[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 50 (Friday, April 6, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3638-S3650]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL 
                            YEARS 2001--2011

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of H. Con. Res. 83, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 83) establishing the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2002, revising the congressional budget for the 
     United States Government for fiscal year 2001, and setting 
     forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 
     2003 through 2011.)

  Pending:

       Domenici amendment No. 170, in the nature of a substitute.
       Motion to reconsider the vote by which Harkin amendment No. 
     185 (to amendment No. 170) was agreed to.
       Wellstone amendment No. 269 (to amendment No. 170) to 
     increase discretionary funding for veterans' medical care by 
     $1.718 billion in 2002 and each year thereafter to ensure 
     that veterans have access to quality medical care.


                           Amendment No. 269

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be 2 minutes for debate on the Wellstone amendment No. 269.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Colleagues, this amendment adds $1.7 billion to the 
veterans' health care budget over the next 10 years. The President's 
budget proposal is a terrible proposal; it leaves so many gaps, there 
is no question about it. This amendment has the support of AMVETS, VFW, 
Paralyzed Veterans, Disabled American Veterans, and many colleagues 
have signed on to it. I especially thank Senator Johnson and Senator 
Rockefeller.
  The problem is between $900 million of medical inflation and then the 
commitment we made to elderly veterans with the Millennium Program and 
the commitment for mental health services, hepatitis C, and the 
commitment to treat veterans who have no health care coverage, this is 
totally inadequate.
  This is not a game. If we are committed to veterans, you are going to 
vote for this amendment. This really does deal with some of the unmet 
needs. There are amendments that can come in with less funding, but 
this is the only way we say thank you to veterans. It is extremely 
important. I can't think of any more important vote from the point of 
view of working with a very, very important group of people.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks time?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute on this side to 
respond to the comments of the proponent of the underlying amendment.


                           Amendment No. 351

  Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 351.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

      (Purpose: Increase Veterans discretionary spending for FY02)

       On page 36, line 6, increase the amount by $967,000,000.
       On page 36, line 7, increase the amount by $967,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $967,000,000.
       On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $967,000,000.
       On page 48, line 8, increase the amount by $967,000,000.
       On page 48, line 9, increase the amount by $967,000,000.

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this underlying amendment, as others before 
and after, chips away at the tax relief package proposed by the 
President. All citizens, including our veterans, deserve tax relief. 
This amendment that I have just offered on behalf of Senator Domenici 
would increase veterans' discretionary spending for the coming year by 
almost $2 billion, including a $1.7 billion increase for medical care. 
This is the highest increase ever; this is the first increase in recent 
years.
  Let me make a point that the President's budget request for VA is an 
excellent one. This body should recall from previous years that the 
prior administration proposed to freeze veterans' medical care with no 
increase at all.
  This amendment also provides the highest increase ever for the 
Veterans' Benefit Administration, where a backlog of claims continues 
to mount. This is a problem that the prior administration refused to 
address.
  Finally, this amendment does not assume spending beyond fiscal year 
2002 because VA has a new administration, new management, and a massive 
strategic review.
  I urge support of the second-degree amendment.


                           Amendment No. 269

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President and colleagues, please follow the 
arithmetic. The President's budget is opposed by so many veterans 
organizations.
  With $1 billion for the whole VA budget, medical inflation alone is 
$900 million. We passed a millennium bill with a commitment to elderly 
veterans with another $100 million. We talk about mental health 
services, and another $100 million for treating veterans with hepatitis 
C. That provides more resources.
  I do not know, in all due respect, where my colleague gets his 
numbers. I am glad that we have an amendment on the other side of the 
aisle that calls for a $900 million increase. I am pleased we are 
pushing this forward. But, in all due respect, the President's budget 
is no way to say thanks to veterans. Sure, we can take a little bit out 
of tax cuts with 40 percent going to the top 1 percent and make the 
commitment to veterans' health care.
  This is a clear vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 
minute out of order.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Senator Mikulski, who has waited patiently for 2 days to 
offer her amendment, came to us a few minutes ago and said, because of 
the rush

[[Page S3639]]

of things, she would be willing to take a voice vote.
  The reason I mention that is I think Members have a pretty good idea 
how the votes are going to turn out. She sets a very good example for 
this body, as she always does. I suggest others follow her example.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask that we proceed in the following 
manner: No amendment be in order to these amendments prior to the vote; 
that the votes occur in relation to these amendments in a stacked 
sequence; first, in relationship to the Wellstone amendment and then in 
relation to Senator Bond's amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the Wellstone amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) 
is necessary absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 84 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--46

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bunning
       
  The amendment (No. 269) was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 351

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Bond 
amendment.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
votes in this series be limited to 10 minutes each. We managed to get 
through with only 45 minutes on that first vote. I think if we can do 
it in 10 minutes, it might get us home before Monday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Missouri. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 85 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bunning
       
  The amendment (No. 351) was agreed to.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 85, I voted 
``no.'' It was my intention to vote ``yes.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous 
consent that I be permitted to change my vote. It would in no way 
change the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mr. BOND. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was 
agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 284

  Mr. DOMENICI. We are ready to proceed with amendment No. 284, the 
Enzi-Carper amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Enzi], for himself, Mr. 
     Carper, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Allard, Mr. Bayh, Mr. 
     Hutchinson, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Collins, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Miller, 
     Mr. Schumer, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Nickles, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 284.

  Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To modify the resolution to reflect that there should be no 
               new Federal fees on State-chartered banks)

       On page 2, line 17, decrease the amount by $82,000,000.
       On page 2, line 18, decrease the amount by $86,000,000.
       On page 3, line 1, decrease the amount by $90,000,000.
       On page 3, line 2, decrease the amount by $95,000,000.
       On page 3, line 3, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 4, decrease the amount by $105,000,000.
       On page 3, line 5, decrease the amount by $110,000,000.
       On page 3, line 6, decrease the amount by $115,000,000.
       On page 3, line 7, decrease the amount by $120,000,000.
       On page 3, line 8, decrease the amount by $125,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $82,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $86,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $90,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $95,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $105,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $110,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, increase the amount by $115,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, increase the amount by $120,000,000.
       On page 3, line 22, increase the amount by $125,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $95,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $106,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $116,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, decrease the amount by $317,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $177,000,000.

[[Page S3640]]

       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $192,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $206,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, increase the amount by $222,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $105,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $110,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $115,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $120,000,000.
       On page 5, line 16, decrease the amount by $125,000,000.
       On page 21, line 16, increase the amount by $95,000,000.
       On page 21, line 20, increase the amount by $106,000,000.
       On page 21, line 24, increase the amount by $116,000,000.
       On page 22, line 3, decrease the amount by $317,000,000.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be no 
amendments in order to the Enzi amendment, No. 284.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this might be one of the most important 
amendments you will vote on if you are interested in your State banks. 
This is an issue we have dealt with every year recently. Mr. Carper, 
the Senator from Delaware, and I have worked on this diligently. 
Members would be amazed at the cosponsors. We have nine Democrats and 
nine Republicans on it. We have other Members who have pledged their 
support.
  The budget resolution would impose a new federal fee on State banks, 
but it would be a fee that receives no service. It is a fee we have 
rejected every year as a new tax.
  Don't approve a new tax in this budget. Help roll it back one more 
time and make sure that State banks will not be charged a new fee.
  I especially thank the junior Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper, for 
working with me on this amendment. As a former Governor, he understands 
the importance of state banks and their contribution to a healthy 
banking system. I also thank the other cosponsors of this amendment, 
Mr. Bennett, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Allard, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. 
Grassley, Mr. Miller, Ms. Collins, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Nickles, 
Mr. Corzine, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Nelson.
  The budget resolution before us assumes that the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve will impose new 
fees on state-chartered bank and bank holding companies. The amendment 
we are offering will ensure that these new fees will not be assessed.
  The proposal included in the budget would amount to a federal tax on 
state-chartered entities that have already paid their state chartering 
agencies for the same service. In effect, these banks would be double-
charged, with no added benefit.
  The dual-banking system, consisting of both state and national bank 
charters, has served the United States and its communities well for 
many years. The current fee structure is identical for state and 
national banks. They both pay their chartering organization for their 
examinations. They are also both subject to deposit insurance premiums 
assessed by the FDIC. Additional fees for state banks will not increase 
safety and soundness.
  Banks should have an option of a federal or state charter, depending 
upon their particular needs. The new fees assumed to be a part of the 
budget resolution would reduce the attractiveness of state bank 
charters, which traditionally have provided a lower-cost alternative to 
the federal bank charter. The effect would be to drive up costs for 
both banks and consumers.
  Our amendment will help preserve the competitiveness of state-bank 
charters and maintain the balance of the dual banking system. The 
amendment would save state banks and bank holding companies 
approximately $2 billion over 10 years. It would allow these banks to 
invest this money in their local communities, rather than paying a 
discriminatory fee.
  The Congress has rejected new federal fees on state banks in each of 
the previous seven budgets. The Senate Banking Committee has 
consistently opposed this proposal. The major banking associations--the 
American Bankers Association (ABA), the Independent Community Bankers 
of America (ICBA), America's Community Bankers (ACB), the Conference of 
State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) and the Financial Services Roundtable--
have all endorsed the amendment. In addition, the National Governor's 
Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures are 
supporting the amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the National Governor's 
Association and the correspondence from the banking associations be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    April 3, 2001.
     To: Members of the U.S. Senate.
     From: American Bankers Association, America's Community 
         Bankers, Conference of State Bank Supervisors, 
         Independent Community Bankers of America, The Financial 
         Services Roundtable.

     Re: Support Enzi/Carper Amendment to Strike Bank Exam Fees 
         from Budget.

       The FY 2002 budget that the Senate is expected to vote on 
     this week would require the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation (FDIC) and Federal Reserve Board (FRB) to charge 
     for their examinations of state-chartered banks and bank 
     holding companies. Similar language was also included in 
     seven Clinton Administration budgets, but was rejected by 
     Congress each time.
       The above-noted national member organizations and trade 
     associations, representing all segments of the U.S. banking 
     industry, are united in opposition to this examination fee 
     requirement. It would impose an unfair, new tax on state-
     chartered banks and bank holding companies, costing them over 
     $2 billion in the next ten years.
       The FDIC and FRB have had authority to charge examination 
     fees since 1991, but they never have charged such fees and 
     are already financially healthy, self-funded entities. All 
     banking institutions already pay examination fees to their 
     chartering agencies (whether federal or state), as well as 
     deposit insurance premiums to the FDIC. Thus, imposing 
     examination fees on state-chartered banks and bank holding 
     companies would constitute a discriminatory, double fee 
     imposed on these entities simply on the basis of their 
     charter and/or organizational structure. It would also be a 
     threat to the balance of the dual banking system, which has 
     so well served this country by providing much needed 
     diversification to the U.S. economy.
       Senate Banking Committee members Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming) and 
     Tom Carper (D-Delaware) will join together to offer an 
     amendment to strike the examination fees provision. The 
     above-noted parties urge you to support the Enzi/Carper 
     amendment. Just last week, the House of Representatives 
     rejected this new tax during its consideration of the budget. 
     Also, last month, the Senate Banking Committee informed the 
     Senate Budget Committee that it ``has consistently opposed'' 
     such new examination fees for many of the reasons noted 
     above. Finally, the proposal its quite simply at odds with 
     the Administration's overall tax reduction goals.
       Please support the Enzi/Carper amendment to strike new 
     banking examination fees from the FY 2002 budget. We thank 
     you for your consideration of this important matter.
                                  ____

                                                    April 4, 2000.
     Senator Pete Domenici,
     Chairman, Senate Budget Committee, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.

     Senator Kent Conrad,
     Ranking Member, Senate Budget Committee, U.S. Senate, Hart 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Domenici and Senator Conrad: On behalf of the 
     nation's Governors, we urge you to support Senator Enzi and 
     Senator Carper's amendment to strike the examination fee on 
     the state-chartered banks provision contained in H. Con. Res. 
     83, the Congressional Budget Resolution For FY2002. The 
     Governors oppose the imposition of the new fee on the basis 
     that it is discriminatory, costly, and a double fee on the 
     more than 6,000 state-chartered banks and holding 
     institutions in the U.S.
       The new fee would only be assessed on state-chartered banks 
     and holding institutions impacting the competitiveness of our 
     dual banking system. The Governors strongly oppose any effort 
     that would penalize the state system for attempting to 
     develop high quality yet cost-effective operations.
       The Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional 
     Budget Office have reported that the new fee would cost 
     state-chartered banks and holding institutions two billion 
     dollars over the next ten years. A new fee would also run 
     counter to the declining trend in bank regulatory fees. The 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has slashed 
     deposit insurance premiums. The Office of Comptroller General 
     has also reduced supervisory fees. Congress rejected seven 
     budget proposals for the previous administration that 
     included these proposed fees.
       Although the FDIC and the Federal Reserve Board have 
     existing authority to charge examination fees since 1991, 
     they

[[Page S3641]]

     have elected not to do so as they are financially healthy, 
     self-funded entities. All banking institutions, including 
     state-chartered banks, already pay examination fees to their 
     chartering agency to conduct examinations. The new fee would 
     not increase the number or quality of these examinations. The 
     fee would also penalize the economic efficiencies that state-
     chartered banks have gained and are represented in declining 
     examination fees.
       Thank you for considering our views on this important 
     matter. If the NGA can assist you in any manner on this 
     issue, please contact Frank J. Principi of the NGA staff at 
     202.624.7818.
           Sincerely,
     Gov. Mike Johanns,
       Chair, Committee on Economic Development and Commerce.
     Gov. Don Siegelman,
       Vice Chair, Committee on Economic Development and Commerce.

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, this budget resolution includes a proposal 
to require new Federal fees on State-chartered banks and bank holding 
companies. The amendment that I am offering with Senator Enzi would 
strike these unnecessary and inequitable fees from the budget.
  Currently, the exam fee structure for both federally and State-
chartered banks is identical: federally chartered banks pay the Federal 
Government for their examinations, and State-chartered banks pay States 
for theirs. Charging State-chartered banks a fee on top of what they 
already pay does not increase safety and soundness or provide for 
additional exams. These fees only increase the Federal fisc at the 
expense of the State banking system.
  We have seen State-chartered banks be engines of innovation. As a 
former Governor, I believe this is one of the great values of our dual 
banking system. Under this system, States and the Federal Government 
independently charter and regulate financial institutions. A key 
benefit of our dual banking system is that it provides for innovations 
at both the State and Federal level. In fact, State initiatives have 
spurred most advances in U.S. bank products and services. Everything 
from checking accounts to adjustable-rate mortgages, from electronic 
funds transfers to the powers and structures endorsed by Gramm-Leach-
Bliley, originated at the State level. State-chartered banks also play 
an important role in credit availability and economic development. 
Additional Federal fees for State banks would stifle the innovation 
taking place at the State level. The very innovation which benefits all 
consumers by providing competition and creativity in the marketplace.
  On seven prior occasions, Congress has wisely rejected these Federal 
fee proposals. Last week, the House refused to include these fees in 
its budget resolution. The Senate Banking Committee also opposed these 
fees in its views to the Budget Committee. In addition, the American 
Bankers Association, America's Community Bankers, the Conference of 
State Bank Supervisors, the Independent Community Bankers of America, 
the Financial Services Roundtable, National Conference of State 
Legislatures, and the National Governors Association all oppose these 
new fees on State-chartered institutions.
  I urge you to support the dual banking system and vote for this 
amendment to strike these harmful Federal fees.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Gramm asked to address this issue for 30 
seconds, and I ask unanimous consent he be permitted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, as chairman of the Banking Committee, I 
support this amendment. Obviously, nothing in the proposal actually 
changes banking law, it merely sets out budgetary assumptions. Broader 
issues are involved and I pledge to both authors of the amendment to 
hold hearings or otherwise deal with these broader issues. Given that 
understanding, I ask our colleagues to not force a rollcall vote so 
that we can save that time and get on about our business.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What is the pleasure of the Senator?
  Mr. ENZI. Would the Senator accept a voice vote?
  Mr. GRAMM. I would ask for a voice vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry. Have the yeas and nays been 
ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment, No. 284.
  The amendment (No. 284) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 249

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. I call up amendment No. 249.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself, 
     Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Reid, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. 
     Cantwell, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Jeffords, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 249.

  Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of April 5 under ``Amendments 
Submitted.'')


                     Amendment No. 249, as Modified

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to 
modify the amendment, and I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

   (For the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, addressing 
global climate change concerns, protecting the global environment, and 
 promoting domestic energy security; to provide increased funding for 
  voluntary programs that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the 
near term; to provide increased funding for a range of energy resources 
and energy efficiency programs; to provide increased funding to ensure 
adequate U.S. participation in negotiations that are conducted pursuant 
 to the Senate-ratified United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 
Change; to provide increased funding to encourage developing nations to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and, to provide increased funding for 
programs to assist U.S. businesses exporting clean energy technologies 
                         to developing nations)

       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 5, line 16, decrease the amount by $450,000,000.
        On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $450,000,000.
        On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $450,000,000.
        On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $450,000,000.
        On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $450,000,000.
        On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $450,000,000.
        On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $450,000,000.
        On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 4, line 11, increase the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 12, line 16, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 12, line 17, increase the amount by $33,000,000.
       On page 12, line 20, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 12, line 21, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 12, line 24, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 12, line 25, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 13, line 3, increase the amount by $50,000,000.

[[Page S3642]]

       On page 13, line 4, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 13, line 7, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 13, line 8, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 13, line 11, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 13, line 12, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 13, line 15, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 13, line 16, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 13, line 19, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 13, line 20, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 13, line 23, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 13, line 24, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 14, line 2, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 14, line 3, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 14, line 11, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 14, line 12, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 14, line 15, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 14, line 16, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 14, line 19, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 14, line 20, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 14, line 23, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 14, line 24, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 15, line 2, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 15, line 3, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 15, line 6, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 15, line 7, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 15, line 10, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 15, line 11, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 15, line 14, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 15, line 15, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 15, line 18, increase the amount by $50,000,000
       On page 15, line 19, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 15, line 22, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 15, line 23, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 16, line 5, increase the amount by $205,000,000.
       On page 16, line 6, increase the amount by $192,000,000.
       On page 16, line 8, increase the amount by $205,000,000.
       On page 16, line 9, increase the amount by $205,000,000.
       On page 16, line 11, increase the amount by $205,000,000.
       On page 16, line 12, increase the amount by $205,000,000.
       On page 16, line 14, increase the amount by $205,000,000.
       On page 16, line 15, increase the amount by $205,000,000.
       On page 16, line 18, increase the amount by $205,000,000.
       On page 16, line 19, increase the amount by $205,000,000.
       On page 16, line 22, increase the amount by $205,000,000.
       On page 16, line 23, increase the amount by $205,000,000.
       On page 17, line 2, increase the amount by $205,000,000.
       On page 17, line 3, increase the amount by $205,000,000.
       On page 17, line 6, increase the amount by $205,000,000.
       On page 17, line 7, increase the amount by $205,000,000.
       On page 17, line 10, increase the amount by $205,000,000.
       On page 17, line 11, increase the amount by $205,000,000.
       On page 17, line 14, increase the amount by $205,000,000.
       On page 17, line 15, increase the amount by $205,000,000.
       On page 17, line 23, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 17, line 24, increase the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 18, line 2, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 18, line 3, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 18, line 6, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 18, line 7, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 18, line 10, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 18, line 11, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 18, line 14, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 18, line 15, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 18, line 18, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 18, line 19, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 18, line 22, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 18, line 23, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 19, line 2, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 19, line 3, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 19, line 6, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 19, line 7, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 19, line 10, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 19, line 11, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 19, line 19, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 19, line 20, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 19, line 23, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 19, line 24, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 20, line 2, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 20, line 3, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 20, line 6, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 20, line 7, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 20, line 10, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 20, line 11, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 20, line 14, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 20, line 15, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 20, line 18, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 20, line 19, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 20, line 22, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 20, line 23, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 21, line 2, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 21, line 3, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 21, line 6, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 21, line 7, increase the amount by $45,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $369,000,000.
       On page 48, line 8, increase the amount by $450,000,000.
       On page 48, line 9, increase the amount by $369,000,000.

  4Mr. KERRY. Let me say to my colleagues, this is an amendment to add 
money back on behalf of Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, and others, 
to the areas which we have already funded, to try to determine what we 
can do to understand global warming better, to fund new technologies, 
and to fund the export of American products with respect to those 
technologies. There is no unauthorized plan in this. There is nothing 
regulatory in it. This has nothing whatever to do with Kyoto. It is all 
preauthorized, existing programs, which we bring back to a funding 
level which most people think is appropriate, $4.5 billion over 10 
years. It does not come out of the tax cut; it comes out of the 
contingency funds. I hope on a bipartisan basis we could signal our 
approval of the efforts to continue to understand the impact of global 
climate change on the technologies which can help us respond.
  Mr. President, There is a world-wide consensus among climate 
scientists that global average temperature will rise over the next 100 
years if greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow. Scientists report 
that some of the signs of this warming are already evident: the 90s was 
the hottest decade on record; glaciers around the world are receding at 
record rates; 1,000 square miles of the Larsen ice shelf in Antarctica 
have collapsed into the ocean; Arctic sea ice has thinned by 40 percent 
in only 20 years; and ocean temperatures throughout the world are 
rising. And scientists warn that the potential impacts of global 
warming include the intensification of floods, storms and droughts; the 
dislocation of millions of people; the spread of tropical diseases; 
destructive sea level rise; the die-off of species; the loss of 
forests, coral reefs and other ecosystems and other far reaching and 
adverse impacts.

  To address the threat of global warming, the U.S. has invested in a 
range of programs aimed at understanding the global climate, reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants, saving energy and money, 
spurring innovation in energy technologies, and sequestering carbon. At 
the same time, we have engaged internationally to encourage the global 
use of clean energy technologies developed and manufactured here in the 
U.S. and to craft an international solution to the threat of climate 
change. Unfortunately, overall

[[Page S3643]]

funding levels in the Bush budget proposal and press reports of 
Administration budgeting plans make clear that these important programs 
are facing drastic cuts--cuts that could cripple even these minimal 
efforts to understand and mitigate climate change. The Climate Change 
Amendment increases budget authority by $4.5 billion over 10 years to 
make up for anticipated cuts to these essential programs. The increased 
budget authority in the amendment is offset by an equal reduction in 
the proposed Bush tax cut that amounts to a mere three-tenths of 1 
percent of the overall tax cut.
  The Climate Change Amendment provides additional budget authority of 
$4.5 billion over 10 years. It is offset by a reduction in the Bush tax 
cut of three-tenths of 1 percent. The additional budget authority is 
allocated to essential programs described below.
  International Affairs--Function 150: The amendment increases budget 
authority by $500 million for 10 years. The increase is to offset cuts 
to the Global Environment Facility, USAID, State Department offices 
engaged in international negotiations on climate change and related 
programs. The GEF forges international cooperation to address critical 
threats to the global environment, including climate change but 
providing financial and technical assistance primarily in developing 
nations. USAID programs accelerate the development and deployment of 
clean energy technologies around the world and assist U.S. 
manufacturers in establishing a position in a clean energy market that 
it expect to total $5 trillion over the next 20 years. Additional 
authority for the State Department is to ensure that the budget 
includes sufficient funding for the U.S. to fully engage with the 
international community in on-going and highly complex negotiations 
pursuant to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

  Science, Space and Technology--Function 250: The amendment increases 
budget authority by $500 million over 10 years. The increase is to 
offset cuts to programs like the United States Global Change Research 
Program and similar efforts that provide basic and essential research 
into the global climate system and how pollution may be impacting it. 
The program is working to improve climate observations and our 
understanding of the global water cycle, ecosystem changes and the 
carbon cycle. It is a multi-agency effort that draws on the expertise 
of USDA, NASA, Energy, NOAA and other agencies. This research is 
fundamental to understanding and responding to the threat of global 
warming.
  Energy--Function 270: The amendment increases budget authority by $2 
billion over 10 years. The increase is to offset cuts in energy 
efficiency, renewable energy and other programs at the Department of 
Energy that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save consumers money. 
These programs are the cornerstone of the U.S. effort to produce clean 
energy through technological innovation. They include the research, 
development and deployment of solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and 
other renewable power and technologies that will increase efficiency 
and reduce pollution from fossil fuel energy sources. The increased 
authority will also offset cuts to energy efficiency programs that cut 
energy use, reduce pollution and save consumers money. These programs 
also strengthen U.S. energy security by reducing demand and increasing 
clean domestic energy production.
  Natural Resources--Function 300: The amendment increases budget 
authority by $1 billion over 10 years. The increase is to offset cuts 
in a range of programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, save 
energy and provide essential research. The Environmental Protection 
Agency has established several successful, incentive-based, non-
regulatory programs to reduce emissions and save money, such as the 
EnergyStar labeling program for products ranging from computers to 
refrigerators. Similar programs achieve emissions reductions through 
increased building efficiency, business-wide efficiency gains and 
increased transportation efficiency. Also included in this increased 
budget authority is funding to offset cuts to the US Forest Service and 
NOAA programs investigating carbon sequestration and basic research 
into the global climate.
  Agriculture--Function 350: The amendment increases budget authority 
by $450 million over 10 years. The increase is to offset cuts to 
programs that develop technologies that can produce energy from 
switchgrass, agricultural waste, timber waste and other biomass. These 
bioenergy technologies produce very low or no net greenhouse gas 
emissions and provide a market for U.S. farm products. Also offset are 
cuts to USDA programs studying how different farming practices and 
farmland conservation can increase carbon sequestration and reduce 
atmospheric concentrations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are trying to work on this issue for 
a couple of minutes. It will not take us long. I suggest the absence of 
a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask Senator Jeffords be added as a 
cosponsor, as well as Senators Lieberman, Reid, Bingaman, Landrieu, 
Cantwell, Biden, Kennedy, Feinstein, Murray, Leahy, and Collins.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand the primary sponsor and those cosponsoring 
it will accept a voice vote. Is that the case?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Massachusetts has been here all week 
working on this amendment. It is one of the most important issues we 
have taken up all week. The Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator 
from Maine should be complimented for their brilliant work on this 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
amendment sponsored by my distinguished colleagues from Massachusetts 
and Maine to ensure full funding of all Federal programs aimed at 
addressing a growing and increasingly troubling international problem, 
global warming.
  If left unchecked, global warming has the potential to dramatically 
alter life as we know it, leaving our children and grandchildren to 
inherit a planet suffering from all manner of ailments. While we cannot 
know precisely how dramatic these changes may be over time, recent 
science paints a rather bleak picture of what we can expect to happen. 
The implication to act now could not be more clear. Yet the Bush 
Administration has inexplicably withdrawn its support for almost all of 
the initiatives, both domestic and international, to begin to nurse our 
planet back to health. We must not let this happen. This amendment 
would ensure that those initiatives are properly funded.
  Over the last three months, the United Nation's Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC, released its third report on 
global warming. The report was authored by over 700 expert scientists.
  According to these experts, unless we find ways to stop global 
warming, the Earth's average temperature can be expected to rise 
between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit during this next century. Such 
a large, rapid rise in temperature will profoundly alter the Earth's 
landscape in very real and consequential terms. Sea levels could swell 
up to 35 feet, potentially submerging millions of homes and coastal 
property under our present-day oceans. Precipitation would become more 
erratic, leading to droughts that would make hunger an even more 
serious global problem than it is today. Diseases such as malaria and 
dengue fever could spread at an accelerated pace. Severe weather 
disturbances and storms triggered by climatic phenomena, such as El 
Nino, would be aggravated by global warming and become more routine.
  This new data should end serious debate about whether global warming 
is a fact. The science is now inconvertible.

[[Page S3644]]

The only thing left to do is debate and decide how we should respond, 
not if we should.
  As the latest scientific report reminds us, this threat is being 
driven by our own behavior. Let me quote the scientists directly, 
``There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed 
over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.'' Mr. 
President, human beings have added more than three billion metric tons 
of carbon to the atmosphere every year for the past two decades. More 
amazing, and more disturbing, is the fact that current levels of carbon 
dioxide are likely the highest they have been in 20 million years of 
history and 31 percent higher than those present in 1750.
  Faced with these findings, President Bush has said that he ``takes 
the issue of global warming very seriously.'' Unfortunately, his recent 
acts contradict his statement. In fact, it appears that the only 
cooling of the globe that will occur under President Bush is the 
cooling of our foreign relations.
  I was deeply disappointed last month when the President reneged on 
his campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power 
plants. Just last week, the Bush Administration unilaterally also 
announced, without consultation with Congress and apparently without 
regard for our interests abroad, that it had ``no interest in 
implementing'' the Kyoto Protocol. In doing so, they did not just back 
away from the United States' signature on an international agreement; 
they backed away from the international process that resulted in the 
accord. Finally, while we do not yet have the exact numbers of the 
President's budget, it appears that he plans to significantly cut a 
number of the programs aimed at reducing greenhouse emissions 
domestically and overseas.
  Most troubling are the reductions in the budgets of the Nation's 
energy efficiency programs and the funding for USAID's program to 
encourage developing countries to reduce emissions. How can the White 
House justify walking away from the Kyoto Protocol because of 
inadequate participation by developing countries when they are cutting 
the chief U.S. program aimed at securing that participation?
  Global warming is a real threat to us, our children, and our 
grandchildren. We must demonstrate leadership and confront it now. This 
amendment will fund the programs we have to provide that leadership. We 
must pass it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 249), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 238

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Harkin and myself, I 
call up amendment 238.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for himself and Mr. 
     Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 238.

  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide an increase of $1,500,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 
 to Department of Justice programs for State and local law enforcement 
                              assistance)

       On page 38, line 2, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.
       On page 38, line 3, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $1,500,000,000.
       On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $1,500,000,000.
       On page 48, line 8, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.
       On page 48, line 9, increase the amount by $1,500,000,000.

     SEC. __. FUNDING FOR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS FOR STATE 
                   AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the national rate of serious crime dropped for the last 
     8 years in a row;
       (2) the national rate of violent crime, including murders 
     and rapes, is at its lowest level since 1978;
       (3) the success in reducing serious crime and violent crime 
     rates across the Nation is due in large part to the crime-
     fighting partnership between the Department of Justice and 
     State and local law enforcement agencies and benefits from 
     Department of Justice programs for State and local law 
     enforcement assistance;
       (4) on February 28, 2001, President George W. Bush 
     submitted to Congress the Administration's budget highlights, 
     ``A Blueprint For New Beginnings,'' which proposed 
     ``redirecting'' $1,500,000,000 out of a total of 
     $4,600,000,000 that has been dedicated for Department of 
     Justice programs for State and local law enforcement 
     assistance;
       (5) for fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated 
     $523,000,000 for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant 
     Program, including $60,000,000 to the Boys and Girls Clubs of 
     America for grants to Boys and Girls Clubs across the Nation, 
     within the Department of Justice programs for State and local 
     law enforcement assistance;
       (6) for fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated $25,500,000 
     for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program within the 
     Department of Justice programs for State and local law 
     enforcement assistance and Congress passed the Bulletproof 
     Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-517) to 
     authorize $50,000,000 for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership 
     Grant Program for fiscal year 2002 within the Department of 
     Justice programs for State and local law enforcement 
     assistance;
       (7) for fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated 
     $569,050,000 for the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local 
     Assistance Program for Byrne discretionary and formula grants 
     within the Department of Justice programs for State and local 
     law enforcement assistance;
       (8) for fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated 
     $686,500,000 for State prison grants, including the Violent 
     Offender Incarceration Grant Program and Truth-In-Sentencing 
     Incentive Program, within the Department of Justice programs 
     for State and local law enforcement assistance;
       (9) for fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated 
     $250,000,000 for the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block 
     Grant Program within the Department of Justice programs for 
     State and local law enforcement assistance;
       (10) for fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated 
     $470,000,000 for Police Hiring Initiatives, $227,500,000 for 
     the Safe Schools Initiative, $140,000,000 for the COPS 
     Technology Program, and $48,500,000 for the COPS 
     Methamphetamine/Drug ``Hot Spots'' Program under the 
     Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program within 
     the Department of Justice programs for State and local law 
     enforcement assistance;
       (11) for fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated 
     $288,679,000 for grants to support the Violence Against Women 
     Act within the Department of Justice programs for State and 
     local law enforcement assistance and Congress passed the 
     Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-386) to 
     authorized grants of approximately $390,000,000 for grants to 
     support the Violence Against Women Act for fiscal year 2002 
     within the Department of Justice programs for State and local 
     law enforcement assistance;
       (12) for fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated 
     $130,000,000 for the Crime Identification Technology Act 
     within the Department of Justice programs for State and local 
     law enforcement assistance;
       (13) for fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated 
     $279,097,000 for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
     Programs within the Department of Justice programs for State 
     and local law enforcement assistance;
       (14) in 2000, Congress passed the Computer Crime 
     Enforcement Act (Public Law 106-572) to authorize $25,000,000 
     for fiscal year 2002 within the Department of Justice 
     programs for State and local law enforcement assistance;
       (15) in 2000, Congress passed the DNA Analysis Backlog 
     Elimination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-546) to authorize 
     $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 within the Department of 
     Justice programs for State and local law enforcement 
     assistance; and
       (16) in 2000, Congress passed the Paul Coverdell National 
     Forensic Science Improvement Act of 2000 to authorize 
     $85,400,000 for fiscal year 2002 within the Department of 
     Justice programs for State and local law enforcement 
     assistance.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the levels in this resolution assume an increase of 
     $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2002 for the following Department 
     of Justice programs for State and local law enforcement 
     assistance to be provided for without reduction and 
     consistent with previous appropriated and authorized levels: 
     Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program; Boys and Girls 
     Clubs of America Grant Program; Bulletproof Vest Partnership 
     Grant Program; Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local 
     Assistance Program; Violent Offender Incarceration Prison 
     Grant Program; Truth-In-Sentencing Prison Grant Program; 
     Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program; COPS 
     Program; Violence Against Women Act; Crime Identification 
     Technology Act; Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
     Programs; Computer Crime Enforcement Act; DNA Analysis 
     Backlog Elimination Act; and Paul Coverdell National Forensic 
     Science Improvement Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from Vermont.

[[Page S3645]]

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have offered this amendment on behalf of 
Senator Harkin and myself to provide an increase of $1.5 billion in 
fiscal year 2002 for Department of Justice programs for State and local 
law enforcement assistance.
  Our amendment pays for these additional funds for our State and local 
crime-fighting partners from the surplus funds in the budget 
resolution's contingency reserve.
  Senator Harkin and I are concerned that the Senate is being called 
upon this week to vote on the Federal budget without having seen a 
detailed submission of where the Bush Administration may propose cuts 
in law enforcement programs.
  I, for one, would hate to see cuts in our federal assistance to State 
and local law enforcement. Those programs to help acquire bulletproof 
vests, reduce DNA backlogs, encourage modern communications, provide 
modern crime labs, and place cops on the beat have been so helpful to 
our crime control efforts.
  Under Attorney General Reno, and due in part to her emphasis on a 
coordinated effort with State and local law enforcement, crime rates 
fell in each of the past 8 years. Violent crimes, including murder and 
rape, have been reduced to the lowest levels in decades, since before 
the Reagan Administration. In fact, the national rate of violent crime 
is at its lowest level since 1978.
  We need to redouble our efforts, not cut them short or leave them 
short of funds.
  Unfortunately, President Bush's budget highlights in his ``Blueprint 
for New Beginnings'' appears to call for cutting federal assistance to 
State and local law enforcement by 30 percent--by ``redirecting'' $1.5 
billion in Department of Justice programs for state and local law 
enforcement assistance.
  This is quite troubling.
  In addition, this budget resolution cuts $7.5 billion in Department 
of Justice funding over the next 5 years when compared to the 
Congressional Budget Office baseline. Over the next 10 years, this 
budget resolution cuts $19 billion in Department of Justice funding 
when compared to the CBO baseline.
  Why does this budget resolution cut funding for the Department of 
Justice?
  With school shootings continuing across the country and the use of 
heroin, methamphetamine and other dangerous drugs in rural and urban 
settings, now is not the time to be ``redirecting'' $1.5 million away 
from federal assistance to State and local law enforcement.
  Now is not the time to be pulling back from the strong national 
commitment we should be making to continue to assist those on the front 
lines in the fight against crime and battle over illegal drug use.
  The success in reducing serious crime and violent crime across the 
nation is due in large part to the crime-fighting partnership between 
the Department of Justice and state and local law enforcement agencies, 
which benefits from Department of Justice state and local law 
enforcement assistance.
  We should all remember the bipartisan success stories that make up 
the Department of Justice's state and local law enforcement assistance 
programs.
  For example, last year, Congress appropriated $60 million to the Boys 
and Girls Clubs of America for grants to Boys and Girls Clubs across 
the nation within the Department of Justice's programs for state and 
local law enforcement assistance. In Vermont and every other state in 
the nation, Boys and Girls Clubs are a great and growing success in 
preventing crime and supporting our children.
  In FY 2001, Congress appropriated $523 million for the Local Law 
Enforcement Block Grant Program within the Department of Justice's 
programs for state and local law enforcement assistance programs.
  Republicans and Democrats support this essential block grant for law 
enforcement equipment and other needs for state and local police 
departments.
  The Department of Justice's programs for state and local law 
enforcement assistance include the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant 
Program. Senator Campbell and I authored the Bulletproof Vest 
Partnership Grant Act in 1998.
  In its first two years of operation, this program funded more than 
325,000 new bulletproof vests for our nation's police officers, 
including more than 536 vests for Vermont law enforcement officers.
  In FY 2001, Congress appropriated $569 million for the Edward Byrne 
Memorial State and Local Assistance Program for Byrne discretionary and 
formula grants within the Department of Justice's programs for state 
and local law enforcement assistance programs.
  In Vermont, the Department of Public Safety receives about $2 million 
in Byrne grant funding a year to maintain the Vermont Drug Task Force 
to combat heroin and other illegal drugs. Byrne grants fund drug task 
forces in many other states as well.
  The Department of Justice's programs for state and local law 
enforcement assistance also include such proven crime-fighting and 
drug-prevention programs as the Violent Offender Incarceration Prison 
Grant Program; Truth-In-Sentencing Incentive Prison Grant Program; 
Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program; COPS Program; 
Violence Against Women Act; Crime Identification Technology Act; and 
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Programs.
  Moreover, this year's budget request for Department of Justice state 
and local law enforcement assistance should include new bipartisan 
crime-fighting programs that Congress passed last year. In 2000, on a 
bipartisan basis, the Senate and House passed the Computer Crime 
Enforcement Act, the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act and the Paul 
Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act.
  These Department of Justice programs are needed to support our 
nation's police officers.
  Mr. President, I urge the Senate to adopt the Leahy-Harkin amendment 
to increase funding by $1.5 billion for the 2002 fiscal year for the 
Department of Justice programs for state and local law enforcement 
assistance.
  I yield to my friend from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, these are the programs that go right down 
to our local cops on the beat in our towns and communities all over 
America, especially the Byrne grant program, which has done much in my 
State and in the upper Midwest to fight the methamphetamine plague that 
has surged all over this country. The Bush budget cuts it out--a $1.5 
billion shortfall. The Leahy amendment puts that money back to help 
support local law enforcement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the distinguished Senators who offered the 
amendment, I think their intentions are wonderful, but essentially all 
we are doing is adding more money to the appropriated accounts. No 
matter what anybody says it is going to be used for, it will not be 
used for that; it will be used for what the appropriators say.
  With that in mind, we accept the amendment if they do not insist on a 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Minnesota be 
added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 238) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are going to try to take up six 
amendments here--three on our side, three on their side. They do not 
affect the appropriations, total appropriations, because they are 
offset within the budget, each one, for the amount that is being 
sought.
  Can we proceed with Senator Smith, No. 217, in that regard? Is there 
objection to that?
  Mr. CONRAD. We have no objection to Smith amendment No. 217.


                           Amendment No. 217

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S3646]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith] for himself, Mrs. 
     Clinton, Mrs. Snowe, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Sarbanes, proposes 
     and amendment numbered 217.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To protect public health, to improve water quality in the 
   nation's rivers and lakes, at the nation's beaches, and along the 
 nation's coasts, to promote endangered species recovery, and to work 
towards meeting the nation's extensive wastewater infrastructure needs 
by increasing funding for wastewater infrastructure in fiscal year 2002 
  in an amount that will allow funding for the State water pollution 
 control revolving funds at an amount equal to the amount appropriated 
   in fiscal year 2001 and to fully fund grants to address municipal 
              combined sewer and sanitary sewer overflows)

       On page 17, line 23 increase the amount by $800,000,000.
       On page 17, line 24 increase the amount by $800,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15 decrease the amount by $800,000,000.
       On page 43, line 16 decrease the amount by $800,000,000.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my 
colleagues, Senators Smith of Oregon, Collins, Snowe, Sarbanes and Bayh 
to provide additional funding that will help meet our Nation's critical 
wastewater infrastructure needs.
  Specifically, this amendment provides an additional $800 million in 
fiscal year 2002 for grants for wastewater infrastructure projects, 
including $50 million for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and $750 
million to fully fund the new grant program authorized under the Wet 
Weather Water Quality Act of 2000.
  These new grants will help municipalities address one of our largest 
remaining water quality challenges, combined and sanitary sewer 
overflows. Sewer overflows remain the leading cause of beach closures 
across the country, putting public health at risk and robbing 
communities of millions of tourism dollars annually.
  This is a real problem in New York where so many cities, big and 
small, are confronted with pipe and equipment failures or have 
undersized systems that can't meet the increased demands of their 
growing populations. according to EPA's most recent estimates, there is 
a 20-year need of $139 billion for wastewater infrastructure 
nationwide. And this doesn't even account for the funding needed to 
adequately address the sanitary sewer overflows problems facing our 
communities.
  This amendment is an important first step towards meeting our 
country's enormous water infrastructure needs. This amendment will 
ensure that our beaches are safer for swimming. And it will lead to 
significant improvements in the quality of the Nation's rivers, lakes, 
bays and estuaries.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an 
amendment to the Senate Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2002. This 
amendment will increase the amount available to fully fund the sewer 
overflow control grants program at a level of $750 million for FY2002. 
It is important that Congress makes this level of commitment to clean 
water for a number of reasons.
  The condition of our nation's wastewater collection and treatment 
facilities is alarming. In its 1996 ``Clean Water Needs Survey,'' the 
EPA estimates that nearly $140 billion will be needed over the next 20 
years to address wastewater infrastructure problems in our communities. 
In March 1999, the EPA revised its figures, infrastructure needs are 
now estimated at $200 billion. Other independent studies indicate that 
EPA has undershot the mark, estimating that these unmet needs exceed 
$300 billion over 20 years.
  In my state of Oregon, the challenge of municipal water treatment is 
ever-present. Roughly seventy percent of Oregon's population lives in 
the Willamette River watershed, with that number continuing to grow. 
The increasing demand on water supply and treatment is made even more 
acute by the responsibility to protect endangered salmon and steelhead 
in the Willamette River. Add to that the extremely low water and poor 
snowpack conditions facing the Northwest this year, and the urgency of 
maintaining high water quality in the river is greatly intensified.
  The city of Portland is Oregon's largest, and its proximity to the 
Willamette River has been a contributor to water quality problems. At 
its worst, Portland's combined sewage overflow system dumped an 
estimated 10 billion gallons of combined sewage annually into the river 
in years past. During the past 7 years, however, Portland has invested 
over $300 million in clean water infrastructure, and will spend another 
$300 million in the next 5 years to meet its obligations under the 
Clean Water Act. I am working closely with the City of Portland to 
infuse targeted federal funds into its unique efforts to meet rigorous 
environmental requirements and responsibilities.
  I am sponsoring this amendment because I strongly believe that 
Congress must make a firm commitment to helping cities like Portland, 
OR that are fully engaged in updating and improving their water 
treatment programs. The effects of such a commitment will be manifold, 
particularly upon a river like the Willamette that is long treasured, 
but heavily used by the many that derive their lives and livelihood 
from it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 217) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, could we have order in the Chamber?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be order in the Chamber, please. 
Senators please take your seats.
  Is this a motion to vote on these amendments en bloc or separately?
  Mr. DOMENICI. If the Senator is willing, I would like to do them en 
bloc.
  Mr. CONRAD. We would be willing to do them en bloc as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Let me go back to the chairman for the next amendment 
that would be in this en bloc group.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Have we accepted 217?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have accepted 217.


          Amendments Nos. 334, 236, 196, 244, and 335, en bloc

  Mr. DOMENICI. The five amendments I ask be called up and then be 
considered en bloc for voice vote are Inhofe No. 334, DeWine No. 236, 
Dorgan No. 196, Mikulski No. 244, and Nelson of Florida No. 335.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 334

      (Purpose: To increase Impact Aid funding to $1,293,302,000)

       On page 27, line 3, increase the amount by $300,000,000.
       On page 27, line 4, increase the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 27, line 8, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 27, line 12, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $300,000,000.
       On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $50,000,000.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 236

  (Purpose: To provide additional funding for the United States Coast 
                    Guard for the fiscal year 2002)

       On page 23, line 11, increase the amount by $250,000,000.
       On page 23, line 12, increase the amount by $250,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $250,000,000.
       On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $250,000,000.
       At the end of the amendment, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING UNITED STATES COAST 
                   GUARD FISCAL YEAR 2002 FUNDING.

       It is the sense of the Senate that any level of budget 
     authority and outlays in fiscal year 2002 below the level 
     assumed in this resolution for the Coast Guard would require 
     the Coast Guard to--
       (1) close numerous units and reduce overall mission 
     capability, including the counter narcotics interdiction 
     mission which was authorized under the Western Hemisphere 
     Drug Elimination Act;
       (2) reduce the number of personnel of an already 
     streamlined workforce; and
       (3) reduce operations in a manner that would have a 
     detrimental impact on the sustainability of valuable fish 
     stocks in the

[[Page S3647]]

     North Atlantic and Pacific Northwest and its capacity to stem 
     the flow of illicit drugs and illegal immigration into the 
     United States.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 196

 (Purpose: To increase the amount of funding for the trade enforcement 
          programs of the International Trade Administration)

       On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $55,000,000.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 4, line 11, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $55,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $55,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 5, line 16, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $55,000,000.
       On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 5, line 24, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 5, line 25, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 6, line 1, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 6, line 2, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 6, line 3, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 6, line 4, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 6, line 8, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 6, line 9, increase the amount by $55,000,000.
       On page 6, line 10, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 6, line 11, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 6, line 12, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 6, line 13, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 6, line 14, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 6, line 15, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 6, line 16, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 6, line 17, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 21, line 15, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 21, line 16, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 21, line 19, increase the amount by $55,000,000.
       On page 21, line 20, increase the amount by $55,000,000.
       On page 21, line 23, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 21, line 24, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 22, line 2, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 22, line 3, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 22, line 6, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 22, line 7, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 22, line 10, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 22, line 11, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 22, line 14, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 22, line 15, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 22, line 18, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 22, line 19, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 22, line 22, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 22, line 23, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 23, line 2, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 23, line 3, increase the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 43, line 19, decrease the amount by $55,000,000.
       On page 43, line 20, decrease the amount by $55,000,000.
       On page 43, line 23, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 43, line 24, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 44, line 2, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 44, line 3, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 44, line 6, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 44, line 7, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 44, line 10, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 44, line 11, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 44, line 14, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 44, line 15, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 44, line 18, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 44, line 19, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 44, line 22, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 44, line 23, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 45, line 2, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
       On page 45, line 3, decrease the amount by $70,000,000.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 244

(Purpose: To increase education technology funding to $1.5 billion per 
                                 year)

       On page 27, line 3, increase the amount by $628,000,000.
       On page 27, line 4, increase the amount by $35,000,000.
       On page 27, line 7, increase the amount by $657,000,000.
       On page 27, line 8, increase the amount by $438,000,000.
       On page 27, line 11, increase the amount by $687,000,000.
       On page 27, line 12, increase the amount by $619,000,000.
       On page 27, line 15, increase the amount by $716,000,000.
       On page 27, line 16, increase the amount by $678,000,000.
       On page 27, line 19, increase the amount by $747,000,000.
       On page 27, line 20, increase the amount by $707,000,000.
       On page 27, line 23, increase the amount by $778,000,000.
       On page 27, line 24, increase the amount by $738,000,000.
       On page 28, line 2, increase the amount by $808,000,000.
       On page 28, line 3, increase the amount by $768,000,000.
       On page 28, line 6, increase the amount by $841,000,000.
       On page 28, line 7, increase the amount by $799,000,000.
       On page 28, line 10, increase the amount by $873,000,000.
       On page 28, line 11, increase the amount by $831,000,000.
       On page 28, line 14, increase the amount by $907,000,000.
       On page 28, line 15, increase the amount by $864,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $628,000,000.
       On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $35,000,000.
       On page 43, line 19, decrease the amount by $657,000,000.
       On page 43, line 20, decrease the amount by $438,000,000.
       On page 43, line 23, decrease the amount by $687,000,000.
       On page 43, line 24, decrease the amount by $619,000,000.
       On page 44, line 2, decrease the amount by $716,000,000.
       On page 44, line 3, decrease the amount by $678,000,000.
       On page 44, line 6, decrease the amount by $747,000,000.
       On page 44, line 7, decrease the amount by $707,000,000.
       On page 44, line 10, decrease the amount by $778,000,000.
       On page 44, line 11, decrease the amount by $738,000,000.
       On page 44, line 14, decrease the amount by $808,000,000.
       On page 44, line 15, decrease the amount by $768,000,000.
       On page 44, line 18, decrease the amount by $841,000,000.
       On page 44, line 19, decrease the amount by $799,000,000.

[[Page S3648]]

       On page 44, line 22, decrease the amount by $873,000,000.
       On page 44, line 23, decrease the amount by $831,000,000.
       On page 45, line 2, decrease the amount by $907,000,000.
       On page 45, line 3, decrease the amount by $864,000,000.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 335

(Purpose: To provide public water systems the initial funding needed in 
Fiscal Year 2002 of $43,855,000 to comply with the 10 parts per billion 
  standard for arsenic in drinking water recommended by the National 
    Academy of Sciences 1999 study and adopted by the World Health 
                    Organization and European Union)

       On page 17, line 23, increase the amount by $43,855,000.
       On page 17, line 24, increase the amount by $42,538,450.
       On page 48, line 8 increase the amount by $43,855,000.
       On page 48, line 9, increase the amount by $42,538,450.
       On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $43,855,000.
       On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $42,538,450.


                           Amendment No. 244

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment number 244 on behalf 
of myself and my cosponsors--Senators Bingaman, Boxer, Kennedy, Levin, 
and Sarbanes. My amendment is very simple: it provides $1.5 billion 
annually for education technology programs, and will be offset by a 
reduction in the tax cut. It will give every American child a ``digital 
opportunity ladder'' to climb to success, as well as help every child 
to be computer literate by the 6th grade, regardless of race, 
ethnicity, income, gender, geography, or disability.
  My amendment does 3 things: it provides $1 billion a year for 
consolidated education technology programs, which will go to states 
based on formula grants. Schools could use these funds for almost any 
technology-related activity: wiring, hardware, software, training, 
maintenance or repair.
  Second, my amendment doubles teacher training funds by adding $400 
million, per year for the next ten years. Teachers want to help their 
students cross the digital divide but less than 20 percent of them feel 
confident using technology in their daily lesson plans. Technology 
without training is a hollow opportunity.
  Finally, my amendment also provides $100 million to create one 
thousand community technology centers. Community technology centers are 
necessary because kids don't just learn in school--they also learn in 
their communities. Technology centers make it easier for children to do 
their homework or to surf the web under adult supervision, and also 
make it easier for parents to upgrade their skills or write a resume.
  The opportunities here are tremendous: to use technology to improve 
our lives, to use technology to remove barriers such as income, race, 
ethnicity, or geography. Every student in America should have access to 
a digital opportunity ladder. My amendment does that and I urge my 
colleagues' support.


                           amendment no. 236

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member of 
the Budget Committee, Senators Domenici and Conrad, for working with 
me, Senator Graham from Florida, Senator Snowe from Maine, and so many 
others in support of our amendment that would provide additional 
assistance for one of our most important agencies, the U.S. Coast 
Guard.
  The amendment we have offered would provide an additional $250 
million increase in Coast Guard operating expenses above the fiscal 
year 2002 level recommended by the President. The House has included 
this $250 million increase in its budget resolution, and I am pleased 
that the Senate will do the same.
  Over the past few years, our Coast Guard has faced significant 
funding shortfalls, which are directly impacting its operations on an 
annual basis. Additional funding, would eliminate Coast Guard vessel 
and aircraft spare parts problems, improve personnel training, fund new 
Department of Defense entitlements, and run drug interdiction 
operations at optimal levels.
  Because of funding shortfalls in the Fiscal Year 2001 budget, the 
Coast Guard has been forced to reduce operations by 10 percent in the 
second quarter of this year. If funding shortfalls go unaddressed, the 
Coast Guard anticipates cutting operations by 30 percent in the third 
and fourth quarters. To address budget shortfalls and restore vital 
operations, the Coast Guard has requested $91 million in supplemental 
funding from the Office of Management and Budget.
  The same thing happened last year. The Coast Guard was forced to 
reduce operations by 30 percent last summer, and Congress again had to 
come to the rescue with $77 million in supplemental operating funding.
  The Coast Guard has developed an unhealthy budgetary dependence on 
emergency supplementals to pay for normal ongoing mission operations. 
The recent enactment of two successive Defense Authorization bills, 
which increased personnel costs dramatically, has exacerbated the Coast 
Guard's funding problems even further. These bills mandated pay raises, 
new medical entitlements, recruiting and retention incentives, and 
other entitlements that far exceeded what was appropriated in the 
Transportation Appropriations Bill for the Coast Guard.
  The money to fund these initiatives doesn't just magically appear. It 
must come from someplace. And, what usually happens is that the Coast 
Guard either absorbs these costs directly from within its own budget, 
creating service-related cutbacks, or it simply doesn't match benefits 
provided to other defense personnel. Neither scenario is ideal, and in 
the end, it is the Coast Guard personnel who lose.
  The Coast Guard is reaching the point where it is stretched so thin 
and the condition of its equipment is so poor that it is essentially 
cannibalizing equipment for parts, deferring maintenance, and working 
its people overtime--and this is just to sustain daily operations. This 
doesn't even take into account rapidly rising fuel costs, which have 
been exacerbating problems this fiscal year.
  We need to provide the Coast Guard with the resources necessary to 
restore normal operations through the normal budget and appropriations 
process. We need to adequately fund the Coast Guard on an annual basis 
so the American people can have the services that they not only expect, 
but require from our Coast Guard.
  Drug interdiction is one of those services and one of our Coast 
Guard's most important missions. As my colleagues all know, the scourge 
of drugs is a national and international challenge that threatens our 
communities here at home, as well as many fragile democracies in the 
Caribbean and South and Central America.
  I am very pleased to report, however, that with the help of 
additional funding provided by the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination 
Act, WHDEA, which my dear friend, the late Senator Coverdell and 
Senators Grassley, Graham, and I sponsored, our Coast Guard has 
increased cocaine seizures by an astounding 60 percent over the last 
two years.
  As my colleagues may recall, we passed the Western Hemisphere Drug 
Elimination Act as part of the Fiscal Year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations 
Bill. Through this legislation, we were able to allocate an additional 
$844 million to upgrade U.S. counter-drug and interdiction programs. 
Out of this funding, the Coast Guard received $276 million. Since 
receiving this added investment, our Coast Guard went from seizing 
82,623 pounds of cocaine in Fiscal Year 1998 to seizing 132,800 pounds 
in Fiscal Year 2000 at an estimated street value of over $4 billion. 
That amount represents the value of nearly the entire Coast Guard 
annual budget.
  With adequate resources, this is the kind of success we can expect 
because we are able to level the playing field with the drug smugglers. 
In other words, the drug smugglers in the past have had the upper hand 
in terms of technology and resources to transport drugs into the United 
States. By giving the Coast Guard additional funding, we are giving 
them the means to fight against the drug traffickers, and the means to 
beat them.
  Resources allow the Coast Guard to seek innovative solutions to 
improve the efficiency of counter-drug operations in drug transit 
zones. Take for example, Operation New Frontier, which was conducted 
mainly in the Western Caribbean (Windward Passage, off of Haiti, 
Jamaica, and Colombia), and tested the concept of the Coast Guard's 
``use of force'' helicopters and used Over-the-Horizon cutter boats to 
successfully seize six ``go-fast'' drug-smuggling vessels in six 
attempts. This

[[Page S3649]]

is an unprecedented success rate. Similarly, the Coast Guard's 
Deployable Pursuit Boats, DPBs, high-speed, 38-foot, 840-horsepower 
fiberglass boats--have been operating as another tool to stem the 
threat posed by drug smugglers' ``go-fast'' boats.
  But unfortunately, despite recent successes, the fact is that we need 
to do more to help our Coast Guard in the long-term. Past funding 
shortfalls for the Coast Guard have had negative impacts on its 
operations. We need to do more. We need to make sure that every year 
our Coast Guard receives the funds it needs to continue its high level 
of service and necessary counter-drug operations.
  The Coast Guard must be able to perform routine and emergency 
operations, while still providing vital training and maintenance 
functions. The Coast Guard must do this within their annual budget and 
without placing an unreasonable workload on its people.
  I stand ready to continue working with my colleagues to make sure our 
Coast Guard has the funding and the support to meet its missions now 
and well into the future.


                           amendment no. 244

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, my amendment is very simple: it provides 
$1.5 billion annually for education technology programs, and will be 
offset by a reduction in the tax cut. It will give every American child 
a ``digital opportunity ladder'' to climb to success, as well as help 
every child to be computer literate by the 6th grade, regardless of 
race, ethnicity, income, gender, geography, or disability.
  My amendment does 3 things: it provides $1 billion a year for 
consolidated education technology programs, which will go to states 
based on formula grants. Schools could use these funds for almost any 
technology-related activity: wiring, hardware, software, training, 
maintenance or repair.
  Second, my amendment doubles teacher training funds by adding $400 
million, per year for the next ten years. Teachers want to help their 
students cross the digital divide but less than 20 percent of them feel 
confident using technology in their daily lesson plans. Technology 
without training is a hollow opportunity.
  Finally, my amendment also provides $100 million to create one 
thousand community technology centers. Community technology centers are 
necessary because kids don't just learn in school--they also learn in 
their communities. Technology centers make it easier for children to do 
their homework or to surf the web under adult supervision, and also 
make it easier for parents to upgrade their skills or write a resume.
  The opportunities here are tremendous: to use technology to improve 
our lives, to use technology to remove barriers such as income, race, 
ethnicity, or geography. Every student in America should have access to 
a digital opportunity ladder. My amendment does that and I urge my 
colleagues' support.


                           amendment no. 335

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, 2 years ago following an 
indepth study requested by Congress, the National Academy of Sciences 
recommended we reduce the level of arsenic in drinking water by a 
significant amount.
  This is the standard that was, in fact, required in a rule issued by 
the previous administration, but one that the present administration 
abruptly overturned last month.
  In response, I have filed legislation that aims to impose the safer 
standard of having 80 percent less arsenic in our drinking water than 
the Bush administration would allow.
  I believe this is a step needed to protect consumers, children and 
our environment. Better safe than sorry is a good rule in such matters.
  This amendment would provide first-year funding of $43 million the 
Environmental Protection Agency says is needed for smaller cities to be 
able to improve water systems.
  This amendment is needed to ensure that cost doesn't prevent public 
water systems from providing safe, clean drinking water.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment 
offered by myself and Senator Mikulski.
  Today, teachers expend significant money out of their own pocket to 
better the education of our children. Most typically, our teachers are 
spending money out of their own pocket on three types of expenses: 
education expenses brought into the classroom--such as books, supplies, 
pens, paper, and computer equipment; professional development 
expenses--such as tuition, fees, books, and supplies associated with 
courses that help our teachers become even better instructors; and 
interest paid by the teacher for previously incurred higher education 
loans.
  These out-of-pocket costs placed on the backs of our teachers are but 
one reason our teachers are leaving the profession, and why this 
country is in the midst of a teacher shortage.
  Therefore, I introduced The Teacher Tax Credit. This legislation 
creates a $1,000 tax credit for eligible teachers for qualified 
education expenses, qualified professional development expenses, and 
interest paid by the teacher during the taxable year on any qualified 
education loan.
  This legislation, S. 225, is cosponsored by Senators Mikulski, Allen, 
DeWine, Cochran, and Harkin. It is supported by the National Education 
Association.
  We all agree that our education system must ensure that no child is 
left behind. As we move towards education reforms to achieve this goal, 
we must keep in mind the other component in our education system--the 
teachers.
  This amendment to the budget resolution will set a reserve fund of 
$39.5 billion over the next 10 years to reimburse teachers for these 
out-of-pocket costs. Teachers will benefit and our children will 
benefit as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. On this side we agree and support all of those amendments 
en bloc and ask our colleagues' support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 334, 236, 196, 244, 335) en bloc were agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, last night we called up amendment No. 
237, the Grassley amendment. We agreed to it and then withdrew it. It 
has now been corrected technically. It was agreed to last night, and we 
ask that it now be agreed to without a vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator describes correctly what 
happened last night. This is a Grassley-Kennedy amendment. It has been 
cleared on both sides. We ask again the support of our colleagues. It 
was a technical glitch last night that has been corrected.


                     Amendment No. 237, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will please 
report the amendment as modified.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 237, as modified.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To establish a reserve fund for the Family Opportunity Act)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. RESERVE FUND FOR FAMILY OPPORTUNITY ACT.

       If the Committee on Finance of the Senate reports a bill or 
     joint resolution which provides States with the opportunity 
     to expand medicaid coverage for children with special needs, 
     allowing families of disabled children with the opportunity 
     to purchase coverage under the medicaid program for such 
     children (commonly referred to as the ``Family Opportunity 
     Act of 2001''), the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     of the Senate may revise committee allocations for the 
     Committee on Finance and other appropriate budgetary 
     aggregates and allocations of new budget authority (and the 
     outlays resulting therefrom) in this resolution by the amount 
     provided by that measure for that purpose, but not to exceed 
     $200,000,000 in new budget authority and outlays for fiscal 
     year 2002 and $7,900,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     outlays for the period of fiscal years 2002

[[Page S3650]]

     through 2011, subject to the condition that such legislation 
     will not, when taken together with all other previously-
     enacted legislation, reduce the on-budget surplus below the 
     level of the Medicare Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund 
     surplus in any fiscal year covered by this resolution.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to express some concerns I 
have regarding the Family Opportunity Act. I agree with Chairman 
Grassley's position that it is critically important to make sure that 
our federal safety net programs do not create disadvantages for 
families to work and therefore earn their way off federal assistance. 
He has made the argument that it is wrong that families, who are 
currently served by public programs such as Supplemental Security 
Income, must decline promotions and raises which would improve their 
situation for fear of losing their health care coverage. I agree and 
will support an effort to address these inequities and help those 
families move off of federal programs. The legislation currently 
contemplated by Senators Grassley and Kennedy does not simply remove 
the work disincentive in SSI. In fact, the legislation applies to 
families who have never been on SSI nor would ever qualify for SSI. 
This legislation would open up Medicaid to a family who earns up to 
$51,000 for a family of four.
  In this situation, these families would be competing against families 
who do qualify for SSI and are currently waiting, in some cases, up to 
900 days to simply get on the program they desperately need. These are 
the poorest of the poor. They are the people for whom this program was 
designed but they are not being served effectively. In my opinion it is 
unacceptable to punish lower income Medicaid eligible persons presently 
waiting for needed assistance. There are many of us who would wonder 
about adding more applicants who would not be receiving the SSI benefit 
but rather just the certification for this Medicaid expansion to an 
overburdened system.
  In recent years, we have seen a series of rifle shot expansions to 
the Medicaid program based on specific disease categories or groups. I 
am concerned that those expansions are not consistent with the 
intention of the program and undermine its purpose. It would be my hope 
that we could address these issues in the broader context of Medicaid 
reform and that the Finance Committee could responsibly evaluate any 
new federal entitlements to ensure that we are not duplicating existing 
health programs like SCHIP or discouraging private employer insurance.
  This country has 43 million uninsured Americans. This bill, which 
costs $7.9 billion, impacts 200,000 kids; 60,000 of whom have, or have 
access to, employer sponsored insurance and many of whom have access to 
SCHIP as well. It is a higher priority to provide health care to the 
uninsured with no health options than to create multiple health 
insurance options for a select population.
  I do commend Chairman Grassley for his hard work with Senator Kennedy 
on this bill. I know that they have been working on this program for a 
number of years now and hope we can work together in this process 
toward a final bill. I look forward to working with the chairman and 
others on the committee to ensure this bill addresses the issue it was 
designed to fix.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We yield back any time in favor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 237), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wish to announce to everyone that we 
are down to three amendments on our side. There are a few more than 
that on the other side. I wonder if we could have just a little bit of 
time. I think it would permit us to work out a number of these. I am 
going to put in a quorum call. I think it might last as long as 10 or 
15 minutes for those who are interested.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. First, I want to say to the Senate, we are getting very 
close. We only have about four amendments on each side. We think we can 
work them out. And if not, we would not have more than three or four 
votes on what we have remaining. We need some time to work on modifying 
these amendments to make them acceptable, in most cases. So we can do 
that properly, we need until about 12:30. We have consulted with the 
leadership. I ask unanimous consent that we now stand in recess until 
12:30.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the chairman of the committee describes it 
very well. We have worked through a lot of amendments. We still have 
some outstanding that will require some additional staff time. Also, we 
need to do a careful analysis of where we are in terms of spending, 
where we are on a year-by-year basis. This additional time will help us 
do that final analysis so Senators, when we are voting on a final 
package, will have a very accurate picture of where we are in terms of 
the tax cut, in terms of spending, and in terms of debt reduction.
  We hope we can take this time and then come back and finish our 
business expeditiously.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have a question for either of the managers. My 
understanding is that we have a Senator who will not be back until 
2:30. Is that affecting our voting schedule?
  Mr. DOMENICI. From what I can tell, we need the time now to do some 
work. We can't move ahead with any dispatch now. We would like this 
time to work on it. There is no outside reason for this. It is our 
reason, internal to our work.

                          ____________________