[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 72 (Wednesday, June 5, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4996-S5024]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 4775, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4775) making supplemental appropriations for 
     further recovery from and response to terrorist attacks on 
     the United States for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2002, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid Amendment No. 3570, to direct the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to carry out a certain transfer of funds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
Reid amendment be temporarily set aside in order that I may offer an 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I wonder if the Senator will amend the request to 
provide that after the disposition of the amendment of the Senator from 
Massachusetts that the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, be 
recognized to offer an amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I amend my request.
  Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. What is the request, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has requested 
permission to set aside the pending amendment to bring up his 
amendment. The Senator from Wisconsin has requested permission, at the 
conclusion of the Kennedy amendment, to offer the Gregg amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, is there objection to temporarily setting 
aside the Reid amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. I object to Senator Feingold's request to add the Gregg 
amendment in sequence until we can see that. May I ask Senator Kennedy 
to repeat his request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Massachusetts repeat the 
request?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I had asked that the pending Reid amendment be 
temporarily set aside, and then I was going to send my amendment to the 
desk, if that was agreed to. Then I understood Senator Feingold asked 
unanimous consent to go after I conclude my amendment. That is what I 
had understood was going to be the process. I am glad to work out 
whatever arrangement.
  Mr. STEVENS. So far as I understand the position of this side, we 
have no objection to Senator Kennedy setting aside the Reid amendment 
and proceeding with his amendment, but I do object to the sequencing of 
any amendment after that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I object to the request of the Senator from 
Massachusetts. I do not want to object, but I do, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from 
Massachusetts still has the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I then offer----
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I think I still have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is correct; he 
has the floor.


                Amendment No. 3583 to Amendment No. 3570

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I offer a second-degree amendment to the 
Reid amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the second-degree 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself, 
     Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Reid, Mrs. 
     Murray, and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 3583 
     to amendment No. 3570.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request to ask for 
termination of the reading of the amendment? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

             (Purpose: To provide emergency school funding)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. EMERGENCY SUMMER SCHOOL FUNDING.

       (a) Findings; Purpose.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (A) Under the amendments made by the No Child Left Behind 
     Act of 2001, students and schools rightly are held 
     accountable for meeting challenging State academic content 
     and student academic achievement standards in mathematics, 
     reading or language arts, and science.
       (B) Summer programs and activities supported under the 21st 
     Century Community Learning Centers program are critical to 
     providing supplemental academic services and academic 
     enrichment activities designed to help students meet local 
     and State academic standards.
       (C) Summer programs and activities supported under the 21st 
     Century Community Learning Centers program help children and 
     the children's families in the areas of youth development, 
     drug and violence prevention, and character education.
       (D) During the summer of 2002, school districts throughout 
     the Nation will confront more than $200,000,000 in cuts to 
     summer school programs, eliminating services and academic 
     support to more than 150,000 struggling children.
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide 
     opportunities for communities to provide summertime 
     activities in community learning centers that--
       (A) provide opportunities for academic enrichment, 
     including providing tutorial services to help students, 
     particularly students who attend low-performing schools, to 
     meet State and local student academic achievement standards 
     in core academic subjects, such as reading and mathematics; 
     and
       (B) offer students an array of additional services, 
     programs, and activities, such as youth development 
     activities, drug and violence prevention programs, counseling 
     programs, art, music, and recreation programs, technology 
     education programs, and character education programs, that 
     are designed to reinforce and complement the regular academic 
     program of participating students.
       (b) Funding for Summer School Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Provided that, in addition to amounts 
     otherwise available to carry out section 4205(a) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7175(a)), $200,000,000 shall be available to carry out 
     activities described in section 4205(a) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7175(a)) during 
     the 2002 summer recess period.
       (2) Awarding of grants.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 4202 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7172), the Secretary of Education shall award grants with 
     funds made available under paragraph (1) on a competitive 
     basis to eligible entities serving communities whose local 
     educational agencies are not able to meet fully the 
     communities' need for summer school programs.
       (B) Priority.--In awarding grants under subparagraph (A), 
     the Secretary of Education shall give priority to an eligible 
     entity that is a local educational agency or who serves a 
     community whose local educational agency--
       (i) serves high concentrations or numbers of low-income 
     children;
       (ii) before June 6, 2002, announced that the local 
     educational agency is canceling or reducing summer school 
     services in 2002; or
       (iii) is located in a State whose State educational agency, 
     before June 6, 2002, announced that the State educational 
     agency is canceling or reducing summer school funding for 
     2002.
       (3) Application and obligation.--
       (A) Application.--Notwithstanding sections 4203 and 4204 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7173 and 7174), an eligible entity that desires a grant under 
     this section shall submit an application to the Secretary of 
     Education at such time and in such manner as the Secretary of 
     Education may require.
       (B) Obligation.--Not later than 4 weeks after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary of Education shall 
     obligate funds made available under this section.
       (4) Definition of eligible entity.--In this section, the 
     term ``eligible entity'' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 4201 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7171).
       (5) Emergency designation.--The entire amount necessary to 
     carry out this section is designated by Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S4997]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kennedy 
amendment be withdrawn and the Reid amendment No. 3570 be agreed to; 
that immediately after adoption of the Reid amendment, Senator Kennedy 
be recognized to offer a first-degree amendment, and that there be 60 
minutes of debate with respect to the amendment prior to a vote in 
relation to the amendment, with the time equally divided and controlled 
in the usual form, with no second degree amendment in order to the 
Kennedy amendment prior to a vote in relation to the amendment; that 
upon disposition of the Kennedy amendment, the next amendment in order 
be one offered by Senators Gregg and Feingold; that there be 60 minutes 
of debate prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with no second-
degree amendment in order prior to the vote, with the time divided as 
follows: 15 minutes each for Senators Gregg and Feingold and 30 minutes 
under the control of Senator Conrad or his designee; that if the 
amendment is not disposed of by a Budget Act point of order, then it be 
subject to further debate and second-degree amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, did I hear the Senator 
from Nevada say there will be 15 minutes each for Senator Gregg and 
Senator Feingold?
  Mr. REID. Yes, that is true.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before Senator Kennedy moves forward and we 
dispense with amendment No. 3570, I extend my appreciation to my 
counterpart, the Republican whip, who has worked this very hard. It has 
been extremely difficult to get to where we are today, but we are 
moving forward. It could not have been accomplished without the help of 
my friend from Oklahoma.


                      Amendment No. 3583 Withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Kennedy 
amendment No. 3583 is withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 3570

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Reid amendment 
is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3570) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 3608

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the amendment is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself, 
     Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Reid, Mrs. 
     Murray, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Reed, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3608.

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

             (Purpose: To provide emergency school funding)

       On page 89, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 807. EMERGENCY SUMMER SCHOOL FUNDING.

       (a) Findings; Purpose.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (A) Under the amendments made by the No Child Left Behind 
     Act of 2001, students and schools rightly are held 
     accountable for meeting challenging State academic content 
     and student academic achievement standards in mathematics, 
     reading or language arts, and science.
       (B) Summer programs and activities supported under the 21st 
     Century Community Learning Centers program are critical to 
     providing supplemental academic services and academic 
     enrichment activities designed to help students meet local 
     and State academic standards.
       (C) Summer programs and activities supported under the 21st 
     Century Community Learning Centers program help children and 
     the children's families in the areas of youth development, 
     drug and violence prevention, and character education.
       (D) During the summer of 2002, school districts throughout 
     the Nation will confront more than $150,000,000 in cuts to 
     summer school programs, eliminating services and academic 
     support to more than 150,000 struggling children.
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide 
     opportunities for communities to provide summertime 
     activities in community learning centers that--
       (A) provide opportunities for academic enrichment, 
     including providing tutorial services to help students, 
     particularly students who attend low-performing schools, to 
     meet State and local student academic achievement standards 
     in core academic subjects, such as reading and mathematics; 
     and
       (B) offer students an array of additional services, 
     programs, and activities, such as youth development 
     activities, drug and violence prevention programs, counseling 
     programs, art, music, and recreation programs, technology 
     education programs, and character education programs, that 
     are designed to reinforce and complement the regular academic 
     program of participating students.
       (b) Funding for Summer School Programs.--
       (1) In general.--That, in addition to amounts otherwise 
     available to carry out section 4205(a) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7175(a)), 
     $150,000,000 shall be available to carry out activities 
     described in section 4205(a) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7175(a)) during the 2002 
     summer recess period.
       (2) Awarding of grants.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 4202 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7172), the Secretary of Education shall award grants with 
     funds made available under paragraph (1) on a competitive 
     basis to eligible entities serving communities whose local 
     educational agencies are not able to meet fully the 
     communities' need for summer school programs.
       (B) Priority.--In awarding grants under subparagraph (A), 
     the Secretary of Education shall give priority to an eligible 
     entity that is a local educational agency or who serves a 
     community whose local educational agency--
       (i) serves high concentrations or numbers of low-income 
     children;
       (ii) before June 6, 2002, announced that the local 
     educational agency is canceling or reducing summer school 
     services in 2002; or
       (iii) is located in a State whose State educational agency, 
     before June 6, 2002, announced that the State educational 
     agency is canceling or reducing summer school funding for 
     2002.
       (3) Application and obligation.--
       (A) Application.--Notwithstanding sections 4203 and 4204 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7173 and 7174), an eligible entity that desires a grant under 
     this section shall submit an application to the Secretary of 
     Education at such time and in such manner as the Secretary of 
     Education may require.
       (B) Obligation.--Not later than 4 weeks after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary of Education shall 
     obligate funds made available under this section.
       (4) Definition of eligible entity.--In this section, the 
     term ``eligible entity'' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 4201 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7171).

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as I understand, we have an hour's time 
limit to be divided equally. I will make some very brief opening 
comments and then yield to my colleague and cosponsor, Senator Smith 
from Oregon.
  I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mrs. 
Boxer, Senator Dodd, Senator Reid, Senator Murray, and Senator Durbin.
  Very briefly, this amendment provides $150 million in emergency 
funding for fiscal year 2002 to communities to provide students who 
have fallen behind in their schoolwork the opportunity to catch up with 
their peers. The second area of education is to award emergency grants 
to communities that have unmet needs for the summer school programs. 
Priority in funding will be given to communities that have had to 
eliminate or cut back their summer school programs due to local and 
State budget reductions and have high poverty rates. Funding is to be 
provided on a one-time basis to ensure there are safe learning 
opportunities this summer for the neediest children.
  The bill before us provides urgently needed resources to fight 
against terrorism, and this is vitally important to the Nation. But 
just as we must address needs on the war front, we must also turn to 
urgent priorities at home. There is no greater priority than ensuring a 
good education for our children. Good schools are critical to the 
Nation's future, and they are critical

[[Page S4998]]

to our national security and national defense.
  We want our service men and women to be well trained, well led, and 
with the latest in terms of technology. In order to be able to do that 
and perform to secure our Nation, they have to be able to have a good 
education.
  We have learned in recent days that schools across the country are 
cutting back on their summer school programs, creating an emergency for 
our schools, for our parents, and for schoolchildren. I know the 
Senator from Oregon has a schedule to keep, so I will yield to him and 
then I will come back and give the Members an idea about what is 
happening with the cuts in summer school programs and the value of the 
summer school programs, reaching the conclusion of all who were 
involved in the No Child Left Behind Act, if we are going to ask our 
children to perform, we have to make sure they are given the kind of 
support they need.
  The 300,000 children who are going to have their summer school 
eliminated will not graduate from their schools without this kind of 
assistance because they are the ones who are involved in this program, 
and then we will be faced with what their futures will be without 
completing their education.
  In our education program, we put a strong requirement on the students 
to perform, on schools to support those efforts, on teachers to be 
qualified, and also we have a part as well to make sure those children 
are not going to be left behind.
  I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kennedy for 
yielding this time to me. I am pleased to join him in this amendment he 
has offered in the spirit of no child being left behind. It is obvious 
to anyone that the effect of the recession in many of the States, my 
own included, is that education is suffering devastating cuts and these 
are manifest particularly as to programs such as summer school.
  Specifically, in my State, Portland, has eliminated summer school 
entirely for elementary school. It has cut its middle and high school 
programs in half, leaving more than 1,000 students unserved. Similar 
cuts are being made in Eugene, Beaverton, Salem, and in other schools 
across my State. These cuts are being made in States across the country 
as well, and preliminary reports indicate that as many as 300,000 
students nationwide will not benefit from summer school this year.
  I emphasize that this amendment is for any school that has unmet 
summer school needs. In Oregon, it means reversing summer school cuts, 
but in other States it may mean expanding their limited programs to 
reach more low-income and underserved students. If we do not step in 
and help our schools now, thousands of students across Oregon and 
across the country will not get the extra attention they need this 
summer. Those are thousands of students who will suffer next year if we 
do not act to help them today. Let's give our school districts the 
resources they need to help students who need it most. I urge my 
colleagues to support this effort.
  It is my experience as a father, that summer school is a very 
valuable tool in the home to motivate better academic performance by 
the children. Just the threat to one's children that if they do not 
buckle down now, they will be going to summer school, I have observed 
does create some degree of terror and dread and better performance.
  I hate to see this eliminated because my children have shared with me 
later that it was a good experience and highly motivational to go to 
summer school. As a Senator, I can, with great enthusiasm, support what 
Senator Kennedy has offered because we have, with the very best of 
intentions, tried to get our economy moving with the stimulus package, 
with which we tried to backfill the impact of State budgets. That was 
taken out in a conference committee, against my objections, but it was 
done, and we passed it.
  This has created shortfalls in States. This is being manifest not 
only in health care programs and other cutbacks, but in education 
programs. It seems to me we have a role because we helped create a 
short-term deficit so we would have a long-term surplus, that we can, 
with this package today, help in a critical area by restoring summer 
school funding.
  I have seen it work as a dad. I think we need it to work as Senators, 
and I urge my colleagues to join Senator Kennedy and myself in passing 
this very needed amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 additional minutes.
  Once again, I give this information to our colleagues about the value 
of the summer school programs and give some examples of the studies 
that have been done and what the results have been. The most recent 
review of educational research shows that summer school programs make a 
difference for students. A recent review of 39 studies shows that the 
academic test scores declined over summer school vacation. The 13 more 
recent studies show summer school loss is equal to 1 month of learning 
at grade level. In addition, summer break was more detrimental to math 
computation and spelling, and the neediest students lost the most. 
Middle-class students gained during the summer on grade level reading 
tests while high-poverty students lost ground.
  Our efforts with the ESEA are to target the neediest students. 
Research indicates quite clearly what happens to them without any 
summer school, but listen to what happens to them with it. The Chicago 
public schools initiated the summer school program in 1996 to help 
children who had fallen behind catch up. Eighty-three percent of the 
9,700 Chicago third graders required to attend summer school last year 
had met their grade level criteria by the end of the summer. That is 
absolutely extraordinary progress. Seventy-five percent of sixth 
graders and 71 percent of eighth graders made the grade by the end of 
the summer. Without summer school, these students would not have been 
promoted to the next grade.
  Listen to what has happened in Ohio. Ohio test scores for fourth 
graders show that children in summer school and afterschool programs 
exceeded the statewide percentages of students meeting proficiency 
standards in every subject area tested: Writing, reading, mathematics, 
citizenship, and science. Sixth graders exceeded the statewide 
percentages of students meeting proficiency standards in four of the 
five areas: writing, reading, mathematics, and citizenship. School 
absences and tardiness were reduced for participating students.

  Look at Fulton County schools in Georgia, operating a summer 
accelerated learning experience that provides full-day summer school 
for 1st through 12th grade, including the breakfast and lunch for all 
students in the community, as well as participating students. In 1999, 
they provided half-day programs with only 3,000 student participants; 
in 2000, they expanded to full day and attracted twice as many 
students; in 2001, they had 10,000 students. This year, they predicted 
11,000 students. The district tested students at the beginning and end 
of the summer and found great improvement.
  The value of the summer school programs has been defined for students 
across this country.
  Against that, we have the schools that are canceling the programs. I 
refer to an excellent story in the Gannette News Service regarding what 
is happening to summer schools across the country. It points out that 
summer schools have been a lifeline for students who struggle to meet 
higher academic standards and face repeating grades. In No Child Left 
Behind, we have tried to eliminate social promotion. Children have to 
measure up. Great numbers of children now are required to take summer 
school in order to be able to meet the academic challenges we have 
included in the program.
  Now we see the canceling of the programs. This is very modest, 
costing about $1,000. It varies in different parts of the country but 
is basically about $1,000 for the summer program per student. What is 
happening is, 39 States have made midyear budget cuts during the fiscal 
year. A May analysis by the National Association of State Budget 
Offices shows they are cutting students from kindergarten through high 
school in the summer. Expectations are rising, but the funds are not. 
Something has to break. The programs that could

[[Page S4999]]

be singled out, such as summer school, are getting the ax, according to 
Michael Griffith, policy analyst with the Denver Education Commission.
  Across the country, budget cuts imperil summer classes. In 
Washington, DC, educators slice student enrollment at the District 5-
week summer program by 50 percent--a reduction in Washington, DC, by 50 
percent of summer school programs that children otherwise are required 
to take in order to try to meet the standards.
  In Indiana, more than $470 million in budget cuts forced education to 
cut 15 percent of the money for the summer school programs. As a 
result, some school districts are limiting class to key academic 
studies such as reading and math.
  In South Carolina, districts have trimmed or eliminated summer school 
programs. ``You cannot cut textbooks; that money was spent the first 
day of school,'' said a spokesman for the South Carolina Department of 
Education, Jim Foster. One of the few things left to cut--something not 
done yet--is summer school.
  I will mention some of the reductions. In Florida, in Dade County, 
19,000 students are cut out of summer school programs; in Hillsborough 
County, FL, 36,000 students have lost the summer school program; in 
Broward County, 40,000 students have lost summer programs; in my State, 
Massachusetts: Worcester County, MA, 6,000; more than 25,000 in the 
State of Michigan. Even in smaller communities, in South Carolina, in 
Laurens County, $100,000 for 280 students is eliminated. In Marion 
County, SC, $50,000 was eliminated, and 200 students, needy in terms of 
education requirements, see their program eliminated.

  In Wisconsin, $60,000 in Mequon; 1,200 students. This is over 300,000 
students according to the latest information.
  This is an emergency. We have in the program provided the Secretary 
obligate the funds within 4 weeks or sooner. If we are able to get it, 
there is every expectation that the appropriators will move this 
conference rapidly. The differences are minimal. There are some 
differences with the House, not great. They will move it rapidly, I 
expect in a matter of days, and we will get the final outcome with the 
inclusion of this amendment. All that has to happen, from our 
conversations with school superintendents, school boards across the 
country, if the Secretary obligates the money, they will have the 
resources and they can reinstate these summer programs.
  The Department at the present time has on file $150 million in 
worthy, highly regarded 21st century summer school and afterschool 
applications--already ranked and already peer-reviewed, on the 
Secretary's desk. He could approve $150 million worth of those this 
afternoon. They have been peer-reviewed and ranked. All that needs to 
be done is to give greater targeting to the needy students. We give 
discretion to the Secretary to be able to do that. That would be 
manageable.
  The Department can promise the funds to those districts placing a 
priority on those canceling the summer school programs or so the 
districts can borrow money to resume the summer programs, and the 
Department can then reimburse.
  States contemplate more summer school cuts right now. My own State is 
considering a $40 million additional cut. This is a barebones amendment 
to deal with an emergency. If we do not do this, these summer school 
programs are headed for the chop block. We made a commitment to the 
students that we would not leave them behind. The school districts now 
are saying to the students: Look, you have to make the grade in these 
schools, in terms of the tests, and you have to stay and do the work 
over the course of the summer and raise your grades because we are 
eliminating social promotion from these States and these local 
communities. So the students are prepared to go. And now we are saying 
the resources will not be there.
  This is an emergency. It does relate to our security in a very 
important way in terms of the education of our children. It seems to me 
the Senate should be willing to accept this amendment.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). Twelve and a half minutes.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very grateful to have 6 minutes to 
try to put into words my strongest support for this very important 
amendment which has been put forward by our leader on education, 
Senator Kennedy, with the strong endorsement of Senator Gordon Smith, 
making it a very bipartisan amendment.
  There is some confusion about what an emergency supplemental bill is. 
I have been in the Congress--hard to believe it--20 years, 10 in the 
House and 10 in the Senate, and we take up emergency supplementals all 
the time because there are unmet needs and we need to act.
  Senator Kennedy is pointing out a crucial unmet need. I was very 
delighted when he asked me to speak because I have worked hard with 
him, with the Presiding Officer, and others on afterschool programs for 
our children.
  The funding will go into the afterschool programs. We all think of 
afterschool programs as occurring at the end of the day when kids could 
go home to empty houses, and so on. That is the usual way to think of 
it. But Senator Kennedy is doing something interesting. What he is 
basically saying is afterschool ends and for some kids there is no 
summer school. That is afterschool in the broadest sense. So I support 
these funds going through the 21st Century Learning Centers.
  When President Bush speaks about education, he talks about leaving no 
child behind. As a mother, as a grandmother, as a Senator from the 
largest State in the Union, I know that when you leave a child home 
alone in the summertime, you are really giving a new meaning to ``left 
behind.'' We know during the regular school year what happens. The FBI 
has shown us the crime rate going dramatically upward after school 
hours. We know what happens when a child has all day to sit alone at 
home, without having the chance to have activities funneled into 
something positive, without having the chance to hone their skills for 
the rest of the year.
  As Senator Kennedy has stated so eloquently many times, we are 
putting much more of a burden on our youngsters to step up to the plate 
and achieve high standards. I support that. But at the same time, to 
deprive them of summer school this summer just as we are putting all 
these standards in place is a cruel hypocrisy. If we do not support 
this amendment, I think we are doing something very cruel indeed to 
those children.
  This amendment will benefit every single State in the Union. The way 
it is worded, it will go to States that have a shortfall, but it will 
also go to areas where there is an unmet need. In my home State of 
California, summer school is a very high priority. But even with that, 
and even with the fact that in our State you cannot cut it back, in 
terms of State funds, we have a tremendous unmet need. Many of our 
children are left behind; 6,000 California students who are eligible 
for summer school will go without.
  So I say to Senator Kennedy: Thank you very much on behalf of those 
6,000 children. This is not some theoretical debate. This is a real 
emergency for many of our families who do not have the wherewithal, who 
do not have the ability to ensure their children are protected from 
being alone after the school year is over. I believe with this 
amendment we will be making a very strong statement.
  Again, it is important for colleagues to recognize that this is an 
emergency supplemental. Yes, it has much in it that deals with homeland 
security, and I support every dollar for that. But, again, as Senator 
Kennedy has stated, and as former President Dwight Eisenhower stated--
because he was the first one to call attention to this--if we do not 
educate our children, we are taking a national security risk.
  It is not a stretch in my mind to say that for kids home alone who 
should have an effective summer school program, that is, in fact, an 
emergency. That is, in fact, something we must address in this bill. It 
is an emergency.
  Again, I believe the definition of afterschool certainly should apply 
to this situation. After school is over, what happens to our children? 
Many of them will be fortunate, they will have summer school; their 
energies will be channeled; their talents will be invigorated. They 
will do better in the

[[Page S5000]]

school year following. But many of them are left behind.
  If our President means what he says--and I know in his heart he means 
it--he ought to support this.
  I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his leadership on this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time now remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. On the other side, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take 2 minutes. I mentioned 
earlier the impact on some of the counties. I want to point out this is 
not just large communities or small communities, it is in all 
communities. I will use, for example, what some cuts mean to children. 
Just for the minute or two, I will use some of the counties in the 
State of Florida, but these are replicated in other communities.
  In Hillsborough, around Tampa, a $6.2 million cut, which is the 
entire program canceled for 36,000 students not served; Lee County, 
$1.3 million cut, all summer school services have been cut, except for 
those for the IDEA students. That is 2,500 high school students will 
not be served.
  In Leon County, they have $1 million for their summer school program. 
They have now decided not to serve any of the 3,600 they intended to 
serve.
  In Manatee County, $1.4 million was cut from their summer program 
leaving just $275,000, so that entire program is canceled, except for 
the students who need only one credit to graduate.
  This is being replicated in rural areas, urban areas, all across the 
country--300,000 children were depending upon summer school in order to 
meet their obligations to try to meet the rigors of academic challenges 
in school. If we do not provide the resources here in this legislation 
in a timely way, those programs will be canceled and those children are 
in very serious risk of not being able to move to another grade or to 
graduate. I think that falls into the definition of an emergency.


                    Amendment No. 3608, As Modified

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask the modification that Senator Smith 
and I described be made at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the modification?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The modification of an emergency designation.
  Mr. BYRD. I have no objection to the Senator being able to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 3608), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. EMERGENCY SUMMER SCHOOL FUNDING.

       (a) Findings; Purpose.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (A) Under the amendments made by the No Child Left Behind 
     Act of 2001, students and schools rightly are held 
     accountable for meeting challenging State academic content 
     and student academic achievement standards in mathematics, 
     reading or language arts, and science.
       (B) Summer programs and activities supported under the 21st 
     Century Community Learning Centers program are critical to 
     providing supplemental academic services and academic 
     enrichment activities designed to help students meet local 
     and State academic standards.
       (C) Summer programs and activities supported under the 21st 
     Century Community Learning Centers program help children and 
     the children's families in the areas of youth development, 
     drug and violence prevention, and character education.
       (D) During the summer of 2002, school districts throughout 
     the Nation will confront more than $200,000,000 in cuts to 
     summer school programs, eliminating services and academic 
     support to more than 150,000 struggling children.
       (2) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide 
     opportunities for communities to provide summertime 
     activities in community learning centers that--
       (A) provide opportunities for academic enrichment, 
     including providing tutorial services to help students, 
     particularly students who attend low-performing schools, to 
     meet State and local student academic achievement standards 
     in core academic subjects, such as reading and mathematics; 
     and
       (B) offer students an array of additional services, 
     programs, and activities, such as youth development 
     activities, drug and violence prevention programs, counseling 
     programs, art, music, and recreation programs, technology 
     education programs, and character education programs, that 
     are designed to reinforce and complement the regular academic 
     program of participating students.
       (b) Funding for Summer School Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Provided that, in addition to amounts 
     otherwise available to carry out section 4205(a) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7175(a)), $150,000,000 shall be available to carry out 
     activities described in section 4205(a) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7175(a)) during 
     the 2002 summer recess period.
       (2) Awarding of grants.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 4202 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7172), the Secretary of Education shall award grants with 
     funds made available under paragraph (1) on a competitive 
     basis to eligible entities serving communities whose local 
     educational agencies are not able to meet fully the 
     communities' need for summer school programs.
       (B) Priority.--In awarding grants under subparagraph (A), 
     the Secretary of Education shall give priority to an eligible 
     entity that is a local educational agency or who serves a 
     community whose local educational agency--
       (i) serves high concentrations or numbers of low-income 
     children;
       (ii) before June 6, 2002, announced that the local 
     educational agency is canceling or reducing summer school 
     services in 2002; or
       (iii) is located in a State whose State educational agency, 
     before June 6, 2002, announced that the State educational 
     agency is canceling or reducing summer school funding for 
     2002.
       (3) Application and obligation.--
       (A) Application.--Notwithstanding sections 4203 and 4204 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7173 and 7174), an eligible entity that desires a grant under 
     this section shall submit an application to the Secretary of 
     Education at such time and in such manner as the Secretary of 
     Education may require.
       (B) Obligation.--Not later than 4 weeks after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Secretary of Education shall 
     obligate funds made available under this section.
       (4) Definition of eligible entity.--In this section, the 
     term ``eligible entity'' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 4201 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7171).
       (5) Emergency designation.--The entire amount necessary to 
     carry out this section is designated by Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, regrettably, I must oppose the amendment 
offered by my friend from Massachusetts. I do not like to oppose this 
amendment. I would be very supportive of this amendment were it under 
different circumstances and not being offered to this bill. The 
amendment would provide $150 million in emergency funding for fiscal 
year 2002 to support community summer school programs.
  Last December, Congress approved and the President signed the Labor-
HHS Education Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002. That act 
contains significant resources for the summer school program. 
Currently, the Federal Government provides $1 billion in funding for 
the 21st Century Afterschool Program. In fiscal year 2002, the funding 
increased by $150 million.
  Senator Kennedy makes a very strong case for this program, and I 
certainly agree with him in the concept, but I cannot support this 
amendment as it is being offered to this supplemental bill.
  This supplemental appropriations bill is focused on providing the 
resources necessary to support the war on terrorism and to secure our 
homeland.
  In the supplemental bill, we funded the President's request for $14 
billion for the Department of Defense. We have provided $8.3 billion 
for homeland defense programs.
  I believe it is essential that the Senate move forward quickly in 
approving this bill so that Federal agencies and State and local 
governments have the resources they need now--not later--to prevent, to 
detect, and to respond to potential terrorist attacks. Funding homeland 
defense must be our highest priority.
  Sadly, in the Statement of Administration Policy, delivered to the 
Senate yesterday, I believe it was, the President's senior advisers 
indicated they would recommend that he veto this

[[Page S5001]]

bill because it contains what the administration characterizes as 
``lower priority, nonemergency programs.''
  It is not clear which of our homeland defense programs the 
administration was referring to in their statement. Was it the funding 
to train and equip firefighters? Was it the funding to enhance law 
enforcement? Was it the funding to enhance port security? Was it the 
funding for airport security? Was it the security funding that the 
Department of Energy believes is essential to prevent terrorists from 
getting their hands on nuclear material but that OMB turned down?
  Regardless, we are facing a veto threat because the advisers to the 
President at least, apparently, believe we have too much funding in the 
bill for homeland defense and other programs.
  I believe the President and his advisers are fundamentally wrong when 
it comes to homeland defense.
  The Vice President has said we can expect another terrorist attack--
that it is almost certain. When might that happen--tomorrow, or next 
week, or next year? Yet the administration opposes critical homeland 
defense programs that our recent Appropriations Committee hearings 
demonstrated were necessary to fill in the cracks in the security of 
our homeland.
  Having said all of this, I do not believe we should add fuel to the 
fire by adding funding to this bill for a program that was well funded 
in the Labor-HHS Education Act. Was it because the summer school 
programs used more funds? Senator Kennedy and other Senators make a 
good case that it could be. But it is not an emergency.
  I regret having to oppose this amendment. I think I can say without 
any feeling that anyone can question my statement that I have been as 
great a supporter of education as any Senator in this Chamber. I have 
supported education all through the years. I support summer school 
programs. But I don't support adding $150 million to this bill when the 
threats of veto downtown indicate we would simply be adding fuel to the 
fire.
  This is a tough bill. It has been very difficult to bring it thus 
far. We conducted hearings which were extremely substantive. We had 
good witnesses. We had witnesses from all over the country--Governors, 
mayors, and people who are at the local level, firefighters, policemen, 
and health officials. We had former Senator Sam Nunn and former Senator 
Warren Rudman come before the committee. We had seven Federal 
Department heads. We went into matters very thoroughly on this 
committee. We were concerned about homeland defense. We wanted to 
provide the moneys that could be used in a protective way and in a way 
that would make our people safe. These moneys are for schoolchildren--
for the safety of schoolchildren, for safety in schools, and for the 
safety of the children and their parents in their homes.

  I just do not want to do anything that would give the administration 
any assistance in arguing that we are going beyond what we should do in 
this particular bill. We are having a hard enough time with the 
administration as it is. The Homeland Defense Director, Mr. Ridge, 
would not come before the committee. The President would not let him 
come before the committee. So we had to make do with what we could. We 
had very good hearings even though he did not appear before the 
committee.
  So we are doing the best we can to protect the people of this country 
in the face of imminent threats, if we are to pay any attention to what 
the administration has said about threats.
  I hope we will not add this amendment to this bill. It would be 
difficult enough in conference to carry the bill as it is written.
  We think what is in the bill, generally speaking, has been the 
product of our hearings. The hearings have been studied assiduously by 
the staff of both sides. And Senator Stevens and I have labored hard to 
bring this bill thus far. I don't want to see this bill vetoed. I hope 
we can convince the President not to veto it. But I think we ought to 
be very careful not to be adding amendments on this floor that will 
make it easier for the administration to make its case.
  I shall yield the floor at this point. I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of our 
committee.
  I regret that I must take the position we have to take on this 
amendment. It provides emergency funding for communities that have 
summer school programs. But as we look at it, the priority is given to 
communities that have had to eliminate or cut back on programs due to 
State or local budget reductions.
  We increased the money in the budget for 2002 by $150 million above 
the 2001 budget in this area. Having increased it $150 million, the 
State and local governments reduced their effort. And now the Senator 
wishes us to make up the reduction brought about by local and State 
reductions which they took because we had provided Federal money to 
assist them in the area. It is a never ending cycle if we do that.
  But beyond that, I call attention to the fact that we are already in 
June. There is no way in God's heaven we are going to get this bill to 
the President before July. The normal processes of releasing money 
would not get the money to them before September, when the school year 
has started. This is no way to treat our emergency bill that is before 
us now to deal with emergencies of homeland defense, emergencies in 
defense, and other emergencies. There are emergencies. The Oklahoma 
bridge is an emergency. But this is not an emergency. They are not 
needed on an emergency basis. They cannot be spent this summer.
  I am compelled to oppose the amendment because of the circumstance we 
face.
  I want to tell the Senate that this is the test. Everybody comes to 
us saying, you two big spenders are going to spend all the money around 
the place.
  The Senator from West Virginia and I have the job of trying to urge 
the Senate to get this bill to conference. As I said yesterday, I would 
like to see just a motion to go to third reading and take the bill we 
brought out of committee to conference, and bring the bill back by 
Tuesday so it might even get to the President before July 4. But under 
the procedure we are now following, I seriously doubt this bill will be 
on the President's desk before the July 4 recess, which is a travesty.

  This amendment adds to that delay because, I can assure you, the 
House will not accept this amendment. It is going to be opposed by the 
President and add to the bundle of sticks already there that brought 
about this threat of a veto.
  So I want to ask the Senate to support the leadership of our 
committee and refuse to accept this amendment because it is not an 
emergency, to vote against this concept of waiving the point of order 
that the Senator from West Virginia is compelled to make. He, as I do, 
believes very much in children. We believe in providing the money that 
is necessary.
  I am alarmed at the process that is underway whereby as we increase 
Federal spending, the State and local entities decrease theirs, so 
there is no net benefit to the beneficiaries we are trying to assist by 
bringing some additional Federal money into the areas previously 
occupied totally by State and local funds.
  I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is an emergency. If we do not 
provide the resources to these States, we are going to see an increased 
number of children who are not going to get the help they need.
  I will point out, before we get all excited about this being an 
emergency, there are a number of items that are included as emergencies 
in this supplemental: National Park Service construction at $18 
million; fire claims for New Mexico for $80 million. I am going to 
support that and vote for it. But let's not leave the impression this 
is only for homeland security. I will not go into the several hundred 
million dollars for additional items in the bill.
  If we are going to take care of the fire claims in the Southwest and 
provide funding for the National Park Service, I think we ought to 
provide money for children to go to school in the summer. That is an 
emergency, too. I hope that we would do that.

[[Page S5002]]

  The principal money that was increased last year starts in July and 
is for the next fiscal year. These schools and many of the school 
districts did not understand the emergency. But the requirements we put 
on the schools were not only for the poor children, they were for every 
child in this country. We ought to be concerned about the emergency 
that every child in this country is facing when they are being knocked 
off assistance to meet certain standards which our bill last year 
required them to meet. That is why this is an emergency and why I think 
it is important.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia controls 16\1/
2\ minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. How much time does the opposition have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I know it is easy to point to a bill that is 
a $31 billion bill. We increased that bill yesterday by $393 million. 
So it is $31,393,000,000.
  Now, it is easy to look at that, easy to pick at little items--pick, 
pick--but I think that if those items are considered and studied and 
all the facts are known, they are justified. They are justified.
  We do the best we can with a big bill. I do not take a back seat to 
anybody in support for the people of this country: the education of our 
children, young people, and adults.
  Last year, the President requested $44.5 billion for discretionary 
education programs. This level was woefully inadequate. Through 
negotiations with the White House, I was able to reach agreement on a 
ceiling for discretionary spending that was high enough to provide a 
$4.4 billion increase for our Nation's education programs.
  Following that agreement with the White House, I provided, as 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, an allocation to the Labor-
HHS Education Subcommittee that was large enough for Chairman Harkin to 
approve a $4.4 billion increase over the President's request and $6.7 
billion, or 16 percent, above the prior fiscal year.
  So if you are looking for ``Mr. Education'' around here, I will stay 
in the ring; I will fight for that as hard as anybody else. I got my 
education the hard way. I started out in a two-room schoolhouse in 
southern West Virginia. I graduated in 1934 in a class of 28 persons. I 
was the valedictorian. If there had been 29 persons, I might not have 
been valedictorian. But it was 16 years after I completed high school 
before I was able to start college.

  So don't talk to me about education. You are looking at somebody who 
typifies the effort to study and to learn and the effort to help others 
to learn.
  I went to school 10 years at night in this city to get my law degree, 
not that I ever expected to be a lawyer, but I wanted to learn. I am 
still learning.
  I chose this past Sunday to travel miles into the mountains of West 
Virginia to address a commencement. I had several commencement 
invitations from West Virginia high schools and colleges. I chose one. 
I chose to address the commencement at a high school in Pickens, WV, 
near Helvetia, a little town that was founded by Swiss immigrants in 
the early 1800s.
  How many students were in that whole school? Thirty-seven from 
kindergarten through the senior class. How many students were in the 
senior class? Three--not 300; two young men and one young woman.
  Why did I choose them? I wanted to go to that little school to let 
those little people back there in the hills, who might feel that they 
are off the beaten path, that somebody was interested, somebody was 
paying attention to them.
  That little school has won several of the Statewide academic awards. 
They don't go in big for athletics--I don't, either--they concentrate 
on academics, and they won several awards. A little school with one 
ten-thousandths of the whole school population in West Virginia has won 
11 percent of the academic awards in that State.
  So I am for education. I want to help our young people. Years ago, I 
fought for summer jobs for young people in this District of Columbia so 
they could work and, hopefully, stay out of trouble.
  So I can shout as loud as anybody, and I can believe what I am saying 
as conscientiously as can anybody else. I am doing what I can for 
education. Education is one of my priorities; it always has been. But 
this is a different bill. We are talking about the safety of young 
people who attend schools at Pickens, Sophia, or here in Washington, 
DC. We are talking about the safety of people.
  This administration tells us that we might see a repeat of what 
happened on September 11; it is almost certain.
  This bill needs to pass. We need to get it to conference. We need to 
get it to the President. And I hope that the President will not veto 
it. It is a worthwhile bill--not that the amendment that the 
distinguished Senator is proposing is not worthwhile. I support that 
amendment but not on this bill--not on this bill.
  I have a job to do here, and it is to try to get the bill through.
  How many minutes remain?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes remain.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the chair, and I yield the floor for now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. I yield 3 minutes to Senator Gregg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the chairman of the committee. I rise in 
opposition to this amendment which is obviously well intentioned but 
unfortunately is not affordable at this time, and certainly not on this 
bill. It is inconsistent with some of what we have already done in the 
area of summer school education.
  First, the reason it is inconsistent is that there is no way this 
bill is going to pass in time for this money to get out for the summer 
school activities. As a practical matter, although it would be a nice 
vote and obviously would be politically attractive, its impact on 
summer school will be negligible, if any at all, because the money 
simply will not get there.
  Secondly, it is important to remember that in the ESEA bill, we have 
given the authority to local school districts to spend title I money 
for the purposes of summer school, which makes a great deal of sense, 
and the President has increased funding for title I by $1.6 billion 
last year and asked for another $1 billion this year. Those are 
significant dollar increases.
  If a local school district desires, it can use those moneys for the 
purpose of extending the school year or aggressively promoting summer 
school. The money is in place, already appropriated. As a practical 
matter, it is following a path which we set under ESEA, which was the 
bill we passed, No Child Left Behind, and is part of that entire 
package.
  Although this additional money is certainly well intentioned, I don't 
see it having much effect because it is not going to get to the schools 
by this summer because the money will not be available in that 
timeframe.
  Secondly, we have already funded these programs through the dramatic 
increase in title I which has come about as a result of the President's 
leadership.
  For that reason, I oppose the amendment. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes 10 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. And on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will yield the remaining time to 
myself.
  While taking care of the war front, we also must take care of the 
home front. Summer school is an emergency for 300,000 schoolchildren 
who may not graduate without this amendment. It is just as deserving as 
other emergency items in this bill. There are other emergency items: 
National Park Service construction, $18 million; Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, department management, $7 million; Forest Service capital 
improvements, $4 million; fire claims, $80 million. These are all under

[[Page S5003]]

the emergency provisions. I believe $150 million for summer school 
programs for children is as deserving as those programs.
  In the end, this is about families, it is about children, it is about 
who we are as a nation. Can we protect our interests abroad and also 
help our children here at home?
  I know a point of order will be made. I hope we would add this as an 
amendment to meeting emergency requirements such as those other items I 
indicated have been included. Children, summer school programs, ought 
to be included as well.
  Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time, 
or I will withhold the time depending on the opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require.
  Mr. President, the supplemental also contains $1 billion for the Pell 
grant shortfall. That is a key education program. I want the record to 
show that the bill is certainly not devoid of moneys that are to be 
spent in the interest of education.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven and one-half minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, would the distinguished Senator from 
Massachusetts like some of my time?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator. I think we have had a good 
discussion. I am prepared to yield back the time. I am very grateful to 
the Senator. We are prepared to yield back the time and move ahead. I 
would retain that time if others were going to speak, but I am prepared 
to move to the vote on what will probably be a point of order. If the 
Senator cares to, I will yield back my time, if those in opposition 
will yield back their time.
  Mr. BYRD. How much time does the Senator from Massachusetts have 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty seconds.
  Mr. BYRD. That would be a good tradeoff.
  I consider the Senator from Massachusetts to be not only a fine 
Senator, but he is my friend. He is very interested in fostering 
education and providing good legislation and good funding. If he wants 
another 3 minutes, I will be glad to yield him 3 minutes of my time. I 
am ready to make a point of order, but I don't want to do it without 
giving the Senator or any other Senator who wishes to speak time on his 
behalf.
  Mr. KENNEDY. As I mentioned, we are prepared to move ahead with the 
resolution. I will yield back my 30 seconds. I understand when all time 
has expired, then a point of order will be made. We will let the Senate 
make a decision. I thank the Senator very much for extending me the 
time. We have had other Senators who have spoken. I think we are 
prepared to move ahead.
  Mr. BYRD. Very well. Mr. President, I am constrained to recall a 
little poem which I think the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts 
will like. I like it very much. I think we are both interested in the 
same cause, the education of our young people.
  As a Senator who has great-grandchildren, I certainly hope for the 
best for these great-grandchildren and the great-grandchildren of all 
other great-grandparents in the country.
  I guess I will close my opposition to this amendment with this brief 
recapitulation of verse:

     I took a piece of plastic clay
     And idly fashioned it one day--
     And as my fingers pressed it, still
     It moved and yielded to my will.

     I came again when days were past
     The bit of clay was hard at last.
     The form I gave it, still it bore,
     And I could change that form no more!

     I took a piece of living clay,
     And gently fashioned it day by day,
     And molded with my power and art
     A young child's soft and yielding heart.

     I came again when years were gone:
     It was a man I looked upon.
     He still that early impress bore,
     And I could fashion it never more.

  I think that pretty well sums up my feeling toward our young people, 
our children, the education of our young people. Now is the time, the 
formative period in their youth when we can shape and mold them to our 
will. Now is the best time for the learning process, while they are 
young and they don't have the other cares that they will have later.
  I compliment the distinguished Senator for his offering of this 
amendment. I oppose it with apologies. But I can't help it. This bill 
is not the bill on which we should attach this amendment, however 
worthy the amendment.
  With those apologies, I will make the point of order. I yield back my 
time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I may have 30 seconds, I thank my 
friend from West Virginia. He can make a speech in favor of education, 
name every one of his elementary and secondary schoolteachers, give all 
of their background, and convince this body of the importance of 
funding. I am looking forward to standing with him, hopefully shoulder 
to shoulder, as we move on into these appropriations to try to do what 
needs to be done for the children of this country. I always enjoy the 
chance of working with him. My time has expired, I understand.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I assure him we will be standing 
shoulder to shoulder in many instances.
  Mr. President, section 205 of H. Con. Res 290, the fiscal year 2001 
concurrent resolution on the budget, created a point of order against 
an emergency designation on nondefense spending. The amendment contains 
nondefense spending with an emergency designation.
  Pursuant to section 205 of H. Con. Res 290, the fiscal year 2001 
concurrent resolution on the budget, I make a point of order against 
the emergency designation contained in the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move to waive section 205 of H. Con. 
Res 290, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001 
for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: The ``yea'' vote 
will be interpreted as waiving the Budget Act for the purpose of this 
amendment, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A ``yea'' vote is in favor of waiving the 
Budget Act.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Torricelli) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 38, nays 60, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 132 Leg.]

                                YEAS--38

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--60

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Torricelli
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas are 38, the nays are 60.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the

[[Page S5004]]

affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is sustained. 
The emergency designation is removed.


               Amendment No. 3608, As Modified, Withdrawn

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for up to 2 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bingaman are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent to follow the Senator from 
Wisconsin with two amendments to be called up.
  Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I have no personal objection; however, I believe we should 
consult with the Republican leader, Senator Stevens. At this time, I am 
constrained to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Let me inquire if I could call them up and lay them 
aside before a decision to vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. I have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.


                           Amendment No. 3687

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the next amendment 
is the Gregg-Feingold amendment.
  Mr. GREGG. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg], for himself, 
     Mr. Feingold, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. 
     McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 3687.

  Mr. GREGG. 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 extend and strengthen procedures to maintain fiscal 
                   accountability and responsibility)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

                       Part  --Budget Enforcement

     SECTION  1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Part may be cited as the ``Budget Enforcement Act of 
     2002''.

     SEC.  2. EXTENSION OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       (a) In General.--Section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901) is 
     amended by striking paragraphs (7) through (16) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(7) with respect to fiscal year 2003--
       ``(A) for the discretionary category: $766,169,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $758,880,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(B) for the highway category: $27,728,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(C) for the mass transit category: $6,256,000,000 in 
     outlays; and
       ``(D) for the conservation spending category: 
     $1,920,000,000 in new budget authority and $1,872,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       ``(8)(A) with respect to fiscal year 2004 for the 
     discretionary category: $784,425,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $814,447,000,000 in outlays; and
       ``(B) with respect to fiscal year 2004 for the conservation 
     spending category: $2,080,000,000, in new budget authority 
     and $2,032,000,000 outlays;
       ``(9)(A) with respect to fiscal year 2005 for the 
     discretionary category: $801,968,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $833,246,000,000 in outlays; and
       ``(B) with respect to fiscal year 2005 for the conservation 
     spending category: $2,240,000,000, in new budget authority 
     and $2,192,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(10)(A) with respect to fiscal year 2006 for the 
     discretionary category: $819,740,000,000, in new budget 
     authority and $845,056,000,000 in outlays; and
       ``(B) with respect to fiscal year 2006 for the conservation 
     spending category: $2,400,000,000, in new budget authority 
     and $2,352,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(11) with respect to each fiscal year 2002 through 2006 
     for the Federal and State Land and Water Conservation Fund 
     subcategory of the conservation spending category: 
     $540,000,000 in new budget authority and the outlays flowing 
     therefrom;
       ``(12) with respect to each fiscal year 2002 through 2006 
     for the State and Other Conservation subcategory of the 
     conservation spending category: $300,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and the outlays flowing therefrom;
       ``(13) with respect to each fiscal year 2002 through 2006 
     for the Urban and Historic Preservation subcategory of the 
     conservation spending category: $160,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and the outlays flowing therefrom;
       ``(14) with respect to each fiscal year 2002 through 2006 
     for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes subcategory of the 
     conservation spending category: $50,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and the outlays flowing therefrom;
       ``(15) with respect to each fiscal year 2002 through 2006 
     for the Federal Deferred Maintenance subcategory of the 
     conservation spending category: $150,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and the outlays flowing therefrom;
       ``(16) for the Coastal Assistance subcategory of the 
     conservation spending category:
       ``(A) with respect to fiscal year 2002: $440,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and the outlays flowing therefrom;
       ``(B) with respect to fiscal year 2003: $480,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and the outlays flowing therefrom;
       ``(C) with respect to fiscal year 2004: $520,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and the outlays flowing therefrom;
       ``(D) with respect to fiscal year 2005: $560,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and the outlays flowing therefrom;
       ``(E) with respect to fiscal year 2006: $600,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and the outlays flowing therefrom; and
       ``(17) with respect to fiscal year 2007 for the 
     discretionary category: $840,993,000,000, in new budget 
     authority and $858,266,000,000 in outlays.''.
       (b) Reports.--Subsections (c)(2) and (f)(2) of section 254 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985 (2 U.S.C. 904) are amended by striking ``2002'' and 
     inserting ``2007''.
       (c) Expiration.--
       (1) Gramm-rudman-hollings.--Section 275(b) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
     900 note) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2007''; and
       (B) by striking ``2006'' and inserting ``2011''.
       (2) Congressional budget act.--Section 904(e) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 note) is 
     amended by striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2007''.

     SEC.  3. EXTENSION OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO REQUIREMENT.

       Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 902) is amended--
       (1) in subsections (a) and (b)(1), by striking ``enacted 
     before October 1, 2002,'' and inserting ``enacted before 
     October 1, 2007''; and
       (2) in subsection (b) by inserting at the end thereof the 
     following:
       ``(3) Exception.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, there shall be no sequestration under this section for 
     any fiscal year in which a surplus exists (as measured in 
     conformance with section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act 
     of 1990).''.

     SEC.  4. POINT OF ORDER TO REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH THE 
                   DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS AND PAY-AS-YOU-
                   GO.

       Section 312(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 
     U.S.C. 643(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Discretionary Spending Limit and Pay-as-you-go Point 
     of Order in the Senate.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in 
     paragraph (6), it shall not be in order in the Senate to 
     consider any bill or resolution or any separate provision of 
     a bill or resolution (or amendment, motion, or conference 
     report on that bill or resolution) that would--
       ``(A) exceed any of the discretionary spending limits set 
     forth in section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 or any suballocation of such 
     limits among subcommittees under section 302(b); or
       ``(B) for direct spending or revenue legislation, would 
     cause or increase a deficit (as measured in conformance with 
     section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990) for any 
     one of the following three applicable time periods:
       ``(i) the first year covered by the most recently adopted 
     concurrent resolution on the budget;
       ``(ii) the period of the first 5 fiscal years covered by 
     the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the 
     budget; or
       ``(iii) the period of the 5 fiscal years following the 
     first five fiscal years covered in the most recently adopted 
     concurrent resolution on the budget.
       ``(2) Budget resolutions.--Except as otherwise provided in 
     paragraph (6), it shall not be in order in the Senate to 
     consider any concurrent resolution on the budget (or 
     amendment, motion, or conference report on that concurrent 
     resolution) that would exceed any of the discretionary 
     spending limits set forth in section 251(c) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       ``(3) Point of order against a specific provision.--If the 
     Presiding Officer sustains a point of order under paragraph 
     (1) with respect to any separate provision of a bill or 
     resolution, that provision shall be stricken from the measure 
     and may not be offered as an amendment from the floor.
       ``(4) Form of the point of order.--A point of order under 
     this section may be raised by a Senator as provided in 
     section 313(e).

[[Page S5005]]

       ``(5) Conference reports.--If a point of order is sustained 
     under this section against a conference report the report 
     shall be disposed of as provided in section 313(d).
       ``(6) Exceptions.--This subsection shall not apply if a 
     declaration of war by the Congress is in effect or if a joint 
     resolution pursuant to section 258 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 has been enacted.''.

     SEC.  5. ENFORCEMENT AGAINST BUDGET EVASION.

       (a) In General.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 is amended by inserting at the end the following:


                    ``budget evasion point of order

       ``Sec. 316. (a) Discretionary Spending Limits.--It shall 
     not be in order to consider any bill or resolution (or 
     amendment, motion, or conference report on that bill or 
     resolution) that waives or suspends the enforcement of 
     section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 or otherwise would alter the spending 
     limits set forth in that section.
       ``(b) Pay-as-You-Go.--It shall not be in order to consider 
     any bill or resolution (or amendment, motion, or conference 
     report on that bill or resolution) that waives or suspends 
     the enforcement of section 252 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 or otherwise would 
     alter the balances of the pay-as-you-go scorecard pursuant to 
     that section.
       ``(c) Directed Scoring.--It shall not be in order in the 
     Senate to consider any bill or resolution (or amendment, 
     motion, or conference report on that bill or resolution) that 
     directs the scorekeeping of any bill or resolution.
       ``(d) Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be waived or 
     suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
     fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative 
     vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly 
     chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain 
     an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order 
     raised under this section.''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting 
     after the item for section 315 the following:

``316. Budget evasion point of order.''.

  Mr. GREGG. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator 
Feingold, Senator Chafee, Senator Kerry, Senator Voinovich, and Senator 
McCain.
  Essentially, this amendment does two things. It reinstitutes the caps 
and it reinstitutes the pay-go language. It puts back in place 
budgetary discipline as we move through this process of appropriations 
bills.
  Recently, we have seen the budget discipline within the Congress has 
eroded rather dramatically. We have seen the Agriculture bill and the 
trade adjustment bill both adding massive new entitlement programs. We 
know as we look down the road we will have very significant costs in 
the area of fighting terrorism and in the area of natural defense. It 
is absolutely critical in this context that we start to put some budget 
discipline in place.
  We are facing, regrettably, a deficit, something we hoped would not 
happen, but it has happened as a result of the economic slowdown and as 
a result of the effects of terrorism. The deficit is growing rather 
radically, unfortunately. Our job as legislators is to make sure we do 
not aggravate that deficit by not being fiscally responsible as we 
bring forward appropriations bills and other bills which might have 
entitlement spending included.
  Unfortunately, the disciplining mechanism which actually exists out 
there, or has existed for the last 5 or 6 years, is about to lapse; 
that is, the ability to have a fixed number beyond which if we are 
going to spend we have to have a supermajority to do that. That is 
called caps.
  The second budget discipline, which is pay-go, essentially says if 
you are going to add a new entitlement program or you are going to cut 
taxes during a period, especially of deficits, you must offset that 
event so that it becomes a budget-neutral event that also lapses.
  This language which Senator Feingold and I have put together and 
which failed on a very close vote in the Budget Committee, a tie vote, 
in fact--it would have passed with one more vote--reinstitutes the same 
traditional approach--so 5-year caps, 5-year pay-go, and, as a result, 
put in place some discipline.
  There are some subtleties to our bill about which I want to be open. 
Some people have looked at them and said they are interested in them 
and some said they are concerned about them. One is the way we enforce 
this mechanism by saying the bill which exceeds the caps allocated to 
it by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the 302(b) 
allocation, that if a bill exceeds that cap, that bill is subject to a 
point of order on specific parts of that bill, depending on what part 
of that bill is unable to be sustained with 60 votes. So it becomes a 
targeted approach of trying to bring that bill back into proper 
perspective as far as appropriations and the budget are concerned.
  Second, the basis for the cap is the Democratic budget proposal as it 
passed the committee. So the numbers are for the 5 years. Those were 
the gross numbers. Those numbers are higher than those of the President 
this year by $9 billion, but over the 5-year period they are actually 
about the same as the President's number. In fact, I think they are 
within a couple of billion dollars of each other. As a practical 
matter, there is a path toward maintaining fiscal responsibility.
  If we do not do this, if we do not put back in place caps and pay-go 
mechanisms, we will have no budget discipline in this Congress, and, as 
a result, we will dramatically aggravate the deficit which, of course, 
impacts a lot of important issues, but especially impacts Social 
Security.

  I hope my colleagues will support this effort. I reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I rise today to join with my colleague from New 
Hampshire, Senator Gregg, as well as my colleagues Senators Chafee, 
Kerry, Voinovich, and McCain to offer this amendment, which I believe 
is a commonsense budget process amendment, the Budget Enforcement Act 
of 2002.
  Let me especially thank the Senator from New Hampshire, who has been 
a terrific leader on this issue. As he said, we made a real effort in 
the Budget Committee, had an excellent debate with the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee and only lost on a 9-to-9 vote. We were hoping 
for a good result today, but we are both devoted to returning some 
budget rules because we both believe this is one of the main reasons we 
were able to have some success in the 1990s in bringing the budget 
under control and actually getting to the point where we had a surplus 
for a brief period of time.
  In the 1990s, we took fiscally responsible actions that led to 
balancing the budget in 1999 and 2000, without using Social Security, 
which was a tremendous achievement. Last year, the Government returned 
to the bad habit of using the Social Security surplus to fund other 
Government activities. I believe we have to put an end to that 
practice. The Government will not have these Social Security surpluses 
to use forever. In the next decade, the baby boom generation will begin 
to retire in large numbers. Starting in 2016, Social Security will 
start redeeming the bonds that it holds, and the non-Social Security 
government will have to start paying for those bonds from non-Social 
Security surpluses.
  The bottom line is that, starting in 2016, the Government will have 
to show restraint in the non-Social Security budget so we can pay the 
Social Security benefits that Americans have already earned or will 
have already earned by that time.
  That is why we cannot continue to enact either tax cuts or spending 
measures that push the Government further into deficit. Before we enter 
new obligations, we need to make sure we have the resources to make our 
Nation's commitment to our seniors under Social Security. I believe we 
need to return to the priority of protecting the Social Security trust 
fund. We should, as President Bush said in a March 2001 radio address, 
``keep the promise of Social Security and keep the Government from 
raiding the Social Security surplus.''
  Yes, September 11 changes priorities and how the Government spends 
money, but September 11 does not change the oncoming requirements of 
Social Security. As an economist has said: Demographics is destiny; we 
can either prepare for that destiny or we can fail. To get the 
Government out of the business of using Social Security surpluses to 
fund other Government spending, we need to strengthen our budget 
process. That is what this amendment does and that is why we urge our 
colleagues to support it.
  The history of budget process changes teaches that realistic budget 
enforcement mechanisms work. The

[[Page S5006]]

Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, enacted with bipartisan support, with a 
Democratic Congress and a Republican President, deserves much credit 
for helping to keep the Government on that path to reduce and 
eventually eliminate the deficit.
  A central feature of the 1990 act was the creation of caps on 
appropriated spending. Of course, in recent years, Congress has blown 
through those caps, when those caps were at unrealistic levels, and 
when the Government was running surpluses. But in most years of their 
history, appropriations caps helped to constrain the politically 
understandable appetite to spend without limit.
  Congress has repeatedly endorsed the idea of spending caps. Congress 
renewed and extended the caps in the budget process laws of 1993 and 
1997. And six of the last eight budget resolutions have set enforceable 
spending caps. If budget numbers are to have any meaning--if they are 
not to be just wishes and prayers--then we need to have enforcement.
  Our amendment would reinstate and extend the caps on discretionary 
spending, and would do so at a realistic baseline. It would simply set 
those levels at those in the budget resolution reported by the Budget 
Committee on March 22. And our amendment maintains, without change, the 
separate subcaps created in the Violent Crime Act of 1994 and the 
Transportation Equity Act of 1998.
  Like the 1990 budget law that it extends, our amendment would apply 
budget enforcement to entitlements and taxes. It would extend the pay-
as-you-go enforcement mechanism. All parts of the budget would thus be 
treated fairly.
  Our amendment would also improve the points of order that enforce the 
caps and pay-as-you-go enforcement. It would allow Senators to raise a 
point of order against specific provisions that cause the caps or pay-
as-you-go discipline to be violated. This part of the amendment will 
work very much like the important Byrd rule that governs the 
reconciliation process, which is of course named after the 
distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia.
  Under our amendment, if a piece of legislation violates the caps or 
pay-as-you-go discipline, any Senator could raise a point of order and 
force a vote on any individual provision that contributes to the budget 
violation. If the point of order is not waived, then the provision 
would be stricken from the legislation.

  The amendment would also shut back-door ways around the caps and pay-
as-you-go enforcement, by requiring 60 votes to change the caps, alter 
the balances of the pay-as-you-go scorecard, or direct scorekeeping.
  Our amendment would limit the exceptions to the point of order 
against emergency designations in the fiscal year 2001 budget 
resolution, so that all emergencies would be treated alike. Our 
amendment would thus treat emergencies as they were treated in the text 
of that budget resolution when the Senate passed it on April 7, 2000, 
rather than in the watered-down form it had when it came back from 
conference with the House of Representatives.
  Finally, our amendment would extend for 5 years the requirement for 
60 votes to waive existing points of order that enforce the 
Congressional Budget Act. The 60-vote requirement that gives these 
points of order teeth expires on September 30 this year under current 
law.
  This is sensible budget process reform, in keeping with the best, 
most effective budget process enforcement that we have enacted in the 
past. It would make a significant contribution toward ending the 
practice of using the Social Security surplus to fund other government 
activities. That is something that we simply must do, for our seniors, 
and for those in coming generations who will otherwise be stuck with 
the bill. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the 
amendment be printed in the Record. 
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Gregg-Feingold-Chafee-Kerry Amendment--Budget Enforcement Act of 2002

       Appropriations Caps--The amendment would reinstate and 
     extend for 5 years the caps on discretionary spending, keyed 
     to the levels in the budget resolution reported by the Budget 
     Committee. Points of order and the threat of across-the-board 
     cuts would continue to provide enforcement.
       Pay-as-You-Go Entitlements and Taxes--The amendment would 
     reinstate and extend the pay-as-you-go discipline that 
     controls entitlement spending and tax law changes. Points of 
     order and the threat of across-the-board cuts would continue 
     to provide enforcement.
       Point of Order Against Specific Provisions that Violate the 
     Caps or Pay-as-You-Go--If legislation violated the caps or 
     pay-as-you-go enforcement, the amendment would allow any 
     Senator to raise a point of order against (and thus force a 
     vote on) any individual provision that contributed to the 
     budget violation. If the Senate did not waive the point of 
     order, then the provision would be stricken from the 
     legislation. This point of order would work just like the 
     Byrd Rule against extraneous matter in reconciliation 
     legislation.
       Guarding Against Budget Evasions--The amendment would shut 
     back-door ways around the caps and pay-as-you-go enforcement, 
     by requiring 60 votes to change the discretionary caps, alter 
     the balances of the pay-as-you-go scorecard, or direct 
     scorekeeping.
       Extending Existing Points of Order--The amendment would 
     extend for 5 years the requirement for 60 votes to waive 
     existing points of order that enforce the Congressional 
     Budget Act. The 60-vote requirement that gives these points 
     of order teeth expires on September 30 this year under 
     current law.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If no one yields time, time 
will be charged proportionately against the Senators who control time.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. 
Chafee.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
sponsored by Senators Gregg, Feingold, Kerry, Voinovich, McCain, and 
myself.
  This is a commonsense amendment that extends existing appropriations 
caps and pay-as-you-go rules for another 5 years. In addition, the 
amendment strengthens some budget enforcement mechanisms.
  The Senators that have spoken before me have done an admirable job of 
explaining the provisions in the bill. I want to stress the necessity 
of fiscal discipline.
  Every day constituents and experts talk to me about spending programs 
that are vitally important to them, asking me to support increased 
spending. Just as often I hear from people who want to do away with 
some tax, or lower a tax. They all have excellent arguments, and there 
is much merit to the initiatives they would like me to support. The 
problem is that if I were to support each of them, I would be 
supporting an agenda of cutting taxes and increasing spending. Such an 
agenda would directly result in deficit spending, which would increase 
the already enormous Federal debt.
  In good conscience, I cannot support such an agenda. Therefore, often 
I must tell visitors that I cannot be supportive of their cherished 
initiative. As all in this body know, telling constituents that you do 
not support their project is a difficult job, especially when the 
reason that I give them is that ``The money just isn't there.'' Because 
they respond by saying, ``The money always seems to be there.''
  The problem is that they are right. In a time of war, and deficits, 
we have approved new tax cuts, which I opposed. We are contemplating 
permanently extending other tax cuts, which I will oppose. As if that 
were not enough, we also have added a raft of new spending--including 
the farm bill and the stimulus--which I opposed. There is no end in 
sight.
  We have gone from record surpluses straight back to deficits. We 
approved a massive tax cut last year, which limits the amount of money 
available. We know that the war on terrorism will be very costly. We 
know we are facing unprecedented demographic changes that will result 
in staggering costs to sustain Social Security and Medicare. Added to 
all that, we have a $6 trillion debt, which costs $200 billion in 
interest payments each year. And we practice no restraint. We continue 
to spend money, deepening the hole we are in.
  This amendment is a step towards reestablishing fiscal discipline in 
this body. It alone will not ensure the return of balanced budgets--but 
it is a step in the right direction. Therefore, I

[[Page S5007]]

urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 30 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. How much time remains on the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 8 minutes; 
the Senator from Wisconsin, 9.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask the Chair to advise me when I have 
consumed 10 minutes.
  Madam President, the amendment offered by our colleagues is well 
intentioned. In fact, I share many of the goals they have enunciated 
today. We have an enormously serious problem with the fiscal condition 
of the country. This chart shows that we are now headed for a return to 
an era of deficits that is going to continue long into the future. This 
chart goes back to 1992, back to the time when we were deep in deficit. 
Many of us know the extraordinary efforts that were required to lift us 
out of deficit, back into surplus, which we enjoyed for just a few 
short years.
  Last year, a series of decisions were made on a massive tax cut. 
Then, of course, the attack on the country occurred that led to 
increased spending for defense and homeland security. At the same time, 
there was an economic slowdown. We experienced those three events--the 
massive tax cut, the attack on this country that led to increased 
spending, and, of course, the economic slowdown. Those three, led by 
the tax cut--the tax cut was the biggest contributor to returning to 
deficit--has plunged us back into deficit by very large amounts that 
are going to continue the rest of the decade. That is the circumstance 
we face.
  The proposal by our colleagues has a very serious set of problems 
attached to it. They have gone to what is an enforcement mechanism that 
we have seen in the past. If you liked Gramm-Rudman, you will love 
Gregg-Feingold because they have returned to the notion of enforcement 
based on projections; not what actually happens but based on 
projections of what will happen.
  This is a fatal flaw. In fact, it could undermine the very budget 
discipline they are seeking to support. Have we forgotten what happened 
under Gramm-Rudman? Have we forgotten the endless game playing and 
gimmicks that resulted from Gramm-Rudman?
  Have we forgotten the rosy scenario? Let us go back to 1990 and look 
at what could happen under the proposal of our colleagues to now again 
rely on forecasts and projections rather than real results.
  Back in 1990, OMB told us at the beginning of the year that we were 
going to have a $100 billion deficit. They were right on track with the 
deficit reduction plan that was in place. That is what they said.
  What actually occurred? It wasn't a $100 billion deficit. It was a 
$221 billion deficit.
  All projections, all false; all that lead to a circumstance under the 
proposal from the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from 
Wisconsin that could lead a Congress to have more tax cuts, more 
spending, based on a projection that everything was OK. Later in the 
year, when reality sets in, their answer is to only deal with half of 
the equation that leads to budget deficits. Budget deficits are a 
result of an imbalance between spending and revenue. Their only answer 
is on the spending side of the equation. That is, I think, a mistake.
  Let us look at what it took to get us back into balance. Back in the 
1980s--here is the blue line, the revenue line, and the red line is the 
spending line. We can see for a very long period that spending exceeded 
revenues, and by large amounts. The result was a quadrupling of the 
debt of the United States.
  What happened in 1993? We passed a plan to cut spending and to raise 
revenue. It was that combination that led us back to fiscal 
responsibility, that led us back to balance, that eliminated deficits, 
and that reduced debt.
  Have we forgotten that worked?
  I hope very much that we don't go down this slippery slope of a whole 
new enforcement mechanism based on projections rather than real 
results. That way leads to real trouble.
  In addition to those problems, our friends who are coming before us 
with this amendment--well intentioned as it is--I think do 
underestimate the uncertainty of our time.
  When this headline appeared on September 12, everything changed. This 
headline says, ``U.S. Attacked.''
  We all remember that somber day when there were two strikes at the 
World Trade Center and passenger airliners turned into flying bombs, 
and what happened shortly thereafter with the attack on the Pentagon. 
That changed everything. We are now in a period of extraordinary 
uncertainty.
  Here are recent headlines that talk about uncertainty. This is the 
Vice President of the United States warning of future attacks:

       Possibility of another al-Qaida strike ``almost certain,'' 
     the Vice President says.

  In this circumstance, we should not be tying the hands of the 
Congress and the administration for the next 5 years. None of us are 
wise enough to know what demands may be made on this country. None of 
us can know what is in the next 24 hours, much less the next 5 years.
  We ought to be ready to respond to any attack and any strike against 
this country. We ought not to be in a fiscal straitjacket that makes a 
response more difficult.
  It is not just the Vice President of the United States. This is the 
head of the FBI: ``Warns of Suicide Bombs.''

       Calls U.S. attacks akin to those on Israel inevitable.

  Our friends who are sponsoring this amendment will say we have a way 
around that for defense spending. We only have a simple majority vote 
for additional defense spending.
  Those are not typical defense expenditures that are being used to 
respond to terrorist attacks. Defense is part of it, but another part 
is called ``homeland security.'' Homeland security funding is not off 
in the defense budget. It is in the budget of the FBI, it is in the 
budget of the INS, it is in the budget of the FAA, it is in the budget 
of the Transportation Department, and it is in the budget of the 
Department of Health and Human Services to respond to attacks and to 
bioterrorism. The money needed to defend this Nation is not just in the 
defense budget.
  Have we forgotten the response of this Congress to the attacks of 
September 11? Was it just defense spending that we increased? 
Absolutely not. We also responded with money for homeland security 
because we understood a terrorist threat to this country could not be 
just defended in the traditional way.
  The uncertainty goes to other areas as well. This is a headline of 
Tuesday of this week in USA Today:

       Nuclear Clash Would Batter World Financial Markets.

  They are talking about what would happen if a nuclear exchange 
occurred between India and Pakistan. They alert us to the fact that it 
would batter world financial markets.

       Nuclear war would spark a sell-off and send world stock 
     markets tumbling.

  This is a period of uncertainty, and we ought not to be tying the 
hands of the Congress being able to respond.
  The uncertainty is not just on the spending side of the equation. It 
is also on the revenue side of the equation.
  This is a headline of April 26 in the Los Angeles Times:

       Lower Tax Receipts Could Double the United States Budget 
     Deficit . . .

  In this year alone.
  I agree with that analysis. I think we are headed for a budget 
deficit this year of perhaps $160 billion and next year an even larger 
budget deficit.
  That is why enforcement provisions are critically important. But they 
have to be enforcement provisions that will actually work and not make 
the situation worse.
  I wish to announce my intention now to offer the budget enforcement 
provisions that have worked, and to do so after the disposition of this 
amendment.
  Let me add one other observation about the amendment that is being 
offered.
  The Gregg-Feingold proposal extends the statutory pay-as-you-go 
enforcement procedures for 5 years, but it substantially amends the 
current pay-go

[[Page S5008]]

law to allow direct spending increases or tax cuts to be enacted 
without being paid for if the Office of Management and Budget projects 
that there will be a surplus without Social Security.
  That is the Achilles' heel of this amendment. It is based on 
projections and not real results.
  We have been down that road before. It was a disaster for fiscal 
responsibility. Let us not repeat it.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise in support of the Gregg-Feingold-
Kerry amendment. I believe there is no perfect solution. There is no 
perfect answer to the problem we face. Perhaps some may argue that the 
caps for the first year are too high. Perhaps if I had written this 
amendment I might have made them lower. The fact is, without this 
amendment, there is no fiscal discipline. There is no fiscal discipline 
that can be imposed on a process which has lurched out of control.

  To state the obvious, we have gone from estimates of $50 or $60 
billion surpluses at the beginning of this year, to somewhere around 
$100 billion, $150 billion deficits, and we have not even passed the 
first appropriations bill. And if this emergency supplemental, which is 
$4 billion higher than the President's, is any indicator, we are going 
to be in a sea of red ink.
  I think it is a bipartisan effort. It extends discretionary spending 
caps and the pay-go requirement for entitlement expansions and tax 
cuts.
  These mechanisms have helped to impose fiscal discipline since they 
were first enacted in 1990, but they obviously expire this year. It 
would be ironic and irresponsible to let the caps and the pay-go expire 
just when the budget is punching back into deficit.
  There are a lot of organizations around the country. One that I 
respect, and I know my colleague from New Hampshire respects, is the 
Concord Coalition.
  The Concord Coalition is chaired by former U.S. Senators Warren 
Rudman and Bob Kerrey. They serve as the Concord Coalition's cochairs. 
And former Secretary of Commerce Pete Peterson serves as president.
  They issued some grades. They are a fiscal responsibility 
organization. And the Concord Coalition just released this report on 
fiscal responsibility:
  Overall: Progress toward short, medium, and long-term fiscal 
responsibility, D;
  Short-Term: Enacting measures that maintain fiscal responsibility, 
C-;
  Medium-Term: Enacting measures that are fiscally responsible over the 
next 10 years, D-;
  Long-Term: Enacting measures that deal with the entitlement financing 
gap and ensure fiscal sustainability, D-.
  They begin their report by saying:

       Crocodile tears are flowing over the return of budget 
     deficits--now likely to exceed $100 billion this year and 
     next. Nearly everyone says they want the dip back into red 
     ink to be brief. But almost no one is willing to give up 
     anything to ensure that result. Indeed, the attitude seems to 
     be: if deficits are back, let's make the most of them and 
     blame someone else for the result.

  They go on to say:

       The bottom line--obscured but not altered by the events of 
     2001--is that our nation's greatest fiscal challenge remains 
     the need to finance the huge unfunded retirement benefits and 
     health care costs of a permanently older population.

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this release be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Concord Coalition, June 2002]

        The Concord Coalition's Report on Fiscal Responsibility


     Deficits are back, and the budget bazaar is open for business

       It is now clear that the appropriate loosening of fiscal 
     policy undertaken in response to the mild recession and 
     devastating terrorist attacks of 2001 is turning into a 
     headlong retreat from long-term fiscal responsibility. 
     Crocodile tears are flowing over the return of budget 
     deficits--now likely to exceed $100 billion this year and 
     next. Nearly everyone says they want the dip back into red 
     ink to be brief. But almost no one is willing to give up 
     anything to ensure that result. Indeed, the attitude seems to 
     be: if deficits are back, let's make the most of them and 
     blame someone else for the result.
       Tax cut advocates, defense hawks, farmers, educators, 
     health care providers and beneficiaries, transportation 
     planners, and veterans groups all insist that deficits are no 
     reason to scale back their claims on a surplus that no longer 
     exists. Each interest group has a grassroots constituency and 
     an army of lobbyists. And each is prepared to threaten 
     political retribution if every dime of its wish list is not 
     funded. This may be an attractive short-term political 
     strategy, but it's a terrible long-term fiscal policy.
       The bottom line--obscured but not altered by the events of 
     2001--is that our nation's greatest fiscal challenge remains 
     the need to finance the huge unfunded retirement benefits and 
     health care costs of a permanently older population. The Baby 
     Boomers' retirement costs will begin to impact the budget in 
     just six years, and there is no plan for dealing with them 
     other than to run up the debt. Surpluses would help by either 
     reducing the debt, which provides needed savings and fiscal 
     flexibility, or by providing resources to help pay the 
     transition costs of Social Security and Medicare reform. 
     Deficits can be acceptable as a short-term fiscal stimulus, 
     but returning to chronic deficit spending would make the 
     long-term challenge far more difficult.
       Washington policymakers should focus on regaining budget 
     surpluses as soon as is practicable. Instead, the recent 
     breakdown in fiscal discipline, the refusal to acknowledge 
     many likely expenses, and the wavering commitment to any 
     particular goal--be it a unified balanced budget or balance 
     excluding Social Security--signal that a prolonged period of 
     deficits far in excess of official projections is probable. 
     The question now being tested is whether the political will 
     exist to reverse this trend. The preliminary answer is a 
     decided: no.


                 The Fiscal Responsibility Report Care

       The Concord Coalition has graded Washington's performance 
     on fiscal policy in three key time frames: the short-term 
     (next 1-2 years), the medium-term (next 10 years), and the 
     long-term (beyond the next 10 years). Each category is graded 
     on a scale of A to F, with A signifying great improvement, 
     and F signifying great harm. There is a necessary overlap in 
     the consequences of policy decisions throughout the time 
     frames.

                           Category and Grade

       Overall: Progress toward fiscal responsibility: D.
       Short-Term: Enacting measures that maintain fiscal 
     responsibility over the next 1-2 years: C-.
       Medium-Term: Enacting measures that are fiscally 
     responsible over the next 10 years: D.
       Long-Term: Enacting measures that deal with the entitlement 
     financing gap and ensure fiscal sustainability: D-.


                          SHORT-TERM GRADE: C-

       For reasons largely beyond the control of policymakers, the 
     short-term outlook has gone from projected surpluses in 
     excess of $300 billion to probable deficits in excess of $100 
     billion. (See table on Page 4.) Fiscal policy decisions in 
     the current environment are more difficult than usual because 
     actions to stimulate the economy and beef-up security, while 
     legitimate in the short-term, create the risk of higher 
     deficits in the long-term.
       Given the circumstances, the test of fiscal responsibility 
     is not whether the budget falls into deficit for a year or 
     two but whether actions that subtract from the bottom line 
     are carefully designed to meet legitimate immediate needs 
     while minimizing costs in later years.
       Even using this lenient standard, policymakers rate a 
     polite C minus for the short-term. The ``economic stimulus'' 
     bill enacted in March came to the rescue of an economy that 
     was already recovering on its own. And even if a stimulus was 
     justified as insurance, there was no need to extend the 
     bill's costly accelerated depreciation provision for three 
     years--well beyond any immediate need. Moreover, the 
     assumption that the depreciation break will be allowed to 
     ``sunset'' in September of 2004--two months before Election 
     Day--is absurd. This provision will likely become a permanent 
     new tax break at a cost of around $200 billion over the next 
     decade.
       As for spending, President Bush acknowledged in his Budget 
     Message that the government ``will have new bills to pay.'' 
     Paying these bills is not fiscally irresponsible. What is 
     fiscally irresponsible is refusing to make trade-offs or 
     using the current crisis atmosphere as a smoke screen for a 
     generalized spending spree. Particularly susceptible to 
     unscrutinized growth are the defense budget and the new 
     loosely defined category of homeland security. Unfortunately, 
     the President's budget proposed very few trade-offs and 
     Congress has shown no inclination to accept any of them.
       The appropriations process is just getting started so it 
     cannot be said that the short-term situation has turned into 
     a fiscal rout. But the signs are not promising. Congress has 
     failed to adopt a budget resolution, failed to agree on FY 
     2002 supplemental spending, failed to extend expiring budget 
     enforcement mechanisms, and failed to deal with the statutory 
     debt limit in a timely or straightforward manner. Finally, 
     the specter of ``rosy scenario'' is back, with the 
     Administration (OMB) and the House using baseline projections 
     that are more optimistic than CBO numbers by $35 billion in 
     2003 and $180 billion over the next five years. If these 
     issues are not resolved quickly the result

[[Page S5009]]

     could be a huge year-end omnibus appropriations bill--in 
     other words, fiscal chaos.


                          MEDIUM-TERM GRADE: D

       More harmful than the return of budget deficits in the 
     short-term is the fact that President Bush and Congress have 
     done very little to prevent deficits from extending well into 
     the decade. The rapid disappearance of the projected $3.1 
     trillion 10-year non-Social Security surplus should be a 
     yellow light of caution for policymakers advocating further 
     tax cuts and new entitlements. But their response has been to 
     step on the gas. The Concord Coalition gives Washington 
     policymakers a medium-term grade of D.
       The new farm bill, if graded alone, would surely warrant an 
     F. The bill increases spending by $86 billion over 10 years 
     and reverses the attempt under the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act 
     to get away from Depression-era farm subsidies that distort 
     markets, burden taxpayers, and harm the environment. Instead, 
     subsidies are extended for major crops while new ones are 
     created. The farm bill is a textbook case of an entitlement 
     that survives because it is politically attractive, not 
     because it is good policy.
       Much more expensive than the farm bill are various 
     proposals to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare and 
     delay or cancel scheduled reductions in provider payments. 
     Last year, Congress set aside $314 billion in a reserve fund 
     for Medicare expansion. This year, despite a drop of nearly 
     $4 trillion in projected surpluses, the House budget 
     resolution and the Senate Budget Committee plan (not yet 
     considered on the floor) increase Medicare set asides to $350 
     billion and $500 billion respectively.
       Adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, without 
     comprehensive cost-saving reform, would not only pressure the 
     budget in the medium-term but would make the program's long-
     term funding gap even wider. None of the respective plans 
     conditions new money on such reform. Moreover, other 
     entitlement expansions have been proposed. Overall, the 
     Senate Budget Committee plan allows for an increase in 
     entitlement spending of nearly $670 billion.
       The series of escalating tax cuts enacted last year is also 
     poised to drain the budget over the medium-term by $1.6 
     trillion. The phased-in nature of these tax cuts, and the 
     ``sunset'' provision that cancels them all in 2010, give 
     policymakers a valuable opportunity to reprioritize in view 
     of new circumstances by permanently extending some of the tax 
     cuts and delaying the effect of others until a non-Social 
     Security surplus is achieved again. Unfortunately, the 
     Administration and the House leadership have been pushing to 
     lock in the entire package of tax cuts at a cost of nearly 
     $400 billion over 10 years. They have also proposed new tax 
     cuts even as they call for higher spending on defense, 
     homeland security, and Medicare. It is a recipe for sustained 
     deficits.
       Such imprudence is compounded by attempts to obscure the 
     full budgetary effects of fiscal decisions. This year saw the 
     return to five-year budget plans by the Administration and 
     the House. By itself, this development is not problematic. 
     However, last year's tax plan was based on highly uncertain 
     10-year projections, and its huge costs come at the end of 
     the 10 years. The shift now to a shorter budget window seems 
     designed mainly to disguise those costs.
       Finally, the medium-term outlook is threatened by the 
     absence of any mechanism, procedural or rhetorical, for 
     defining and enforcing a fiscal policy goal. Both parties' 
     pronouncements about the inviolability of the Social Security 
     surplus are long forgotten. While the respective budget plans 
     of the Administration, House, and Senate Budget Committee all 
     contemplate the return of surpluses no later than 2005, none 
     of them would produce a non-Social Security surplus before 
     2012. Meanwhile, the discretionary spending caps and the 
     PAYGO rules of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act expire this year. 
     Without any markers for discipline, politicians have little 
     incentive to scale back budget busting promises. Instead, 
     they have shown a troubling comfort with using the Social 
     Security surplus to either offset tax cuts or expand other 
     government programs--new entitlements have even popped up in 
     the trade and defense authorization bills.


                          LONG-TERM GRADE: D -

       Rampant denial is the best way to describe Washington's 
     response to the long-term fiscal challenge. While much has 
     changed in the past year, two things remain depressingly 
     consistent--the unsustainable path of long-term fiscal policy 
     and the unwillingness of most political leaders to do 
     anything about it. Concord's grade for the long-term is a D 
     minus.
       While President Bush campaigned on the need for Social 
     Security reform, he has not followed through with a specific 
     proposal. At his request, the commission he appointed last 
     year did not produce a recommendation but instead came back 
     with three illustrative models for adding personal accounts 
     to the system. Two of the plans contained explicit provisions 
     to improve the fiscal sustainability of the program, which 
     personal accounts alone do not. Even though these provisions 
     were designed to avoid any impact on current beneficiaries, 
     political leaders of both parties reacted with horror, and 
     the Administration has kept the commission's report firmly 
     planted on the shelf.
       Social Security has been reactivated as the third rail of 
     American politics--touch it and die. Without any plan of 
     their own, many Democrats have restored to scare tactics by 
     accusing Republicans of having a ``secret plan to privatize 
     Social Security.'' For their part, many Republicans 
     implausibly insist that personal accounts can be added to the 
     current system without costing anyone anything.
       Neither party is discussing the tough choices that are 
     needed to make the program sustainable over the long-term. 
     Instead, they are jockeying for short-term political 
     advantage by offering free lunch solutions that rely on such 
     diversions as an imaginary ``lockbox'' or meaningless benefit 
     guarantee certificates. Regardless of the long-term 
     challenge, the House even voted 418-0 for a small benefit 
     expansion.
       The demographic and fiscal challenges go well beyond Social 
     Security. Medicare poses an even more difficult challenge. 
     Together, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are expected 
     to double as a share of the economy by 2030.
       It will take a combination of fiscal discipline and cost 
     saving reform to put Social Security and Medicare on a 
     sustainable path for all generations. Washington policymakers 
     are not pursuing either strategy. They are pursuing The Do 
     Nothing Plan, which ultimately leads to crushing debt, 
     burdensome taxes or broken promises.


                            OVERALL GRADE: D

       Good policy and political expediency are often at odds, but 
     so far in 2002, politics is trouncing policy. Surpluses ``as 
     far as the eye can see'' have vanished, yet policymakers 
     remain intent on delivering more government spending--
     including entitlement expansions--and more tax cuts. With the 
     midterm elections looming, no particular fiscal goal in 
     place, and no procedural mechanisms to rein in spending, 
     Congress is reverting to its old ``spend and borrow'' habit. 
     Worse, the debate on how to finance the unfunded retirement 
     costs of the coming demographic transformation has 
     dramatically degenerated from an already low level.
       Congress and the Administration can still re-establish 
     fiscal discipline this year. But they cannot do so unless 
     they confront the hard choices. Deficits are back and it is 
     time to close the budget bazaar.

             THE MYSTERY OF THE DISAPPEARING FY 2002 SURPLUS
                        [In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2001 CBO Baseline Unified Surplus Projection...........      313
Changes:
  Tax act w/interest...........................................      -42
  New Spending w/interest......................................      -49
  Economic and Technical w/interest............................     -242
                                                                --------
      Total Change.............................................     -333
                                                                ========
January 2002 CBO Baseline Unified Deficit Projection...........      -21
  Re-estimate in CBO Baseline since January 2002...............      +26
  Economic Stimulus Package (P.L. 107-147).....................      -51
  Farm Bill Outlays: (P.L. 107-171)............................       -2
  Supplemental Outlays: (H.R. 4775)\1\.........................       -8
  Lower Than Expected Tax Receipts.............................      -75
  Debt Service.................................................       -2
                                                                --------
      Total Change.............................................     -112
                                                                ========
Tentative FY 2002 Unified Deficit..............................     -133
Tentative On-Budget Deficit....................................     -290
Tentative Off-Budget Surplus...................................      157
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Senate Appropriations Committee version of the bill, S. 2551, is
  slightly higher.
 
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.


                              FISCAL FACTS
                          [Dollars in billions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBO March Baseline: Fiscal Years 2003-2012:
  Projected Unified Surplus..................................     $2,380
    On-Budget Deficit........................................       -102
    Off-Budget Surplus.......................................     $2,483
  Percentage of Surplus in First Five Years..................        21%
  Percentage of Surplus in Last Five Years...................        79%
  Percentage of Surplus in Last Two Years....................        47%
Discretionary Spending:
  Average Annual Growth Rate Assumed in CBO Baseline.........       2.6%
  Average Annual Growth Rate 1998-2002.......................       7.6%
  Decrease in Surplus if Spending Continues to Grow at 7.6%..    -$2,719
  Decrease in Surplus if Spending Grows at the Rate of GDP       -$1,442
   (5.3%)....................................................
Change in Projected Surplus Over the Next 10 Years Since
 January 2001:
  Causes of Reduction in Surplus (As a Percentage of
   Decrease):
    Tax Cuts.................................................        42%
    Economic and Technical Changes...........................        40%
    Increased Spending.......................................        18%
National Debt:\2\
  Gross Debt.................................................     $6,019
  Increase over the past year................................       $363
  Debt Held by Public........................................     $3,433
  Increase over the past year................................       $157
  Intergovernmental Debt.....................................     $2,585
  Increase over the past year................................       $206
  Net Interest on National Debt in FY 2001...................       $206
  Net Interest as a Percentage of the Budget in FY 2001......        11%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes costs of increased debt service.
\2\ As of May 31, 2002: Note: The gross debt figure of $6.019 trillion
  exceeds the statutory debt limit of $5.950 trillion because a small
  portion of the gross debt is not subject to the debt limit.

  Mr. McCAIN. This amendment by Senator Gregg and Senator Feingold is 
an effort to at least pose some kind of fiscal brakes, caps, that have 
worked fairly well in the past--not perfectly. But I also worry that 
without the enactment of this amendment, we may find ourselves 
continuing this hemorrhaging of spending, which is really quite almost 
unprecedented in the time that I have had in Congress.
  In the name of the war on terrorism, we are now endangering the 
financial future of this Nation, and every spending issue seems to be 
somehow related to the war on terrorism. And clearly it is not.

[[Page S5010]]

  I congratulate the sponsors of this amendment. I look forward to 
voting for it.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Arizona. I am 
delighted to have his support on this important amendment.
  Madam President, I yield 4 minutes of my time to the distinguished 
Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, who is a cosponsor of the amendment 
as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Gregg-
Feingold amendment.
  I realize that some of my colleagues will say that this is not the 
right time or place to consider budget process reforms. I strongly 
disagree. In fact, I wonder if my colleagues realize how bad the budget 
situation has become.
  According to the most recent calculations from the Senate Budget 
Committee, the budget outlook has swung dramatically in the past year. 
Last year, CBO predicted a $313 billion surplus for fiscal year 2002. 
Now, instead of a surplus, we face a tremendous deficit. We will borrow 
and spend the entire $163 billion Social Security surplus and on top of 
that we are going to have to borrow an additional $137 billion from the 
private markets. To sum it up, we are going to borrow $300 billion in 
the 2002 budget.
  This is new debt, on top of the staggering $6 trillion debt we 
already owe. The budget outlook for fiscal year 2003 is just as bad. 
The way things look now, we will borrow and spend the entire $179 
billion Social Security surplus projected for next year. And on top of 
that we will have to borrow at least another $100 billion to fund the 
Government next year.
  Some people might think a surge in economic growth is going to bail 
us out of our budget problems. It won't. These skyrocketing deficit 
figures are based on CBO's assumption that the economy will grow by 5.4 
percent next year. If that does not happen, the 2003 budget deficit is 
even going to be worse. My point is: these deficits will not go away on 
their own. We must prioritize. We must make hard choices. 
Unfortunately, our record on making hard choices is not encouraging. 
Just look at the farm bill. It speaks volumes about the lack of fiscal 
discipline in this body. We need to put our foot down and recognize the 
obvious. In order to be fiscally responsible we have to live within our 
means and we must rein in spending.
  That is why I am cosponsoring this amendment. The amendment won't 
solve all our budget problems. As everyone in this Chamber knows, we 
regularly circumvent budget rules, and I have no doubt that we will 
push in some instances to do the same thing this time. Nonetheless, we 
need to do something. This amendment marks an important first step to 
regain control. I am working with my friend from Wisconsin and other 
Senators on other legislation to improve the budget process. And we 
hope to introduce that legislation soon. But in the mean time, this 
amendment would help keep the national debt in check. We cannot wait. 
We have to act now. We have a moral obligation to our children and 
grandchildren. Remember, at the end of the day, it is their future we 
are mortgaging away.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this very important 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, momentarily I am going to yield time to 
my colleague on the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Domenici. Before I 
do that, I want to respond quickly to something the Senator from 
Arizona said.
  I am in agreement with virtually everything the Senator from Arizona 
said. I am going to be offering the budget disciplines that are 
expiring at the end of September after this amendment. I think it is 
absolutely critical, as the Senator from Arizona indicated, that we 
continue those budget disciplines. It would be a profound mistake in 
this country to let those lapse.
  But I say to my colleagues, the amendment being offered by the 
Senator from New Hampshire, the Senator from Wisconsin, and others, I 
believe, has enormous loopholes in it, such that would actually make 
our circumstance worse rather than make them better.
  Madam President, I hope my colleagues are listening. Under the 
current pay-go law, if mandatory spending or tax cuts would increase 
the deficit, it triggers a sequester at the end of the year. Under this 
amendment, it would allow projected surpluses--hear me; projected 
surpluses--to be used to pay for additional spending and more tax cuts, 
without triggering a sequester.
  Are colleagues listening? They are talking about fiscal discipline, 
and they are backing an amendment that would impose fiscal discipline 
based on projections? We tried that before. It did not work because 
what we got were gimmicks and rosy projections.
  My colleagues are well intended. I am absolutely on their side with 
respect to the fundamental question of fiscal discipline. But this 
amendment, I believe, opens a major loophole because it is based on 
projections rather than real results.
  How much time does the Senator from New Mexico want?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is the Senator short on time?
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico, and 
then I would be happy to engage the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I hope I do not use that much time.
  In the end, after I am through analyzing it, I am not going to vote 
with the proponents. I am going to vote against the waiver that is 
before us and return us to the position we were in before this 
amendment, if it had passed.
  First, I want to, nonetheless, congratulate Senator Gregg and Senator 
Feingold on their amendment. I think I understand why they have offered 
this amendment on this supplemental bill.
  The amendment was offered in the Senate Budget Committee back in 
March, and it failed by a tie vote. But it probably would not have 
mattered if it had been added to the Senate Budget Committee reported 
resolution because, of course, the Senate has not yet considered a 
budget resolution, and it certainly has not considered that one.
  This brings us to my second point. The failure to adopt in the Senate 
a budget resolution, let alone a conference on a budget with the House, 
has put the Congress in a unique position of not having a budget for 
the first time in 27 years. The one time we did not achieve a 
conference agreement between the House and Senate, in 1998, we 
nevertheless did add a so-called deeming resolution in the Senate so 
that the process could proceed based on a Senate-passed budget 
resolution in that year. We are now seeing the problems of not having 
any blueprint. Whether it is good or medium or not so good, we are not 
going to have any blueprint, and I fear as we proceed through the 
summer and the fall that the problems will only increase, not decrease.
  I don't think I am overstating it when I say the budget process in 
Congress is hanging by a thread. There are some here who might say 
``good riddance,'' but with no budget resolution, no spending limits, 
no way to set priorities, not even some indication that we are 
interested in fiscal discipline, those who would do away with the 
budget process will live to regret the direction in which we seem to be 
headed and what it will yield.
  That is why, absent a good and agreed-upon budget for next year, 
particularly as it relates to the level of appropriations I have been 
pressing for, at a minimum, a fiscal year 2003 spending cap, extension 
of expiring Budget Act enforcement provisions, including certain points 
of order, and other provisions that will maintain some discipline 
throughout the year, that is the way of supporting a major portion of 
the amendment you plan to offer if this one does not pass. That does 
not mean I approve of all of them, but they are among the provisions I 
think we must have if we are going to have any kind of enforcement.
  I have been working with the chairman of the Budget Committee, the 
chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, and our 
leadership to develop an amendment that would provide for this needed 
discipline. At this time, it is unclear that

[[Page S5011]]

we will be able to offer this amendment or if it would have the 60 
votes needed to waive the Budget Act in order that it be raised because 
it, too, would require a hearing before the Budget Committee and a 
report to escape the 60-vote requirement.
  This brings me to the Gregg-Feingold amendment. Absent an 
alternative, I support their amendment in order to lay down a marker to 
establish some discipline absent a budget resolution in place. But at 
this time I cannot support a waiver of the Budget Act.
  There are parts of their amendment with which I disagree. I am not 
sure we need 5-year spending caps if we are not going to have a budget 
resolution. I don't agree with the procedure that is being recommended 
in the amendment to remove provisions from an appropriations bill in a 
rifleshot manner. But, in general, except for the 5-year spending caps 
and the individual appropriations procedures, their proposal captures 
the major provisions of extending the pay-go provisions and the Budget 
Act points of order that expire this year.
  Again, I prefer to continue to work on an alternative 1-year cap 
proposal, and that is why I will not vote in favor of the Budget Act 
waiver that is required for this amendment. But if an alternative is 
not found, then the problems and the chaos I portend for this summer 
are certain to prevail in this Chamber. Maybe we still have a little 
time to correct it before it ends up as what I have just predicted.
  I thank those who have spent a lot of time trying to figure out what 
to do. It is difficult. In conclusion, the reason I will not vote for 
this is that there is $36.8 billion more in spending than the 
President's total appropriations, $26 billion less in Defense 
appropriations, and $63 billion more in other mandatory spending.
  I yield the floor and thank the Senator for graciously yielding me 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Budget 
Committee. I agree with every word he said. We have a budget process 
that is hanging by a thread. That is exactly right. We desperately need 
to put in place the budget disciplines that can allow us to keep the 
spending from spinning out of control as we go into the budget process.
  The amendment by the Senators from Wisconsin and New Hampshire, which 
is completely well intended, will not accomplish the result they seek. 
I believe that is the case because it is dependent upon OMB projections 
of surpluses. We tried that. It didn't work. Why didn't it work? 
Because what occurred was a rosy scenario.
  I put up the chart for 1990. They said the deficit was right on 
target. It was going to be reduced to $100 billion. It wasn't reduced 
to $100 billion. It was $221 billion. Let's not have a massive loophole 
like that put back into the budget law of the Congress.
  I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, the amendment before us, the Gregg-
Feingold-Chafee-Kerry Budget Enforcement Act of 2002, is critical to 
restoring a sense of fiscal responsibility to the congressional budget 
process. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  The amendment reinstates and extends for 5 years the caps on 
discretionary spending, keyed to the levels in the Senate Budget 
Committee-passed budget resolution. The caps are scheduled to expire at 
the end of fiscal year 2002. The amendment also reinstates and extends 
for 5 years the pay-as-you-go rules for tax cuts and entitlement 
changes. The pay-as-you-go rule would apply to legislation which 
increases the non-Social Security budget deficit. The rule would not 
apply when the budget is running a surplus outside of Social Security. 
Sixty-vote points of order and the threat of sequestration would 
continue to provide enforcement for both the discretionary caps and 
pay-as-you-go violations.
  To guard against budget evasions, the amendment would shut back-door 
ways around the caps and pay-as-you-go enforcement by requiring 60 
votes to change the discretionary caps, alter the balances of the pay-
as-you-go scorecard, or direct scorekeeping. All emergency designations 
would require 60 votes.
  I was one of the first cosponsors of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings 
deficit reduction legislation in the late 1980s. I understand the 
importance of fiscal responsibility and budget discipline. The 
discretionary caps and PAYGO rules have helped impose a sense of fiscal 
discipline since they were first enacted in 1990. Budget enforcement 
mechanisms played a key role in stemming the tide of runaway deficit 
spending. As individuals such as Federal Reserve Chairman Alan 
Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin have recognized, 
the benefits of spending and fiscal restraint are enormous. The 
remarkable turn-around in the Federal budget during the 1990s 
contributed to a virtuous cycle of lower inflation, lower interest 
rates, and higher economic growth.
  Unfortunately, the budget enforcement mechanisms are scheduled to 
expire this year. As the Concord Coalition has noted, it would be 
particular ironic and careless to let the caps and PAYGO rules expire 
just when the budget is plunging back into deficit. Our bipartisan 
amendment would prevent that from happening. It will also encourage a 
discussion of the tough choices that must be made, regardless of 
procedural mechanisms, to restore fiscal responsibility.
  As quickly as surpluses appeared, they have disappeared. We must not 
allow ourselves to return to the previous days of cutting taxes, 
increasing spending, consuming the Social Security surplus, and running 
up debt. Beginning in 10 years when the Baby Boomers retire, Congress 
will face huge unfunded retirement and health care costs. Congress and 
the President lack a strategy for dealing with these liabilities or for 
returning to budget balance. Our amendment represents a crucial step 
for reversing a rapidly deteriorating budget outlook. Formal budgetary 
restraints are needed to balance the competing claims on the Federal 
budget.
  Some opponents express concern that the amendment would place overly 
restrictive limitations on appropriations. Others outright suggest that 
the legislation will result in domestic appropriations cuts. In 
reality, the legislation fully funds the appropriations levels 
requested in the Senate Budget Committee-passed budget resolution. The 
amendment exceeds the spending levels requested by the President, allow 
for more spending on education, health care and other priorities. For 
fiscal year 2003, the bill would allow $768 billion in discretionary 
spending. This is a figure commonly cited in current budget 
negotiations, and considerably higher than the House budget level of 
$759 billion. If this should prove insufficient, Congress can either 
raise the caps or declare the spending as emergency spending to avoid 
enforcement consequences.
  Finally, some opponents criticize the amendment's pay-as-you-go 
entitlements/tax rule because it allows spending or tax cuts when the 
government is running a surplus outside of Social Security. This 
exception is important because it will facilitate the funding of 
national priorities when the Federal Government is not facing major 
budgetary deficits. In addition, it allows for a more flexible response 
to the budget situation. It recognizes that the will for strict pay-as-
you-go enforcement may not exist when government is running a 
substantial surplus.
  Overall, the Gregg-Feingold-Chafee-Kerry Budget Enforcement Act of 
2002 is an important safeguard against run-away deficit spending. It 
will provide an important super-majority obstacle against fiscally 
irresponsible tax cuts. It is flexible enough to allow spending on 
critical national investments regardless of the budget situation, 
provided there is sufficient support. Perhaps most importantly, it will 
force a national dialogue on priorities and reestablish deficit 
reduction as a strategic goal. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I cannot support the Gregg amendment 
regarding caps on annual appropriations and modifying the so-called 
``pay-as-you-go'' provisions controlling entitlement spending and the 
costs of tax cut legislation. The Gregg amendment, while well-
intentioned, bases budget enforcement mechanisms on unreliable budget 
projections by the Office of Management and Budget. If there were

[[Page S5012]]

an OMB projection upon which tax cuts were based, and then the 
projections proved overly optimistic as is often the case, Medicare and 
other critically important program cuts would be automatically 
triggered to pay for those tax cuts.
  I will support an alternative budget enforcement mechanism amendment 
which will be offered by Senator Conrad, the Chairman of the Senate 
Budget Committee which will extend rules controlling annual 
appropriations, entitlement spending, and the costs of tax cuts. The 
Conrad amendment would extend procedures which proved successful since 
their adoption in 1990 in eliminating deficits.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I rise to offer support for the Gregg/
Feingold amendment and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of that 
amendment. Fundamentally, the amendment would make two changes. First, 
it would extend discretionary spending caps for five years, and second, 
it would make legislation that fails to pay for itself with appropriate 
offsets subject to points of order and mandatory enforcement 
mechanisms.
  Although I appreciate the assurances that an alternative scheme for 
budget enforcement will be offered if this amendment is defeated, I 
remain concerned that the vote on this amendment will provide the only 
opportunity to ensure real fiscal discipline after the current 
protections expire later this year.
  The spending levels provided for in this amendment are more than 
generous. In fact, I would prefer to see the caps keyed to the spending 
levels in the President's budget, rather than to those set forth in the 
budget resolution reported by the Senate Budget Committee in March. But 
that is not the choice before us. The choice before us is whether there 
will be any limits at all on spending and whether there will be any 
enforcement mechanisms to restrain spending.
  If we head into this year's appropriations process without any such 
tools, we will set the stage for a monumental dereliction of duty. The 
sky will be the limit in terms of spending. Any notion of priorities in 
wartime will be cast aside. All of the rhetoric about ensuring that 
Social Security Trust Fund surplus revenues be held sacrosanct will be 
rendered hollow. This amendment provides a means, however imperfect, of 
keeping us focused on trade-offs and priorities. Accordingly, I urge 
the waiver of the Budget Act and the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. What is the present status of the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire controls 4 
minutes; the Senator from Wisconsin, 6 minutes; the Senator from North 
Dakota, 8\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, let me respond quickly to the comments 
made relative to the technical aspects of the amendment. First, I am 
impressed that it has received such adulation but so little support. 
The Senator from New Mexico, whom I immensely respect, said it is a 
wonderful idea except for a couple little points but he thinks it might 
be a good marker. The Senator from North Dakota appears to be saying 
essentially the same thing with a little more intensity. I am glad we 
have put something out here that appears to be pretty close to what we 
need.
  Why do we need it? We need it because without any budget disciplines 
in place, we will be in serious trouble as we move down the road, as 
was highlighted by a number of speakers. We need to have something in 
place that we can look to at least to give us some guidance, some 
signposts.
  On the issue of pay-go, obviously you don't need pay-go if you are in 
surplus. It makes no sense to have pay-go if you are in surplus. In 
fact, we have shown that every time we have been in surplus, with the 
last appropriations bill coming out across the floor, we have basically 
put a hold on or stopped the application of pay-go.
  This bill makes it very clear. The language says:

       There shall be no sequestration under this section for any 
     fiscal year in which a surplus exists.

  It is very specific. There must be a surplus in order for pay-go to 
be withdrawn. But if there is not a surplus, clearly pay-go exists, and 
it is available.
  How do you find out if there is a surplus? You have to have 
scorekeeping, and that is the way we work around here. We have 
scorekeeping for lots of spending.
  Rosy scenarios, I seriously doubt it. In fact, I suspect just the 
opposite is going to be the case for the next few years. That is a bit 
of a straw dog. Nobody is projecting any surpluses. I point to the 
chart of the Senator from North Dakota. He is not projecting any 
surpluses out there. Nobody else is for the foreseeable future. It is 
important we have pay-go in place during this period of that red ink.

  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I would like to respond to some of the 
arguments of the chairman of the Budget Committee as well.
  The chairman argues that what Senator Gregg and I are proposing is 
new and radical. In large part what we are doing is merely extending 
the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. Let me tell my colleagues what 
would be radical: If we go through this process without any budget 
rules at all. Based on my 10 years here, that would be radical and 
dangerous and harmful to Social Security and to the future of our 
budget. As far as I am concerned, we are on the precipice of going back 
to the bad old 1980s in terms of the budget process. This is a good-
faith, bipartisan effort to try to keep some rules in place.
  The chairman speaks, fairly, of course, with great knowledge about 
the new deficits and the new problems we face, especially in the last 
couple of years, especially since 9-11.
  Let me remind everyone that we used the chairman's numbers, not pre-
9-11 numbers, but his post-9-11 numbers, with regard to his 5-year 
scenario. That is what this is based on. It is based on our knowledge 
about the tragedy and difficulties that occurred.
  I find it hard to understand when the chairman argues for flexibility 
that somehow Senator Gregg and I don't recognize the need for 
flexibility. He, too, apparently, if we don't prevail, intends to offer 
caps. He intends to offer limits. The fact is that the chairman 
acknowledges that even in difficult times such as these, there have to 
be rules and there have to be limits.
  There is nothing irresponsible about proposing limits even in 
difficult times, such as a war against terrorism. In fact, I argue that 
the worst that can happen, at a time when we are fighting terrorism and 
other crises in the world, is to have no rules at all. Then it is more 
likely that legislation such as the farm bill will pass with unlimited 
amounts of inappropriate action and provisions. Some of the provisions 
in the energy bill and some in this bill are more likely to happen with 
no rules at all.
  For the sake of our national security, for the sake of the fiscal 
integrity of our country, at this time it is more important than at any 
other time that we have some rules and procedures so the American 
public can know we are wisely using their tax dollars to proceed with 
this war against terrorism, and to protect them, and that we are not 
using it for pork projects at home.
  The chairman complains that our amendment would not have budget 
enforcement at times when we are running a surplus without counting 
Social Security. Yet his idea guarantees us no discipline at all. I 
wish him well if we end up going with his amendment and considering 
that, but, obviously, I hope ours prevails. There is no guarantee. 
Defeating this amendment would leave us with no enforcement at all if 
these current rules expired in September, as they are expected to do. 
He says we only have constraints on spending. We followed the same 
constraints on taxes as they exist in current law. Taxes and 
entitlements are constrained in our amendment, as well as by the pay-
as-you-go procedure.
  He also seeks to argue that somehow we are doing something different 
or something radically inappropriate with regard to the OMB. The 
amendment gives the OMB the job of calculating whether we have complied 
with the caps or the pay-as-you-go discipline. But this is exactly as 
it has been since 1987. Nothing is new about this provision.
  When Congress first enacted the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill in 1985, 
it

[[Page S5013]]

gave the job of calculating compliance to the Comptroller General, head 
of the General Accounting Office. But the Supreme Court ruled, in 1986 
in the case of Bowsher v. Synar, that Congress could not 
constitutionally give that power to anybody outside of the executive 
branch of Government. That is why we do it. That is why Congress gave 
the job of calculating compliance to the OMB in the rewriting of the 
budget laws and continued that process in the 1990 Budget Enforcement 
Act. This argument doesn't hold water. Our amendment merely continues 
the same rule for the OMB.
  As to the chairman's argument that we erred by not requiring pay-as-
you-go enforcement in times of budget surplus, we disagree as a matter 
of policy. We believe that when the Government is taking in more tax 
revenues than it needs to fund existing programs, even after putting 
all Social Security surpluses aside, then it is altogether appropriate 
for Congress to consider fiscal choices, such as updating Medicare to 
include a prescription drug benefit. Do we want a 60-vote requirement 
in times of surplus to provide the American people with a prescription 
drug benefit? I hope not. If you are listening to your constituents, 
they desperately need this. So that doesn't seem to be appropriate.

  Finally, I think this is a critical test on this vote. Are we serious 
about protecting Social Security, even in these difficult times? Are we 
going to go forward with no rules and continue down the road we are 
heading in--the road of a $100 billion deficit already? Especially 
after 9-11, the American people have a right to know that we are being 
especially careful with their dollars, that we can track it, and that 
they can follow the caps and the rules and enforcement procedures to 
see if we are doing their bidding and if we are truly putting our 
priorities straight--with the war on terrorism at the top, but also 
guaranteeing the safety and security of Social Security, which is very 
dear to them.
  I yield my time.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, let me respond to the Senator from 
Wisconsin. The alternative is not their proposal versus no rules. That 
is not the alternative. I will offer an amendment that will extend the 
supermajority enforcement of budget points of order that extends the 
Budget Enforcement Act provisions--all of them--and that restores the 
Senate pay-go rules--in fact, toughens them. That is the alternative: 
serious budget discipline versus the proposal before us by Senators who 
are absolutely well intentioned. They have the diagnosis right, which 
is that we have deficit and debt problems, but their solution takes us 
back to a provision that did not work in the past and will not work in 
the future.
  Have we forgotten 1990? When you base budget discipline and 
enforcement on projections, you are basing your discipline on 
quicksand. What could be more evident? In 1990, the Office of 
Management and Budget told us we were meeting our deficit projections, 
that the deficit was only going to be $100 billion. It turned out to be 
$221 billion because the whole budget discipline process was based on 
projections.
  That is what this budget proposal does. It won't work. It didn't work 
then; it won't work now. It is absolutely misleading and will take us 
down a road not to budget deficits, through budget deficit elimination, 
not to reduce debt, but to more gimmicks, more game playing, more rosy 
scenarios.
  After this amendment I will offer an amendment that has real budget 
discipline.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, what is the status on the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 2 minutes. 
The Senator from North Dakota has 6 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator allow us to close since it is our 
amendment? I will yield our last 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Washington.
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator has used his time, and I am going to use 
mine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from Washington 1 minute 45 
seconds.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Gregg-
Feingold amendment. The premise underlying this amendment--and its 
extension of the budget enforcement procedures--is that we as a body 
must be fiscally responsible.
  We have real responsibilities and real priorities on which we have to 
make decisions, but we also must have fiscal discipline. In order to 
accomplish this it is important for us to have a framework by which 
this body can make these fiscal decisions.
  This amendment helps us at a time when we have seen a surplus of $5.6 
trillion over ten years disappear and turn into a $2.7 trillion 
deficit. And we know that the current deficit is a result of last 
year's tax cut, the recession, and the tragic events of September 11, 
2001.
  Having spent time in the private sector, I can tell you this: No 
private sector organization thinks it can spend its way out of 
problems; nor can we as a country.
  I believe one of the most important actions we can take for the 
nation's future economic stability, is to pay down the national debt. 
According to Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, 
paying down the national debt lowers interest rates and keeps the 
capital markets and investment going. In January, he told the Senate 
Budget Committee that one of the reasons long-term rates have not come 
down is the sharp decrease in the surplus and the diminishing prospects 
for paying down the debt.
  Our total budget must be crafted within the need to maintain fiscal 
discipline, and stimulate economic growth through continued federal 
investment in education and job training, while also protecting the 
environment. Furthermore, we need to invest in our nation's economic 
future by making a commitment to public research and development in 
science and technology--maintaining our status as a global leader.
  It is a balance. We need to make these investments, but within a 
framework that ensures we don't spend beyond our means. If we want our 
economy to be strong, if we want revenues, and if we want to make the 
right decisions, we need to keep paying down the debt.
  We must have fiscal discipline in budget and appropriations process. 
We cannot focus solely on the individual items and programs in our 
budget, but must look at the whole picture. The budget enforcement 
procedures help us do this, and help us keep a reign on our spending. 
These procedures worked successfully as we struggled to get out of 
deficit spending in the 1990s, and they will work as we struggle to get 
out of the current recession and deficit financing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used her time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I hope people are listening and paying 
very close attention. There is a lot at stake in the series of votes 
that are going to occur. The Senators have made the case that we are 
back in an era of budget deficits. I say to them, I warned our 
colleagues that is where we were headed. I did not do it this year. I 
did it last year. And I begged our colleagues not to go down the road 
that was taken. I warned them that we would be back to raiding Social 
Security, Medicare, and every other trust fund in sight, but they cast 
all caution aside and went down that road.
  Today there is a fundamental question of whether or not we are going 
to have budget disciplines in place as we go through this year's 
appropriations process. I will offer an amendment that extends those 
budget disciplines. Every colleague is going to have a chance to be 
recorded as to whether or not they want budget discipline.
  The amendment before us has very serious defects. It is not the 
budget disciplines that worked in the nineties that helped us get back 
on track. It is not those. It is a new scheme, and it is a scheme that 
has an enormous loophole. The loophole is that discipline is based on 
projections of what is going to happen.
  Have we learned nothing? Last year, we were told there was going to 
be $5.6 trillion available in surplus over the next decade. That was a 
projection. Do you know what it is now? Nothing. Zero. The money is all 
gone. Let's not base budget discipline on projections.

[[Page S5014]]

  Does the Senator from New Mexico seek time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, I would like 2 or 3 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes 50 seconds.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I thank the Senator. I failed to call 
him chairman. He has been chairman for 6 more months. In any event, we 
wish the Senator well next year in whatever capacity.
  I wish to discuss not so much the amendment because I have explained 
why I do not think we should waive the Budget Act. We have to do better 
in trying to put discipline into what is currently a totally 
undisciplined situation with reference to goals and priorities.
  Appropriations will have no responsibilities on the various bills. 
There will be no total dollar number that flows. This amendment will 
not help that.
  I close my few remarks talking about, once again, the mistake we are 
making--and we are making it for whatever reason--in not passing a 
budget resolution. I am not filled with acrimony, but I do believe that 
in the over 27 years of serving, I felt a responsibility to get a 
budget, and actually we could have gotten a corner after an extremely 
tough year 3 years ago and said: Let's not do it. The Senator from New 
Hampshire could have been with me trying to keep discipline in this 
process. We could have said: Let's not do a budget resolution. It did 
some good. Some people are saying it did not.
  I would personally look at the area of entitlements and how many had 
caps which precluded passage of more than we spent. It is the same on 
appropriations. Obviously, there is friction against those two 
institutions, but we did some good.
  We happened to budget based upon an extremely powerful American 
economy which was with us for 10 years, and we got clipped in the 11th 
and 12th year when the economy did not stay strong. That is all that 
happened.

  If we could have kept the budget resolution, it would have forced it 
or would have done something better, and we would probably be right 
back to moving close to a balanced budget in the next 5 years. I am not 
sure we are going to get there without something like a budget 
resolution, something to shoot with each year.
  That is why I am saying we ought to do better than the Gregg 
amendment. He is on the right track. Maybe we can include him and his 
cosponsor with a group of us trying to do a little bit better.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, would you alert us as to the time 
situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 50 seconds. 
The Senator from New Hampshire has 15 seconds.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, in conclusion, I agree absolutely with 
what motivates the sponsors of this amendment. We need budget 
disciplines. I will offer those as a package, all of the budget 
disciplines--every one; in fact, a strengthened pay-go provision--after 
we dispose of the amendment that is before us.
  Madam President, I say to my colleagues, I believe the amendment 
before us has a giant loophole, unintended I am sure, but it is based 
on projections, not real results. We have seen what happens with that 
kind of budget approach.
  I go back again to 1990 when we had a similar scheme in place based 
on projections from the Office of Management and Budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from North Dakota has 
expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, does the Senator from New Hampshire 
still have time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen seconds.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Wisconsin and 
my other cosponsors for offering this amendment. This amendment is 
going to be our best opportunity to put in place long-term, effective 
budget enforcement mechanisms. There are no significant loopholes in 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I raise a point of order that the 
pending amendment violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable section of 
that act for the consideration of the pending Gregg-Feingold amendment, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I wonder if Senators will permit me to 
speak for 30 seconds on another matter?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I am sending an amendment to the desk. 
If I can have the attention of Senator Conrad, I am sending a copy of 
the amendment he is going to propose following the disposition of this 
amendment, if we defeat it, so Senators can look at it and we can get 
rid of some delays. They can study it during the next 30 minutes or so.
  Mr. CONRAD. Is the Senator filing the amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am sending it to the desk so anybody who wants to may 
look at it. If the Senator has concerns, I will not do it.
  Mr. CONRAD. I will be constrained to object because I am told Senator 
Byrd would object if he were here. But I am very hopeful we can 
accomplish that same purpose momentarily.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do not want to argue, but I am not sending an 
amendment to be operative. I can put in a letter. If I want somebody to 
look at a proposed bill, why would anyone object?
  Mr. CONRAD. No one will object to that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am sure they cannot if they wanted to. It is not 
intended as anything other than for Senators to look at. If they are 
interested in how we might fix this situation, they might look at what 
is being recommended by the chairman.
  I thank the chairman.
  Mr. CONRAD. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Torricelli) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 133 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Allard
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords

[[Page S5015]]


     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Helms
     Torricelli
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays are 
49. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  Mr. REID. 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.


                           Amendment No. 3764

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I have an amendment which I send to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object. I want the amendment read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3764.

  Mr. McCain. 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:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. BUDGET ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Extension of Budget Enforcement Points of Order.--
     Section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 
     621 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(2)--
       (A) by inserting ``and'' before ``312(b)'' and by striking 
     ``, and 312(c)''; and
       (B) by striking ``258C(a)(5)''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(3)--
       (A) by inserting ``and'' before ``312(b)'' and by striking 
     ``, and 312(c)''; and
       (B) by striking ``258C(a)(5)''; and
       (3) in subsection (e), by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2007''.
       (b) Extension of Budget Enforcement Act Provisions.--
       (1) In general.--Section 275(b) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 note) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Expiration.--Sections 251 and 258B of this Act and 
     sections 1105(f) and 1106(c) of title 31, United States Code, 
     shall expire September 30, 2007. The remaining sections of 
     part C of this title shall expire on September 30, 2011.''.
       (2) Striking expired provisions.--
       (A) BBA.--The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.) is amended by striking 
     section 253.
       (B) Congressional budget act.--The Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) is amended--
       (i) in section 312, by striking subsection (c); and
       (ii) in section 314--

       (I) in subsection (b), by striking paragraphs (2) through 
     (5) and redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (2); and
       (II) by striking subsection (e).

       (c) Extension of Discretionary Caps.--Section 251(b)(2) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)) is amended
       (1) in the matter before subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``2002'' and inserting ``2007'';
       (2) by striking subparagraphs (C), (D), (E), and (F); and
       (3) by redesignating subparagraph (G) as subparagraph (C).
       (d) Extension of Pay-As-You-Go.--
       (1) Enforcement.--Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 902) is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2007''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2007''.
       (2) Pay-as-you-go rule in the senate.--
       (A) In general.--Section 207 of House Concurrent Resolution 
     68 (106th Congress) is amended in subsection (g), by striking 
     ``2002'' and inserting ``2007''.
       (B) Senate pay-as-you-go adjustment.--For purposes of 
     Senate enforcement of section 207 of House Concurrent 
     Resolution 68 (106th Congress), upon the enactment of this 
     Act, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 
     Senate shall adjust balances of direct spending and receipts 
     for all fiscal years to zero.
       (3) Pay-as-you-go enforcement during on-budget surplus.--
     If, prior to September 30, 2007, the Final Monthly Treasury 
     Statement for any of fiscal years 2002 through 2006 reports 
     an on-budget surplus, section 252 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 902) shall 
     expire at the end of the subsequent fiscal year, and the 
     President, in the next budget, shall submit to Congress a 
     recommendation for pay-as-you-go enforcement procedures that 
     the president believes are appropriate when there is an on-
     budget surplus.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, this amendment is to provide the fiscal 
discipline that I think we all seek, at least the framework for it.
  This amendment extends the supermajority enforcement of budget points 
of order. It extends the Senate's 60-vote Budget Act points of order 
for 5 years. These points of order, including points of order that 
protect Social Security----
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield without losing the floor?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I would like to say--the Republican whip is on the floor 
and the Republican leader--when this amendment is completed, we will go 
back to the procedure we have always followed. If there appears to be 
no disagreement, we will have a Democratic amendment and Republican 
amendment and go back and forth.
  Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield, I appreciate that because 
there is some angst on our side. People thought we were in line to do 
an amendment. I appreciate your accommodation with the recognition, and 
we will have an amendment ready when we conclude this amendment.
  Mr. REID. The last two amendments have been offered by both Democrats 
and Republicans, but this is offered by a Democrat, so we will go to a 
Republican. The leaders have agreed on that.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, when we debated the last amendment, the 
point was made, and the point was made correctly, that the various 
budget disciplines are going to expire on September 30 of this 
year. That could allow budget discipline to go right out the window.

  What I am offering today is a continuation of the budget disciplines 
that have worked--the budget disciplines that allowed us to move from 
deficit to surplus. It is critically important that those budget 
disciplines be extended. I think there is strong support in this body 
for that proposition.
  As I have indicated, these points of order, including points of order 
that protect Social Security, limit total spending and total tax cuts, 
enforce discretionary spending limits, and committee and subcommittee 
spending allocations are scheduled to expire on September 30.
  The Senate has had Budget Act points of order that require 60 votes 
to waive since 1985. But unless action is taken starting October 1, it 
will only take 51 votes to waive most Budget Act points of order. Only 
51 votes would be required to raid Social Security, or to exceed 
discretionary spending limits, or to increase total spending above 
agreed upon levels, or to cut taxes below agreed upon levels, or to 
exceed committee spending allocations.
  Without the extension of these 60-vote points of order, it will 
become much more difficult to enforce budget discipline in the Senate. 
Senators who favor spending, or tax cuts, or exceed agreed upon budget 
limits would not be deterred by the need to convince 60 of their 
colleagues that the limits should not apply to their proposals.
  In addition, the amendment I am offering extends Budget Enforcement 
Act provisions. The amendment extends for 5 years the Budget 
Enforcement Act procedures that limit discretionary spending and 
requires increases in mandatory spending or tax cuts to be offset. The 
discretionary spending limits are scheduled to expire on September 30 
of this year. The pay-as-you-go procedures that control mandatory 
spending and tax cuts will cease to apply to newly enacted legislation 
after September 30, although pay-as-you-go sequestrations will continue 
to apply to legislation enacted before that date.
  Under the amendment, the pay-as-you-go enforcement will expire 
earlier than scheduled if an actual non-Social Security surplus is 
reported before fiscal year 2007. Although it has not been evident for 
the past several years, the discretionary cap and pay-as-you-go 
enforcement actions of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 have proved 
to be very effective tools for budget enforcement.

[[Page S5016]]

  Let us put up the chart that shows the long-term budget surplus 
standards we face.
  Here is the long-term relationship between spending and revenues. 
This goes back to 1980. The red line is the spending of the Federal 
Government. The blue line is the revenue. We had this very significant 
gap between the two--spending exceeding revenue--back in the 1980s, and 
that led to a quadrupling of the national debt.
  In 1993, we passed historic legislation that cut spending and raised 
revenue to eliminate this gap between spending and revenue--to 
eliminate deficits and to begin to allow us to pay down debt. We did 
that. The lines cross. Spending went below the revenue line. And in 
1997 we passed additional legislation that led to budget surpluses. The 
revenue line was above the spending level.
  That has all changed. Now we are back to deficits. After making all 
that progress, after moving out of deficits into surplus, after the 
fiscal mistakes of last year, the President proposed a massive tax cut 
with a major defense buildup and said we could have it all, said we 
could have all of the spending and all of the tax cuts, and that we 
would still have surpluses. He was wrong by a country mile. Instead of 
surpluses as far as the eye can see, we have deficits as far as the eye 
can see. The question is, Are we going to reinstitute the budget 
discipline to provide the framework for the appropriations process?

  From the time the budget disciplines were enacted through 1998, they 
helped to control spending, limit tax cuts, and played an important 
role in the dramatic turnaround in our budget circumstance.
  That is what this chart shows. We lifted this country out of deficits 
and put it in surplus. Then, unwisely, last year, a whole new fiscal 
policy was put in place. That policy has plunged us back into deficits 
as far as the eye can see. We are going to be facing red ink throughout 
the entire next decade.
  Without these tools which expire on September 30, it is unlikely the 
budget would have gone from a record total deficit of $290 billion in 
1992 to a surplus in 1998. After 1998, these enforcement tools fell 
victim to the unrealistic, low discretionary caps that were set in the 
1997 Balanced Budget Act.
  It is the reason I opposed the last amendment. It was going to repeat 
the mistakes of the past, put in unrealistic numbers in light of the 
attack on this country, and base budget enforcement on projections 
rather than real results.
  These budget enforcement provisions are based on actual results, not 
projections, and don't leave us vulnerable to the office of Management 
and Budget going back to the rosy scenario days in which they told us 
there were surpluses even when that was highly unlikely.
  We are back in deficit now and for the foreseeable future. We should 
extend and enforce the Budget Enforcement Act procedures, not let them 
expire and either give up on fiscal discipline or pretend there are 
some other procedures that might work better than these proven 
procedures.
  In addition, my amendment extends the Senate pay-as-you-go rule. The 
amendment extends through 2007 the Senate pay-as-you-go point of order 
that prohibits surpluses from being used to pay for new mandatory 
spending or tax cuts.
  Let me repeat that because I think it is critically important.
  The pay-go provision will protect us from using Social Security money 
for other tax cuts or other spending. We must have this discipline put 
in place or else we risk losing control of the entire spending process.
  I hope my colleagues will think very carefully about the circumstance 
we face. We have put in here the framework for budget caps. We have not 
put in the number for this year. We have negotiations going on right 
now to determine whether or not we can agree now on a number for this 
year. As you know, we are very close. After weeks of discussion, we 
were very close yesterday to agreeing on a number. Perhaps this can 
give us an opportunity to achieve an agreement. Even if we don't today 
reach agreement on what the budget numbers should be for this year, it 
is critically important that we put in place the budget enforcement 
framework. We cannot let that lapse. Even if we don't agree on a cap 
number for spending today, we can agree on the budget enforcement 
framework. We can then settle on a number if not today, sometime in the 
near future so that these disciplines have something to apply to.

  It is critically important that this budget enforcement mechanism not 
be allowed to lapse. That would be a serious mistake given the fiscal 
condition of the country. Literally, for weeks we have engaged in good-
faith negotiations with people on the other side of the aisle.
  I thank Senator Domenici, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, 
and his staff. They have played a very constructive role in these 
discussions. That can be said of the chairman and ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee as well. Senator Byrd, the chairman, and 
Senator Stevens, the ranking member, have worked for many days to try 
to agree to a set of provisions that would allow us to provide a budget 
framework and to also provide for a continuation of these budget 
disciplines.
  Unfortunately, those talks hit a bump in the road yesterday. We have 
a chance now to get back on track. We have an opportunity now to extend 
these budget discipline provisions. We have an opportunity now to agree 
on a budget limit, an appropriations limit for this year.
  I do not know if we can agree on that in the next few hours, but 
perhaps we can. It would allow us, then, to go into the appropriations 
process with not only the budget disciplines intact but with an 
agreement on what total appropriations will be for this year. That 
would be a very positive development. We would then have a budget for 
the year, and we would have the budget disciplines so that we could, 
with greater confidence, ensure we stay within the limits agreed to.
  At the very least, we ought to put in place those budget disciplines. 
We ought to put in place that framework. We ought to be ready for when 
the negotiations achieve a result and we are able to agree on a number. 
We can do that today, at a minimum. It would be even better if we could 
agree to an amount as well. But at the very least, let's send a signal 
that we are not going to have chaos in the budget process.
  Senator Domenici, the distinguished ranking member, has served on the 
Budget Committee for a long time. He has been chairman and ranking 
member. He warned us: Look, we are in uncharted waters; this is 
dangerous ground; we should have a budget in place.
  This is an opportunity to have a budget framework so that disciplines 
that are set to expire on September 30 continue. This is also an 
opportunity to agree on a budget amount.
  I very much hope that people who are discussing this issue at this 
moment think very carefully about what is at stake. I hope they will 
think very carefully about what we need to consider.
  If we allow these budget disciplines to lapse, and we go into the 
appropriations process without an agreed-upon budget amount, it does 
not take much imagination to think of what could occur. We could have 
spending spin out of control. I do not think anybody wants that to 
happen. Think of the implications. Think of the signal that would send 
to the financial markets of this country. Think of what that could mean 
to the economy of this country.
  We have already seen that the equity markets are extremely 
vulnerable. We have already seen the stock market go down 200 points in 
a day. If the markets got the sense that we were not going to take 
serious action on the budget deficits that now confront the country, 
that could further destabilize equity markets and put us in an even 
more vulnerable position.

  (Mr. CARPER assumed the chair.)
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
  I don't often like to expose my ignorance of certain issues on the 
floor of the Senate, but I preface my question with the assumption that 
I am not an expert on the budget, as is the Senator from North Dakota. 
I don't know the nuances and the ins and outs of the budget process, 
nor have I ever quite understood the different categories and what 
falls in and what falls out of it.
  Would the Senator explain to me, according to the amendment proposed 
by

[[Page S5017]]

the Senator from North Dakota, as I read it, there is no budget number 
associated with the Senator's amendment; is that correct?
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator is absolutely correct. We are awaiting 
additional discussions that are going on right now, that the Senator 
may be aware of, to see if we could reach agreement on that critical 
component. Obviously, that would be a very important part of this 
package.
  I say to the Senator, there are really two parts to this. One is the 
budget number for this year. The other is the budget enforcement 
mechanisms. Both of them are necessary. Neither is sufficient. They are 
both necessary.
  Even though we do not have yet an agreed-upon number, the reason I am 
offering this amendment is that at least we would then have the 
framework and discipline when a number is agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield for a further question.
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I do not quite understand. Since there is no number, then 
enforcement would basically be meaningless because you do not have a 
number to enforce.
  Why wouldn't we wait until we had an agreed-upon number and then 
present the amendment as such? Because it seems to me, if you pass 
this, it may do more damage than good, because then the conferees, who 
are appropriators, well known for their sense of fiscal discipline, 
would be the ones who would decide what the cap is.
  My question to the Senator from North Dakota is, without an agreement 
on what the cap would be, we are now putting in rules that are 
basically unenforceable because there is nothing to enforce. Why 
wouldn't we wait and see if there was some agreement on the overall 
budget number instead of proposing that at this time? That is my 
question.
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator asks a very good question. There are really 
two pieces to this puzzle. We need a number for this year. We also need 
the budget disciplines reinstated because they expire on September 30. 
This may be one of our best opportunities, I say to the Senator, to 
reinstate those budget disciplines.
  We may also have an opportunity to have the number agreed to today. 
That would be a full package. That would be a very desirable outcome, I 
say to the Senator. But at the very least, I think we want to get the 
budget disciplines put in place.
  Let's say we do not agree. Let's say we are not able to reach 
agreement on a number for this year. Does that mean we have lost all 
opportunity? No. Because, I say to the Senator, then certain of the 
numbers that were in last year's budget resolution serve as a basis for 
the disciplines that we would now be extending. In other words, even if 
we did not reach agreement, at least we would have the structure of 
budget disciplines that could agree to certain spending levels that 
come from the budget resolution of last year.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator for his courtesy in allowing me to 
question him and for his responses. I am still not quite clear why we 
would pass an amendment without something to enforce. But I certainly 
appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from North Dakota, and again I 
applaud his knowledge of the intricacies of a very complicated process 
which I have been unable to master in the years I have been in 
Congress. I thank the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Let me say to the Senator, for example, even if we were 
not able to agree on a discretionary spending amount for this year, if 
we have these budget disciplines in place, they would apply to the 
mandatory numbers from last year's budget. As the Senator knows, we 
have two pots of money. We have mandatory spending, and we have 
discretionary spending.
  In the best of all worlds, what many of us would like to achieve is a 
discretionary limit agreed to for this year--in effect, a budget for 
this year. But we also have mandatory spending, and, in fact, mandatory 
spending is a bigger part of Federal spending than is discretionary. 
Even if we are not able to agree on a discretionary limit, if we have 
this budget discipline framework in place, we would have a way of 
disciplining mandatory spending.
  In the best of all worlds, we get a discretionary spending limit, and 
we have these budget disciplines that apply on both sides of the 
equation, mandatory spending and discretionary spending. But at the 
very least, if we passed these budget disciplines, if we extend them, 
we have some way of disciplining mandatory spending. That is the 
biggest part of Federal spending.
  It would also be very useful and important and certainly my goal to 
have a discretionary spending limit as well.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder, does the Senator still control the time?
  Mr. CONRAD. I still control the floor. I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would ask for about 3 or 4 minutes, and I will yield 
back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wanted to have a few moments with the 
chairman and Senator Gramm and others who are interested, building off 
your current amendment, which is pending--and I thank you for the 
accommodations that you have made to it--one which is very important to 
our side, very important to everyone, as we have come to know it, with 
the understanding that you know these enforcement provisions are not, 
for the most part, found in the Budget Act. These enforcement 
provisions were designed principally by a huge conference that was 
presided over by former White House OMB Director Darman--remember him--
and Senator Robert Byrd--you know him--and a few other people. We were 
about 2 weeks out there at Andrews Air Force Base when we tried to 
negotiate a budget.
  It fell apart in terms of numbers, most interestingly. Some people 
didn't get treated well politically, and others did. Those who know 
have said the most important thing we did in 1990 or 1991 were the 
enforcement provisions. We were doing something rather significant. It 
turned out the tax part didn't work out as well for the President as it 
should have, but these enforcement provisions survived.
  The principal author of those was Senator Robert Byrd, because we 
were giving, in a sense, many things he wanted, and in exchange he was 
trying to make sure that if they didn't do their job, something could 
happen to them, including his committee.
  Today the distinguished Senator, on an appropriations bill, is trying 
to see if we can save some of those. I want to say, I have looked at 
them. I think the language I have used for the last 2 or 3 minutes 
means that I like them. In particular, they have been changed a little 
bit. I like them. I think we would have changed them a little bit, 
whether we were down here or not, from 1990 because a couple of the 
provisions don't work too well.
  I regret that I can't seem to get a consensus on what else ought to 
belong in this. I think it is good, but it is half a measure because we 
ought to have some numbers in it. We ought to have some numbers for 
defense and some numbers for the rest of Government. Clearly, without 
any question, we don't need 5-year numbers at this point in the 
process.
  The process is questionable mostly because of the number assumptions, 
not these enforcement provisions, speaking in the past.
  But adults are going to sit down and arrive at this total; if not 
here, in a vote. If not tomorrow morning in a vote, they will go to a 
meeting someplace, and they are going to vote on how much we are going 
to allow for expenditures. We could go back to the day I arrived in the 
Senate, with Senator Nunn, Senator Helms, and others. We never knew 
what we spent until all the bills were added up. Nobody bothered to 
give you any interim reports on six committees that reported and six 
bills. We were new. We said: How can you run a government where nobody 
knows until you are finished and by then you have already spent it all?
  About 6 months later, the Budget Act was born on a premise that 
Senators Johnson and Domenici, heads of the freshman class, sent out a 
letter saying: Next year we will vote against all the measures 
together, 13 of us, if we don't have some process that tells us the 
pieces before we start. That was the beginning. So it has some pretty 
good history.

[[Page S5018]]

  I have been there and enforced it a lot of times. You know about 35 
percent of the votes of the Senate are points of order, and most of 
those points of order are 60-vote points of order, which is the only 
effective means this Congress has found to make it difficult to spend 
money. That is the only one. Because when it is controversial and you 
are seeking something with a lot of money, it is not easy to get 60 
votes. So you ought to have that around here next year, too, and the 
year after; right?

  The question is, how are you going to have it if you don't adopt it? 
Then to what are you going to make it applicable? I would have hoped 
that we could have gotten together beyond what is proposed and that we 
would go ahead and put the numbers in and get it done and then take a 
look, with our leadership, at where we go next. We still have a lot of 
amendments, but at least we could conceivably be through with this 
part.
  I am trying as best I can in my few comments to put a little life 
into this debate; otherwise, who wants to talk about budgets. I do 
because when you live them, it is interesting to talk about them. How 
did you get this thing done?
  Even the issue raised here, if we don't get one, we will deem one. I 
kept wondering, if that is the case, why in the world didn't we deem 
them when they were all so darned difficult? It is because when you 
finally go to look and see, what is that, it ain't so. We deemed a 
budget resolution that the Senate had adopted. That is what we deemed 
done.
  Incidentally, we deemed a budget resolution that had been done by the 
Senate but wasn't getting adopted, and so we said, rather than let this 
whole year go with nothing, we will have a deeming resolution. And what 
do we deem up against? A budget resolution. So even when we were in 
foxholes shooting at each other because we couldn't agree on anything, 
clearly we chose to get something that said the Budget Act is being 
enforced.
  As to the numbers I am giving you and others who want to be part of 
this, if they do, I am more than willing to come back and talk about 
them and see if we can put them together. Our leader will have them 
very shortly, and we will see where we go.
  I thank you very much for yielding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me, first, thank the distinguished 
Senator from New Mexico, the ranking member of the Budget Committee. I 
think he has done something very constructive because it kind of leads 
us to the point of all the decisions that need to be made. The Senator 
from New Mexico is saying, yes, we need the budget enforcement 
mechanism and framework. We also need a budget. We need a budget. The 
Senator from New Mexico has come forward with numbers that are very 
close numbers that I could agree to, I say to the Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I had them there because they are close to what the 
Senator has agreed to before.
  Mr. CONRAD. That is exactly right. The Senator basically has the 
President's number, which the President proposed for outlays--not the 
President's policy, I am quick to acknowledge. Really, the significant 
difference--there is not a difference on the budget authority number. 
It is the President's number. We have said all along that we could 
agree to the President's number for spending this year. We would not 
agree to this so-called accruals policy that would say that retirement 
funding of Federal employees is somehow discretionary rather than 
mandatory spending. It doesn't seem to us that that is realistic. When 
you have Federal employees, you have costs for their retirement. That 
has always been mandatory spending because, obviously, it is required. 
It is not discretionary. But the overall President's number is one to 
which I would agree. It is in the budget resolution that passed the 
Senate Budget Committee.
  The Senator from New Mexico has provided a number for outlays that is 
very close to a number to which I could agree. He has also provided a 
defense firewall. Well, I think the realistic outcome in the Senate is 
that if we had a vote, there would be a commitment to spend that amount 
of money for defense. I think that would probably be the overwhelming 
vote.
  I say to my colleagues, the Senator from New Mexico has come forward 
with the other part of the package. We have the budget discipline 
framework and he has now provided the numbers, provided a budget for 
this year that is very close to the numbers we have discussed for days.
  I hope my colleagues will think about the need to get a budget and 
budget discipline in place for this year. We can do it now.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.


                Amendment No. 3765 to Amendment No. 3764

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. SANTORUM] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3765 to amendment No. 3764.

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

 (Purpose: To adopt the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
   year 2003 reported by the Committee on the Budget for the Senate)

       At the end of the amendment add the following:
       Sec.   . The provisions of S. Con. Res. 100 (107th 
     Congress) as reported by the Committee on the Budget and 
     placed on the calendar is adopted by the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives as the concurrent resolution on the budget 
     for fiscal year 2003 in accordance with section 301 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, what I have sent up is the Democrat 
budget that was passed out of the Senate Budget Committee.
  We heard the chairman lecture the Senate that we need to have budget 
discipline and we need a budget. Yet for the first time in the history 
of the Senate, since the Budget Enforcement Act was put in place in 
1974, we have no budget. We have not even been offered a budget.
  The chairman of the Budget Committee, whose responsibility it is to 
bring a budget to the floor, has not brought a budget to the floor. 
This is the same chairman of the Budget Committee who, back in 1998, 
after we passed a budget but it had not gotten a conference report, 
said:

       The budget resolution was due by April 15--

  He said this in October.

       The President plays no role in the budget resolution. That 
     is the responsibility of this Senate and of the House of 
     Representatives. These bodies have failed in their 
     responsibilities.

  He made that comment after we passed a budget here, but we were not 
able to agree between the House and Senate. In this case, the Senate 
has not even brought up the issue. We are in a situation where we are 
now, after a few years of surplus, heading into a deficit and we have 
no budget discipline in place. We have not even had a debate on the 
floor of the Senate as to the future of the budget of the United States 
of America.
  Every single family in America has to budget. It is our 
responsibility--in fact, it is an obligation under the law that we pass 
a budget. But the chairman and the majority party in the Senate have 
refused to consider the budget, refused to bring this resolution to the 
floor.
  We have seen all these amendments back and forth about why we are 
going to create psuedobudgets and deeming resolutions and sort of 
psuedobudget enforcement, skimming around the issues of the budget, 
without being serious with the public as to what the budget really is. 
That is disingenuous on the part of the Senate. We should have a full 
and fair debate on a budget and see whether we can get a compromise.
  Last year we had a divided Senate. We did something historic, and I 
give credit to the chairman and ranking member for putting together a 
bipartisan budget for the first time in a long

[[Page S5019]]

time that actually passed the Senate. It was tough. I am sure if you 
ask the Senator from New Mexico, he would say it was one of the hardest 
things he ever did. He had a 50-50 Senate. It was not easy to craft a 
budget that could get votes on both sides of the aisle. It is hard when 
it is divided. It was a difficult task, but it was one that the 
Republican majority and Senator Domenici took on because we knew it was 
important for the future of the country to have fiscal discipline, to 
have a budget in place, so enforcement mechanisms could be put into 
place, so we could put some sort of caps on discretionary spending and 
have enforcement mechanisms for taxes and mandatory programs. It is an 
important framework to governing this country. It is not even a 
discussion that we have had.
  We are almost 2 months past the time we were supposed to have this 
budget, and this is the first day I can remember we even have had this 
discussion, much less had the bill before us. So I thought it was 
important, since we are having this sort of kabuki dance here about 
budgets, that we actually put a budget on the floor. So that is what is 
on the floor now. We have on the floor the budget passed out of the 
Senate Budget Committee. If we adopt it, if the majority can get the 
votes to adopt their budget, then we can have a budget resolution on 
the floor and we can go through the process of amending the budget 
resolution, coming up with what is important for this country, which is 
setting forth the framework of operating the Government of the United 
States. It is our responsibility.

  The President has sent a budget. He sent up a budget that was very 
specific. The House has passed a budget. It was hard to do with the 
very narrow majority over there, but they were able to pass a budget. 
The fact that we had not even brought a budget up, almost 2 months 
after the date which it was due to be here, is something we should not 
be proud of. We set a precedent that is not a good one. It is a 
precedent that says we are going to leave things to chance in the 
Senate at a time when the appetite for spending is always very high.
  What does this budget do? Well, it does several things. The President 
laid out in his budget three priorities: national security, increasing 
defense spending so we can address not only the threats that we have 
had for many years, which are sort of the conventional threats that we 
have had to deal with--we were potentially going to be involved in some 
sort of conflict with a large deployment of our troops, which is what 
our military has been geared to fight. We have a lot of equipment and 
trained men and women who are there to do that. But as you know from 
recent events--and even before recent events--the military was going 
through a transformation process--now accelerated because of these 
asymmetric threats to America. Not only do we have to maintain the 
existing force, but we have to deal with another security threat on 
Americans here and in the world at large. So in this environment, in a 
war against terrorism, faced with different threats, we need to 
dramatically increase defense spending. It is not really that dramatic; 
it is less than 10 percent in spending. They fund the President's 
priorities, as far as defense, for the next 2 years. After that, it 
does not. In fact, it reduces defense spending back basically to the 
rate of inflation, or below, but it dramatically increases and 
continues to allow the increase in domestic spending.
  At the same time, it takes even more money that was due for tax 
reductions by making the President's tax cuts permanent and puts that 
money back and, of course, spends that money, too--not on defense 
spending but on domestic spending--in a time of war, a time of 
reshaping our military to protect this country. It reshapes the budget 
into more porkbarrel projects for Members of Congress. That is what 
this budget does. It takes money out of your pockets and puts it--
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator makes an assertion about the Senate Budget 
Committee that is flatly untrue.
  The budget I offered that passed the Senate Budget Committee fully 
funded defense for 2003 and 2004. After that, it increased defense by 
the rate of inflation and set all of the additional defense spending 
aside that the President has requested in a defense reserve account. 
Every penny of that money that is not needed for defense goes to debt 
reduction. The Senator has said it goes to porkbarrel projects. That is 
absolutely false. Every penny of that money--every penny--either goes 
for defense or it goes for debt reduction.
  When the Senator makes statements, I hope the Senator will at least 
be constrained by the facts.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Reclaiming my time, I suggest that given the way this 
body operates and the Congress has operated over the past several years 
since I have been in Congress, we have not seen very many reserve 
accounts set aside for debt reduction that are not raided continually 
for spending in Washington, DC.
  The Senator can say that money is set aside, and that is a nice 
little accounting mechanism, but the fact is we will spend that money 
and then some increases--whether it is supplemental appropriations 
without caps, since we do not have caps now, we would be flying through 
that money and we would be blowing through caps as we have in the past.
  Second, I did say the tax dollars would not be given to the American 
public. They would be back in the budget and, yes, they would be used 
to increase spending in Washington, DC.
  The fact is, it does not fund the President's priorities or the 
Nation's priorities with respect to national security, No. 1.
  No. 2, it does take money that was targeted hopefully for the pockets 
of the American taxpayers and brings it back to Washington to be spent.
  No. 3, and I quote the Washington Post headline, ``Senate Democrats 
Tap Social Security in Budget Plan.'' I hear over and over how these 
horrible Republicans want to raid Social Security and raid the Social 
Security trust fund.
  The budget we have before us, in the words of those who use this 
lingo, ``raids the Social Security trust fund.'' It is horrible to 
suggest that, but it does. It does not fund the Nation's priorities 
with national security. It does increase spending in Washington, DC, 
for more and more domestic spending programs. It does raise taxes vis-
a-vis the President's budget, and it does raid the Social Security 
trust fund.
  Given what this budget does, I can understand why it might be 
difficult or why many Members, the leader, and the chairman of the 
Budget Committee did not want to bring this bill to the floor because 
such a budget would be very difficult to pass because it does not 
please very many Members on either side of the aisle.
  There was no attempt in the process to try to form a bipartisan 
budget. Every effort by Senator Domenici and the budget Republicans was 
thwarted by the majority. So there was no attempt to build a bipartisan 
budget. Faced with very difficult fiscal realities, including raiding 
the Social Security trust fund, which this budget does, it is very 
difficult to get votes on a bipartisan basis when we have a very 
closely divided Senate.
  I am not saying this would not be a very difficult political task--it 
would be--but it is one the Senate is required to do. This is a debate 
that we should have. This is a debate that has been denied to the 
Senate, has been denied to the American public, and, as a result we are 
going into waters very much uncharted, uncertain waters when it 
comes to setting spending priorities over the next few months through 
the appropriations process and whatever other bills that may be coming 
through that require expenditure of funds.

  I understand there are attempts being made to create mechanisms to do 
other things that are sort of quasibudget in nature. That is all well 
and good. But the fact is, the chairman of the Budget Committee and the 
majority leader had a responsibility and obligation under the act to 
bring a bill before the Senate and debate a budget, and they have 
abdicated their responsibility. They have abdicated their 
responsibility to the Senate and to the American public.
  I am going to give them an opportunity. We have waited 2 months. Many 
on our side were suggesting: Why don't we offer this on April 15? 
Because many of us thought: Let's see if we can work out something; 
let's see if we can, in fact, get some bipartisan resolution; maybe the 
chairman of the Budget Committee will bring forth a budget

[[Page S5020]]

resolution. Senator Daschle continually in his dugout said: We will get 
to that budget resolution; we will get to it; we will get to it.
  I was willing to hold off longer. Now there are all these phony 
budget talks going on in this Chamber where we are going to do all 
these machinations to look like we are doing a budget. I thought: I am 
willing to put off while people have good-faith negotiations to get 
something done. But when we come out to the Chamber in the context of a 
supplemental and start playing games like we are doing a budget, let's 
call a spade a spade. Let's do a budget. You have not done a budget. 
Let's do a budget. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania must have 
missed what has been going on. He has not been party to any of these 
discussions, any of these talks, but people on his side of the aisle 
have been, including the ranking member of the Budget Committee and the 
Republican leader. We have even involved the White House in an attempt 
to get a budget for this year.
  The fact is, the Senate passed a budget resolution through the Budget 
Committee, a budget that is a 10-year budget as required under the law. 
The President presented a 10-year budget, and we will give our 
colleagues a chance to vote on that budget as well, just as we did in 
the Budget Committee.
  Interestingly enough, some Republicans did not support that budget. 
We will see if they want to support that budget on the floor.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania talks about raiding Social Security. 
The President's budget really raids Social Security. We will give the 
Senator from Pennsylvania the opportunity to vote on that budget and 
see if he wants to raid it by $500 billion more. That is what the 
President's budget does.
  How are we in this deficit situation? Is it because we have not 
considered a budget resolution on the floor of the Senate? The Senator 
from Pennsylvania knows the answer to that question. We are in deficit 
for as far as the eye can see before a budget has been considered for 
fiscal year 2003, and I remind the Senator that the new fiscal year 
does not start until October 1. We have time to get a budget in place 
for this year.
  The Senator perhaps has forgotten that the Senate has been involved 
in the election reform bill, the energy bill, the trade bill--all of 
these the administration requested us to take up. Now we are on the 
supplemental bill which the President also asked us to take up and 
dispose of. So the budget kept getting pushed back.
  On the fundamental question of how we got in this circumstance where 
we see deficits as far as the eye can see, the facts are very clear. 
The Senator from Pennsylvania and his colleagues bear substantial 
responsibility. They are the ones who put a budget in place last year 
that plunged us back into deficits. We opposed it.
  It was the Senator from Pennsylvania and his colleagues who said we 
can have it all, who said we can have a massive tax cut, we can have a 
major defense buildup, that we can have maximum paydown of the Federal 
debt. That is what they told us last year. And now they are here, after 
saying they were going to have maximum paydown of the Federal debt, 
asking for the second biggest increase in the debt in the history of 
the country.
  This is their fiscal policy that is in place. It is their fiscal 
policy that has put us back into deficit. It is their fiscal policy 
that has put this country back into accumulating debt at a record rate.
  No budget has yet been acted upon for the year 2003. It is their 
budget, the budget they passed last year, that they offered in both 
Chambers of the Congress, that they passed that has put us in this deep 
ditch. That is the fact.
  Last year, we were told there would be nearly $6 trillion of 
surpluses over the next decade.
  In fact, the President's Office of Management and Budget told us 
there was going to be $5.6 trillion of surpluses over the next 10 
years. Now we are told maybe $400 billion, and that is before the 
revenue shortfall of this filing season.
  The fact is the money is all gone. Where did it go? More than 40 
percent went to the tax cut that the Senator from Pennsylvania and his 
colleagues pushed through this Congress. Twenty percent of the 
disappearance of the surplus went from increased expenditures as a 
result of the attacks on this country, 20 percent, and every Republican 
supported those expenditures.
  Twenty percent of the disappearance of the surplus happened because 
of the economic slowdown. About 20 percent occurred as a result of 
underestimations of the cost of Medicare and Medicaid. That is where 
the money went.
  So if the Senator from Pennsylvania is wondering how the money 
disappeared and who is responsible, he can look in the mirror because 
it was his fiscal policy, his budget, his plan, his promises that put 
us back into deficit and back into debt. That is where we are.
  I warned against that fiscal policy. I warned that it would put us in 
danger of raiding Social Security and raiding Medicare and every other 
trust fund in sight. But, oh, no, the Senator from Pennsylvania and his 
colleagues said: We know better. There is going to be even more money 
than has been projected. That is what they said then, and now we reap 
the whirlwind and the devastation of deficits and debt as far as the 
eye can see.
  We have an opportunity to get a budget framework in place. We have an 
opportunity to put in place the budget disciplines that are necessary 
to prevent spending from spinning out of control, but this kind of ad 
hominem attack is not going to solve those problems.
  We presented a 10-year budget. I am proud of that budget. The budget 
I presented, that passed through the Budget Committee, did the 
following: No. 1, fully funded the President's defense request for 2003 
and 2004, and for the years beyond put the money in a reserve account 
so that every penny would be available for the defense of this country 
if needed. But in those future years, where none of us can say with 
certainty what might be required for defense, to the extent any of that 
money is not needed for that purpose, it goes to reducing the debt of 
America. That is a good policy. It is one we ought to adopt.
  In the budget I have offered our colleagues, we fully fund all of the 
money the President has requested for homeland security because we 
believe everybody in this Chamber understands our first obligation is 
to defend this Nation.
  The budget I have offered also has greater debt reduction than the 
President has offered in his budget, $500 billion more in debt 
reduction than what the President proposed, if the defense reserve fund 
is not needed for defense. If it is all required for defense, we still 
are paying down the debt by $230 billion more than the President's 
proposal.
  On the other key issues before us, the budget I offered my colleagues 
said there would be no additional tax cuts unless they are paid for 
because we are now in deficit. It contains no tax increases, and it 
also has no delay of the scheduled tax cuts.
  The budget I offered also attempts to address the priorities of the 
American people because it rejects certain of the cuts the President 
proposed. The President proposed cutting the highway construction 
program in this country by 27 percent. The President's budget proposes 
a $9 billion cut in highway and bridge construction funding. I do not 
think that is the priority of the American people.

  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. Since the Senator has presented the budget I offered, I 
would like to complete the description of that and then I would be 
happy to yield.
  I do not think it is wise to reduce the highway and bridge 
construction budget of the United States by 27 percent. No. 1, it would 
cost over 350,000 jobs in America. No. 2, it would reduce the 
efficiency of the transportation system in our country. What sense 
would that make?
  It does not end there. The other major difference in the priorities 
of my budget from the President's budget is in education. Everybody 
says education is their priority, but the President's budget actually 
cut his signature education proposal, No Child Left Behind. The 
President, with great fanfare, went across the country drawing

[[Page S5021]]

attention to the No Child Left Behind Act, but in the first budget he 
proposed, he cut the funding for No Child Left Behind.
  I also, in my budget, kept the Federal promise that was made long ago 
to the States with Disabilities Act funding for education. Educators 
all across America told us this was the single highest priority. It is 
the one thing that would help school districts across America the most, 
if the Federal Government would keep its commitment to fund 40 percent 
of the costs of the Disabilities Act. That is a promise we have not 
kept. Under the budget I have proposed, we would keep it.
  We have some additional funding for education, some additional 
funding for law enforcement as well. The President cut dramatically the 
funding for the COPS Program. What sense does that make, when we face a 
terrorist threat, to cut cops on the street? This is a program that has 
put tens of thousands of policemen on the streets of America. So we 
restored that cut.
  We also dealt with some of the other priorities of the Nation. In 
addition to education, in addition to law enforcement, we dealt with 
the health care needs of America.
  The President had about $250 billion set aside for a prescription 
drug benefit and to expand health care coverage. The House in their 
budget resolution set aside $350 billion for a prescription drug 
benefit and for adjustments to providers. They did not pick up the 
President's proposal for expanding health care coverage.
  In the budget I have proposed, we have a $500 billion reserve fund 
for health care, for prescription drugs, for the President's proposal 
on expanding health care, and for the third category of adjusting for 
providers, the Medicare cuts that are in place that endanger the health 
care of the people of the country because there are additional cuts to 
hospitals, additional cuts to doctors that go beyond what was 
anticipated when the 1997 Deficit Reduction Act was put in place.
  Some have asked, how can it be that there are fewer cuts than the 
President proposed but on the other hand there is more debt reduction? 
How can that be? The way we achieved that result was not to adopt the 
President's proposal of additional tax reductions on top of the 
stimulus package that has already been put in place this year, and on 
top of the massive tax cut that was put in place last year that extends 
over the next 10 years. We say, yes, there can be additional tax cuts, 
absolutely, but they have to be paid for.
  I think that is a pretty reasonable budget. Those are principles that 
ought to be adopted. Those are things that make sense.
  I want to review how we got in the circumstance we are in today. It 
was not the fact that we have not yet adopted a budget for 2003 that 
put us into deficit.

  I conclude by saying we got in this soup because of the fiscal policy 
put in place last year by the Senator from Pennsylvania and his 
colleagues. They are the ones who told the American people: You can 
have it all; it all adds up, massive tax cut, major increases in 
spending. They will have maximum paydown of the Federal debt, they will 
do all these things based on a 10-year forecast that even the people 
who made the forecast warned was uncertain. But they bought it hook, 
line, and sinker, and they sold it to the American people.
  What is the result? Before we have a budget for fiscal year 2003, 
massive deficit is the result, deficit not just for this year but next 
year and the next year and the next year and the next year, because 
that party that claims to be the party of fiscal responsibility put us 
right back into the soup of deficits, debt, and decline. Their plan did 
not add up. Now we have an opportunity and an obligation to try to 
agree on a budget for this year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to make sure everyone understands 
what it is we are debating on the Senate floor.
  The President made a request of the Senate to pass an emergency 
appropriation that would directly respond to the terrorist attacks in 
the United States. He asked for more money for defense. He asked for 
more money for homeland security. He asked for more money for New York. 
That is the pending legislation.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said this bill is 
on a slow train to nowhere. Mr. President, it is disconcerting, at 
best, that on an issue of this import--dealing with troops overseas 
while the nation is on high alert after being told repeatedly in the 
last 3 weeks about the inevitability of a further attack--somebody has 
unconscionably come to the floor and slow-trained this important bill, 
slow-walked it, stopped it, brought it to a grinding halt. But that is 
exactly what is happening.
  We need to get this legislation passed. There ought to be a good 
debate about budget. We have been trying to do that. We will have one. 
But to offer a budget resolution on the amendment that is currently 
pending is inexcusable. It is politics. It has everything to do with 
slowing this bill down to a screeching halt and ignoring the plea of 
the President of the United States to enact this legislation as quickly 
as we can. That is what we are doing.
  Members of his party have said: We don't care what the President is 
requesting, we are going to slow-walk this, we are going to put this on 
a slow train, and we are not going to pass this legislation this week. 
We will vote against cloture tomorrow. We are actually going to 
continue to filibuster a bill the President has requested to deal with 
homeland defense, to deal with aid to New York, and to deal with the 
defense needs of this country. That is inexcusable.
  I move to table the second-degree amendment, and I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), 
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), and the Senator from 
New Jersey (Mr. Torricelli) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 134 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     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
     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
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bingaman
     Helms
     Rockefeller
     Torricelli
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The deputy majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to reflect for a moment on the 
events of today and say to my colleagues, we

[[Page S5022]]

have to find a way to break the gridlock. The bill that is before us is 
for defense, for homeland security, for dealing with the tragedy of the 
attack on New York, and to deal with some other urgent needs, including 
the shortfall in Pell grants and VA medical care.
  The bill before us is a $31 billion bill. Fourteen billion dollars is 
for defense, money requested by the President to respond to the 
continuing terrorist threat to this country; $8.3 billion is for 
homeland security, again funds requested by the President to respond to 
the continuing threat against our Nation; $5.5 billion is to respond to 
the needs of New York after the attack of September 11; $1.9 billion is 
for foreign security assistance to strengthen our embassies against 
terrorist attacks; $1 billion to deal with the shortfall in Pell 
grants; $400 million for VA medical care. That is the bill that is 
before us. Those are requests of the President of the United States.
  I want to make clear that what is at stake is spending items 
requested by the President of the United States to respond to the 
threats against our country and the devastation that occurred as a 
result of those attacks. I think it also must be said that we need to 
have a budget put in place for this year. It is needed. Now we are 
being told by some on the other side, they will block any attempt to 
have a vote on a budget framework for this year.
  There are others on both sides who want to work together to achieve 
that result. There are others on both sides who believe it is important 
to have a budget put in place for this year, to have the budget 
disciplines extended for this year. I hoped we could do that before we 
conclude work on this supplemental. This is one of the best 
alternatives, one of the best options we will have to put in place a 
budget framework for this year.
  I might say that people on both sides of the aisle have worked very 
hard to do that, are very close to an agreement to do that, but we have 
to have an opportunity to vote before cloture is invoked or that effort 
will fall.
  That is the hard reality. We have an opportunity to put in place a 
budget for this year, to extend the budget disciplines for this year, 
and to provide some order to this process. That is in the interest of 
all of us. That is in the interest of the Nation. I would hope very 
much that tomorrow we would have the opportunity to vote on that on a 
bipartisan basis.
  Ms. STABENOW. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
  Ms. STABENOW. I ask the Senator, who is the chair of our Budget 
Committee, about issues that are in that budget which I think are so 
critical for all of us, and I share with the Senator his frustration 
about the lack of willingness or ability to move ahead in order to pass 
this supplemental and to be able to pass the budget. One of the 
important provisions that we have worked on together relates to the 
question of prescription drugs and putting forward a comprehensive 
Medicare prescription drug benefit that I know the Presiding Officer 
has been deeply involved in leading and advocating as well.
  Would the Senator not agree that it is critically important that we 
be able to move ahead with this budget so we can address the issue of 
Medicare prescription drugs and be able to address the spiraling costs 
of medications, affecting every part of our economy and that our budget 
resolution, in fact, puts in place the ability to do that?
  Mr. CONRAD. I would like nothing better than to have the opportunity 
to have a full plan. At this moment, what is at stake is having any 
plan just for this year. That is clearly in the Nation's interests. It 
is in the interest of an orderly appropriations process to have a 
budget for this year and to have the various budget disciplines put in 
place for this year. That is now what is at risk, much less having a 
longer term plan. What is at risk at this moment is having any plan. 
That is what is at risk.
  There are some Members who do not want any plan, some Members who 
want chaos. They think somehow they benefit by not having a discipline 
in this entire process. That is regrettable, I say to my colleague, who 
is a very valuable member of the Senate Budget Committee. We voted out 
a resolution, a blueprint on how to proceed, one that was fiscally 
responsible, that had substantially more debt paydown than the 
President proposed, one that has no tax increases, one that has no 
delay of the scheduled tax cuts, one that provides everything the 
President requested for the defense of this Nation, both in terms of 
the defense budget and the budget for homeland security. We did that.
  We are asking for at least the opportunity to vote on one year of 
that plan so we meet the defense needs, so we meet the needs for 
homeland security, so we get this supplemental budget in place that the 
President has requested, so that, yes, we have the budget disciplines 
continue past September 30 when they expire. We do not want to see a 
circumstance where spending spins out of control. Just be here in 
October with no budget disciplines available and see what real chaos 
can be.
  I say to my colleagues, I know there are people who have strong 
feelings on all of these issues. I do, as well. We ought to let the 
Senate work its will. We ought to have a chance to vote. That is how we 
determine outcomes here.
  I have been told there are some who have the idea of preventing the 
Senate from voting. They do not want a chance to vote because they 
think they would lose, although there is a 60-vote requirement. They 
are right. They would lose. We would then have the opportunity to have 
not only a budget for this year and also the budget disciplines 
continue, that is very much in the public interest.
  I hope some of my colleagues overnight will think about the 
consequences of the failure to act. I thank the Senator from Michigan 
for her contributions on the Budget Committee.
  Ms. STABENOW. I commend the Senator from North Dakota for his ongoing 
leadership on the Budget Committee. These are challenging times. He has 
forecast for over a year great concerns about an evaporating surplus 
and what could happen with a downturn and other pressures on the 
budget. He has continued to advocate fiscal discipline. I join the 
Senator in that and in setting the right priorities for the country, 
the right priorities for our families.


                         assistance for israel

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to discuss the 
amendment of the Senator from Kentucky, the ranking minority member of 
the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, Senator McConnell, concerning 
assistance for Israel.
  This amendment would permit the transfer of all or a portion of the 
funds in the supplemental for Israel, to the ``Nonproliferation, Anti-
Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs'' account (NADR), to be used 
for ``defensive, non-lethal anti-terrorism assistance.'' It is my 
understanding that the purpose of this amendment is to provide the 
authority to utilize these funds to purchase bomb detection equipment, 
x-ray machinery, body armor, and similar types of border security and 
other defensive equipment to prevent acts of terrorism. Am I correct?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
for his question. Yes, he is correct. That is exactly what these funds 
would be available for. The recent bombings in Israel--including one 
this morning that killed 16 people--have only demonstrated the urgent 
need for this type of assistance.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I want to be certain that there is no 
ambiguity about what these funds are for. We are all aware that there 
was never any intention that these funds would be available for lethal 
assistance or for the expansion of settlements, but I think it is 
important to reaffirm that understanding. These NADR funds would not be 
available for offensive purposes, or for any purpose unrelated to the 
purchase of defensive, non-lethal anti-terrorism equipment, and the 
Senator from Kentucky has confirmed that.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me thank the chairman for including the assistance 
for Israel in his mark.


   WAIVER OF THE LOCAL MATCH FOR THE COMMUNICATIONS INTEROPERABILITY 
                                FUNDING

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleague, the 
distinguished chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations 
Subcommittee, Senator Hollings, in a

[[Page S5023]]

colloquy on the local match requirements for Federal grant funding. 
This pressing concern was raised by the local elected officials we 
heard from during the Appropriations Committee homeland security 
hearings. One of them testified that in many of these grant programs, 
particularly in the public safety area, our larger cities with the 
greatest needs cannot afford to meet a local requirement, while 
wealthier area with relatively fewer needs are able to take full 
advantage of these funds.
  I hope the distinguished chairman will join me in this colloquy at 
this time.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I would be happy to speak with my colleague from 
Louisiana on this important issue.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator. I believe that local match 
requirements are an important shared investment in Federal grant 
making. So there is a need for it and I think my colleague would agree.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I certainly do agree. By giving the local jurisdiction 
``buy-in'' to a grant, the local match adds an incentive for 
communities to use Federal funding effectively. A wide variety of grant 
programs have them. I also share in the Senator from Louisiana's 
concern that many of our communities may not be able to afford that 
match. Many grant programs provide waivers of the match in certain 
cases.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I would like to talk to the Senator about the $80 
million in interoperable communications funding in the Department of 
Justice title of the bill. In the District of Columbia Subcommittee we 
have held hearings on the emergency preparedness needs for Washington, 
DC. During 9-11, District fire and police personnel had to have the 
ability to communicate with multiple jurisdictions that responded to 
the Pentagon. So interoperability is crucial for public safety 
officials.
  The funding in the bill would be administered by the COPS program at 
the Department of Justice. You have been a leader in the Senate in your 
support of that program. COPS grants require a 25 percent local match 
for its grants. The COPS program does allow for a full or partial 
waiver of the local match for communities that are facing severe fiscal 
distress. Communities can qualify for a waiver in a wide variety of 
ways. Some qualify because they have been declared a FEMA disaster area 
or have been placed in receivership or bankruptcy. Communities can also 
get a waiver if they have had a recent large, one-time financial 
expense, like replacing a water treatment facility. The COPS program 
will also grant waivers to communities that had to make across-the-
board budget cuts as a result of difficult economic circumstances.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Congress designed the COPS program to meet the specific 
law enforcement needs of individual communities. This is true not only 
with the waiver of the local match, but in how communities can use COPS 
funding in general.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Is it your understanding that the COPS interoperable 
communications funding in the bill will be administered in the same 
manner as the other COPS grant programs regarding the local match and 
the waiver process?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes. These funds will be administered in the same 
manner as other COPS grants funds regarding both the matching 
requirements and the waiver process.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee. I look 
forward to working with you on this issue.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the funding for 
the U.S. Coast Guard aviation programs in the pending supplemental 
appropriations bill.
  On February 20, I spent a day at Coast Guard Air Station Clearwater 
in St. Petersburg, Florida. I observed first hand some very impressive 
Coast Guard aviation operations, but also several helicopters that were 
inoperative due to problems associated with a shortage of spare parts. 
I am pleased that the pending supplemental will help restore adequate 
funding for the Coast Guard aviation program, including spare parts, 
and get these aircraft flying and operational again soon.
  The Coast Guard needs this assistance to cover their basic 
operational expenses. According to the Coast Guard, the first 
supplemental this year provided funding to operate seven additional 
aircraft (4 HU-25 Falcon jets and 3 HH-65 helicopters) and provided a 
15 percent increase in flight hours. The pending supplemental contains 
approximately $22 million to continue to operate the entire aviation 
fleet for the remainder of the fiscal year, with an adequate inventory 
levels of repair parts. I am also pleased that the Coast Guard reports 
that the President's fiscal year 2003 budget request contains the 
necessary recurring funding to support the additional aircraft and 
flight hours brought on by fiscal year 2002 supplemental funding, as 
well as continues to resolve the Service's aviation parts shortfalls.
  I do recognize that some of the HH-60 helicopter problems that I saw 
in February are due to aging aircraft issues that affect the entire 
U.S. H-60 fleet, including those owned by the Department of Defense, 
and are not just the Coast Guard specific issues.
  As one of the nation's first lines of defense in stemming the flow of 
illicit drugs and illegal immigration into the United States, it is 
imperative that the U.S. Coast Guard be appropriated the resources that 
they require to carry out their critical missions on behalf of the 
American people. And we must remain committed to ensuring that our 
Coast Guard has adequate resources not just now, but well into the 
future. The U.S. Coast Guard is important to Florida and important to 
the nation.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support for the Coast Guard's 
supplemental funding for fiscal year 2002 as well as for their annual 
appropriations in fiscal year 2003.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I very much enjoyed Thomas Friedman's 
op-ed in today's New York Times entitled ``Land of Denial.'' I could 
not agree more with his assertion that Egypt can--and should--be doing 
more to be a leader in the Arab world.
  Egypt is a land of missed opportunities, and it has forfeited its 
historical place in Middle Eastern history as a progressive and 
pluralistic country. Friedman points out that while other countries--
Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, and even Tunisia--have forged ahead with 
democratic, free press, and economic reforms, Egypt ``has been 
stagnating.''
  I could not agree more with Friedman's assertion that ``[t]he 
intellectual air has gone stale in Egypt from too many years of 
controlled press and authoritarian politics.''
  In the past, I have taken issue with Egypt's cold peace with Israel, 
its jailing of democracy advocates, its suspicious involvement with 
North Korean missiles and weapons technicians, and its reckless and 
irresponsible government-controlled press that fuels extremism on the 
streets of Cairo and throughout the Arab world.
  It is not too late for President Hosni Mubarak to embark on a reform 
path that will ensure a stable and prosperous Egypt. It is in our 
interests--as well as those of the Egyptian people--that Mubarak 
invests in the development of functioning democratic institutions and 
political processes.
  In the supplemental bill I carved out a portion of assistance 
provided in the Economic Support Fund account for the professional 
training of Egyptian and other Middle Eastern journalists. I did so 
because I firmly believe that a free and independent media in Egypt 
will contribute to our war against terrorism, peace in the region, and 
the political, legal, and economic development of that country.
  The abuses of the government-controlled Egyptian press are legendary, 
and include personal attacks against Secretary of State Colin Powell 
and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. America has been 
repeatedly tarred and feathered, Israel vilified, and Hitler criticized 
for not killing all the Jews ``so that the world could sigh in relief 
without their evil and sins.''
  Such inflammatory nonsense fuels ideological extremism that has 
repercussions on our shores and throughout the world.
  Let me assure my colleagues that in my capacity as ranking member of 
the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I will continue to examine the 
assistance America provides to Egypt. I have already suggested to 
Secretary Powell that we reassess our assistance to Egypt to ensure 
that it effectively promotes critically needed reforms, and I look 
forward to working with the administration on this matter.

[[Page S5024]]



                          ____________________