division's Refund Crimes Unit, noted that currently 80
percent of fraudulent e-filed returns are tied to a RAL or
other refund financial product. Furthermore, fraud appears to
have increased since the debt indicator was reinstated. Bell
noted that e-file fraud had increased by more than 1,400
percent since 1999 (when the debt indicator was reinstated),
and that approximately 1 in every 1,200 e-filed returns was
phony, compared with a rate of about 1 in every 5,000 four
years ago.
The Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network (FinCEN) has raised similar concerns about the role
of RALs in promoting tax fraud. FinCEN issued a warning to
banks in August 2004, regarding RAL fraud. In this report,
FinCEN also noted that RAL fraud had multiplied between 2000
and 2003. FinCEN noted that ``To make this type of loan
appealing to the public, funds are made immediately
available, leaving little time for the lender to perform due
diligence to prevent fraud.'' As one commentator noted, the
IRS has a fraud detection system, but ``it may take the IRS
three or more weeks to process the return, especially in the
peak of the spring filing season. Meanwhile, the RAL lenders
have processed the loan within a couple of days of the return
being filed, the money is in the hands of the bad guys, and
they can disappear without a trace, . . . .''

G. Conclusion

As it did in 1994, the IRS should terminate the debt
indicator. The program represents a form of corporate welfare
and government subsidy of an industry already rolling in
profits from making usurious loans to low-income taxpayers.
It has increased profits for the RAL industry, while
resulting in no permanent price decreases for consumers. Not
only does the RAL industry siphon off hundreds of millions of
tax dollars by skimming the Earned Income Tax Credit from
working poor families, the IRS abets this drain and makes it
more profitable by conducting part of the RAL lenders' credit
checks using taxpayer-funded resources. Furthermore, the debt
indicator represents even more of a subsidy, in that it
generates more fraud related to RALs, which the IRS must
spend enforcement dollars to address.

[[Page S11651]]

Mr. DODD. Mr President, I speak on the subject of full funding for
the payments to State governments in order to comply with the
requirements mandated on January 1, 2006, under the Help America Vote
Act of 2002, HAVA.
On October 16, 2002, over 3 years ago, the Senate overwhelmingly
adopted the conference report for this bipartisan landmark legislation
by a vote of 98-2. The House of Representatives adopted the conference
report by a vote of 357-48 on October 10, 2002. President Bush signed
HAVA into law on Oct. 29, 2002. At the White House signing ceremony,
surrounded by a bipartisan group of congressional members, President
Bush said in a brief speech:

When problems arise in the administration of elections, we
have a responsibility to fix them. . . . Every registered
voter deserves to have confidence that the system is fair and
elections are honest, that every vote is recorded and that
the rules are consistently applied. The legislation I sign
today will add to the nation's confidence.

I agree with the President. We must follow the American tradition of
fixing problems that occur in our national elections system. HAVA began
a new era in election law--one where the Federal Government works with
State and local governments, in conjunction with civil rights, voting
rights and disability organizations, to conduct fair, free and
transparent elections in our Nation. HAVA is our colective promise to
the American people to fix the problems in our Federal elections. After
the 2000 November elections, Americans recognized that real election
reform changes must be made to ensure the integrity and security of our
democracy. Congress made a commitment to the States, and to the voters
of this Nation, that we would be a full partner in the conduct of
Federal elections. Congress accomplished much with the passage of HAVA;
but two years later in the November 2004 general election, some voters
faced both old barriers to ballot access that HAVA promised to remove
and new ones. We can do better and we must do better. Full funding of
HAVA will ensure America does better in conducting Federal elections by
ensuring both ballot access and ballot integrity.
Building democracy and freedom for every American must begin at home
in the United States. In the wake of the October 15, 2005 province-by-
province election on the Constitution in Iraq, it is critical that
Americans take stock of our own decentralized elections systems. In
light of the continuing barriers and irregularities that Americans
faced at polling places across this Nation in 2004, we cannot fail to
fully fund HAVA to fix these problems. Our ability to successfully do
so goes directly to ensuring the integrity of elections and ensuring
the confidence of the American people in the final results of those
elections. America's ability to promote free societies abroad is
inextricably linked to our ability to expand and secure transparent
elections at home. At a time when we are spending billions of dollars
to ensure the spread of democracy across the globe, we must ensure the
primary right to vote for all eligible voters, regardless of race,
ethnicity, age, disability, or resources.
For the first time in our Nation's history, Congress acknowledged the
responsibility of the Federal Government to provide leadership and
funding to States and local governments in the administration of
Federal elections. First, Congress codified the Federal role in HAVA by
entering into a partnership with States to restore the public's
confidence in the final results of Federal elections and to ensure that
every eligible American had an equal opportunity to cast a vote and
have that vote counted. Next, Congress required States to conduct
Federal elections according to minimum Federal requirements for voting
system standards, provisional balloting and Statewide voter
registration lists, including new requirements to prevent voter fraud.
Finally, Congress refused to impose unfunded mandate on States and
authorize nearly $4 billion in payments to States over 3 fiscal years
to implememt the HAVA requirements and disability access grants and
services.
January 1, 2006, is the effective date for two of the most important
Federal requirements mandated by HAVA: the voluntary voting system
standards and the Statewide computerized voter registration list. Both
requirements are expected to make it easier to vote and harder to cheat
by providing an equal opportunity for every eligible voter to cast a
vote and have that vote counted, as well as providing important
antifraud requirements to protect and preserve the integrity of our
decentralized elections systems. In order to comply with HAVA, States
must timely implement both requirements, which are expected to cost
millions in both Federal dollars for the 95 percent portion and State
dollars for the 5 percent portion of the expenditures.
To date, the President's budget, for the second year in a row, while
providing millions in funding for democratic elections in foreign
countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, assumes no funding for
requirements or disability access payments to the States.
Congress also failed to fully fund HAVA 2 years in a row. HAVA is
underfunded by a total of $822 million. In addition to the $600 million
authorized in fiscal year 2005, but not appropriated Congress
underfunded HAVA by $222 million over the last 3 fiscal years, from
fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2005. As a result, HAVA currently has a
total funding shortfall of $822 million in federal funds, $727 million
for election administration requirements and $95 million for disability
grant payments.
The absence of the $727 million for requirements payments will likely
impede the Statewide implementation of the two most critical election
reforms, the voting system standards and the Statewide voter
registration lists in time for the 2006 congressional elections.
No civil right is more fundamental to the vitality and endurance of a
democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people, than the
people's right to vote. HAVA has been acknowledged as the ``first civil
rights law of the 21st century.'' Full funding of HAVA enjoys the
support of a broad coalition of organizations representing the civil
rights communities, voting rights groups, disabilities groups, and
State and local governments, spearheaded by the Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights and the National Association of Secretaries of State.
I am grateful to LCCR and NASS for their consistent leadership in
ensuring that Congress fulfills our commitment to fully fund the HAVA
reforms. I applaud the nonpartisan work of the LCCR/NASS Coalition and
look forward to continuing to work with them to see this commitment
come to fruition.
The organizations have submitted a letter, dated October 20, 2005, in
support of full funding in the amount of $727 million for HAVA
implementation in fiscal year 2006. The letter, and I quote, states
that:

The states and localities need the remaining authorized
funding to implement the requirements of HAVA and the federal
EAC needs to be fully funded to carry out its
responsibilities as well.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record
following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1)
Mr. DODD. If we fail to honor commitment now and only appropriate
partial funding, we may jeopardize the ability of the States to
implement these historic and comprehensive election reforms. We will
also miss an opportunity to ensure the integrity and security of
Federal elections and the confidence of the American people in the
final results of those elections.
While I will not offer an amendment today to provide for this
additional funding, I am serving notice that as the States proceed to
complete implementation of the HAVA requirements, I will continue to
monitor this situation and as the needs of the States become more
clear, I will come back to my colleagues for prompt action to ensure
that the States do not face an unfunded mandate.

Exhibit 1

Make Election Reform a Reality--Fully Fund the Help America Vote Act

October 20, 2005.
Dear Senators: We, the undersigned organizations, urge you
to support full funding for the Help America Vote Act of 2002
(HAVA) and include $727 million in the Transportation,
Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the
District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies

[[Page S11652]]

Appropriations Act of 2006. This figure represents the
authorized HAVA funds for federal requirements that remain
unappropriated.
HAVA, which passed with overwhelming bipartisan support,
includes an important list of reforms that states must
implement for federal elections. State and local governments
have been working on such reforms as improving disability
access to polling places, updating voting equipment,
implementing new provisional balloting procedures, developing
and implementing a new statewide voter registration database
system, training poll workers and educating voters on new
procedures and new equipment.
To help state and local governments pay for these reforms,
HAVA authorized $3.9 billion over three fiscal years. To
date, Congress has generously appropriated $3 billion between
FY03 and FY04. Unfortunately, while HAVA authorized funding
for states for FY05, none was appropriated. The states and
localities need the remaining authorized funding to implement
the requirements of HAVA, and the federal EAC needs to be
fully funded to carry out its responsibilities as well.
States and localities are laboring to implement the
requirements of HAVA based on a federal commitment that HAVA
would not be an unfunded mandate. State officials have
incorporated the federal amounts Congress promised when
developing their HAVA implementation budgets and plans.
Without the full federal funding, state and local governments
will encounter serious fiscal shortfalls and will not be able
to afford complete implementation of important HAVA mandates.
According to a state survey, lack of federal funding for HAVA
implementation will result in many states scaling back their
voter and poll worker education initiatives and on voting
equipment purchase plans, both of which are vital components
to making every vote count in America.
We are thankful that you have seen the importance of
funding the work of the Election Assistance Commission in
FY06. States, localities and civic organizations look forward
to the work products from the EAC that will aid them in their
implementation of HAVA i.e., the voting system standards, the
statewide database guidance, and the studies on provisional
voting, voter education, poll worker training, and voter
fraud and voter intimidation.
We thank you for your support of funding for the Help
America Vote Act, and we look forward to working with you on
this critical issue. Should you have any questions, please
contact Leslie Reynolds of the National Association of
Secretaries of State or Rob Randhava of the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights, or any of the individual
organizations listed below.
Sincerely,
Organizations Representing State and Local Election Officials
Council of State Governments
Election Center
International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election
Officials and Treasurers
National Association of Counties
National Association of County Recorders, Election
Officials and Clerks
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed
Officials (NALEO) Educational Fund
National Association of Secretaries of State
National Conference of State Legislatures
Civil and Disability Rights Organizations
Alliance for Retired Americans
American Association of People with Disabilities
American Federation of Labor--Congress of Industrial
Organizations
Americans for Democratic Action
APIA Vote
Asian American Justice Center
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
Common Cause
FairVote--The Center for Voting and Democracy
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
League of Women Voters of the United States
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
National Council of La Raza
National Disability Rights Network
National Federation of the Blind
National Voting Rights Institute
Project Vote
The Arc of the United States
United Cerebral Palsy
United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries
USAction
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Today the Senate adopted unanimously the
Nelson-Smith amendment which puts the Senate on record supporting the
placement of al-Manar on the Specially Designated Global Terrorist
list. Al-Manar is a global satellite television operation dedicated to
broadcasting inflammatory and radical Islamic propaganda.
Al-Manar, a television station funded by Hezbollah, promotes hatred,
anti-Semitism, and glorifies suicide bombing. The actions of this
network are truly appalling and frightening.
Viewed via satellite throughout the Muslim world, al-Manar promotes
suicide attacks against American and Israeli targets and encourages
Iraqi insurgents to attack U.S. troops. It includes particularly
shocking children's programming, aimed at shaping the beliefs and
values of the next generation of Muslim youth.
The station broadcasts programs that spread anti-Semitic material,
perpetuating myths about Jewish history, which resulted in the
station's recent ban from French airwaves. This is not a media outlet
sharing the news; it is a propaganda tool used by a terrorist
organization to spread its message of violence and hatred.
The U.S. Government placed al-Manar on the Terror Exclusion List
which prevents persons associated with the channel from traveling to
the U.S. There is a much stricter list, the Specially Designated Global
Terrorist list, which allows much harsher penalties, including
financial sanctions against individuals, groups, and banks that do
business with al-Manar. So far, the Government has not placed al-Manar
on this list.
The case is clear and obvious: al-Manar is supporting and promoting
terrorism. This warrants placement on the list of Specially Designated
Global Terrorists.
In August, 51 Senators sent a letter to the President, urging him to
place al-Manar on the Specially Designated Global Terrorist list. I ask
unanimous consent that a copy of the letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, August 2, 2005.
President George W. Bush,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear President Bush: We write to urge you to place al-
Manar, the official television station of Hezbollah on the
Treasury Department's Specially Designated Global Terrorist
Entity list (SDGT) and to aggressively target the
organizations that aid in its broadcast. Hezbollah, a known
terrorist organization, funds al-Manar, calling it a `station
of resistance.' Viewed via satellite throughout the Muslim
world, al-Manar promotes suicide attacks against American and
Israeli targets and encourages Iraqi insurgents to attack
U.S. troops.
Al-Manar is a mouthpiece of hatred and violence. In
addition, the station broadcasts programs that spread anti-
Semitic material, perpetuating myths about Jewish history,
which resulted in the station's recent ban from French
airwaves. This is not a media outlet sharing the news; it is
a propaganda tool used by a terrorist organization to spread
its message of violence and hatred.
We welcome your December 2004 decision to place al-Manar on
the Terror Exclusion List (TEL), which allows the U.S.
Government to deport or deny admission to aliens involved
with al-Manar's support or endorsement of terrorist
activities. But further acknowledgment of al-Manar's role in
spreading violence and hatred is warranted and should be
shown through its placement on the SDGT list. This step would
allow the U.S. government to sanction foreign banks and
freeze the financial assets of individuals or organizations
that associate with the station. This would cause many
telecommunications corporations and financial institutions to
reconsider their decision to work with al-Manar.
The United States must use all available means to stop the
transmission of al-Manar's programs. Placing al-Manar and the
Lebanese Communications Group S.A.L., its parent company, on
the SDGT will send a clear message that the United States is
serious about confronting any organization that supports the
violence carried out by terrorist groups.
We strongly support the global war on terrorism and
continuing efforts to stop terrorists wherever they may be.
Stopping al-Manar's broadcast of hatred and violence is an
integral part of the global war on terrorism. Thank you for
your time and consideration. We look forward to your
response.
Sincerely,
Gordon Smith, Evan Bayh, John F. Kerry, Mark Dayton,
Mitch McConnell, Richard Durbin, Wayne Allard, Frank
Lautenberg, Charles Schumer, Bill Nelson, Hillary
Rodham Clinton, George Allen, Jon Kyl, Conrad Burns,
Ron Wyden, Byron L. Dorgan, Norm Coleman, Mel Martinez,
Dianne Feinstein, John Corzine, Russell D. Feingold,
Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer,
Deborah Stabenow, Olympia Snowe, Herb Kohl, Barbara A.
Mikulski, David Vitter, Ken Salazar, Jack Reed, Lisa
Murkowski, Richard Shelby, Tim Johnson, Arlen Specter,
Johnny Isakson, Tom Coburn, Susan Collins, Sam
Brownback, John Ensign, James M. Talent, Jeff Sessions,
Orrin Hatch, Rick Santorum, Kent Conrad, Mary L.
Landrieu, Daniel K. Akaka, Chuck E. Grassley, Jeff
Bingaman, Saxby Chambliss.

[[Page S11653]]

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Today, the entire Senate is on record. This
amendment affirms the Senate's concerns over the free dissemination of
radical and violent ideology and calls on the administration to add al-
Manar to the Specially Designated Global Terrorist list.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, are there any others? I believe we have now
covered all of the amendments we have agreed to accept. I think it is
time to go to third reading, and I ask for the yeas and nays on final
passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on the engrossment of the amendments and third
reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: The
Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from New Hampshire
(Mr. Sununu).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
Inouye); and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 1, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 264 Leg.]

YEAS--93

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--1

Bayh

NOT VOTING--6

Baucus
Corzine
Inouye
McCain
Schumer
Sununu
The bill (H.R. 3058), as amended, was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate insist upon its
amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be
authorized to appoint conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wanted to take a minute, as we finish
this bill, to again thank my colleague from Missouri for his tremendous
work on this bill. I know he has been under personal duress today and
had a late night last night, but his team won despite what it appears
to be. I think he has done a tremendous job and I wish to thank him.
I also wish to thank all of the majority staff, John Kamarck Paul
Doerrer, Cheh Kim, Lula Edwards, Josh Manley, and Matt McCardle for
their help in working with us for many months along the way, and also
our minority staff, Peter Rogoff, Kate Hallahan, Diana Hamilton, Bill
Simpson, Meaghan McCarthy, as well as my personal staff, especially
Casey Sixkiller. I also want to thank all of the floor staff who have
been diligent in working with us as we have moved this bill through and
again thanks to my colleague from Missouri for his tremendous work on
this bill.
Mr. BOND. I continue to be grateful for the cooperation of the
Senator from Washington and her staff. I was going to go down the list
of the staff members on both sides. I will incorporate by reference and
say once again our staff worked very well together. This is the first
time anybody had dealt with a TTHUD bill. It has many interesting
moving parts, and some of them move in different directions at the same
time. We could not have done it without the tremendous assistance of
all of the staff, plus the floor staff.
I want to say a special thanks to Lula Davis, Dave Schiappa, and all
the people in front here for their unfailing willingness to sit and
help us through all of these things. This was more exciting than I
wanted it to be, and their help enabled us to get through.
We would also like to put in a special thanks to Mike Solon in the
Whip's office for helping us work on a number of things and both the
Appropriations Committee leaders, Chairman Cochran and Senator Byrd.
Also, the majority leader and minority leader were a great help.
So we are most grateful, and we are delighted to be out of the way
now, and we will go to conference. We look forward to coming back with
perhaps an even better process and a good product.

____________________