[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 9 (Friday, January 17, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1132-S1134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    MAKING FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003--
                               Continued

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, to my colleagues who have known me and 
who have heard me speak on spending issues before, what I am about to 
say may be very shocking, and it shocks me as well. I am going to vote 
for this appropriations bill. It contains only a 3-percent increase in 
total spending--can you believe that; that is mandatory and 
nondiscretionary domestic spending, a 3-percent increase--and a 2.4-
percent increase in discretionary spending.
  All of us should congratulate the President for sticking to his guns 
and keeping his promise that he was going to restrain spending while he 
was President.
  We also should thank Appropriations Chairman Ted Stevens and his 
colleagues on the committee who have done a good job in putting this 
package together. It is time for us to move on.
  I would first like to comment on why we are here. Why are we here 
today? We would not be here today if we had passed a budget last year 
and had not wasted so much time debating bills on the floor of the 
Senate that should have been taken care of properly in committee.
  Last year was the first time the Senate did not pass a budget 
resolution since the Budget Act of 1974. Think of that. For 29 years we 
passed a budget, but last year we were not able to muster up the votes 
to get a budget passed. In addition, we have spent so much time 
debating bills on the floor of the Senate that should have been handled 
properly in the committees where those bills originated. In so many 
instances where the leader was unhappy with the results of the 
committee work, he yanked the bills out of committee, took it into his 
office, rewrote the bill, put it on the floor, and we debated it. 
For example, the energy bill, where we spent 8 weeks debating it, when 
it could have been taken care of in the Energy Committee. The energy 
bill, the farm bill, the economic stimulus bill, we spent so much time 
last year dealing with things that should have been done in committee.

  I am hoping the new leader gives more emphasis to the importance of 
committees in the Senate. I cannot understand why the previous majority 
party's committee chairmen were not up in arms about so many bills that 
should have been handled in their committees, but were pulled. We 
wasted a lot of time last year, and the chickens have now come home to 
roost. We have operated on a continuing resolution for 4 months--
October, November, December, and January.
  The executive branch is already one-third through the fiscal year, 
and the President wants us to finish our work. The American people want 
us to finish our work. There are so many Federal agencies today that 
are providing services not knowing what their budget is going to be for 
this year. Starting this week, executive branch agencies must absorb a 
3.1-percent pay raise within fiscal year 2002 funding levels. I know 
what that is like. I know, as a former governor and mayor, the pressure 
that puts on agencies. Many agencies will be unable to effectively 
allocate funds, particularly competitive grant funds, prior to the end 
of the fiscal year without a final appropriation in the next 20 to 30 
days.
  In other words, consider the many agencies that have competitive 
grant programs. These agencies will not be able to get their requests 
for grant applications out this year, nor the grant applications back 
in unless we get things done in the next few days. Also thousands of 
people, like my nephew, are out of work because companies they work for 
that have government contracts don't know if the projects that are 
being funded by the Federal Government will continue. Government 
programs have been on hold for the past 4 months and won't move forward 
until we pass an appropriations bill.
  One of the things hurting our economy today is uncertainty. We have 
contributed to it because we haven't been doing our work.
  My constituents ask me: Do you guys in Washington get it? Do you get 
it? Do

[[Page S1133]]

you understand what is going on? We are at war. The President of the 
United States has more on his plate than perhaps any President in my 
memory. Some say FDR; some say Abraham Lincoln. The economy is 
sputtering. Our constituents believe we are behaving like Nero, 
fiddling around while Rome is burning. They continue to ask, don't you 
get it?
  We have to understand that we cannot tolerate business as usual. In 
fact, business as usual looks pretty good compared to what we have been 
doing the last year or so, and the way we have been behaving.
  If corporate executives in the private sector took this much time to 
implement their budgets, they would never bring any projects to market 
or create any new jobs and our economy would collapse.
  Let's get appropriations done now. None of us are happy with 
everything in it, and everyone would like to add something, a pet 
project, a pet constituent request. All of us have them. Hopefully, 
some will be taken care of and smoothed out in conference. But if not, 
they will have to be handled in the 2004 budget.
  Remember we are in this pickle because we did not do our work last 
year. Let's get it over so we can begin to do our work this year. Let's 
get on with the budget, so that we can have an aggressive effort to do 
the 2004 appropriations bills and the other urgent business of the 
American people.
  God only knows what the budget environment will be if we go to war 
with Iraq. As all of us in this body understand, even if we do not go 
to war, there are likely to be supplemental expenditures for whatever 
the final settlement with Iraq will be.
  Let's look at this proposal before us. This bill represents a 
compromise between true fiscal discipline and Congress' desire to 
spend. It is made up of 11 bills. Passage of this bill will bring non-
defense discretionary spending up to $385 billion, an increase of 2.4-
percent over the fiscal year 2002 level. It provides everything the 
President asked for except the $10 billion defense contingency 
fund. Although this low number is something to rejoice about, we had 
better understand that one of the reasons it is low is that we have had 
a continuing resolution for the past 4 months and we have been spending 
money at FY 2002 levels.

  Included in the package is a 1.6-percent across-the-board cut in all 
domestic spending, in order to accommodate some high-priority items. 
Let's not forget about that. Some are talking about amending this bill. 
The bill already contains an across-the-board reduction so we could 
provide $3.1 billion for drought aid for farmers in counties that have 
been declared disasters. In my particular case, we have 88 counties in 
Ohio that have been declared disasters. Mr. President, the bill 
includes $1.5 billion for election reform; which is not as much as we 
promised the states when we passed the election reform legislation, but 
it is a substantial amount of money that will help the states. And the 
bill includes $1.6 billion for a Medicare physician's fee fix. All of 
us have heard from our physicians in terms of the Medicare situation 
they are confronted with, when every year the amount of reimbursement 
is going down and down.
  Inflation this year is only about 2.4 percent, nevertheless, all but 
two appropriations bills in this package are getting increases above 
that rate.
  The Labor-HHS appropriation has grown an average of 12.4 percent 
every year since I have been here and will grow another 5.4 percent in 
this bill. So this bill does not represent draconian restrictions on 
Federal spending.
  In fact, the proposed $750 billion budget the President wants can 
fund critical priorities within the limits of fiscal discipline. That 
$750 billion represents an increase of over 11 percent in discretionary 
spending in just the last 2 fiscal years. I don't know anybody who has 
had those kinds of increases. If you look at our spending during the 
last 5 years, you see we have increased spending in most of the 13 
annual appropriations bills by about 7.1 percent each year. That is 
about a 43-percent increase in spending since I came to the Senate. 
During the same period of time we have had inflationary growth of only 
about 11.4 percent.
  The projected deficit for fiscal year 2002 was $314 billion, which 
included using Social Security, and the projected deficit for 2003 is 
already $315 billion. Someone said at a meeting I attended yesterday 
that it could go up to about $370 billion because we are going to have 
to borrow more money than what we originally expected.
  We just increased the debt ceiling last June and will probably need 
to increase it again before the end of this year. Therefore, we need to 
endorse this fiscally responsible approach presented to us by the 
Appropriations Committee today. All these amendments proposed in the 
last couple days would keep adding money and adding money to the 
deficit. That is what it is about. I cannot understand it.
  I hear arguments on the other side expressing concern about the 
deficit, and these same people are on the floor trying to amend this 
appropriations bill. That would be fiscally irresponsible and would add 
to the deficit. The Appropriations Committee proposal is the lowest 
increase in spending I have seen since I have been in the Senate.
  As I said, I have to take my hat off to the President for holding the 
line on spending, and I take my hat off to my friend, Appropriations 
Committee Chairman Ted Stevens. He and I have had some strong words 
over the last several years. But as Humphrey Bogart said in 
``Casablanca'': ``This could be the start of a beautiful friendship.''
  I want the Appropriations chairman to know I look forward to working 
with him and his colleagues on the committee on the 2004 budget and 
hope by the end of this year we can point to another set of 
appropriation bills with the same type of responsible and restrained 
growth.
  Over the last 2 days, some people have come to the floor and said we 
need more money for various good programs. As I mentioned before, these 
programs are on hold until we pass an appropriations bill. In other 
words, nothing is happening in some of these programs until we pass an 
appropriations bill.
  I agree that there are many things we all want money for, but I want 
to point out to my colleagues what we have done during the past few 
years in terms of the money we have put in the pipeline--I will repeat 
it so everybody gets it.
  Since I have been in the Senate, we have increased discretionary 
spending by 10 percent in 1999, 15 percent in 2001, and 9 percent in 
2002. We have allocated so much additional money to Federal agencies 
that many of them have had difficulty spending all of it. For example, 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development has consistently 
recaptured $1.5 billion to $2 billion in unallocated section 8 housing 
vouchers.
  Mr. President, what we are doing here is fiscally responsible. Let's 
get it done. Let's get on with it. Let's finish the work of the 107th 
Congress so we can get on with the work of the 108th, starting with the 
2004 budget. And we need to move aggressively with the appropriations 
bills, so that we can get on with an energy bill, and do something 
about some of the other pressing issues facing the American people.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the 
Medicare provisions contained in H.J. Res. 2. These provisions would 
prevent unwise reductions in physician payments from taking effect by 
freezing Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors at the 2002 level. 
They would also provide much-needed, increased funding for rural 
hospitals.
  Enacting these important provisions has been at the top of my agenda, 
and I am pleased that the committee was able to include them in the 
omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003. After extensive 
conversations with constituents throughout Utah, it became obvious to 
me that Congress must act to support Medicare providers and patients by 
ensuring that payments are made more fair.
  In 2002, physicians' Medicare reimbursements were reduced by 
approximately 5 percent. And, on March 1, 2003, Medicare reimbursement 
rates for physicians are scheduled to be reduced by another 4.4 
percent. The provisions in H.J. Res. 2 that I strongly support will 
protect physicians across the country by preventing the 4.4 percent cut 
in physician Medicare payment from going into effect in March.
  It is apparent to me that Medicare constraints have made it more and 
more difficult for hard-working physicians to provide the level of 
patient

[[Page S1134]]

care that they and their patients expect. Physicians in Utah with whom 
I have consulted over the past year have showed me the lasting, 
negative impact that the 2003 reductions would have on patient care. In 
addition, I have been dismayed to learn from several physicians that 
these unwarranted reductions would cause them to think twice about 
remaining in the Medicare Program.
  In fact, as representatives of the Utah Medical Association have 
pointed out to me, Medicare's flawed reimbursement system has made it 
increasingly difficult for Utah physicians to accept new Medicare 
patients, putting many seniors who seek care in a quandary. This is not 
fair to the physicians, and it is not fair to the patients.
  While the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, reports that 
Medicare physician participation rate was 89.3 percent in January 2002, 
figures from Utah portray a dramatically different picture. In a recent 
survey conducted by the Utah Medical Association, the Medicare 
participation rate among physicians was significantly lower. The UMA 
found that only 77 percent of Utah's primary care physicians 
participated in the Medicare Program. I am hopeful that once Utah 
physicians see that we in Congress are listening and serious about 
supporting them, other doctors will consider participating in the 
Medicare Program once again.
  I am also pleased that this legislation contains a provision which 
will provide additional funding for rural hospitals, something that is 
desperately needed in my home state of Utah. More specifically, the 
hospital provision contained in H.J. Res. 2 would raise the inpatient 
base rate upon which payments are calculated for hospitals in rural and 
small urban areas to the same rate as that in large urban areas for 6 
months. This provision will provide both patients and hospitals in my 
state with necessary and welcomed relief.
  Many of us who worked last year to enact needed changes such as this 
have been dismayed that, despite our best efforts, Congress could not 
find a collective way to rectify these problems that are doing so much 
to hurt patient care throughout Utah. It is high time we take this 
action.
  I urge my colleagues to support these two important provisions 
because both will provide Medicare patients with access to quality and 
affordable health care across the country. Let's do the right thing and 
pass this legislation as quickly as possible, this issue is much too 
important to both Medicare beneficiaries and providers. Medicare 
providers, and most importantly, the beneficiaries they serve, are 
depending on us to get the job done.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to have submitted an 
amendment dealing with the Total Information Awareness Program at the 
DOD. Many of my colleagues may know about this program designed to test 
technologies that collect information from public and private databases 
and try to find trends that could signal threats against the United 
States. Like many people, I have been concerned that this program could 
be used to invade the privacy of Americans by snooping around in our 
bank accounts, personal internet computers, phone records, and the 
like. In November of last year, I asked the DOD Inspector General to 
look into the purposes of TIA and to make sure that there are 
appropriate controls in place to ensure that it is used only for 
foreign intelligence purposes to protect us against terrorism and 
foreign threats, but not on Americans or for domestic crime fighting. I 
am told that the IG investigation is proceeding, and that the IG has 
ordered a formal audit of TIA.
  This amendment limits the use of the TIA funds appropriated by 
Congress to foreign intelligence purposes. DOD will be required to tell 
Congress what it is doing regarding TIA, and keep us in the loop on 
developments. It also provides that TIA can't be used on U.S. citizens 
once it is up and running.
  But the amendment allows development of TIA to continue for foreign 
terrorism purposes. So it is a great compromise in that it allows the 
development of TIA to help track international terrorism, but protects 
against abuses that could violate the privacy of our own people. I 
encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as an appropriator, I come to the 
floor this afternoon to express my opposition to this omnibus 
appropriations bill.
  The $385 billion omnibus appropriations bill cuts almost $10 billion 
from what the Senate Appropriation Committee approved last year.
  On top of these Draconian cuts, the bill before us includes a 2.9 
percent across the board cut, to nonmilitary programs, and will affect 
critical programs such as homeland security, education, and job 
training.
  This bill is a major mistake and represents a short-sided approach to 
solving our Nation's problems.
  What is happening is the administration's effort to starve domestic 
programs in order to save dollars for a $674 billion tax cut. If this 
effort is successful, we will see interest rates rise, the deficit 
balloon, and a 10-year cumulative deficit of $2 to $3 trillion.
  Americans don't know it yet, but soon will learn that this bill makes 
a house of cards out of homeland security, which loses $1 billion which 
were already requested, authorized, and appropriated.
  How many Americans know that this bill will likely cut 1,175 FBI 
agents, 490 food safety engineers, and 1,600 customs inspectors who are 
vital if we are to protect our homeland from contraband and those that 
would do us harm.
  How many Americans know that the Head Start cut of $107 million could 
prevent 2700 youngsters from a Head Start experience, or leave 224,000 
needy individuals without the meals provided by WIC, or 230,000 
veterans without medical services.
  To make matters worse, this bill is being offered at a time when our 
Nation continues to face significant challenges in protecting homeland 
security, increasing school achievement, and strengthening our 
workforce.
  Essentially what this bill does is cut the money from a number of 
critical projects so this body can pass a tax cut of $674 billion, 
which will lead to a $2 trillion deficit over the next 10 years.
  Every day this body is faced with tough choices. But in my decade in 
the Senate, I believe that this bill represents one of the worst pieces 
of legislation to pass this Senate.

                          ____________________