[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 26, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4409-S4422]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RECESS
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, we
are making good progress. We only have a few amendments left. To give
staff a chance to work out a couple of amendments--I thank my
colleagues for working together with us on the amendments--I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 1:40.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 1:04 p.m., recessed until
1:45 p.m., and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding
Officer (Mr. Hagel).
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. CLINTON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 403
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 403, offered by
our colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe] proposes an
amendment numbered 403.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of Friday, March 21, 2003,
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, this is something we are all familiar
with, except perhaps new Members. Back in the fifties, we had a program
to replace some of the money that was taken away when land was taken
off the tax rolls. It is called impact aid.
Over the years, people started taking money out of this program. It
is an easy place to grab money. It has gotten down to 40 percent
funding. We are now up to 70 percent. The current legislation would
leave it at 70 percent. This amendment will increase it by $112
billion, bringing it up to $1.3 billion, 76 percent. That keeps us on
track to have it fully funded 5 more years.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, maybe my ears deceived me. I heard the
Senator say $112 billion. My reading on the amendment is $112 million.
Mr. INHOFE. That is what I said.
Mr. CONRAD. I heard the Senator say $112 billion.
Mr. INHOFE. We are used to using the B's around here. It is $112
million.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. My further understanding is this is
[[Page S4410]]
funded by an across-the-board cut in all other functions.
Mr. INHOFE. That is right.
Mr. CONRAD. So there are no new discretionary funds available through
this amendment. With that understanding, there is no objection on this
side to the Senator's amendment. He is quite correct that impact aid is
underfunded, and it is important to virtually all our States and all
our communities.
Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate that. I ask for the adoption of this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I encourage our colleagues to support
the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 403) was agreed to.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The senior assistant bill clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I believe the Senator from Alaska has
an amendment to send to the desk.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, we have been negotiating for some time,
trying to resolve two or three amendments. I think we have done that.
I thank Senator Warner, Senator Chambliss, Senator Durbin, and
Senator Landrieu because I think they have cooperated. They came up
with amendments I think all of us can be supportive of.
I ask on this amendment, and this amendment alone, there be 4 minutes
equally divided so all the principal players can have a moment to speak
on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Amendment No. 429
Ms. LANDRIEU. I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself,
Senator Durbin, Senator Warner, and Senator Chambliss, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu], for herself, Mr.
Durbin, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Chambliss, proposes an amendment
numbered 429.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: Provide additional pay and benefits for active duty, guard,
and reserve forces, such as augmenting Imminent Danger Pay and Family
Separation Allowance, and for modernization of equipment, weapons, and
technology needs of the National Guard and Reserves in recognition of
those currently involved in conflict operations and the need of their
family members left behind)
On page 8, line 23, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 8, line 24, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 46, line 20, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 46, line 21, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 4, increase the amount by $3,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 17, decrease the amount by $3,000,000,000.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Stabenow and Senator Lincoln be added as original cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I thank my colleagues and particularly
Senator Durbin for his work in working out this amendment. It is for
the Guard and Reserve units that have been called up.
This amendment is crucial. It is important that we adopt it for a
number of reasons. No. 1, from 1945 to 1990, a period of 45 years, our
Guard and Reserve units were called up four times. In the last 13 years
they have been called up eight times. They represent a growing and
necessary component of our force protection for our Nation, both abroad
and at home.
Unfortunately, our commitment to their budget has not kept up with
the contributions they are making. This amendment attempts to begin to
fill that gap.
I submit for the Record, because this is a $1 billion amendment, a
list of equipment needs that could be provided by this amendment. I
suggest the $1 billion could be for this or something comparable to it.
I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
STRATEGIC EQUIPMENT, WEAPONS, AND TECHNOLOGY NEEDS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service System Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Force Reserve................. WC-130J Radar--Upgrades Reserve Radar to $50,000,000.
specifications needed by Active forces.
Air Force Reserve................. F-16 LITENING II AT Upgrade Modification--Provides $16,200,000.
Reserve Tactical Fighters with same radar upgrades
as active forces; reserve fighters flying same
missions.
Air Force Reserve................. F-16 LITENING II AT Pod Procurement--Provides $14,400,000.
Reserve Tactical Fighters with same radar upgrades
as active forces; reserve fighters flying same
missions.
Air Force Reserve................. A-10 TARGETING PODS--Provides Reserve Tactical $48,000,000.
Fighters with same radar upgrades as active forces;
reserve fighters flying same missions.
Air Force Reserve................. B-52 TARGETING PODS--Provides Reserve B-52s with $4,800,000.
same radar upgrades as active B-52s; performing
same missions.
Air Force Reserve................. TACTICAL RADIOS--Provides radio upgrades for $14,900,000.
interoperability with active forces.
Air Force Reserve................. LAND MOBILE RADIO INFRASTRUCTURE.................... $12,000,000.
Total....................... .................................................... $160,300,000.
Navy Reserve...................... VAW-78; EC-2 Squadron--Funding Prohibits $10,160,000; Allen/Warner.
decommissioning in FY05 of this currently deployed
unit.
Navy Reserve...................... VFA-203; F/A-18 Squadron--Funding Prohibits $20,110,000; Chambliss/Miller.
decommissioning in FY04 of this currently deployed
unit.
Navy Reserve...................... Littoral Surveillance System--Procures one $14,500,000; Lott/Cochran/Specter/Santorum.
additional system to upgrade port surveillance by
Navy Reserve.
Navy Reserve...................... F/A 18 Advanced Targeting FLIR--Procures radars for $14,700,000; Bond/Talent.
5 squadrons to make compatible with Active Navy.
Navy Reserve...................... P-3 Aircraft Improvement Program (AIP)--Would $29,700,000; Snowe/Collins.
upgrade 28 of 42 Reserve P3s to have same
capabilities as Actives; AIP allows P-3s to better
operate against surface combatants and improve
surveillance and targeting.
Navy Reserve...................... P-3 Block Modification Upgrade Program (BMUP)-- $33,000,000; Snowe/Collins.
Brings all Reserve P-3s into compliance with each
other, not Actives--gives all Reserve P-3s similar
computers and acoustics sensors.
Navy Reserve...................... F/A 18 ECP 560 Precision Guided Munitions Upgrade-- $33,240,000; Kyl; McCain.
Provides 1 Reserve F/A Squadron with precision
guided munitions similar to Active F-18s.
Navy Reserve...................... CBR-D Equipment Storage and Logistics--Funds $8,000,000.
shortfall of 10,000 bio-chem suits for Navy
Reservists.
Total....................... .................................................... $163,410,000.
Army Reserve...................... High Frequency Radios (Interoperability for Special $57,138,816.
Ops Reservists).
Army Reserve...................... M-4 Rifles.......................................... $1,200,000.
Army Reserve...................... M-16 Rifles......................................... $1,200,000.
Army Reserve...................... Tactical Electrical Power (5-60KW) TQG.............. $5,404,000.
Army Reserve...................... Tactical Electrical Power (3KW) TQG................. $3,000,000.
Army Reserve...................... Truck Tractor Line Haul............................. $12,420,000.
Army Reserve...................... Improved Ribbon Bridge.............................. $22,400,000.
Army Reserve...................... Truck Cargo PLS 10X10 M1075 (T40999)................ $6,936,000.
Army Reserve...................... Trailer PLS 8X20 M1075 (T93761)..................... $1,320,000.
[[Page S4411]]
Army Reserve...................... Spreader Bituminous Module PLS 2500 Gal. (S13546)... $2,080,000.
Army Reserve...................... Mixer Concrete...................................... $1,375,000
Army Reserve...................... Dump Body Module.................................... $3,496,000
Army Reserve...................... Engineer Mission Module Water Distributor........... $9,630,000
Army Reserve...................... Airborne/Air Assault Scraper (S30039)............... $7,575,000
Army Reserve...................... Distributor Water Self-Propelled 2500 Gal........... $2,970,000
Army Reserve...................... Truck Transporter Common Bridge (CBT) (T91308)...... $8,360,000
Army Reserve...................... Truck Dump 20 Ton................................... $7,215,000
Army Reserve...................... Generator Smoke Mechanical.......................... $11,667,600
Army Reserve...................... Tent Expandable Modular (Surgical).................. $729,000
Total....................... .................................................... $166,116,416.
Army Nat'l Guard.................. Black Hawk Helicopters.............................. $223,200,000; Santorum, Specter, Chambliss, Ensign, Frist,
Alexander.
Army Nat'l Guard.................. SINCGARS (Radio Systems)............................ $34,900,000.
Air Nat'l Guard................... F-16 Targeting Pods................................. $35,100,000; Talent/Bond.
Air Nat'l Guard................... A-10 Targeting Pods................................. $70,200,000.
Air Nat'l Guard................... C-130H2 AN/APN-241 Radar............................ $24,500,000.
Air Nat'l Guard................... F-15 AIFF/IFF (Data Link Systems)................... $31,300,000; Smith (OR), Talent, Bond.
Air Nat'l Guard................... F-15 220E Engine Kits............................... $98,000,000 Smith, Talent, Bond.
Total....................... .................................................... $517,200,000.
Marine Corps Reserve.............. Reserve Training Center Vehicle Maintenance $8,000,000; Sessions/Shelby.
Facility, Mobile, AL.
Marine Corps Reserve.............. Reserve Tank Maintenance Facility, Columbia, South $3,800,000; Graham (SC).
Carolina.
Marine Corps Reserve.............. Reserve Training Center Vehicle Maintenance $8,100,000; Dole.
Facility, Camp Lejeune, NC.
Marine Corps Reserve.............. Uniform and Equipment needs......................... $13,200,000.
Marine Corps Reserve.............. Weapons System Repairs.............................. $7,300,000.
Total....................... .................................................... $40,400,000.
Grand Total................. .................................................... $1,047,426,416.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. LANDRIEU. This amendment is supporting the Guard and Reserve for
equipment, as well as for pay and compensation, and Senator Durbin will
explain the second part of this amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty seconds.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank my cosponsors, Senators
Mikulski, Dayton, Boxer, Schumer, Clinton, and Feingold.
What we are seeking to do here is to raise combat pay, the imminent
danger pay for those who are serving overseas. It will be raised from
$150 a month to at least $250 a month, and to increase the family
separation allowance from currently $100 a month to at least $250 a
month.
Senator Warner was generous enough to talk about $3 billion here,
which will accommodate the needs for the Guard and Reserve that Senator
Landrieu has raised and also bring the combat pay and separation
allowance figures up to where they should be. I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished managers of the bill and our
two colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I think this is an
amendment each Senator not only can but should vote for. I hope we get
100 votes because it is a consensus across the aisle about the imminent
needs of the men and women of the Armed Forces, indeed the Guard and
Reserve which in historic numbers have rallied to the call to serve
side by side with the Active Force in the conflict, not only in Iraq
but also elsewhere in the world.
I strongly support it and yield the remainder of my time to my
colleague from Georgia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I, too, thank my colleagues, Senators
Warner, Landrieu, and Durbin for their strong leadership on this issue.
We now have a significant number of Guard and Reserve personnel who are
in harm's way, protecting freedom and democracy. It is only right that
we address some shortfalls in the way in which these folks are
compensated.
In addition to that, we have provided within this budget number for
the ability of the authorizing committees to come back and purchase
needed equipment from a hardware perspective, as well as to look after
the families of our brave guardsmen and reservists.
I think this is a good amendment. I echo what Senator Warner said. I
hope we get 100 votes so we can send the right message to all our Guard
and Reserve and Active duty personnel that we are concerned about them
and we want to make sure we treat them fairly and equitably. This does
so.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Kennedy as an
original cosponsor.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 429.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 105 Leg.]
YEAS--100
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
The amendment (No. 429) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, for the information of our colleagues,
we are making good progress. I again thank my colleagues for their
cooperation in working out the last two or three amendments.
I now call upon the Senator from Alaska to introduce an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Amendment No. 430
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski] proposes an
amendment numbered 430.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 45, line 24, increase the amount by
$47,904,000,000.
On page 46, line 1, increase the amount by
$18,768,000,000.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator withhold for a moment.
I think it would be wise for us to get in place an agreement on the
amendment that would either be in the second degree or be side by side
at this moment so that that is prepared at the end of the presentation
of the Senator
[[Page S4412]]
from Alaska. Otherwise, the second-degree amendment would be offered. I
think it would be better if we did not do it that way.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following
disposition of the Murkowski amendment, Senator Conrad or his designee
be allowed to introduce a sense of the Senate relative to the Murkowski
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alaska.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, the current budget resolution assumes
the growth package will immediately raise the $600 child tax credit to
$1,000. My amendment is going to require that the growth package extend
that $1,000 child credit until the year 2013. The child credit is
currently $600, and it is scheduled to go up to $1,000 in 2010. The
problem we have with this, however, is that in the year 2011, you are
going to have a child credit of $1,000. But the following year, that is
going to drop in half to $500. In other words, families with two
children will face a $1,000 tax increase in the year 2011. A family of
three is going to face a tax increase of $1,500. I don't think any of
us would suggest that is fair. This is to help the families,
particularly in times when we have some economic difficulties. This is
an amendment that will help America's families.
I urge Members' support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, let me just say to my colleagues, the
amendment of the Senator from Alaska has nothing to do with the child
tax credit--zero. The amendment increases the tax cut by $47.9 billion
and increases the instruction to the Finance Committee for outlays of
$18.8 billion. It has nothing whatever to do with the child tax credit
because the budget resolution does not make those decisions, as the
chairman has indicated over and over.
There will be a subsequent amendment by the Senator from Arkansas
that will make clear there is plenty of room in the underlying tax cut
to accommodate the child tax credit the Senator from Alaska is
advocating. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this increase to the tax
cut.
Mr. NICKLES. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on this amendment
and subsequent amendments be limited to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 430.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 106 Leg.]
YEAS--48
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Warner
NAYS--52
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCain
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Voinovich
Wyden
The amendment (No. 430) was rejected.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I believe there is a sense-of-the-Senate
amendment that is going to be offered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield time to the distinguished Senator
from Arkansas for the purpose of offering another amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Amendment No. 431
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln] proposes an
amendment numbered 431.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding extending the
$1,000 child credit for three additional years (2011-2013))
At the appropriate place insert the following:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE $1,000 CHILD CREDIT.
It is the sense of the Senate that extending the $1,000
child credit for three additional years (2011-2013) can be
accommodated within the revenue totals and instructions of
this resolution.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from Alaska
for the intent of the previous amendment. Many of us in this body have
children. We understand what it takes to raise our children. Across
this country, we want to provide all families, all parents the ability
to do as much as they possibly can for their children. I again
compliment the Senator from Alaska for the intent of her amendment.
My amendment expresses that it is the sense of the Senate that we
should extend the refundable child credit for 3 years and that this can
be accommodated within the revenue totals in the resolution as it
currently exists.
As the Senator from Oklahoma has said several times during this
debate, we cannot write the tax cut on the budget resolution. The
previous amendment was simply an attempt to increase the size of the
tax cut, nothing more, nothing less.
Although the intent of the amendment of the Senator from Alaska I
think was good, I do think it is important that we make sure this tax
cut actually goes in the child credit and we understand that the money
already exists to do it. I ask for my colleagues' support of this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense of the Senate.
It may provide political cover--I compliment my colleague from Alaska
for her effort to help American families--but this is a sense of the
Senate, so it does not change any revenue numbers. It may give
political cover.
I have no objection to this amendment. I hope we accept it by a voice
vote. Almost all of the sense-of-the-Senate amendments have been
accepted by voice vote. Regardless, I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment and provide ample political cover for our colleagues on
the other side of the aisle.
Mr. DASCHLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 431. The clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 107 Leg.]
YEAS--99
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
[[Page S4413]]
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--1
Santorum
The amendment (No. 431) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, we
are very close to finishing. I expect we will have a vote on final
passage in probably about 10 minutes.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Michigan has a
sense-of-the-Senate amendment to be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Amendment No. 407
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 407.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow], for herself, Mr.
Harkin, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dayton, Mr.
Kohl, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Dodd, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Wyden, proposes an amendment
numbered 407.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the final budget
conference agreement should not take or propose any actions that reduce
the level of funding provided for domestic nutrition assistance
programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture below current
baseline spending levels for the programs)
At the end of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3__. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING FUNDING FOR DOMESTIC
NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) domestic nutrition assistance programs administered by
the Secretary of Agriculture--
(A) have a long history of bipartisan support;
(B) have an accomplished record of preventing health
problems for children and promoting the health, growth, and
development of children;
(C) provide United States agricultural producers and food
manufacturers with important and substantial markets through
which they can obtain and sustain livelihoods; and
(D) are due to be reauthorized and improved during the
108th Congress; and
(2) the budget proposed by the President for fiscal year
2004--
(A) maintains current levels of funding for child
nutrition;
(B) extends and improves nutrition assistance programs,
including--
(i) the school breakfast program established by section 4
of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773);
(ii) the school lunch program established under the Richard
B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et
seq.); and
(iii) the child and adult care food program established
under the section 17 of the Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766); and
(C) renews and fully funds the special supplemental
nutrition program for women, infants, and children
established by section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966
(42 U.S.C. 1786).
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the final budget conference agreement should not take or
propose any actions that reduce the level of funding provided
for domestic nutrition assistance programs administered by
the Secretary of Agriculture below current baseline spending
levels for the programs.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this amendment is a sense of the Senate
declaring that there will be no cuts to important domestic nutrition
programs in this year's budget. I am very pleased to have letters of
support from the American School Food Services Association and a number
of other nutrition organizations. This is a bipartisan amendment
cosponsored by Senators Fitzgerald, Harkin, Leahy, Johnson, Murray,
Dayton, Kohl, Corzine, Jack Reed, Clinton, Bingaman, Dodd, and Wyden.
Our concern is that the House budget resolution will cut child
nutrition funding by an estimated $5.9 billion. These cuts would have a
devastating impact on important child nutrition programs such as the
School Lunch Program, breakfast programs, child and adult care feeding
programs, and WIC.
We, in the Senate, have a long tradition of working together in a
bipartisan way on nutrition programs. I hope we can adopt this sense of
the Senate and, once more, show that we are very supportive that
reauthorization of child nutrition programs is one of the Agriculture
Committee's top priorities this year.
Frankly, Mr. President, we need more funding for child nutrition, not
less. I ask for the Senate's support.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Ms. Stabenow and my
other colleagues today in offering this amendment to express the sense
of the Senate that the final conference agreement on the budget
resolution should not reduce funding for domestic nutrition programs
below the current baseline levels. The reconciliation instructions
included in the House Budget Resolution to cut mandatory funding in the
areas of domestic nutrition assistance would be devastating to the
children and families who count on these programs to meet their daily
food needs. In these difficult economic times, we must not put the
basic needs of low-income Americans--particularly children--on the
chopping block in order to make room for an ill-advised tax cut package
this country cannot afford. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in
support of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I believe we adequately take care of many
of the functions that our colleague from Michigan mentioned in her
statement. We have no objection to accepting her amendment by a voice
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 407) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am happy to yield to the majority leader
for comments about the former chairman of the Senate Budget Committee,
who did such a superb job over so many years.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I take this opportunity, before we enter
into the final vote on the resolution, to congratulate the chairman of
the Budget Committee, Senator Nickles, first, on bringing before this
Chamber a budget resolution, and for the last 7 days of his very
diligent work. My thanks to him and his staff for the long hours of
hard work and their dedication.
I also thank the ranking member, Senator Kent Conrad, for his
cooperation here on the floor, as well as that of the Democratic
assistant minority leader and the minority leader. We have not agreed
on many issues over the last several days, but it has, nonetheless,
been a respectful debate. And I think the will of the Senate will have
spoken in a sound way when we adopt this resolution today.
I will have more to say about the resolution after adoption, but I
did want to take just a few moments to pay tribute to the former
chairman and former ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee,
Senator Pete Domenici.
For many in this Chamber who have been through the budget wars over
the last nearly three decades, it has been a little strange over the
last 7 days not to see the senior Senator from New Mexico right here
and down in the well managing this resolution. But I also know he
trained his successor--and all of us--well, and we have all benefited
from his counsel and guidance.
With the start of this Congress, Senator Domenici stepped down as the
longest serving chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. I should note,
under our conference rules, he could have served as chairman of the
Budget Committee but chose, rather, to pursue
[[Page S4414]]
another of his passions, energy policy. He gave up the chairmanship of
Budget to take on another with the Energy Committee. I know he will
devote his extensive talents and energies to help the country craft a
sensible and reliable energy policy, as much as he devoted them to the
process over the last 28 years in the field of the budget. Both remain
major challenges.
Senator Domenici has been a member of the Budget Committee since
1975--1 year after it was created with the enactment of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act. History will also
show that shortly after his first coming to this Chamber in 1972, he
and a group of other Senators, including the very distinguished Senator
Bob Byrd of West Virginia, saw a need to put some order into what was
then an even more chaotic budget and appropriations process. Indeed, it
was through this freshman Senator Pete Domenici's efforts and prodding
that the Budget Act became a reality.
Until Senator Nickles took over the reins in January, Senator
Domenici had been the only Republican chairman in the committee's
history, holding that position for 12\1/2\ years, and the ranking
member position for 9 years. Over 21 years--three-quarters of the
committee's history--Senator Domenici has been at the forefront of
setting and guiding fiscal policy in this country.
I am proud to say, in my first 8 years in this body, I had the honor
to call Senator Domenici my chairman, as I served on that committee,
learning the complexities of the Federal budget.
Senator Domenici has always been known for his tireless devotion to
the budget process, his ability to patch together coalitions, and even
a moodiness on fiscal policy that led another majority leader from
Tennessee, Howard Baker, to dub his good friend Senator Domenici as the
``Hamlet of the Senate'' in the 1980s.
What has been accomplished under his leadership? Over the period,
Senator Domenici has participated in the adoption of 26 concurrent
budget resolutions, 27 Senate-passed budget resolutions, 26 committee-
reported budget resolutions, and 17 major budget reconciliation bills.
Conservatively, we estimate that he has taken over 1,000 votes on the
Senate floor during the budget debates, and countless additional votes
on motions to waive the Budget Act when enforcing the budgets he helped
to craft.
He has been at the center of all debates and legislation to modify
the Budget Act over the years, with the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, better known as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings
Act. When differences between the Senate, House, and President seemed
to doom the budget process, he took the Senate lead in putting it back
on track with its major budget summits in 1987, 1990, and, of course,
the 1997 historic bipartisan balanced budget agreement.
Many of these agreements were not always popular, even with some of
his fellow Republicans. But he has always--always--stood on principle
and what he thought was best for the country at the time. Those
principles and convictions to sound public policy have been evident in
this debate on this resolution, specifically related to ANWR and the
Federal energy policy in this country.
Despite the impressive record on the budget, the one statistic no one
will ever challenge in the Senate's entire history, and the one
statistic he is probably most proud of, is the fact that in 1986, while
serving as a Senator, Senator Domenici had seven children in college
and graduate school at one time. This son of an Italian immigrant
grocer has always been devoted to his family through the good and the
tough times. His wife Nancy has been loving support and inspiration to
her husband throughout their 45 years of marriage. But I also know that
Nancy, in her own right, has been a dedicated public servant, working
to improve health care throughout the country, and particularly in New
Mexico.
So, Mr. President, I did not want this occasion to pass, as we are
about to complete another budget resolution, without paying tribute to
the former chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee for his
years of service and devotion to this process, to his family, to his
State, and to his country.
Thank you, Senator Domenici.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, momentarily we will be voting on final
passage. We have a couple of additional things to do.
I believe we are trying to work out a McConnell sense of the Senate.
That will take just a moment. And then we will be voting in just a few
minutes.
I also wish to join the majority leader in complimenting Senator
Domenici for his many years of service, either as chairman or ranking
member of this committee. I have a much greater appreciation for its
challenges. He passed resolutions when we had a majority and minority,
even when we were 50-50. My compliments to him. He is ``Mr. Budget'' as
far as I am concerned. Plus, as evidenced in some of the debates, he
proved that he knows this act unlike any other on the floor.
So I thank our friend and colleague.
Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you.
Mr. NICKLES. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 432
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send a sense-of-the-Senate resolution
on behalf of Senator McConnell to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], for Mr. McConnell,
proposes an amendment numbered 432:
(Purpose: To provide for future consideration of a possible free trade
agreement with the United Kingdom)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
``It is the Sense of the Senate that the President should
negotiate a free trade agreement with the United Kingdom.''
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it has been said that the United States
and the United Kingdom are a common people separated by a common
language. But we also share a unique cause for freedom, and to preserve
that we should also share a common market.
Today I am offering an amendment that ensures that our economies
become as integrated as the other common causes that we share. The
amendment will provide for a Free Trade Agreement to be negotiated
between the United States and United Kingdom similar to the North
America Free Trade Agreement.
Specifically, this amendment will create room in the budget for
Congress to consider, and the President to successfully negotiate with,
the United Kingdom for a Free Trade Agreement with the United States.
The world is witnessing once again the unique brotherhood of freedom
and the special bond between America and United Kingdom. Those who know
and enjoy the benefits of freedom are willing to join together and pay
freedom's price. With so much at stake, America and United Kingdom
should do all we can to ensure our common cause stays strong for the
benefit of generations to come. With this United Kingdom--United States
Free Trade amendment, our mutual bond will only become stronger.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I hope our colleagues will agree with
this. We can agree with it by voice vote. It is a sense of the Senate
that we should negotiate a free trade agreement with the United
Kingdom. The United Kingdom has proved to be a very valuable ally,
certainly in this latest conflict, but they have been for a long time.
I compliment Prime Minister Blair and his leadership team and
compliment Senator McConnell for his amendment and also thank the
cooperation of the staff of the Finance Committee for working with us
to make this an acceptable resolution. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. We have no objection on this side.
[[Page S4415]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 432) was agreed to.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to explain why I had to
oppose Senator Corzine's amendment to increase funding for
environmental and natural resource programs in the budget resolution.
Let me be clear that I fully support the goals of Senator Corzine's
amendment. While it is true that we are facing a tight budget
situation, protecting our environment and the health and well-being of
our citizens should remain a top priority. That includes setting aside
adequate funding for programs such as the Superfund and Brownfields
programs.
But I was forced to vote against Senator Corzine's amendment because
of another concern. My concern with mounting deficits. The budget
resolution brought before us includes tax cuts that total $1.3
trillion. The budget also proposes that $725 billion of these tax cuts
be enacted immediately, under the reconciliation process.
Two years ago, we passed a $1.3 trillion tax cut. I supported that
tax cut. But those were different times. We had a surplus. We did not
foresee the significant decline in revenues. Or the deficits that
followed.
This is not the time to reduce revenues by $725 billion. It would
hurt our budget and our economy.
Why is $725 billion in tax cuts inappropriate at this time? The most
crucial problem is that it is not paid for. The budget resolution
brought before us forecasts enormous deficits for almost the next
decade. Reducing revenues by $725 billion adds to the already mounting
deficits. In order to prevent the passage of tax cuts that would drive
up the deficit and hurt our economy, I believe that we must reduce the
size of this tax cut.
I joined three of my colleagues in a letter that laid out these
concerns--we pledged that we would not agree to tax cuts above $350
billion. This is crucial. The Budget Committee approved $725 billion in
tax cuts, and brought it to the Senate floor. Along with my colleagues,
I promised to vote to bring this number down by $375 billion.
In a narrowly divided Senate, it is important that both parties work
together to come up with the appropriate spending and revenue targets
for the budget. That is why I worked with both Democrats and
Republicans. Together, we came up with a target of $350 billion for
this tax cut, and we agreed that we would all stick to that number.
As part of our commitment to try to reduce the size of the tax cut
approved by the Budget Committee, we also agreed that we would not try
to reduce the size of the tax cut below $350 billion. That means I am
forced to make difficult decisions. In order to keep my commitment to a
more responsible tax cut, I have to vote against funding priorities.
During tough times, we must make tough choices. I chose to commit to
a responsible tax cut. A tax cut that will prevent worsening deficits
that would hurt our economy.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the fiscal
year 2004 budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 23.
Although I believe this budget, as amended on the floor of the
Senate, is better than the resolution passed by the Budget Committee,
it is still fiscally irresponsible, and I cannot support it at this
time.
This budget, if passed, would increase the fiscal year 2004 budget
deficit by $138 billion above the Congressional Budget Office, CBO,
baseline, to $338 billion. This does not include the cost of the war or
the reconstruction of Iraq, which is likely to push the budget deficit
above $400 billion.
The resolution contains a $350 billion tax cut which we cannot
afford, and which would be financed entirely through deficit spending.
The resolution does not adequately address numerous domestic spending
priorities, such as education and homeland security.
Despite having been amended to reduce the size of the tax cut from
$726 billion to $350 billion, this budget would still add more than
$1.3 trillion to our national debt over the next 10 years when interest
costs are included.
Our budget deficit this year alone is likely to surpass $400 billion,
even before the new tax cuts proposed in this budget go into effect.
While the administration pushes for new tax cuts, our fiscal situation
continues to deteriorate.
Just last night, CBO released a report that indicates that even with
no changes in tax law, the Government will take in $30 billion less in
2003, and $60 billion less between 2004 and 2008.
In the same report, CBO estimated that the President's tax cut
package would have at most a small stimulative effect on economic
growth, and might not increase growth at all.
While the effect this budget will have on the economy is uncertain,
we can be certain that it will increase our debt. In fact, net public
debt will exceed $5 trillion by the end of the decade, and interest
payments on the debt will double over the next 10 years, from $155
billion this year to $310 billion in 2013.
Only at the very end of the 10-year budget period, and under the most
optimistic scenario, would we return to surplus.
There is an urgent need to fund many priorities which are not dealt
with in this budget, and those needs are not likely to disappear over
the next decade.
Those priorities include, among others: The war in Iraq and the
subsequent reconstruction of Iraq, the President's No Child Left Behind
education initiative, homeland security, and a full prescription drug
benefit in Medicare.
Thanks to the success of an amendment offered by Senator Feingold,
the budget does include a $100 billion war reserve fund to be used to
cover the cost of the war in Iraq. The reserve fund is not paid for,
however, and will increase the deficit substantially in fiscal years
2003 and 2004.
Moreover, the ultimate costs of the war and postwar reconstruction
are still unknown, and could be substantially higher than $100 billion.
With regard to domestic spending, the limits set out in this budget
are extremely low. The President's No Child Left Behind initiative
would go largely unfunded, and funding for homeland security is not
adequate to meet the security needs of cities, towns, and counties
across the country.
Many priorities that are important to Californians are either cut or
eliminated altogether, most notably funding for the State Criminal
Alien Assistance Program. If that program is eliminated, the burden of
processing and incarcerating criminal aliens will fall entirely on
thinly stretched State law enforcement budgets.
I believe that bipartisan cooperation is crucial to the Federal
budget process, and such cooperation requires both sides to forgo
certain new spending initiatives and new tax cuts.
In an attempt to bridge the gap, I cosponsored a bipartisan amendment
offered with Senators Carper, Chafee, Lincoln, and Landrieu.
Unlike the final resolution being voted on today, our substitute
budget included significant tax relief for low- and middle-income
families that is paid for over a 10-year period by freezing future tax
cuts for taxpayers in the two highest income tax brackets.
That budget would have balanced the budget in 2009, 3 years before
the underlying resolution.
That budget would have required tough choices with regard to
discretionary spending, but it would have been entirely revenue neutral
over the 10-year budget period and would not have added any new debt
whatsoever.
When faced with the choice between supporting a bad budget and no
budget at all, I must choose the latter.
I support a budget which faces our fiscal needs head on, even when an
economic downturn forces us to make tough choices, and which resists
the temptation to further increase the debt burden on future
generations of taxpayers. Mr. President, this is not that budget.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the fiscal year 2004 budget
resolution.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is sadly ironic that at the same time
we are asking our young people to fight a war for our security,
Republicans are passing a budget that will force those same young
people to pay the bill for the reckless fiscal policies of this
administration and the Republican Congress. Democrats are proud that we
were able to make an irresponsible budget a little less irresponsible.
But by showering the most privileged among us with hundreds of billions
of
[[Page S4416]]
dollars in tax breaks and running up more than a trillion dollars in
debt, this amended budget still poses a serious threat to the long-term
economic well-being of the Nation.
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. With this
budget, Republicans have turned their backs on the problems of American
families. Instead of offering new ideas and fresh solutions, the
administration continues to push a tired ideology that has turned our
economy into a job-destroying machine. This budget will hang more than
a trillion dollars of debt around the necks of our children and
grandchildren. They will be paying for this mistake for decades to
come. The President's own chief economist, in his academic writings,
agrees that the chronic deficits perpetuated by this budget will raise
interest rates and cut off economic growth for the future.
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's not to fund the war or the rebuilding of Iraq that
will follow.
It is not to honor our men and women in uniform. Republicans voted
against funding for health care for reservists.
It is not to strengthen our homeland defense. 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
stimulate the economy now.
This budget is not about meeting the challenges of the moment or the
future. Its focus is on 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.
Democrats have been able to restore a small measure of sanity to this
budget. And we are going to keep fighting to make sure that
government's resources are used responsibly to meet the fundamental
needs of our country. We are going to keep fighting to get our economy
moving today with a broad-based tax cut that stimulates job creation;
to fund homeland security; to provide a real Medicare prescription drug
benefit, and to honor our commitment to our students and teachers. 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 fiscally responsible budget that
reflects the very best of our Nation, the spirit that our soldiers
exemplify, the spirit of honor, community and duty in the service of a
better future for us all.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we are now coming to an end in our debate
on this year's budget resolution.
I congratulate the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator
Nickles for producing this resolution and reporting it from his
committee in an expedited manner. We are doing the Nation's business on
time.
I know that this resolution has put extraordinary pressure on the
committee and floor staff, and I want them to all know my appreciation
for their long hours of work. We are not done, but we will take a major
step forward with the passage of this resolution today.
I also want to thank the ranking member, Senator Conrad, who, while
certainly not supporting this resolution, did cooperate in the
scheduling of this resolution both in the committee and here on the
floor.
Having been a member of the Budget Committee my first 8 years here in
the Senate, I know how difficult it is to craft a budget resolution.
These are challenging times for our great country--certainly
challenging on the international front and equally as challenging in
setting a fiscal path for the future. Clearly how the war unfolds with
Iraq can impact our economic outlook. But as we move forward on this
budget resolution, we are also confronted with longer-term challenges
of slow economic growth and the increasing demands of an aging
population.
In the near term we will provide whatever resources are necessary to
our troops in Iraq to bring that conflict to a quick, expeditious, and
victorious end. I also believe that the completion of that conflict and
the liberation of the Iraqi people from its dictator will not only
provide freedom and economic growth for that country but also lift this
cloud of uncertainty that has hung over our economy and depressed
investment, growth, and job creation here at home.
For the long term, economic growth remains the key to an expanding
economy. Real economic growth will provide the resources necessary to
address the demographic changes that confront us both in the Social
Security and Medicare programs. We should never forget that for these
two programs, it is not the size of their trust fund that matters, it
is the size of the economy that matters.
It is for this reason that the President's economic growth and job
creation proposal is critical to setting a path toward future economic
growth. I will continue to press for the largest growth package
possible that will allow us to fully consider the growth legislation
later this spring. But for now this is just the beginning, not the end
of the process.
S. Con. Res. 23, as amended, and before us today is a blueprint. It
is the start of the process. Once adopted later today in the Senate and
conferenced with the House, this budget blueprint will guide the fiscal
policy for the remainder of this first session of the 108th Congress.
Unfolding events over the next many months may require modifications to
the resolution. I believe emergency provisions built into this
resolution will allow it to be flexible and adjust to changing events.
The failure of the last Congress to even consider here in the Senate
chamber a budget resolution undermined the budget process and created
significant problems. The failure to even consider a budget left the
process in shambles and resulted in the failure to complete action on
11 of 13 annual must-do appropriations bills.
We all know the result. Less than 6 weeks ago, with one-quarter of
this fiscal year already over, we finally passed an omnibus spending
bill for FY 2003.
We must not repeat that mistake of the last Congress. We must pass a
budget resolution and then get on with the business of enacting
legislation that follows the budget's outline.
Beyond making it possible for considering an economic growth package
later this spring, this resolution will provide resources requested by
the President to win the war on terrorism, to protect the homeland, to
modernize the Medicare program with a prescription drug benefit,
increase funding for both IDEA and Title 1 education programs, increase
veterans health funding, and provide over $450 million next year for
global AIDS programs.
Equally as important this resolution reinstates the tools we need
here in the Senate to provide fiscal discipline. It establishes
discretionary spending caps for this year and the next two. It puts a
limit on the budgetary gimmick of advance funding. It extends the
discipline of pay-go beyond its expiration date of April 15, and it
reestablishes the supermajority points of order against spending that
is not truly emergency spending.
Once again I congratulate the Chairman and the members of the Budget
Committee on all their work that has brought us to this point. We will
pass a budget and the legislative, budget and appropriation process
will go forth as it should.
local health emergency reimbursement act of 2003
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to briefly
address a health care issue of great importance to Arizona, all other
southwest border States, and numerous other States. Hospitals in
Arizona and throughout the country incur uncompensated costs of over
$1.5 billion annually to provide federally mandated emergency health
treatment to undocumented immigrants.
[[Page S4417]]
MTG Corporation, a Texas-based firm, and the Border Counties
Coalition, through a congressionally directed study, determined that
the 24 counties along the Southwest border alone incur unreimbursed
costs of over $200 million per year to provide emergency health
treatment to undocumented aliens. Based on these estimates, MTG
Corporation has concluded that nationwide hospitals, ambulances and
other providers incur costs of over $1.5 billion per year.
Arizona, as an example, is indicative of the problems that all States
and their providers are facing. The cost to Arizona and its providers
for providing these services might well be close to $200 million. These
unreimbursed costs, and other health-related issues, have put hospitals
around the country in a state of dire fiscal emergency. As a result of
these costs, many doctors are simply choosing to practice medicine in
such a way that they do not have to provide emergency room treatment--
in Phoenix, AZ, depending on the time of day, if you have a specific
emergency a specialty doctor might not be available to treat you. Some
emergency rooms have closed, or are in danger of having to close, their
emergency rooms either temporarily or permanently because of these
costs.
I have introduced legislation, along with Senators McCain, Feinstein,
Domenici, Cornyn, Hutchison, Clinton, and Schumer to provide $1.45
billion in funding annually to reimburse providers for these federally
mandated, but uncompensated, costs.
It is my understanding that there are resources in the budget for the
Finance Committee to consider a measure to provide reimbursement
funding for health providers that currently provide federally mandated,
but uncompensated, emergency medical treatment to undocumented aliens,
be it in the Finance Committee allocation, its reserve fund for the
uninsured, or any other appropriate funding stream.
Mr. NICKLES. That is correct. I appreciate the important information
that Senator Kyl has brought to the attention of the Senate, and I will
work with Senator Kyl and other interested Members to address this
issue.
Mr. KYL. I would ask the Finance Committee, in its consideration of
legislation dealing with welfare reform, Medicaid, and issues regarding
uncompensated care, to work with me to provide for consideration of
legislation to provide for this reimbursement funding.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I will work with both Senators and other interested
Members to provide for consideration of legislation to provide
reimbursement to health providers who provide federally required, but
uncompensated, emergency health treatment to undocumented aliens.
Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator for taking the time to help me clarify
this important issue.
payment limitations
Mr. COCHRAN. Can the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee
offer me assurance that budget resolution agreement will leave policy
decisions regarding payment limitations to be resolved by the Senate
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. NICKLES. I provide that assurance.
Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator for his cooperation.
superfund
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am in support of Senator Lautenberg's
amendment to replenish the superfund trust fund, by reinstating the
superfund taxes that expired in 1995. The trust fund is running
dangerously low, and that is just not acceptable.
As I've stated before, I remember very clearly when Congress debated
the original superfund law, and I remember thinking what an incredible
legacy Congress could leave the Nation by enacting that historic
legislation.
Seeing how successful superfund has been over the last 25 years,
particularly in Libby, MT, reinforces my belief that we did the right
thing for the people of this country when we created the superfund
program.
The superfund program brought millions of dollars to Montana for
clean up activities, to protect the health and well being of Montana's
citizens and create good paying jobs in the local communities left with
a contaminated site. For example, more than $34 million has been spent
in Libby alone in an effort to remove asbestos contamination caused by
the now defunct WR Grace vermiculite mine, as well as to provide health
screenings for Libby residents. Hundreds of millions have been spent in
the Clark Fork basin to remedy decades of industrial pollution.
Millions more will be spent to clean up the Berkeley Pit and other
sites in the State.
Some of this money will come from an identifiable, solvent
responsible party, but much of it will not, as companies go out of
business or declare bankruptcy. And, Montana is not alone. That is why
maintaining the integrity of the superfund trust fund is so important.
I'm extremely concerned that the more we fall behind in securing the
funding necessary for clean-up activities at sites in Montana and
around the country, the worse off we're going to be in future years.
This has serious implications for the future stability of the superfund
program.
I don't believe it's fair to solve this problem by forcing the
average taxpayer to pick up the tab for the clean up of toxic sites
that were created by private entities, and which threaten our health
and our children's health. That's why I strongly support reinstating
the superfund tax, and why I support Senator Lautenberg's amendment.
A Superfund designation is not a trivial event for the communities
involved--it invokes real fear and uncertainty in people about the
future, about the future economic health of their community, and about
the future effects of any contamination on their health or their
children's health. These communities cannot shoulder the immense burden
of cleaning up highly contaminated sites by themselves, or forcing a
responsible party to pay for the clean-up. The Federal Government is a
necessary and important partner in this effort through the Superfund
program.
Superfund is a success; we should build on that success, not allow it
to fall apart.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I express my strong opposition to a
provision in the budget resolution that proposes to shift $1.4 billion
in mandatory spending over the next 10 years from agricultural
programs, budget function 350, to the Conservation Security Program,
budget function 300, compared to projected mandatory spending under the
Agriculture Committee's jurisdiction under current law. I am pleased
that the budget resolution does not require the Agriculture Committee
to report legislation reducing mandatory spending pursuant to a budget
reconciliation instruction, nonetheless this proposal amounts to a
policy recommendation that the Agriculture Committee shift spending
away from agricultural programs and towards the Conservation Security
Program.
More importantly, as I understand it, the $1.4 billion in
agricultural program savings is to be achieved by reducing farm support
program payment limitations below those that were agreed to as part of
the 2002 farm bill, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002,
FSRIA. Specifically, the proposal would reduce statutory payment
limitations for farm program payments to producers of covered crops--
wheat, feed grains, oilseeds, cotton, and rice--from $40,000 to $20,000
for direct payments and from $65,000 to $30,000 for counter-cyclical
payments. In addition, the proposal would include certificate
transactions and loan forfeitures under the marketing loan program's
payment limitation.
I oppose this proposal for a number of reasons. First, the FSRIA,
enacted less than a year ago, has already reduced farm program payment
limits compared to the 1995 farm bill. Second, the FSRIA, established a
Commission on Application of Payment Limitations which is to analyze
and make recommendations related to this issue to the President and to
the House and Senate Agriculture Committees in a report that is due on
or before May 13, 2003. Clearly, the Senate should consider the
Commission's findings before it endorses a further policy change in
this area. Third, the budget resolution should provide us with a broad
plan for Federal revenues and expenditures but leave policy decisions
within that budget framework to the Appropriations Committee, in the
case of discretionary spending, and to the various
[[Page S4418]]
authorizing committees such as the Agriculture Committee, in the case
of mandatory spending. This proposal violates that principle by
attempting to dictate policy to the Agriculture Committee without
having any impact on the overall level of Federal expenditures. Fourth,
because their crops cost more to produce, southern cotton and rice
farms tend to be larger, on average, than wheat, corn, and soybean
farms in other regions. The payment limit proposal would reduce
Government payments to larger farms, hurting southern cotton and rice
producers the most. It is unclear, at best, what the proposal's changes
to the marketing loan program would mean for our farmers. This is a
program that has been highly successful in helping our farmers remain
internationally competitive without undue Government involvement in the
marketplace.
Taken together, the proposal's payment limitation changes could
seriously undercut the farm safety net that was a principal goal of the
FSRIA, particularly for southern producers of cotton and rice. I
strongly oppose this provision.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, our Nation is at war. Our Federal budget
faces unprecedented deficits. According to the Congressional Budget
Office, counting the cost of that war, the deficit will be $587 billion
this year alone. And we are on the threshold of a crisis in the funding
of our Social Security system as the baby boom generation begins to
retire in the next decade.
Yet this budget resolution calls for fully $850 billion in tax cuts,
all of which will be borrowed from that Social Security system. In my
30 year career in the Senate, I cannot recall a more reckless or
irresponsible proposal.
Instead of a careful, conservative approach to our finances, instead
of caution and a sense of responsibility in these dangerous times, this
budget throws caution to the wind and simply dumps the bill for our
actions today on our children and grandchildren.
These are no ordinary times. We are now fully engaged in a war in
Iraq, a war that will not be truly over until the reconstruction of
that nation is accomplished. The $75 billion that the President has
just requested is just the first installment on that commitment. We
cannot know the full costs of that undertaking, which could take many
years to complete. At the same time, the global war on terrorism must
be fought here at home as well as in the farthest corners of the globe.
The costs of that commitment will be substantial and could well
represent a permanent change in the way we do business.
This budget simply ignores those new realities and treats the Social
Security system like a broken piggy bank, grabbing the savings the
system will soon need for its own obligations to paper over the costs
not only of our new security responsibilities, but hundreds and
hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts as well. But those bills
will come due, as the baby boom generation retires, and this budget
plants a time bomb in a Social Security system that already faces a
serious future imbalance.
Beyond those profound problems, the massive loss of revenues called
for in this budget means that we do not have the funds available for
such fundamental priorities as homeland defense, health care, or
education.
I was glad to see that we fixed some of the problems in this
resolution. Senator Feingold's amendment rescued $100 billion from
those tax cuts to set aside to pay for the war now being fought in
Iraq. That will be just the beginning of the resources we will need to
fully cover the cost of that conflict and the massive reconstruction
that will follow.
I am glad that we were able to reduce by half the size of the tax
cuts that will be protected by a special budget fast-track procedure.
We need to stimulate our sagging economy and restore the growth and job
creation we have lost in the past 2 years. But at $350 billion, half
the original amount that was protected by budget rules, that tax cut is
still far too large given the other obligations that we face.
But on top of the $350 billion in tax cuts protected by special
budget rules, this resolution still contains an additional $500 billion
in other tax cuts, for a total of $850 billion in revenue losses.
Counting the additional interest we will have to pay on the debt we
will pile up, that is another trillion dollars that will not be
available for our national security and homeland security obligations,
not available for health care, for education, for law enforcement. Nor
will it be there when we need to restore balance to Social Security.
We have made some progress during this debate to restore funding in
some of those areas, but not enough to meet the needs and priorities of
the vast majority of Americans. This budget resolution is the first
step in our consideration of priorities this year, and it is a big step
in the wrong direction, one that I fear we will regret.
I hope my colleagues will join me in rejecting this resolution. We
can and must do better. We can hardly do worse.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I cannot support this budget resolution. In
my judgment, this budget, like the President's budget which it
reflects, represents the wrong priorities. A close look reveals too
many ill-advised cuts in too many critical areas in order to help pay
for a tax cut which is too large, too inequitable, and which will
worsen our fiscal situation without providing our economy the jump-
start it needs.
The proposed budget cuts in education are particularly troubling.
While I am pleased that the Senate passed an amendment I introduced
that increased education funding by over $2 billion by proposing to
close down two egregious tax haven loopholes, that increase doesn't
come close to making up for the shortfalls.
Other priorities are similarly underfunded. The transportation
request is less than what was allotted in 2002 and 2003. This year
Congress plans to reauthorize TEA-21, the highway reauthorization bill,
yet the budget resolution as proposed would limit our ability to
increase the program to meet our Nation's transportation needs. The
budget would provide inadequate funding for State sewer and water
programs, and would cut funding to the Community Oriented Policing
Services, COPS, Pprogram, which has helped fund more than 3,300 police
officers in Michigan. The proposal provides no funding for the
community access program, which improves health care coordination for
the uninsured, or for extending unemployment benefits for those whose
benefits have expired, even though the number of unemployed in our
country has increased by about 40 percent since January 2001.
While I am pleased that we were able to reduce the President's
fiscally irresponsible tax cut proposal, the tax cut package in the
existing budget resolution is still too large, and likely will increase
in conference committee with the President's party in charge of both
Houses.
In January 2001, the Office of Management and Budget was projecting a
10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now we are back into a huge deficit
ditch and will be for the foreseeable future. In fact, the President's
proposed budget and tax cuts would lead to more than a trillion dollars
in deficits over the next 5 years, including record deficits of over
$300 billion this year and next. The right type of tax cuts could
stimulate the economy by being effective in the short term and going to
working families and small businesses that will spend the money now
instead of mainly going to the wealthiest among us who don't need tax
cuts. But tax cuts that drastically worsen our long-term fiscal
situation, that won't help out in the short term, and that would
require cuts to many other priorities are not what our economy needs.
Surely, simple equity as well as economic stimulus needs suggest that
if we are going to have tax cuts they should be broad-based tax cuts,
providing, for instance, every working family of four with an immediate
tax cut of $1,200. And we should also extend unemployment benefits for
those whose benefits have expired and weren't previously extended,
provide short-term incentives for businesses to invest immediately, and
provide some assistance to our struggling States for education,
homeland security, Medicaid, and highway and other infrastructure
improvements.
These measures would be better for our economy today, our fiscal
situation in future years, and the many other challenges that lay
ahead. They also
[[Page S4419]]
would address today's problems today without passing the bills onto
future generations.
In addition, the Senate is asked by the majority to pass a budget
without including any estimated costs of the war in Iraq and its
aftermath, even though such estimates exist. Yesterday the President
sent a $75 billion funding request regarding Iraq to Congress in the
form of an emergency supplemental. That request is not included in the
current 2004 budget resolution before us. There is no reason that the
costs of the war and its aftermath after September 30, 2003, should be
omitted. While there is no question that we will fully fund our troops,
we are asked to approve massive tax cuts and huge deficits while
totally ignoring the large additional expenditures which will be
required by the war in Iraq. In my view, it is both reckless and
irresponsible to intentionally keep those costs out of this budget
resolution.
This budget emphasizes the wrong priorities, burrows us deeper into
the deficit ditch, continues our reliance on the Social Security
surplus, and fails to provide the stimulus needed to improve our
sputtering economy. I cannot support it.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the administration's budget was wrong for
the Nation when the President proposed it in February. It is even worse
for the Nation now that we are at war. I will oppose it, and I hope
that reason and common sense will prevail in the remaining steps of the
budget process to prevent this package from doing lasting damage to the
economy and to our communities.
As incredible as it might seem, this budget plan would worsen the
fiscal and economic harm done by the administration's 2001 economic
package, which, in one fell swoop squandered the hard-won budget
surpluses and converted them to ever-deepening deficits and debt.
Making matters all the worse, this budget would compound this
squandering while the Nation is at war.
Can anyone seriously argue, just for instance, that it makes fiscal
or economic sense to borrow money to pay for a tax cut package which
itself is steeply tilted to the wealthiest individuals?
This budget plan is misguided in its priorities. It severely
underfunds essential health, education and employment training
programs; it contains an enormous government giveaway to wealthy
corporations and the wealthiest individuals that will skyrocket our
Nation's debt; and it is wholly inadequate to meet the domestic
security needs of the first-responder agencies that are our first line
of defense against terrorism.
Even before the war, when the President unveiled his budget proposal
in February, his priorities were sharply out of kilter with the
Nation's needs. By severely underfunding education and other domestic
needs, and by making a nearly $700 billion tax package the focus of his
budget, the President compounds the irresponsible polices of the last 2
years that have traded record surpluses for record deficits.
Let me cite just a few examples of how bad the President's budget is
for Vermont: The $6.7 million cut in afterschool programs that will
leave 9,566 children in my State without afterschool activities; the
$2,405,259 cut in Clean Water Act funding, at a time when Vermont has
nine toxic waste sites on the National Priorities List; the $524,673
cut in the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) that
helps Vermonters who need assistance with the electricity and heating
bills; the $793,220 cut in the Community Services Block Grant that
provides local organizations in Vermont with funds to help reduce
poverty, revitalize low-income communities, and offer families the help
they need to become fully self-sufficient; and the elimination of the
COPS police-hiring program that has put 245 officers on our streets.
And I could go on and on.
In 2001, I voted against the Bush tax package because it was too
skewed toward the wealthiest Americans and it was fiscally
irresponsible. Since then, we have gone from record surpluses to red
ink, and the economy is still floundering. Leading economists have
repeatedly made clear that the elimination of taxes on dividends paid
to investors, the centerpiece of the President's tax-cut proposal, will
do little if anything to spur economic growth or to reduce the Nation's
jobless rate.
As Congress shapes an economic package, fiscal responsibility needs
to be a priority. We need to be smart about how we proceed, and we need
to be fair about it. The tax cuts the President has proposed not only
will worsen our Federal deficit, but it will also eliminate $16 million
in revenue from the State of Vermont. Congress now has the
responsibility to bring stability and sensible fiscal policies back
into the budget process. We must work to reestablish a balanced budget
and to restore our country's economic health.
Our Nation is at war. We have nearly a quarter of a million troops in
the Middle East. We have five carrier battle groups in the region. And
we have National Guard units being called up all across the country.
Yet the President has only recently submitted an estimate to Congress
about the cost of this war. The $75 billion he requested on Monday does
not adequately address our country's homeland security needs and is
likely just a start in funding all of the United States operations in
Iraq.
I was disappointed that the Senate did not adopt my amendment to
boost funding for first responders. We are in a two-front war, overseas
and here at home, and we need to fund both. First responders are on the
front lines in defending against and preparing for terrorist attacks.
The White House has refused to adequately fund homeland security, and
these added responsibilities have become unfunded Federal mandates that
are severely straining our police, fire and rescue agencies. Every time
the alert level is raised, it costs our communities and states millions
more. Everyone recognizes the vital role of first responders, but the
White House is overdue in acting accordingly. The sooner we help first
responders help us in the war on terrorism, the better.
In his State of the Union Message, the President was right when he
said we should not pass on our problems to other Congresses, other
Presidents and future generations. Unfortunately, that is exactly what
this budget plan would do. The White House's own documents predict the
deficit will hit highs of $304 billion this year and $307 billion in
2004. Over the next 5 years, deficits would total $1.08 trillion. Even
these staggering numbers are short of the real mark because the
administration will surely need hundreds of billions of dollars more in
Iraq-related spending that is not counted here.
This administration has been in a rush to war, but it has been in no
hurry to substantively deal with the poor economy that millions of
Americans are coping with today.
This budget was a bad plan for the Nation before the war began. It is
an even worse plan now.
I ask unanimous consent that an editorial by Emerson Lynn that
appeared in the March 21 edition of the St. Albans Messenger be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
It's Wrong To Tie Patriotism to Massive Tax Cut
There is the distinct sense that the American people cannot
do two things at once, that we cannot separate our thoughts
of the war with our thoughts of how the government spends and
collects our taxpayer dollars. Worse, there is the conviction
that one should be labeled unpatriotic if the attempt is made
to draw the distinction.
This contradiction was played out yesterday in the House of
Representatives which passed largely along party lines the
president's proposed budget, including his budget busting tax
cuts. The cuts were thought to be in jeopardy a month ago,
particularly with the Congressional Budget Office's
assessment of unending budget deficits as far as the eye can
see.
Why the miraculous turnaround? Because, as partisan
Republicans said, it would be wrong to embarrass the
president just as war is being waged in Iraq. In other words,
one's budget sense should be placed at the mercy of the
president's polling numbers.
Hmmm. If there is a sense of discomfort in having the
budget resolution being debated while war is being waged,
then why not delay discussion of the budget? If the
president's experts are to be believed, the war will be over
in less than a week or so. Why the hurry?
Was the pressure applied because the Republican leadership
(and the White House) are concerned about conflicting
messages of domestic support, or is it because they saw the
opening moments of the war as the most propitious time to
push the president's $726
[[Page S4420]]
billion in tax cuts, a proposal most Republicans a month ago
thought would be beyond their reach?
Guess.
Today, the same arm-twisting efforts will be applied in the
U.S. Senate. Again, it was thought only a week or so ago that
the entire tax cut proposal had no chance of being approved,
particularly with several moderate Republicans proposing a
plan to shave the tax cut in half. The ground has shifted,
Senate insiders now believe the president has a good chance
of winning it all. Again, it's the war and the pushed thought
that a good American supports whatever the president wants
right now. We must stand together.
Dear Mr. President: We are smart enough to distinguish
between a necessary war and an unnecessary tax cut. Too, our
patriotism remains intact; in fact, it is with ease that we
can argue that being opposed to the $726 billion in tax cuts
is utterly patriotic. How else to avoid an endless string of
swollen budget deficits? How else to protect the integrity of
legislative branch's responsibility to be acting on behalf of
its constituents?
We find it incredible that we have a president who lost the
popular vote and today rules as if it was his divine right,
as did the kings in Shakespeare's time. And, yet, we are
impressed. Highly impressed. In terms of sheer
accomplishment, he has achieved more in two years than Bill
Clinton did in eight. An it was thought that the balance of
power between the Democrats and the Republicans would largely
result in legislative stalemate. The Democrats could only
wish.
What is most upsetting, however, is understanding how
completely backwards the argument before congress is. The
primary focus is on the war and stalwart Republicans are
using the emotion of the moment to wash away all other
thoughts. In truth, what happens in Iraq, while terribly
important, pales in comparison to the long-term effects of
the president's decision to essentially strip this Congress
and all future Congresses of the resources needed to address
essential issues such as health care, Social Security,
Medicaid and Medicare. The war will not last long, and even
the rebuilding efforts after-wards will be short in duration
when compared to huge tax cuts that keep on taking, and
taking, and taking.
So you say, just elect a Democrat as president. A year from
now the primaries will be in full swing. We could have a
change in leadership within 24 months.
Think again.
Politically, it is almost impossible for Congress to raise
taxes. Our representatives can oppose the cuts to begin with,
which is what we hope happens, but once they are in place,
good luck turning back the clock.
That's why today's vote in the United States Senate is so
important. Although it is a budget resolution and does not
have the effect of law, it does pave the way for acceptance
later. Let's hope common sense prevails and that our
legislators act as if they are capable of distinguishing
between what needs to happen in Iraq and what needs to happen
here.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to day to discuss several issues
related to agriculture funding in the budget resolution proposed by the
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee.
While there are no specific reconciliation instructions for
agriculture in this proposal, the summary documents issued by the
committee indicate an assumed savings of $80 million from the crop
insurance program.
I have been one of the strongest defenders of this program in the
Congress, and I have fought hard to improve the program for producers
throughout the country.
Simply put, cutting $80 million from this program is exactly the
wrong thing to do at this time. As budgets continue to tighten, both
the administration and Members of this congress have said that
producers must do more to rely on crop insurance as their primary risk
management tool and decrease reliance on emergency disaster assistance
programs.
Last fall we also saw the collapse of the largest seller of crop
insurance in the country. This was the result of several factors, but
the significant drought we have suffered took its toll as indemnity
payments to producers added up. And, several other companies are not in
strong financial positions for the same reason.
Finally, the entire insurance industry has struggled with reinsurance
since 9/11. This is also true in the crop insurance industry, and the
difficulties of obtaining reinsurance have been compounded by the
drought.
The bottom line is this: We have worked hard to make crop insurance
the primary risk management tool for producers. But, crop insurance is
struggling along with the entire insurance industry, and this cut many
be something it can not recover from. It could put several of the
smaller companies out of business and lead to further consolidation in
the industry and concentration in agriculture.
I urge the chairman to omit this specific cut in any reconciliation
instructions that may come out of the conference with the House.
Finally, I understand that an amendment was offered during committee
discussion of the resolution that shifted funds from commodity programs
to the conservation budget. I am not going to discuss the merits of the
proposal that accomplished this shift. I think that is a discussion
best conducted within the Agriculture Committee.
However, if we are going to shift funds to the conservation program,
I believe they should go to our well-established programs that benefit
producers throughout the United States. These include the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, the
Wetlands Reserve Program, and the Farmland Protection Program.
I do not think these funds should go to the Conservation Security
Program--a program that will divert the largest potion of the funds to
only a couple States that can undertake farming practices that simply
do not work in regions of the country where the land is not on the
river bottom and the rain comes down sideways with a 50-mile-per-hour
wind.
Lets put the money where it will actually work and achieve real
conservation benefits.
I thank my colleagues for listening to my views on these issues, and
I hope they will continue to consider them as this process toward a
final budget agreement progresses.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, it does not seem like all that long ago
that efforts were under way to reauthorize the 1996 farm bill. Many of
you know that we spent over 2 years listening to ideas and formulating
the model for this legislation. I am pleased that I was able to be a
part of yet another farm bill that provides planting flexibility, price
stability, and allows producers to receive a decent return on their
investments.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 is a balanced 6-
year farm bill which met specified budget requirements and was adopted
by Congress. The farm bill provides an adequate financial safety net in
times when prices are depressed. This safety net allows crops to be
priced competitively in the domestic and world markets.
The farm bill is less than 1 year old. The United States Department
of Agriculture, USDA, is still working to fully implement some of the
remaining provisions. However, the actions taken by the distinguished
Senator from Iowa during the markup of this budget resolution was an
effort to unravel this carefully drafted legislation. I am referring to
a provision that was adopted in the Senate Budget Committee which
shifts the Senate Agriculture Committee's mandatory spending, totaling
$1.4 billion, from agriculture programs, budget function 350, to the
Conservation Security Program, budget function 300.
I want to express my strong opposition to this provision as it
negates the carefully crafted payment provision during the farm bill.
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 contains specific
limitations on program benefits and adds an adjusted gross income test
that makes participants with substantial nonfarm income ineligible for
program benefits. In addition, program participants are required to
meet detailed eligibility requirements regarding contributions of
management and/or labor requirements. My colleague's further efforts to
make these limitations even more restrictive only adds additional
transitional costs which producers must absorb and creates additional
administrative costs for USDA.
As a result of this provision, my distinguished colleague ultimately
discriminates against southern crops which are more expensive to
produce. Farms in the South tend to be larger than those in the Midwest
and other areas of the country where the cost of production is much
less. Further restrictions on payment limitations only hurt southern
commodity producers.
The farm bill has been debated in the Senate Agriculture Committee,
passed by Congress, and signed into law by the President of the United
States. This provision reopens the farm bill--the farm bill should not
be reopened during
[[Page S4421]]
the budget process--that results in bad farm policy. And it should not
be reopened during the appropriations process--that results in bad farm
policy. Therefore, I strongly oppose this provision in the Senate
budget resolution.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the American people recognize the
importance of the family farmer to our Nation and the need to provide
an adequate safety net for family farmers. In recent years, however,
assistance to farmers has come under increasing scrutiny.
Critics of farm payments have argued that the largest corporate farms
reap most of the benefits of these payments. What's more, farm payments
that were originally designed to benefit small- and medium-sized family
farmers have contributed to their own demise. Unlimited farm payments
have placed upward pressure on land prices and have contributed to
overproduction and lower commodity prices, driving many family farmers
off the farm.
Last year, the Senate agreed, by an overwhelming vote of 66 to 31, to
a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Senators Dorgan and myself to
target Federal assistance to small-and medium-sized family farmers. The
amendment would have limited direct and counter-cyclical payments to
$75,000. It would have limited gains from marketing loans and LDPs to
$150,000, and generic certificates would have been included in this
limit. That would have limited farm payments to a combined total of
$275,000.
That amendment was critical to family farmers in Iowa and indeed
farmers across the Nation. I feel strongly the farm bill failed Iowa
and failed all of our farmers when it failed to effectively address the
issue of payment limitations.
A solid majority in the Budget Committee voted last week in favor of
a payment limitation provision to limit total payments of all kinds to
a combined limit of $300,000. This is more than I think is necessary.
It is $25,000 more than the limit that won over two-thirds of the
Senate. But in the interests of compromise it seems like a fair
approach. The most important thing is that loopholes in the payment
limitation law be closed so that the limitation at whatever level is
actually the real, effective level.
The Budget Committee voted to apply the savings from this reasonable
payment limit proposal against the reductions suffered by the
Conservation Security Program, CSP, during consideration of the
agricultural disaster package in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus
appropriations bill.
This new conservation initiative from the 2002 farm bill will reward
farmers and ranchers who voluntarily implement effective conservation
on their working lands. Farmers and ranchers will receive public
support as they provide public benefits to the Nation's natural
resources and environment. This program allows family farmers to solve
critical resource problems, with graduated rewards for increasing
efforts. The CSP is an innovative new program in the Federal
agricultural conservation toolbox and its full funding should be
restored as soon as possible.
The Budget Committee endorsed payment limitation reform including a
combined maximum cap of $300,000 and endorsed restoring funds to the
Conservation Security Program. Payment limitation reform is long
overdue, a fact reflected in the vote of the Budget Committee. If cuts
should be ordered in the final budget resolution emerging from
conference, payment limitations would be the most logical place to look
for savings. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this
important issue.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 4
minutes equally divided between myself and the ranking member for
closing debate on the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to vote in favor of
the resolution. I thank all of our colleagues. We have conducted a
number of rollcall votes. By the time we have final passage, there will
have been 51 rollcall votes; we will have had 29 voice votes, for a
total of 80 votes on this resolution. That may be an all-time high, one
I hope we don't repeat next year.
The budget process, in my opinion, is somewhat flawed. It is not easy
to pass a budget. That is one of the reasons I wanted to compliment my
friend and colleague, Senator Domenici, because he did it year after
year. It is not easy to do. I understand we didn't get it done last
year. I don't want to be too critical, but we didn't pass a budget last
year. And because we didn't pass a budget, we didn't get appropriations
bills done. We didn't do a prescription drug bill, a Medicare bill. We
didn't do anything to help grow the economy. The budget does lay the
blueprint for the next Congress, certainly for the rest of the year. So
we need to pass a budget. I have told my colleagues, we need to pass a
budget regardless of the size of the growth package.
I readily admit this growth package is not what I wanted. It is about
half a loaf. That is better than none.
We could have done better. We didn't; we tried. We let the
legislative process work. With 80 votes, the legislative process did
work. The Senate did speak.
I thank my colleagues for their participation. I happen to believe
the level of debate was good. I think it was a healthy debate. I thank
colleagues on all sides for their cooperation in making that happen.
I also especially thank my friend and colleague, Senator Conrad, and
his staff. They have been a pleasure to work with in a very challenging
environment, particularly on Friday evening. Also, I thank our staff as
well, Hazen Marshall and Stacey Hughes and our entire staff. They
worked very hard to put together a budget process that will work, a
budget that will lead us to a balanced budget, a budget that will have
deficits declining, substantially declining in the next couple of
years, the percentage of GDP substantially.
We need to be in balance. We will work to do that. That is not easily
done since we have inherited a situation where revenues have declined
substantially in the last 2 years. We need to figure out ways to grow
the economy. I look forward to working with my colleagues to try to
make that happen. I appreciate very much their cooperation and support
throughout the challenging last several days. I urge my colleagues to
vote in favor of the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first let me thank the outstanding staffs
on both sides. Hazen Marshall, staff director for Senator Nickles, and
his able staff, thank you for the really good attitude that you all
brought to this task and challenge. I thank also on our side my staff
director, Mary Naylor, who has done such a superb job holding us all
together. I think part of the reason this was well organized was
because of Mary's talents. And to Jim Horney and Sue Nelson and Lisa
Konwinski and all of the other staff members of the Budget Committee,
thank you.
Special thanks to the chairman of our committee. Thank you for the
effort to organize these votes in a way that was comprehensive and that
was understandable to people. Thanks, too, for the attitude and the
tone you brought to the debate because we have had significant
differences. But I think we have conducted ourselves in the way that
our forefathers intended the Senate to be conducted--real debate on
real differences without personal rancor of any kind.
While this budget resolution has been substantially improved, we have
now reduced the President's proposed tax cut of $1.6 trillion to $850
billion. Still I believe it is fatally flawed. I don't believe we can
afford $850 billion of tax cuts that will add in this budget resolution
over a trillion dollars of deficit to our country when we are already
in record deficit and when we are right on the brink of the retirement
of the baby boom generation.
That does not make sense to me. I believe it threatens the long-term
economic security of our country. I don't believe it will grow the
economy. That view is buttressed by the report of the Congressional
Budget Office today. They applied dynamic scoring and what they said
is, the one thing that is going to grow under this budget is the
deficits and the debt of our country. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator's time has expired. All
time has expired.
[[Page S4422]]
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the concurrent resolution, as amended.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 108 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--44
Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham (FL)
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCain
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wyden
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 23), as amended, was agreed
to, as follows:
(The concurrent resolution will be printed in a future edition of the
Record.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to thank all of our colleagues for
their cooperation. We did finish the budget resolution by 4 p.m. on
Wednesday, as we committed to do. That would not have happened if it
had not been for the cooperation certainly of Senator Conrad and his
staff.
I wish to thank Mary Naylor and their entire team, as well as Hazen
Marshall, Stacey Hughes, Beth Felder, and our team. The staffs had to
work extremely hard over the weekend. This lasted about 2 or 3 days
longer than is usual for the budget process. I hope maybe we can
streamline it next year a little bit more.
I thank all the staff for their hard work. They put in a lot of
hours. We produced a product that is not perfect but it is a
significant improvement over no budget. Again, I thank my colleagues
for their cooperation.
I ask unanimous consent that a list of staff Democrats and
Republicans be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Senate Budget Committee
Amy Angelier; Lauren Baylor; Dan Brandt, Economist; Cara
Duckworth; Beth Smerko Felder; Ron Floyd; Megan Hauck; Jim
Hearn; Jody Hernandez; Stacey Hughes; Rachel Jones; Don Kent;
Hazen Marshall; David Myers; Maureen O'Neill; and David
Ortega.
Gayle Osterberg; Anne Oswalt; David Pappone; Roy Phillips;
Cheri Reidy; Margaret Stewart; Bob Taylor; Jennifer Winkler;
Lee Greenwood; Letitia Fletcher; Tim Nolan; Lynne Seymour;
George Woodall; Shelley Amdur; Steve Bailey; and Rock Cheung,
Jr.
Jim Esquea; Tim Galvin; Lawrence Hershon; Jim Horney; Mike
Jones; Erin Keogh; Lisa Konwinski; Sarah Kuehl; Jessie
LaVine; Stu Nagurka; Mary Naylor; Kobye Noel; Steve Posner;
Lee Price; John Righter; Dakota Rudesill; and Barry Strumpf.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first, I congratulate the chairman of our
committee on successfully passing a budget resolution. As strongly as I
disagree with the contents of this resolution, I feel equally as
strongly about the way this process was conducted, and the chairman's
leadership both in the committee and on the floor in terms of the tone
that he set and in terms of the attitude he brought to the job. It
makes a big difference, and we appreciate it.
I will now take a moment to thank staff: Mary Naylor, my staff
director; Jim Horney and Sue Nelson, my deputy staff directors; Lisa
Konwinski, my counsel; Shelley Amdur, who handles education and
appropriations; along with John Righter, who is our chief numbers man
and handles appropriations as well; Steve Bailey, who does taxes; Sarah
Kuehl, who handles Social Security and transportation; Jim Esquea, who
handles Medicaid, welfare, and veterans; Tim Galvin, who handles
agriculture; Mike Jones, homeland security and energy issues; Dakota
Rudesill, who handles defense; Rock Cheung, international affairs; Lee
Price, our chief economist; Kobye Noel, our chart master--as my
colleagues know, we produced a lot of charts--and Stu Nagurka and Steve
Posner, in charge of communications for me; and Jessie Lavine, Erin
Keogh, and Lawrence Hershon, our staff assistants. We appreciate very
much their hard work.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 95; all after the
resolving clause is stricken and the text of S. Con. Res. 23 is
inserted in lieu thereof, the resolution is adopted, the Senate insists
on its amendment and requests a conference with the House, and the
Chair appoints conferees.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Enzi) appointed Mr. Nickles, Mr. Domenici,
Mr. Grassley, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Hollings, and Mr. Sarbanes,
conferees on the part of the Senate.
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 95), as amended, was agreed
to.
____________________