[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 46 (Friday, March 21, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4258-S4268]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF FORCE
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as President pro tempore, I ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the permanent Record a letter I have
received from the President consistent with its requirements under the
authorization for use of military force against Iraq, Public Law 107-
243.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Hon. Ted Stevens,
President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: On March 18, 2003, I made available to
you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for
Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public
Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and
other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect
the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of
all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions
regarding Iraq.
I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition
leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish
these objectives and restore international peace and security
in the area. I have also determined that the use of armed
force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and
other countries continuing to take the necessary actions
against international terrorists and terrorist organizations,
including those nations, organizations, or persons who
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States
objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as
contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law
105-338).
Consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-
148), I now inform you that pursuant to my authority as
Commander in Chief and consistent with the Authorization for
Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law
102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), I
directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition
forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003,
against Iraq.
These military operations have been carefully planned to
accomplish our goals with the minimum loss of life among
coalition military forces and to innocent civilians. It is
not possible to know at this time either the duration of
active combat operations or the scope or duration of the
deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to accomplish our
goals fully.
As we continue our united efforts to disarm Iraq in pursuit
of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and
in the United States, I look forward to our continued
consultation and cooperation.
Sincerely,
George W. Bush
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The bill clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
[[Page S4259]]
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we are going to soon ask unanimous
consent to clear seven amendments that Senator Conrad and I have agreed
upon. Prior to that, though, I might ask the minority leader if he has
an announcement to try to rally his troops.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have been in discussions for the last
hour or so. I am calling a caucus for 6:45 to discuss our current
situation and a series of ideas that might allow us to bring this
debate to closure.
I do not want to discuss it here and now, but I hope Senators will
attend at 6:45 and we will have more information at that time.
Mr. NICKLES. If the minority leader will yield, I would very much
appreciate it--I know you don't want to get into the details, but
having final passage of the budget by 7 o'clock tonight would be very
much appreciated by all Members of the Senate.
I appreciate the cooperation of the minority leader.
Amendments Nos. 353, 283, 390, 388, 389, 309, 296 As Modified, En Bloc
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that seven
amendments--No. 353, Senators Smith and Clinton's sense of the Senate
dealing with health care coverage; No. 283, Senator Feinstein and
others' sense of the Senate dealing with criminal alien assistance; No.
390, Nickles' technical correction, Social Security administrative
expenses; No. 388, Senator Voinovich's sense of the Senate CBO report
on liabilities and future costs; No. 389, Senator Hutchison's sense of
the Senate dealing with the Corps of Engineers; No. 309, Bingaman
language change to Medicaid Reserve; No. 296, Senator Rockefeller's
sense of the Senate first responders, with a modification that is
presently at the desk--be considered en bloc, agreed to, and the
motions to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be shown as a
cosponsor of the Hutchison amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were considered and agreed to en bloc, as follows:
amendment no. 353
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning the expansion
of health care coverage)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING AN EXPANSION IN
HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) there were 74,700,000 Americans who were uninsured for
all or part of the two-year period of 2001 and 2002;
(2) this large group of uninsured Americans constitutes
almost one out of every three Americans under the age of 65;
(3) most of these uninsured individual were without health
coverage for lengthy periods of time, with two-thirds of them
uninsured for over six months;
(4) four out of five uninsured individuals are in working
families;
(5) high health care costs, the large number of unemployed
workers, and State cutbacks of public health programs
occasioned by State fiscal crises are causing more and more
individuals to become uninsured; and
(6) uninsured individuals are less likely to have a usual
source of care outside of an emergency room, often go without
screenings and preventive care, often delay or forgo needed
medical care, are often subject to avoidable hospital days,
and are sicker and die earlier than those individuals who
have health insurance.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that
the functional totals in this resolution assume that--
(1) expanded access to health care coverage throughout the
United States is a top priority for national policymaking;
and
(2) to the extent that additional funds are made available,
a significant portion of such funds should be dedicated to
expanding access to health care coverage so that fewer
individuals are uninsured and fewer individuals are likely to
become uninsured.
amendment no. 283
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the States and
localities should be reimbursed through the State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program for the fiscal burdens undocumented criminal aliens
place on their criminal justice systems)
On page 79, after line 22, insert the following:
SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
(1) The control of illegal immigration is a Federal
responsibility.
(2) In fiscal year 2002, however, State and local
governments spent more than $13,000,000,000 in costs
associated with the incarceration of undocumented criminal
aliens.
(3) The Federal Government provided $565,000,000 in
appropriated funding to the State Criminal Alien Assistance
Program (SCAAP) to reimburse State and local governments for
these costs.
(4) In fiscal year 2003, the fiscal burden of
incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens is likely to grow,
however, Congress provided only $250,000,000 to help cover
these costs.
(5) The 56 percent cut in fiscal year 2003 funding for
SCAAP will place an enormous burden on State and local law
enforcement agencies during a time of heightened efforts to
secure our homeland.
(6) The Administration did not include funding for SCAAP
in its fiscal year 2004 budget.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) the functional totals underlying this resolution on
the budget assumes that the State Criminal Alien Assistance
Program be funded at $585,000,000 to reimburse State and
local law enforcement agencies for the burdens imposed in
fiscal year 2003 by the incarceration of undocumented
criminal aliens; and
(2) Congress enact a long-term reauthorization of the
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program beginning with the
authorization of $750,000,000 in fiscal year 2004 to
reimburse State and county governments for the burdens
undocumented criminal aliens have placed on the local
criminal justice system.
amendment no. 390
On page 8, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
(c) Social Security Administrative Expenses.--In the
Senate, the amounts of new budget authority and budget
outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust
Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund for
administrative expenses are as follows:
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $3,812,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,838,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $4,257,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,207,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $4,338,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,301,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $4,424,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,409,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $4,522,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,505,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $4,638,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,617,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $4,792,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,766,000,000.
Fiscal year 2010:
(A) New budget authority, $4,954,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,924,000,000.
Fiscal year 2011:
(A) New budget authority, $5,121,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,091,000,000.
Fiscal year 2012:
(A) New budget authority, $5,292,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,260,000,000.
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $5,471,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,439,000,000.
amendment no. 388
(Purpose: To require annual reports on the liabilities and future costs
of the Federal Government and its programs)
At the end of subtitle A of title II, insert the following:
SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON REPORTS ON LIABILITIES AND
FUTURE COSTS.
It is the sense of the Senate that The Congressional Budget
Office shall consult with the Committee on the Budget of the
Senate in order to prepare a report containing--
(1) an estimate of the unfunded liabilities of the Federal
Government;
(2) an estimate of the contingent liabilities of Federal
programs; and
(3) an accrual-based estimate of the current and future
costs of Federal programs.
amendment no. 389
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the urgent need
for increased funding for the Corps of Engineers)
At the appropriate place, add the following:
SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING PROGRAMS OF THE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) the Corps of Engineers provides quality, responsive
engineering services to the United State, including planning,
designing, building, and operating invaluable water resources
and civil works projects;
(2) the ports of the United States are a vital component
of the economy of the United States, playing a critical role
in international trade and commerce and in maintaining the
energy supply of the United States;
(3) interruption of port operations would have a
devastating effect on the United States;
(4) the navigation program of the Corps enables
2,400,000,000 tons of commerce to move on navigable
waterways;
(5) the Department of Transportation estimates that those
cargo movements have created jobs for 13,000,000 people;
[[Page S4260]]
(6) flood damage reduction structures provided and
maintained by the Corps save taxpayers $21,000,000,000 in
damages every year, in addition to numerous human lives;
(7) the Corps designs and manages the construction of
military facilities for the Army and Air Force while
providing support to the Department of Defense and other
Federal agencies;
(8) the Civil Works program of the Corps adds significant
value to the economy of the United States, including
recreation and ecosystem restoration;
(9) through contracting methods, the civil works program
employs thousands of private sector contract employees, as
well as Federal employees, in all aspects of construction,
science, engineering, architecture, management, planning,
design, operations, and maintenance; and
(10) the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that
$1,000,000,000 expended for the Civil Works program generates
approximately 40,000 jobs in support of construction
operation and maintenance activities in the United States.
(b) Budgetary Assumptions.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) to perform vital functions described in subsection
(a), the Corps of Engineers requires additional funding; and
(2) the budgetary totals in this resolution assume that
the level of funding provided for programs of the Corps
described in subsection (a) will not be reduced below current
baseline spending levels established for the programs.
amendment no. 309
(Purpose: To provide the Committee on Finance of the Senate with
additional options to reform and improve medicaid without the need to
resort to block grant allotments with predetermined growth rates, which
fail to adjust for economic recessions, demographic changes, or
disasters)
On page 63, beginning on line 12, strike ``through'' and
all that follows through ``rates'' on line 14.
amendment no. 296, as modified
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Attorney General
should conduct a study on the need and cost to establish radio
interoperability between law enforcement agencies, fire departments,
and emergency medical services, and that Congress should authorize and
appropriate $20,000,000 for grants to local governments to assist fire
departments and emergency medical services agencies to establish radio
interoperability)
On page 79, after line 22, add the following:
SEC. 308. RADIO INTEROPERABILITY FOR FIRST RESPONDERS.
(a) Study.--It is the sense of the Senate that the
Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of
Homeland Security, should conduct a study of the need and
cost to make the radio systems used by fire departments and
emergency medical services agencies interoperable with those
used by law enforcement to the extent that interoperability
will not interfere with law enforcement operations.
(b) Grant Program.--It is the sense of the Senate that
Congress should authorize and appropriate $20,000,000 to
establish a grant program through which the Attorney General
would award grants to local governments to assist fire
departments and emergency medical services agencies to
establish radio interoperability.
amendment no. 283
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this non-binding sense of the Senate
amendment expresses that the budget resolution before us should
accommodate an appropriation of $750 million for the State Criminal
Alien Assistance Program--SCAAP--for Fiscal Year 2004.
I am pleased that Senators Kyl, Bingaman, McCain, and Schumer have
joined me in introducing this important measure.
The bipartisan amendment I offer today with my colleagues would also
put the Senate on record as favoring a restoration of fiscal year 2003
funding for this important program, which does so much to help State
and county governments deal with the growing costs of incarcerating
undocumented criminal aliens.
Without adequate funding, this fiscal burden will continue to fall on
many of our local law enforcement agencies--including sheriffs, police
officers on the beat, anti-gang violence units, and district attorneys
offices.
The SCAAP program is based on the principle that when the Federal
Government falls short in its efforts to enforce the laws against
immigration violations, it must bear the responsibility for the
financial and human consequences of this failure.
Thus, the SCAAP program properly vests this burden with the Federal
Government when undocumented aliens commit serious crimes within our
communities.
It does so by providing Federal reimbursement funding to the States
and county governments for the direct costs associated with
incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens, who are convicted of
felonies or multiple misdemeanors.
Increasingly, State and county governments from all across the
country have made use of these funds over the years. In fact, in Fiscal
Year 2002, the number of State and local governments seeking SCAAP
funding jumped 25 percent from the previous fiscal year.
The combination of this increase, and the fact that all 50 States and
the District of Columbia receive some funding from the program,
suggests that no State is immune from the fiscal costs associated with
crimes committed by illegal aliens.
Today most States are encountering their largest deficits in more
than 60 years. Indeed, the fiscal consequences of illegal immigration
have contributed to this challenge.
In Fiscal Year 2002, State and county governments incurred more than
$13 billion in costs associated with incarcerating criminal illegal
aliens. These costs are expected to grow over the next several years,
given the new challenges of terrorism and our efforts to enhance
security within our Nation's borders.
California's border counties are among the hardest hit in terms of
dollars spent on incarceration, prosecution and court costs for those
in the United States illegally. I am greatly concerned about the
substantial burden these immigration-related costs impose on the
criminal justice system on our local communities, especially given the
limited tax base and fiscal resources State and local jurisdictions are
working with today.
The SCAPP program is not in place to prevent crime, but to fulfill
portion of the Federal Government's responsibility, so local
governments can use their limited resources for their own
responsibilities, such as funding jail enlargement or new homeland
security ventures at the local level.
At a time when cash-strapped State and local governments are being
asked to do even more to protect our homeland, we cannot afford to
eliminate vital funding that already falls far short of what local
governments spend to incarcerate undocumented criminal aliens. In
previous years, Congress has appropriated between $500 million and $585
million for SCAAP to alleviate some of the fiscal burdens placed on the
local criminal justice systems.
In Fiscal Year 2002, Congress appropriated $565 million for this
important program. Unfortunately, the prolonged debate over Fiscal Year
2003 appropriations produced budgetary pressures that resulted in a 53-
percent drop in SCAAP funding for FY 2003.
SCAAP payments have never matched the true costs to the States
dealing with this problem, but they have nevertheless been critical
additions to prison and jail budgets. They have also symbolized the
Federal Governments obligation to pay for the results of its failed
immigration strategies.
These are challenging times in our Nation's history. And, we want, to
the best extent possible, our constituents to feel secure in their
homes and in their communities.
At a time when the Nation is focused on enhancing security within our
borders, our States, and our local communities, a vital program like
SCAAP should not be vulnerable to being under-funded or eliminated
altogether.
The control of illegal immigration is a Federal obligation and we owe
it to our States and local communities to provide them with the crucial
Federal assistance they need to continue doing their job.
Again, I wish to emphasize that while this amendment would put the
Senate on record as supporting this initiative, the amendment is not
binding and therefore, does not require any offsets.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank our colleagues for their
cooperation and 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. DASCHLE. 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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the caucus, for the information of our
Democratic Senators, will be in the LBJ Room, our normal caucus room.
[[Page S4261]]
I have something else, though, that I want to share with my
colleagues.
Congratulating Senator Paul Sarbanes on Casting his 10,000th Vote
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, at 3:45 this afternoon, our friend and
colleague, Paul Sarbanes, joined what is truly one of the most
exclusive clubs in the world. He cast his 10,000th vote as a United
States Senator.
Of the 1,875 people ever to serve in the Senate, only 20 others have
ever reached this remarkable milestone. Remarkably, eight of the 21
``10,000 vote'' Senators are serving in this Senate.
In addition to Senator Sarbanes, they include our friends Joe Biden,
Senator Byrd, Pete Domenici, Fritz Hollings, Dan Inouye, Ted Kennedy
and Ted Stevens. I'm proud to note that, at least in this very
distinguished caucus, Democrats still have a majority.
Reaching this historic milestone is just the latest remarkable
accomplishment in what has been, by anyone's standards, a remarkable
American success story. Paul Sarbanes is the proud son of Greek
immigrants. His parents, Spyros and Matina Sarbanes, emigrated from the
same town in Greece, but met in America. The Sarbanes family owned a
restaurant in Salisbury, MD. They gave it a quintessentially American
name: The Mayflower Restaurant. Paul worked in the restaurant, and he
and his family lived above it.
He graduated from a public high school and won a scholarship to
Princeton University.
He was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University. After Oxford, he came
home and, in 1960, earned a law degree from Harvard. From Harvard, Paul
Sarbanes went to the White House, one of the ``best and brightest'' who
answered President Kennedy's call to public service. He worked as
Administrative Assistant to Water Heller, chairman of President
Kennedy's Council of Economic Advisors.
He won his first elected office in 1966, to the Maryland House of
Delegates, where he served for 4 years. In 1970, the people of Maryland
elected him to the House of Representatives. In 1976, he won his first
election to the United States Senate. In November 2000, he won his
fifth election to the Senate, making him the longest-serving Senator in
Maryland's history.
It's been said that there are two kinds of Senators: those who are
here to make headlines and those who are here to make history. Paul
Sarbanes is one of the history makers. He is one of the most modest men
I know. He is also one of the most intelligent. He was a voice of
reason on both the Whitewater and Iran-Contra committees. It was his
leadership and his refusal to accept defeat--more than anything--that
enabled us, in the last Congress, to pass the most far-reaching
corporate accountability reforms since the Securities and Exchange
Commission was created 70 years ago.
The Sarbanes-Oxley reforms will help prevent the kinds of corporate
abuses that have so damaged our economy and shaken people's faith in
the economic markets these last few years. They will protect people's
investments, and their economic futures.
I learned a Greek word from Paul Sarbanes: ``idiotes.'' It is the
Greek root for the English word ``idiot.'' But it has a different
meaning in Greek. It means ``someone who takes no part in the affairs
of his community.'' In the Sarbanes family, it was almost a curse.
Paul Sarbanes' parents taught him that serving one's nation is a
noble calling. I know they would be proud of him. So are we. I
congratulate my friend on casting his 10,000th vote in the Senate--and
on his long and exemplary career. I look forward to seeing him cast a
few thousand more votes.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and congratulate our colleague.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished leader for his
very kind comments about the 10,000 votes I have cast in the Senate. I
must say, if we keep doing these vote-a-ramas, everyone can aspire to
reaching this goal in short order.
Our very able leader was very kind and generous in his remarks. I
appreciate them very much.
I wish to register my deep appreciation to the people of my State who
sent me to the Senate now for my fifth term and, therefore, made it
possible for me to be here exercising my judgment on important issues
that come before us. I certainly hope that people, looking back over
that record, will think there was some quality in those votes as well
as quantity.
I thank my colleagues for their constant support and the ability to
interact with them as we deal with important matters of public policy.
Even though we sometimes differ, we support one another in a very
unique and, to some, not understandable way. I am in my 27th year in
the Senate, and I am pleased to be in the company of those who our
leader enumerated that have also passed the 10,000 mark. I particularly
want to acknowledge my respect for Senator Byrd, who I think has cast
more votes than anyone who has ever served in the Senate, and continues
to be an example to us all.
I also would be remiss if I did not thank my family, my wife in
particular, for their strong support over these many years now. And
finally, I would like to thank the many staff members who have served
me so well for these past 27 years.
Again, I thank all of those who have been so gracious to me in
extending their best wishes and congratulations. And, in particular, I
thank our leader, Senator Daschle.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, while Senator Sarbanes is still here, I
want to congratulate him.
Mr. SARBANES. I appreciate that.
Mr. DOMENICI. I am on that list. I just want to tell you, 10,000 is
just the beginning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to join our colleagues in
congratulating Senator Sarbanes on the milestone, and his
accomplishments in the Senate.
Democratic Caucus
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I announce we now have a Democratic caucus
in the LBJ Room. If all Democratic Senators can move over there, it
would be greatly appreciated.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. 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. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we are all following, on a moment-by-
moment basis, the developments in Iraq and the sad reality that this
war is upon us, but we also have the great feeling of support for our
men and women in uniform.
I was notified today that one of the first casualties in the war was
from my home State. His name is Ryan Beaupre from Saint Anne, IL, a 30-
year-old Marine Corps captain who was a pilot on the helicopter that
went down with eight British commandos and four marines, a wonderful
young man by all reports from a good family who attended Bishop
MacNamara High School in Kankakee and then Illinois Wesleyan and
enlisted in the Marine Corps and served his country so well. I have
called his family today. Of course, they are grief-stricken, as is
everyone in the community.
A special tribute was given to him today at his old high school, and
I am sure there will be many more. Our hearts go out to the Beaupre
family and all of their friends at this great loss.
We are fortunate in this country to have young men and women like
him, willing to volunteer and to risk their lives for their Nation. We
should remember the cost of war and remember how much we owe those who
will step forward to defend this Nation in time of need.
I hope, before this debate on the budget resolution is over, to ask
my colleagues in the Senate to consider an amendment which I hope to
offer. If someone asked you today how much
[[Page S4262]]
combat pay do we pay to the marines and sailors and soldiers and airmen
for fighting the war in Iraq, most Americans would not know the answer.
But combat pay for our soldiers and those who are risking their lives
now in Iraq is $5 a day--$5 a day--$150 a month. That is combat pay for
those who are in active military, as well as those who are activated.
Also, you might be interested in knowing how much we pay the families
when we separate people and send them off to war. What kind of monthly
supplement do we provide for the families who now have someone
important in their lives gone for a period of time and have to struggle
to try to keep things together when it comes to child care and added
responsibility and added expenses? How much do we give to these
military families? About $3.30 a day; $100 a month.
The amendment I am going to offer to the budget resolution will raise
those two amounts, not to what they truly deserve but to show that we
have not forgotten that they need more, to $500 a month for combat pay,
and $500 a month to families who are separated because of this war.
It is a small token. It should be much more. But I hope my colleagues
will seriously consider that amendment. As we all feel so good and so
strong about the contribution of the men and women in uniform, let us
not forget they deserve a helping hand and the combat pay differential
as well as the assistance to their families.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I wish to elaborate on Amendment No.
277, which would provide an additional $16 billion next year to fund
our urgent homeland security needs. Because of the failure of the
Schumer amendment--which would have provided a substantial but smaller
increase in homeland security funding next year--it is clear that my
amendment will not carry the Senate. Nevertheless, I would like to set
forth the following statement on the reasons behind my amendment and
the urgency of dramatically increasing our investment in homeland
security.
America has the greatest military in the world--as we are witnessing
in Iraq today--and we have it because we pay for it. For generation
after generation, presidents, members of Congress, and the American
people have come together across partisan divides and every other
conceivable divide to invest what's necessary in our military, and in
the men and women in uniform who make our military what it is.
If we want the best domestic defenses, we'll have to pay for them,
too. But consider this comparison. Under the resolution before us,
between this year's and next year's budgets, defense spending would be
increased by some $19 billion. I support that increase. But over the
same period, this resolution would invest only $300 million more in
improving our homeland defenses.
Why? One reason and one reason only: the President's unaffordable,
unfair, and unfocused tax cuts are leaving no room for necessary
investments. They're crowding out every other priority. It's bad enough
that they haven't done anything to create jobs, to grow the economy, to
expand the middle class. On top of that, they have raided the national
cupboard.
There's little money left for urgent needs--not for healthcare, not
for education, not for Social Security or homeland security. Little
money left for smart tax cuts that will spur real growth and
innovation. Little money left to keep down the deficit at a time when
we're looking at $2 trillion in additional debt.
I urge my colleagues to stop and think about this for a second. The
President's budget would have us spend about $100 billion next year
alone on brand new tax cuts for those who need them least. $100 billion
of our national treasure on unfocused, unaffordable and unfair tax cuts
when we are at war against terrorism here at home, forced to marshal
our strength to defend against a ruthless and unpredictable new enemy.
And that's to say nothing of the cost of the war to disarm Iraq, the
peace that will follow, or every other critical need facing our country
from healthcare to education to Social Security.
For this administration and those who support this resolution, all of
those needs are down the list. Those needs can wait. Those needs can
suffer. As long as someone preserves the precious new tax cuts--which
will do little if anything to create new jobs--they're happy.
That's crazy. It's irresponsible. And it's downright unfair to those
who are working day and night to protect us, and who desperately need
new resources to do their job well.
My father ran his own small store and, like any decent businessman,
he understood that making a good living and paying the bills started
with sound and honest budget planning. If he needed to put a new lock
on the door, he would set aside some money to do it.
Those who run our government now don't seem to get it. They
underestimate or hide serious expenses. They squander money when
business is bad. They overestimate revenue. And they seem to think that
our security will magically fund itself, rather than setting aside
money for it, as my Dad would have.
It's time for this administration and those who back this resolution
to show some economic common sense. It's time for them to let go of
their pet tax cuts and dedicate some resources to our critical common
needs.
This amendment would do that. Rather than giving homeland security
short shrift by settling for a paltry $300 million increase, it would
start to put real dollars where the danger is. After extensive study
and consultation with experts, I've determined it will take $16 billion
to start truly raising our guard in the next fiscal year. That's what
this amendment would provide.
How will we pay for it? It's an important question--and unlike this
administration, we'll answer it. Because we understand, as the American
people understand, that we can't have it all. Leadership is about
making tough choices--about tradeoffs.
So we propose paying for this new investment in homeland security by
redirecting $32 billion in new tax cuts proposed by the President. Half
of that money will go toward deficit reduction--to start digging
ourselves and our children out of the ditch of debt in which we now
find ourselves. And half of it will pay for urgent homeland security
improvements.
Aren't those two common goals, both of which will broadly benefit the
American people, a far, far better use of our precious resources than
brand new unfocused, unaffordable, and ineffective tax cuts to those
who need them least? The answer is obvious to me. I hope it's clear to
others in this chamber as well.
Let me now talk about some of the critical security needs that this
$16 billion would help us meet.
Our commitment needs to start with first responders, who are our
frontline troops in this homefront war. In communities across the
country, our firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical
technicians are struggling for the funds they need to meet the new
threats we face. It's time for us to give them the support they need
and their jobs demand.
This budget resolution would provide virtually no new funding for our
first responders. Virtually no new funding--at this time of
unprecedented need and danger. That's unacceptable. There is equipment
to buy. There are professionals to hire. There are people to train. All
of that--like it or not--takes money.
This amendment provides for $10 billion in FY 04--$6.5 billion above
the President's request--to help first responders prepare for and
combat terrorism, including attacks involving weapons of mass
destruction. Additionally, the amendment provides for $1 billion in FY
04 for firefighter grants, money that would be available to hire
additional firefighters. This is the first installment of the SAFER
Act--of which I am an enthusiastic supporter--which would provide more
than $7.5 billion over 7 years to help communities hire badly needed
new firefighters. Unlike in the President's proposed budget, I believe
that new funds should not come at the expense of existing programs for
first responders like the COPS program, the Local Law Enforcement
Grants, or the Byrne Grant program.
Within this overall commitment, $4 billion should be dedicated to
helping first responders obtain interoperable equipment--a vital
challenge that has been estimated to cost $18 billion overall.
[[Page S4263]]
Nor should we wait for the FY 04 appropriations cycle to help our
first responders. The recently-approved FY 03 omnibus spending bill
comes up far short for first responders. We will need to seize every
opportunity to fix that, and I am cosponsoring amendments today to
ensure that this happens. I will fight also for more money for first
responders in the supplemental appropriations process.
Our second critical unmet priority is shoring up port security--which
my amendment would accomplish by committing a $2 billion investment
above the pending resolution.
About 7 million containers arrive at these ports each year, yet only
a tiny fraction are searched. This poses a risk not only at the ports,
but also inland--as many of those containers travel many miles to their
final destination without being searched.
Yet the administration's budget proposal and this budget resolution
mostly ignore the physical security of our ports. The Coast Guard has
estimated that it will cost $4.4 billion to improve basic physical
security at the nation's ports, starting with close to $1 billion the
first year. In addition, the Maritime Security Act mandates certain
security measures without providing a funding mechanism. In an effort
to jumpstart these vital improvements, this amendment provides $1.2
billion in port security grants for fiscal year 2004.
Because the ports themselves are a potential target, we do not want
to wait until dangerous containers arrive to investigate. Rather, we
must ``push the borders back'' and identify and inspect as much high-
risk cargo as possible before it enters our harbors. The Customs
Service has made some valuable strides in this direction through the
Container Security Initiative. This program stations Customs officers
at overseas ports to allow for inspection of some containers before
they begin their voyage to the U.S. Yet the Administration is not
expanding this valuable program as forcefully as circumstances require.
President Bush has requested $62 million for this program in fiscal
year 2004, a request that is echoed in this budget resolution. My
amendment would provide an additional $100 million to allow for
aggressive and effective expansion of this program, and for related
initiatives to inspect and track containers as close as possible to
their point of origin.
Moving beyond physical security, my amendment would enable the Coast
Guard to step up its supervision of the ports and adjacent maritime
areas. I believe we must accelerate efforts to recapitalize the Coast
Guard fleet--specifically, to speed up implementation of the long-
planned Deepwater Initiative to upgrade and integrate the Coast Guard's
fleet and related communications equipment. The budget resolution
before us, following the President's budget proposal, has proposed $500
million for this project in fiscal year 2004, which is only enough to
complete the project in 20 years or longer--the timetable outlined
before the September 11 attacks. Clearly, current circumstances call
for greater urgency. This amendment would provide an additional $700
million, for a total of $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2004, to complete
the Deepwater Initiative in closer to 10 years.
In addition to the port security initiatives I have outlined, we must
strengthen other components of our border security. In particular, the
amendment calls for an additional $1 billion in FY 04 to increase
border personnel and to improve information technology systems for the
border. On personnel, we must strengthen the presence of Customs and
immigration inspectors and of Border Patrol agents in key areas.
Indeed, some of these enhancements were mandated by the Patriot Act and
the Border Security Act but have not been funded and filled to date. I
would allocate additional funds to hire at least 2,000-3,000 new border
personnel. With respect to technology, it is especially critical that
we expedite implementation of the biometric document system as mandated
by the Patriot Act and Border Security Act. The biometric document
system will include biologically unique identifiers for immigrants,
reducing the risk that immigrants will enter illegally or under an
assumed identity. The budget resolution before us clearly has not
allocated significant new resources to achieve this new system in the
required timeframe, or anything close to it. The additional $1 billion
in my amendment would allow us to make significant progress on these
border security needs.
We must also invest more in transportation security by increasing
funding $1.7 billion over the levels proposed by the administration and
the pending budget resolution. As we saw tragically on September 11,
2001, terrorists can exploit weaknesses in our transportation networks
to turn them into instruments of terror. The Transportation Security
Administration, TSA, was created to confront that grim reality, but it
cannot succeed without more support from the Administration and
Congress.
The TSA has made its initial mark at our airports, overseeing
passenger screening and requirements that baggage be screened for
possible explosives. Now, the agency must build on that work by
expanding rapidly to other transportation sectors. Unfortunately, the
budget resolution before us allows for neither task. It would provide
just $4.8 billion for TSA in FY 04, a 10 percent decrease from the
Administration's FY03 request of $5.3B.
My amendment calls for $1.7 billion in additional resources to
improve transportation security. Among other things, this would restore
the Administration's proposed cut to the overall TSA budget, ensure the
agency can continue to fulfill its existing missions, and enable the
TSA to begin to expand its work beyond passenger airline security to
other critical transportation needs including bridges, railways,
tunnels, subways and buses.
In addition to this general increase, the amendment would invest an
additional $500 million in FY 04 on freight and passenger rail security
enhancements, based on legislation approved by the Commerce Committee
last session, S. 1991. The bulk of that money would fund security
improvements for Amtrak, such as protection of bridges, tunnels and key
facilities. Amtrak would also receive money to help improve equipment
for emergency communications equipment and other security needs, and to
train personnel to detect and handle potential attacks. With respect to
mass transit, the amendment would provide $500 million for grants to
address urgent transit security needs, as identified by GAO, including
communications systems, surveillance equipment and mobile command
centers. Additionally, the amendment would call for $200 million in FY
04 for bus security grants, as outlined in legislation S. 1739 that won
the endorsement last session of the Commerce Committee. These grants
would enable carriers to improve passenger screening, training and
communications, surveillance equipment and other security measures.
Next comes preparing ourselves for bioterror attacks and attacks
using other weapons of mass destruction--which demands an investment in
FY 04 of $3 billion above the pending resolution. Some of the most
chilling scenarios posed by homeland security experts are those of a
chemical, biological or radiological attack. We are depending on our
public health network to help prepare for and respond to such an
assault. Yet these health providers have not been given nearly enough
resources to fulfill this role.
For example, despite the scope of the threat and our relative lack of
preparedness, the resolution would invest just $940 million--flat
funding--in CDC grants to help state public health departments care for
and track infectious disease outbreaks. That's just not enough. My
amendment would provide an additional $1 billion in FY 04--essentially
double the proposed and existing funding level--to help these
departments detect and cope with a bioterror attack. Among other
things, this funding could help defray the costs of administering the
Administration's smallpox vaccination program.
In the same vein, my amendment would double the federal appropriation
for the Health Resources and Services Administration, which provides
money to help hospitals increase capacity, training and supplies. These
improvements are essential if our hospitals are to be prepared for a
biological, chemical or radiological event, yet, again, President Bush
has proposed flat funding for this program. Instead, we should increase
this account by $500 million, for a total of about $1 billion.
[[Page S4264]]
It will mean little to prepare our health infrastructure, however, if
they have no tools to employ--no detective or preventive measures, or
countermeasures to administer after an attack. The budget resolution
would provide some new funds to confront this challenge--such as the
proposed Project Bioshield--but those proposals do not go far enough
and are not targeted effectively enough to provide the jumpstart we
need in this area.
My amendment would call for an additional $1.5 billion for biothreat
and other key research and development countermeasures--particularly
efforts to get research from ``bench to bedside,'' translating basic
discoveries into usable products. I recommend that the money be
available through the following entities: the Homeland Security
Advanced Research Projects Agency, HSARPA, the National Bio-Weapons
Defense Analysis Center and the Strategic National Stockpile. Increased
funding of these three programs would permit adequate funding of
promising countermeasures research, essential investigation of the
underlying mechanism of biological threats, and procurement of needed
medicines and vaccines to our defensive pharmaceutical arsenal. In
addition, some of this money should be available to compensate health
care workers who suffer ill effects from the smallpox vaccination
program urged by the President.
The last but by no means least funding priority I want to address
today is permanent protection of our critical infrastructure, which
demands a half-billion increase over the pending budget resolution.
Homeland security experts have increasingly highlighted the
vulnerability of the nation's critical infrastructure as one of the
most dangerous gaps in our homeland defenses. About 85 percent of these
resources--which include such vital systems as energy distribution
grids, chemical and nuclear plants, or financial networks--are in
private hands, complicating the process for assuring adequate security.
The administration, and the resolution before us, seem content to
continue studying the vulnerabilities of these systems. They have
requested about $500 million for this process in FY 04. This would
enable far too sluggish progress for such a vital task. My amendment
calls for an additional $500 million in FY 04 to get these assessments
done at once so that we can move to create action plans and conduct
needed security enhancements at the earliest possible moment.
Halfway around the world, the American military and our allies are
fighting to disarm a dictator who refused to give up his weapons for 12
long years. I believe our brave men and women in uniform will
accomplish their mission--and that when they do, the world will be a
safer place for peaceful people, and a worse place for terrorists and
tyrants.
But here at home, to guard the land beneath our feet, other men and
women in uniform are engaged in another front of the war against
terrorism--and unlike the men and women of our armed forces, we have
not given them all the support, the training, the technology, and the
resources they need to succeed.
We owe it to our nation and ourselves to do better. On September 3,
1939, shortly after Britain declared war on Germany, Winston Churchill
said, ``Outside, the storms of war may blow and the lands may be lashed
with the fury of its gales, but in our own hearts this Sunday morning
there is peace. . . . Our consciences are at rest.''
Our consciences as Americans--and as parents to our children--will
only rest when we demonstrate the leadership and invest the resources
to counter the fury the terrorists seek to bring upon us. Protecting
the American people in an age of terrorism demands strong leadership
and enormous resources--and it demands them now.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, the significant budget challenges faced by
our Federal Government demand that Congress develop proposals for sound
economic growth, while also working to cut wasteful government
spending. The Budget resolution before the Senate today goes a long way
towards accomplishing that goal.
Even before 9/11, we know now that our current recession began in
late 2000.
The attack on America on September 11, the necessary cost of the war
on terrorism, and now the threat of a war with Iraq have led to a
dramatic deterioration of tax revenues, huge spending increases, and
the return to budget deficits.
Over the last 2 years, revenues to the Federal Government have fallen
by nearly 9 percent. And spending grew by 12 percent over that same
period.
Unfortunately, revenues continue to underperform in 2003.
Congress cannot ignore our struggling economy, and I believe that the
resolution before the Senate today addresses many of our economic
problems.
The committee-reported budget resolution increases deficits in the
near-term in order to invest in the economy and fight the war on
terrorism.
The resolution provides over $725 billion during the 10-year period
from 2003 to 2013 to the Senate Finance Committee for economic growth
and job creation.
This tax relief is designed to let American families keep more of the
money they earn. Economic growth is more easily achieved in an
atmosphere where more Americans are able to save and invest their
money.
Tax relief provides economic growth, and when we draft legislation,
we should understand not just the cost of tax relief to the federal
budget, but also the benefits that tax relief provides to the economy
and the long-term increase in revenues to the Federal Government that
tax relief can provide.
The amount provided for this tax relief includes enough to
accommodate the President's plans to accelerate the marriage penalty
relief, increase the child tax credit, eliminate the double-taxation of
dividends, and increase small business expensing limits.
Although I may not agree with all of it, I do believe the President's
tax proposal, which we included in this budget, is an overall good plan
for solid long-term economic growth.
As you know, Mr. President, the Budget Committee does not dictate tax
policy changes. However, the committee resolution does provide enough
money for specific growth proposals, but it will ultimately be up to
the Fiance Committee to write the policy.
I do agree with those who are concerned about budget deficits. The
Budget before the Senate today does include 9 years of deficits. The
deficits do grow smaller, and eventually go back to surplus in the out
years.
I want to make it clear that I do not excuse the deficits, and I
would love to put us immediately into surpluses in this fiscal year. I
think it is important that Congress makes the return back to surpluses
a top priority. And we are not going to do that by spending.
I also believe we must be realistic in the constraints that the
events of the past two years have placed on our ability to balance the
budget in the immediate fiscal year.
I have confidence that the fastest way we can get back to surpluses
is by fixing the economy through policy changes that encourage economic
growth, coupled with a reduction in wasteful government spending. Mr.
President, unfortunately, as we all know, in Washington DC we do not
actually cut spending.
The best we can hope to do is control the growth of spending.
As Ronald Reagan stated during his State of the Union address on
January 25, 1984, ``The problems we're overcoming are not the heritage
of one person, party or even one generation. It's just the tendency of
government to grow, for practices and programs to become the nearest
thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth. And there's always
that well-intentioned chorus of voices saying, ``With a little more
power and a little more money, we could do so much for people.''
President Reagan was right.
Once we establish a federal program, it develops a constituency and
then it becomes impossible to cut. And we love to go home to our
constituents and tell them about the money we brought home from
Washington DC for our home state projects.
If the other side of the aisle is concerned about deficits, as they
say they are, then they should join us in cutting out some of the
wasteful spending in the Federal Government.
This resolution may not be the perfect blueprint to surpluses, but it
makes a good start by providing both sound tax policy for economic
growth, as well as a control in federal spending.
I hope that my colleagues will support this resolution today, and
that we will make an effort to tighten up the purse strings around
here, and start to work together during these difficult economic times
to bring our budget back into balance.
[[Page S4265]]
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the
Dorgan prescription drug amendment to the fiscal year 2004 budget
resolution.
The fact is, when Medicare was designed in 1965, the system relied on
inpatient hospitalization and seldom on outpatient services, preventive
care, or patient drug therapies. At that time, prescription drugs only
accounted for 4 percent of all personal health care expenditures.
But as we enter the 21st century, the cutting edge of health care has
shifted. Every day, as new preventive and therapeutic drugs replace
outdated inpatient procedures, Medicare falls further and further
behind in providing basic care.
Medicare was written to cover the most basic health care for seniors.
When the original bill passed, the legislation's conference report
explicitly stated that the program was designed to provide adequate
``medical aid . . . for needy people, and should ``make the best of
modern medicine more readily available to the aged.''
Well, we are not making the best use of modern medicine when millions
of seniors cannot afford the prescription drugs they need. Prescription
drugs that had not even been developed when Medicare was enacted are
now an essential aspect of basic health care. We owe it to our seniors
to live up to Medicare's original mandate and provide them the best
medical care.
Unfortunately, today, beneficiaries' current drug coverage options
are often expensive and unreliable. And as a result, nearly 7 out of 10
Medicare beneficiaries lack decent, dependable coverage for their
prescription drug needs, and more than one-third have no coverage at
all. Prescription drug expenditures for the average senior in my home
state of Washington are over $2,100 every year--over 122,000 of my
seniors spend more than $4,000 a year.
On average, $1 out of every $5 of every Social Security check to
Washington State's seniors is spent on prescription drugs. And seniors
with the most serious illnesses spend nearly 40 percent of their Social
Security check on prescription drugs.
Senator Dorgan's amendment would ensure a fair and adequately funded
Medicare prescription drug benefit. The budget resolution, S. Con. Res.
23, currently reserves up to $400 billion for the Finance Committee to
report legislation that strengthens and enhances Medicare, improves the
access of beneficiaries under that program to prescription drugs, or
promotes geographic equity payments.
This amendment would first increase the Medicare reserve fund by
about $220 billion, for a total of $620 billion. The amendment also
specifies that beneficiaries in traditional Medicare should receive a
drug benefit equal to that of beneficiaries who enroll in private
health plans.
The $400 billion that is proposed in the committee resolution for the
Medicare reserve fund is not adequate to provide prescription drug
coverage for all seniors, because this funding could be used for other
Medicare ``reforms''--leaving even less for prescription drugs.
The Dorgan amendment would ensure adequate funding for a reliable
prescription drug benefit in Medicare for all beneficiaries. Seniors
should not have to abandon traditional Medicare--and join an HMO or
other private health plan--to receive the prescription drug coverage
they need. The Dorgan amendment ensures fairness: all beneficiaries
would have a prescription drug benefit without being forced into HMOs
and other private health plans.
In addition to providing a comprehensive, affordable, and adequately
funded prescription drug benefit for all Medicare beneficiaries, the
amendment would be fiscally responsible by including language to
decrease the deficit by $250 billion and reduce the proposed tax cut by
roughly $400 billion.
As I visit senior citizen centers in my State of Washington and
discuss a prescription drug benefit, my constituents repeatedly tell me
the same thing: They want prescription drug coverage to be
comprehensive, simple to administer, guaranteed, stable, and based on
the very best medical technology. And most importantly, seniors do not
want their prescription drug benefit run through an HMO or other
private insurance company.
In fact, according to a June 2002 survey by the Kaiser Family
Foundation and the Kennedy School of Government, 67 percent of American
people believe we should expand Medicare to pay for part of
prescription drugs, but only 26 percent say we should help seniors buy
private insurance to pay for prescription drugs costs.
Seniors want a prescription drug benefit run through Medicare--a
program they understand and upon which they depend. The Dorgan
amendment would ensure that seniors have this choice.
Despite basic Federal standards included in Bush's Medicare
Prescription Drug plan, a private delivery model means that insurers
can vary premium costs, benefit design, and the availability of drug
coverage across the country. They can create strict formularies that
limit access to prescribed drugs and bar access to local pharmacies.
That's too much flexibility in a program that is supposed to guarantee
help for seniors.
The very basic issue here is that the private market will not cover
such a high-risk population--especially a population at such risk for
adverse selection. I don't want to see this benefit be a repeat of the
Medicare+Choice program. And if the private insurance model hasn't
worked for the full Medicare benefit, it certainly won't work for a
single benefit where utilization is expected to be high.
For seniors who choose to remain in the traditional Medicare program,
the Bush plan proposes a prescription drug discount card. The GAO
estimates that the prescription drug discount cards will provide less
than a $3.50 discount per prescription. However, the National
Association of Chain Drugstores estimates that the average retail cost
for an outpatient prescription drug in 2001 was $54.55.
Clearly, the prescription drug discount cards do not offer a viable
prescription drug benefit for America's seniors. In addition, the low-
income subsidy of $600 to supplement the prescription drug discount
cards is a false promise of assistance for seniors, who spend an
average of $2,317 on prescription drugs each year.
Seniors account for 12.6 percent of the general population--but a
third of all prescription drug expenditures. And while prescriptions
are expensive--in some cases, prohibitively so--these are the very same
prescription drugs that keep people out of the hospital, out of the
nursing home, and living vibrant and happy lives. And while it is
difficult to quantify in economic terms, prescription drugs preserve
health and eliminate unnecessary hospitalization--which is by far most
expensive segment of the health care.
Americans are becoming increasingly reliant on more effective--and
more complicated--drug therapies. Total health care spending in the
United States will total more than $1.5 trillion this year, an increase
of 8.6 percent over last year, according to a March report released by
the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Prescription drug expenditures are the fastest growing segment of the
health care market--with spending on outpatient prescription drugs by
Medicare beneficiaries alone increasing by 12 percent annually. CMS
predicts that prescription drug expenditures will continue to increase
faster than any other category of health care spending throughout the
next ten years.
In 1970, drug expenditures in the United States were about $5.5
billion. Now, for Medicare beneficiaries alone, the CBO projects that
total drug spending will grow from $95 billion in 2003 to $284 billion
in 2013. This is a total of $1.8 trillion on prescription drug costs
over the next ten years. Medicare beneficiaries alone will spend $1.8
trillion on prescription drugs over the next ten years.
But while we discuss the potential cost of a new benefit, we also
need to discuss national priorities. I believe we can do a fair and
adequately funded prescription drug benefit while living within our
budget, and we can do so by having a clear vision for our country's
priorities. One of my top priorities is getting a new prescription drug
benefit to the Medicare beneficiaries in Washington State. But this may
mean making other tough choices.
I strongly believe that we need to include a prescription drug
benefit in the Medicare program and I will continue to fight to ensure
that all Washingtonians have access to the prescription medications
they need.
[[Page S4266]]
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Sarbanes-
Jeffords-Mikulski-Graham water infrastructure amendment.
Our amendment is simple and straightforward: It adds $3 billion to
the 2004 budget resolution for a total of $5.2 billion for water and
sewer infrastructure in 2004. The amendment increases funding for EPA's
Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund from $1.35 billion to $3.2
billion, and increases funding for EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving
Loan Fund from $850 million to $2 billion.
Our amendment is necessary for two reasons.
First, our Nation's communities are facing enormous needs in their
efforts to provide clean and safe water. The need for better sewer and
drinking water systems is much greater than what we put in the Federal
checkbook each year. These needs have been studied and restudied and
the needs are real and valid.
In April 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network reported that our
Nation's water and wastewater systems will face a funding gap of $23
billion a year over the next 20 years. In November 2001, the general
Accounting Office reported that cost range from $300 billion to $1
trillion over the next 20 years. In September 2002, the Environmental
Protection Agency reported that demands for improved sewer and drinking
water systems will outstrip current levels by $535 billion. And in
November 2002, the Congressional Budget Office reported that water and
sewer costs could average as much as $40 billion each year. The results
are conclusive and the need is real and valid.
We are not putting enough funding in the Federal checkbook each year.
The current level for water infrastructure is only $2.2 billion. We
can't expect communities to comply with growing regulations like
arsenic, radon, and new requirements related to security, to name just
a few, without increased financial assistance.
If we don't help, the entire burden falls on local ratepayers. In
many urban and rural low-income areas, rate increases are just not
affordable. My hometown of Baltimore is facing a $1 billion cost in
order to meet Federal regulations.
The second reason that this amendment is necessary is for job
creation. The economy lost 300,000 jobs in February. Water
infrastructure funding creates jobs. For every $1 billion we spend on
water infrastructure, up to 40,000 jobs are created.
This amendment is a mini-stimulus package for three reasons:
First, it will create and sustain jobs. As I stated, for every $1
billion in SRF funding, about 40,000 jobs are created. Second, the
amendment is temporary and targeted.
The amendment is a one-time, $3 billion increase of an existing
program. It does not create a new bureaucracy. Third, the amendment
does not contribute to long-term deficits because the $3 billion is
fully offset by reducing the tax cut.
This $3 billion increase for water infrastructure is less than one-
half of 1 percent of the $726 billion tax cut in this budget
resolution.
Mr. President, the Sarbanes-Jeffords-Mikulski-Graham amendment helps
our communities by providing more funding for immediate water and sewer
needs and by creating jobs.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to speak
to a $2.8 billion amendment on behalf of Senator Harkin, myself and
others to increase the health function in this resolution. The
amendment would add to the funding already included in the resolution
for the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control,
and the Health Resources and Services Administration as well as other
health programs. The amendment is offset by an across-the-board
reduction in function 920. This reduction would not cut programs, but
simply reduce administrative expenses, travel, and consulting services
by .36 percent. This amendment would provide NIH with a $2.3 billion
increase over the fiscal year 2003 appropriation.
As chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for Labor, Health and
Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, I have said many times
that the National Institutes of Health is the crown jewel of the
Federal Government--perhaps the only jewel of the Federal Government.
When I came to the Senate in 1981, NIH spending totaled $3.6 billion.
The fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill contained $27.2
billion for the NIH which completed the doubling begun in fiscal year
1998. This money has been very well spent. The successes realized by
this investment in NIH have spawned revolutionary advances in our
knowledge and treatment for diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's
disease, Parkinson's disease, mental illnesses, diabetes, osteoporosis,
heart disease, ALS, and many others. It is clear that Congress's
commitment to the NIH is paying off. Now it is crucial that increased
funding be continued in order to translate these advances into
additional treatments and cures. Our investment has resulted in new
generations of AIDS drugs which are reducing the presence of the AIDS
virus in HIV-infected persons to nearly undetectable levels. Death
rates from cancer have begun a steady decline. With the sequencing of
the human genome, we will begin, over the next few years, to reap the
benefits in many fields of research. And if scientists are correct,
stem cell research could result in a veritable fountain of youth by
replacing diseased or damaged cells. I anxiously await the results of
all of these avenues of remarkable research. This is the time to seize
the scientific opportunities that lie before us.
On May 21, 1997, the Senate passed a sense-of-the-Senate resolution
stating that funding for the NIH should be doubled over 5 years.
Regrettably, even though the resolution was passed by an overwhelming
vote of 98 to nothing, the budget resolution contained a $100 million
reduction for health programs. That prompted Senator Harkin and myself
to offer an amendment to the budget resolution to add $1.1 billion to
carry out the expressed sense of the Senate to increase NIH funding.
Unfortunately, our amendment was tabled by a vote of 63 to 37. We were
extremely disappointed that, while the Senate had expressed its
druthers on a resolution, it was simply unwilling to put up the actual
dollars to accomplish this vital goal.
The following year, Senator Harkin and I again introduced an
amendment to the budget resolution which called for a $2 billion
increase for the NIH. While we gained more support on this vote than in
the previous year, our amendment was again tabled by a vote of 57-41.
Not to be deterred, Senator Harkin and I again went to work with our
subcommittee and we were able to add an additional $2 billion to the
NIH account for fiscal year 1999.
In fiscal year 2000, Senator Harkin and I offered another amendment
to the budget resolution to add $1.4 billion to the health accounts,
over and above the $600 million increase which had already been
provided by the Budget Committee. Despite this amendment's defeat by a
vote of 47 to 52, we were able to provide a $2.3 billion increase for
NIH in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill.
In fiscal year 2001, Senator Harkin and I again offered an amendment
to the budget resolution to increase funding for health programs by
$1.6 billion. This amendment passed by a vote of 55 to 45. This victory
brought the NIH increase to $2.7 billion for fiscal year 2001. However,
after late night conference negotiations with the House, the funding
for NIH was cut by $200 million below that amount.
In fiscal year 2002, the budget resolution once again fell short of
the amount necessary to achieve the NIH doubling. Senator Harkin and I,
along with nine other Senators offered an amendment to add an
additional $700 million to the resolution to achieve our goal. The vote
was 96 to 4. The Senate Labor-HHS subcommittee reported a bill
recommending $23.7 billion, an increase of $3.4 billion over the
previous year's funding. But during conference negotiations with the
House, we once again fell short by $410 million. That meant that in
order to stay on a path to double NIH, we would need to provide an
increase of $3.7 billion in the fiscal year 2003. The fiscal year 2003
omnibus appropriations bill contained the additional $3.7 billion,
which achieves the doubling effort. We have fought long and hard to
make the doubling of funding a reality, but until treatments and cures
are found for the
[[Page S4267]]
many maladies that continue to plague our society, we must continue our
fight.
I, like millions of Americans, have benefited tremendously from the
investment we have made in the National Institutes of Health and the
amendment that we offer today will continue to carry forward the
important research work of the world's premier medical research
facility.
While the budget resolution assumes some increases in chronic
disease, health statistics and HIV/AIDS, cuts in other CDC programs
total over $300 million. This amendment would add $600 million to the
amount already assumed in this resolution.
Several years ago, I visited the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and was appalled at the deplorable conditions of the
laboratories and buildings at the Atlanta campus. I found laboratory
facilities with roofs that were leaking on high-technology equipment,
equipment falling through rotted floors, and bathrooms that had been
converted into labs and office space. The CDC, as the lead Federal
agency responsible for promoting health and preventing and controlling
disease, should have adequate facilities and equipment to carry out its
mission. To address the facility and equipment needs, Senator Harkin
and I included $175 million in fiscal year 2001 to begin renovations on
campus. In fiscal year 2002, we included $250 million and the same
amount was appropriated in fiscal year 2003. The amount assumed in the
budget resolution is inadequate to continue the construction work
needed to make the CDC safe for workers and ensure that the next public
health emergency will not overwhelm the current capacities of the CDC
to respond to a biodefense attack or other illness. Additional dollars
are also needed for prevention and health promotion programs such as
immunization, tuberculosis, cancers and cardiovascular disease.
The budget resolution assumes a decrease of $785 million for the
Health Resources and Services Administration. This amendment would add
$400 million to restore some of the proposed cuts in health professions
and provide for program increases in Ryan White AIDS, abstinence
education and Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education.
The increases included in this amendment are essential if we are to
continue to carry forward the important work at the world's premier
medical research facility, ensure that the CDC has equipment and
laboratories to confront any public health crisis that may occur, and
provide the Health Resources and Services Administration with the
dollars necessary to fund community health centers, train health care
professionals, and confront the AIDS crisis.
I ask that you join Senator Harkin and me in supporting the
amendment.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to address Senators Lautenberg
and Corzine's proposed amendment to the budget resolution. Superfund
and the cleanup of pollution sites should be an important concern to
all of us. We must be concerned that our future generations are not
jeopardized by past inactions. But this amendment has been offered in
an inapproprate forum, at an inappropriate place, using an
inappropriate procedural method and I have voted no. As chairman of the
Finance Committee, we will be able to consider this issue under more
appropriate circumstances.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, while our thoughts are with our troops,
the business of Congress continues. And we need to approach our
challenges at home with the same resolve and the same seriousness of
purpose with which our sons and daughters are confronting the threat
abroad. It is sadly ironic that at the very time when our service men
and women are inspiring us with their courage in the face of danger,
this budget runs and hides from one challenge after another while
showering $1.4 trillion in tax breaks primarily to the most prosperous
among us.
Month after month, more American families are suffering from the
failure of this administration's irresponsible economic strategy. With
the economy hemorrhaging jobs from every sector, an increasing number
of Americans are losing faith that they will ever find a job. But with
this budget, Republicans have turned their backs on the problems of
American families. Instead of offering new ideas and new solutions, the
administration continues to push a tired ideology that has turned our
economy into a job-destroying machine. This budget will hang some $1.5
trillion of debt around the necks of our children. They will be paying
for this mistake for decades to come. The President's own economists
agree that these chronic deficits will raise interest rates, hold back
our economy today, and rob opportunity from even more Americans.
And though all Americans' thoughts are with our Armed Forces today, I
would ask that they take a moment to ask, why is this Republican
Congress saddling our children with record-breaking deficits and
massive debt? It is not to fund the war or the rebuilding of Iraq that
will follow. It is not to protect our homeland. Republicans continue to
shortchange the police and firefighters who need our help to prevent or
respond to a terrorist attack in their own communities, and continue to
oppose funding to better secure our borders, ports, and vulnerable
infrastructure. It is not to get our economy moving again. Like the
President's budget, the Republican resolution before us contains very
little to immediately stimulate the economy. It is not to provide all
of our seniors with a real Medicare prescription drug plan or
strengthen Social Security for the coming generation of retirees. This
plan starves Medicare and raids the Social Security surplus. It is not
to come to the aid of States and local governments that are suffering
the worst fiscal crisis in 50 years. This budget will place an even
greater burden on our States. And it is not to build world-class
schools so our children have the tools and skills they need to make the
most of their own lives. While some schools around our country will be
forced to shut their doors early this year due to budget cuts, the
President's plan falls $10 billion short of his own promise to
education.
This budget is not about meeting the challenges of the moment or the
future. This budget is about one thing, and one thing only. More new
tax breaks for the very wealthy at the expense of everyone else. At the
expense of deep cuts in domestic priorities. At the expense of record
deficits that will be imposed on our children and grandchildren.
Any other year, this budget would be seen as mean-spirited and
divisive. Today it is shameful. Across the globe, on display for all
the world to see, young men and women are risking their lives to secure
the lives and liberty of others. And yet here in this Capitol, on
display for the world to see, a Republican Congress is taking money out
of the pockets of our own children. It is choosing not to provide the
necessary resources to make our homeland more secure. It is choosing
not to give States any help to deal with their mounting fiscal crisis.
It is choosing not to keep its commitments on education. It is choosing
not to provide needed health care and prescription drug coverage to our
most ill and vulnerable. With all those challenges and needs, this
Congress instead is choosing to give hundreds of billions in new tax
breaks to the wealthiest among us.
Democrats are going to keep fighting to fund homeland security,
provide a real Medicare prescription drug benefit; honor our commitment
to our students and teachers; restore funding to make up for Republican
cuts to national defense and veterans programs, and offer relief to our
States and local governments. This is not a time to shrink from our
responsibilities to one another. We need to meet the test of this
demanding moment in our history. This Congress should be producing a
budget that reflects the very best of our Nation, the spirit that our
soldiers exemplify the spirit of honor, sacrifice, and duty in the
service of a better future for us all.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no later than
4 p.m. on Monday, the ranking member of the Budget Committee provide to
the chairman a list of 40 amendments, and the chairman provide to the
ranking member a list of no more than 40 amendments, which would then
be in order to be offered to the budget resolution; I also ask
unanimous consent that the Senate then resume consideration of the
budget resolution at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday and, at that time, it be in
order for the majority leader or
[[Page S4268]]
the Democratic leader or their designees to offer amendments from the
respective list, and the Senate would then proceed to votes in relation
to the amendments as provided for under the Budget Act, with 2 minutes
for debate equally divided prior to the vote, with relevant second-
degree amendments; provided that no later than 4 p.m. on Wednesday,
March 26, the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of S. Con. Res. 23,
with no intervening action or debate.
I further ask consent that immediately upon passage of the
resolution, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res 95,
the House budget resolution; further, all after the resolving clause be
stricken and the text of S. Con. Res. 23, as amended, be inserted in
lieu thereof, the resolution be adopted, and the Senate insist on its
amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair then be
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to
thank all of our colleagues, especially colleagues on my side of the
aisle who have a great deal of skepticism, I would say, about this
particular proposal. I think it is equally clear that there is
skepticism on both sides.
We have been through a good deal of debate over the last several
days. I think we have made progress. This will accommodate adequate
progress on both sides. I will say, as the majority leader and I have
discussed on a few occasions, that this agreement requires a good deal
of trust on both sides. We are trusting our Republican colleagues to
work with us to accommodate the consideration of 40 amendments. They
are trusting us that we will share with them those amendments, that we
will be able to work through them, that they will have an opportunity
to review them, and that we will complete our work at 4 o'clock.
So it does require cooperation and a level of trust that I hope will
set a standard and example for other action we take later on. So I hope
that our colleagues will continue to cooperate in the course of the
next couple of days.
I have designated the ranking member of the Budget Committee and our
extraordinary assistant Democratic leader. They have been tasked with
the responsibility of determining these 40 amendments. So we will work
over the weekend and we will, as this agreement requires, provide those
amendments on Monday.
I appreciate very much the cooperation and the trust of the
distinguished majority leader and the chairman of the Budget Committee.
This certainly is the best way to accommodate the needs of both of our
caucuses. I congratulate my colleagues for doing so.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will comment and then turn to the
chairman of the Budget Committee. I want to briefly say this and close
my remarks by expressing my appreciation to our caucus and to the
chairman of the Budget Committee, and especially to the leadership on
the other side of the aisle and the ranking member. As most people
know, we have been negotiating and discussing in the last several hours
how to bring to closure what we all know is a big challenge, given the
number of amendments that we have before us.
We put our heads together and, after a lot of conversation and, as
the Democratic leader said, basing a lot of what we are setting out to
do over the next several days on trust, came up with an agreement that
is not perfect on either side, but it is the best we can do to give
some finite closure to this challenge.
In addition, we have had a very good week. It is late on a Friday
night and our colleagues have worked very hard. Indeed, we had very
good and productive discussions. We have done a number of amendments. I
congratulate the ranking member and chairman in bringing those to the
floor and having good debate today.
In addition to that, the resolution we agreed to sent a very
important signal to our troops, our military, and our Commander in
Chief: our gratitude, respect, and support.
So we have actually accomplished a lot this week. We were unable to
fulfill what I had initially hoped, and that was to pass the budget
resolution by late tonight. But given the fact that at this hour we
still have many outstanding amendments, I am very pleased with the
agreement. I thank the leadership and the chairman and ranking member.
Mr. NICKLES. If the leader will yield, I have a couple of comments.
One, I appreciate the cooperation of the leader and Senator Daschle and
Senator Reid and Senator Conrad. But just for the information of our
colleagues, we are going to have a very tough couple of days, a lot of
work to do on Tuesday and Wednesday. I urge our colleagues to be ready
to go. I think the order called for us going into session at 9:30
Tuesday morning.
Today, we worked long and hard. We had about 15 rollcall votes, and I
believe we accepted probably another 15 amendments, counting the last
7. It is going to be very challenging work. So I urge our colleagues to
be notified of the fact that they need to be here at 9:30 Tuesday
morning and expect a long day--a lot of votes on Tuesday and a lot of
votes on Wednesday. It is going to take the cooperation of all Members
for us to meet this ambitious goal. It will not be easy and it probably
won't be very pretty. Hopefully, we will be successful in meeting our
objectives. There is nothing in the unanimous consent agreement saying
we have to agree to 40 amendments?
Mr. DASCHLE. No; we tried that, Mr. President.
Mr. NICKLES. I just wanted to make sure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from North
Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first of all, the leaders have indicated
there has to be trust on both sides. The chairman of the committee has
shown himself to be trustworthy in these long, difficult negotiations
this whole week. We had instances last night where I had to make a
decision that could have disadvantaged our side and did it because that
was keeping a promise. The chairman of the committee had to make a
decision today that could have disadvantaged his side, but he did it to
keep faith with the commitment that he made.
I want colleagues on our side to know the chairman of the committee
has repeatedly demonstrated trustworthiness. That is important to the
functioning of this body. We are going to have to really work together
very closely to resolve these matters.
Let me say in conclusion to our colleagues on this side, we have 135
amendments pending. We only have 40 spots. That means Senators are
going to have to give up what is their right to offer amendments. That
is the most precious right any Senator has. So we understand why they
guard that right with real fervor at times. But I hope people
understand there is no way we can fit 135 into 40. It is going to take
restraint, and it is going to take trust.
I think together over these next days we will demonstrate we are
worthy of this body we serve and this country we love.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in wrap-up a little bit later tonight, we
will be more specific, but for our colleagues, on Monday we will not be
having votes, but we will be in session. We will talk about the day. We
will not be voting on Monday. We need to have everybody here on time
Tuesday because we will be voting in a vote-athon, as we have come to
call it, starting early in the morning. We want people to make plans
accordingly.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________