[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.

                          ____________________