[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5849-5896]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 5849]]

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEARS 
                          2001-2011--Continued

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, 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. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have been working diligently to get a 
series of amendments we can accept. We are operating on the premise 
that any of the amendments that were offered either from our side or 
the other side--that they be budget neutral in the language that is 
used to formulate them.


                     Amendment No. 214, as modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify 
amendment No. 214 offered by Senator Collins.
  I send the amendment, as modified, to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Ms. 
     Collins, for herself, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Daschle, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 214, as modified.

  The amendment, as modified, reads as follows:

    (Purpose: To provide for a reserve fund for veterans' education)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . RESERVE FUND FOR VETERANS' EDUCATION.

       If the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House or the 
     Senate reports a bill that increases the basic monthly 
     benefit under the Montgomery G.I. Bill to reflect the 
     increasing cost of higher education, the Chairman of the 
     Committee on the Budget of the House or Senate, as 
     applicable, may increase the allocation of new budget 
     authority and outlays to such committee by the amount of new 
     budget authority (and the outlays resulting therefrom) 
     provided by that measure for that purpose not to exceed 
     $775,000,000 in new budget authority and outlays for fiscal 
     year 2002, $4,300,000,000 in new budget authority and outlays 
     for the period of fiscal years 2002 through 2006, and 
     $9,900,000,000 in new budget authority and outlays for the 
     period of fiscal years 2002 through 2011, subject to the 
     condition that such legislation will not, when taken together 
     with all other previously enacted legislation, reduce the on-
     budget surplus below the level of the Medicare Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund surplus in any fiscal years covered by 
     this resolution.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
will create a reserve fund for the improvement of veterans' education 
benefits under the Montgomery GI bill. I am delighted to be joined by 
my friend and colleague, Senator Johnson, in this effort.
  This amendment will set aside funding for S. 131, the Veterans' 
Higher Education Opportunities Act, which Senator Johnson and I 
introduced earlier this year. Our legislation would provide a much-
needed increase in the basic monthly benefit under the GI bill, a 
benefit that over the past 15 years has failed to keep pace with the 
ever-increasing cost of higher education.
  Our legislation is very simple. It establishes a benchmark by which 
the basic Montgomery GI bill benefit will be calculated, allowing the 
benefit to increase as the cost of higher education increases. Endorsed 
by the Partnership for Veterans Education, a broad coalition including 
over 40 veterans service organizations and education associations, our 
legislation provides a new model for today's GI bill that is logical, 
fair, and worthy of a nation that values both higher education and our 
veterans.
  While the Montgomery GI bill has served our country well since its 
passage in 1985, the value of the educational benefit assistance it 
provides has greatly eroded over time due to inflation and the 
escalating cost of higher education. Military recruiters indicate that 
the program's benefits no longer serve as a strong incentive to join 
the military; nor do they serve as a retention tool valuable enough to 
persuade men and women to stay in the military and defer the full or 
part-time pursuit of their higher education until a later date. Perhaps 
most important, the program is losing its value as a means to help our 
men and women in uniform readjust to civilian life after military 
service.
  The basic benefit program of the Vietnam era GI bill provided $493 
per month in 1981 to a veteran with a spouse and two children. Before 
the reforms of last year, a veteran in identical circumstances received 
only $43 more, a mere 8 percent increase over a time period when 
inflation has nearly doubled, and dollar buys only half of what it once 
purchased.
  While we made progress last year in increasing stipend levels under 
the GI bill, the reforms fell short of allocating sufficient funds to 
cover the current cost of higher education. Moreover, the increase 
failed to establish a benchmark, the reform most needed to ensure that 
the GI bill provides sufficient funds for the education of our Nation's 
veterans long into the 21st century.
  Our new model establishes a sensible, easily understood benchmark for 
GI bill benefits. The benchmark sets GI bill benefits at ``the average 
monthly costs of tuition and expenses for commuter students at public 
institutions of higher education that award baccalaureate degrees.'' 
This commonsense provision would serve as the foundation upon which 
future education stipends for all veterans would be based and would set 
benefits at a level sufficient to provide veterans the education 
promised to them at recruitment.
  Today's GI bill is woefully under-funded and does not provide the 
financial support necessary for our veterans to meet their educational 
goals. This amendment would provide the budget authority necessary to 
ensure that GI bill benefits reflect the true cost of higher education. 
I am very pleased that our amendment has been agreed to by both sides 
of the aisle and that it will become part of this budget resolution.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senator 
Collins in offering an amendment to the budget resolution that provides 
a reserve fund for veterans' education. This reserve fund will allow 
for legislation to be passed later this year that would increase the 
monthly benefit under the Montgomery GI Bill to reflect the rising cost 
of education.
  The 1944 GI Bill of Rights is one of the most important pieces of 
legislation ever passed by Congress. No program has been more 
successful in increasing educational opportunities for our country's 
veterans while also providing a valuable incentive for the best and 
brightest to make a career out of military service.
  Unfortunately, the current Montgomery GI Bill can no longer deliver 
these results and fails in its promise to veterans, new recruits and 
the men and women of the armed services.
  Over 96 percent of recruits currently sign up for the Montgomery GI 
Bill and pay $1,200 out of their first year's pay to guarantee 
eligibility. But only one-half of these military personnel use any of 
the current Montgomery GI Bill benefits.
  There is consensus among national higher education and veterans 
associations that at a minimum, the GI Bill should pay the costs of 
attending the average four-year public institution as a commuter 
student. The current Montgomery GI Bill benefit pays a little more than 
half of that cost.
  In addition to our reserve fund budget amendment, Senator Collins and 
I have introduced legislation called the Veterans' Higher Education 
Opportunities Act, S. 131, which creates that benchmark by indexing the 
GI Bill to the costs of attending the average four-year public 
institution as a commuter student. This benchmark cost will be updated 
annually by the College Board in order for the GI Bill to keep pace 
with increasing costs of education.

[[Page 5850]]

  The Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act is truly a 
bipartisan effort to address recruitment and retention in the armed 
forces. The Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act has the 
overwhelming support of the Partnership for Veterans' Education a 
coalition of the nation's leading veterans groups and higher education 
organizations including the VFW, the American Council on Education, the 
Non Commissioned Officers Association, the National Association of 
State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, and The Retired Officers 
Association.
  As the parent of a son who serves in the Army, these military 
``quality of life'' issues are of particular concern to me. Making the 
GI Bill pay for viable educational opportunity makes as much sense 
today as it did following World War II.
  Congress took an important step last year toward improving the 
Montgomery GI Bill. These changes are long overdue, and the next step 
in restoring the effectiveness of the Montgomery GI Bill is through our 
veterans' education reserve fund amendment to the budget resolution and 
the Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act.
  I urge my colleagues to support our amendment and ask unanimous 
consent that letters of support for the amendment be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    American Council on Education,


                                Government and Public Affairs,

                                    Washington, DC, April 5, 2001.
     Re amendment to improve educational opportunities for 
         veterans.

       Dear Senator: On behalf of the American Council on 
     Education, representing 1,800 two- and four-year public and 
     private colleges and universities, I write to encourage you 
     to support Senators Collins and Johnson with their amendment 
     to the Senate budget resolution providing a reserve fund for 
     enhancements to the Montgomery G.I. Bill.
       While the G.I. Bill has allowed more than two million 
     veterans to pursue the dream of a college education, 
     inflation has severely diminished the value of this vital 
     benefit. Despite the generous intentions of the G.I. Bill, it 
     fails in its promise to help our veterans continue their 
     education, and must be modernized to ensure its viability as 
     education costs continue to increase.
       As a member organization of the Partnership for Veteran's 
     Education, we strongly support this amendment, which creates 
     a benchmark for Montgomery G.I. Bill monthly benefits equal 
     to the average cost of a commuter student attending a four-
     year public institution. The benchmark would be updated 
     annually by the College Board, thereby guaranteeing that G.I. 
     Bill benefits meet the rising costs of higher education. This 
     benchmark is currently reflected in the Veterans' Higher 
     Education Opportunities Act of 2001 (S. 131).
       We urge you to support the Collins-Johnson veteran's 
     education amendment, which will ensure that we fulfill our 
     promise to America's veterans.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Terry W. Hartle,
     Senior Vice President.
                                  ____



                             The Retired Officers Association,

                                    Alexandria, VA, April 4, 2001.
     Hon. Tim Johnson,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Johnson: the Retired Officers Association 
     (TROA) is writing to express support for the proposed 
     amendment to the Senate Budget Resolution that you are 
     cosponsoring with Senator Collins (R-ME) that would earmark 
     in a reserve fund additional funds for needed increases in 
     the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).
       The ``Collins-Johnson Reserve Fund for Veterans Education 
     Amendment'' to the FY2002 Budget Resolution would earmark 
     $775 million in a reserve fund to support a potential 
     increase in the MGIB under your bill, S. 131, the Veterans' 
     Higher Education Opportunities Act of 2001. As you know, S. 
     131 has broad bi-partisan support including Senate Majority 
     Leader Lott and Senator Minority Leader Daschle. Should the 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs or the Senate favorably report 
     legislation to increase the basic monthly benefit under the 
     MGIB to reflect the rising cost of education for America's 
     veterans, there would be new budget authority to cover the 
     increase.
       Indexing the MGIB to keep pace with the cost of higher 
     education is a legislative goal of TROA and The Military 
     Coalition. TROA supports the amendment you are co-sponsoring 
     with Senator Collins to establish a reserve fund for veterans 
     education and we will continue our efforts to urge passage of 
     S. 131.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Steve Strobridge,
         Colonel, USAF (Ret.), Director, Government Relations.
                                  ____

                                          Veterans of Foreign Wars


                                         of The United States,

                                    Washington, DC, April 4, 2001.
     Hon. Tim Johnson,
     U.S. Senate,
      Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Johnson: On behalf of the 1.9 million members 
     of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, we extend our deepest thanks 
     to you for your efforts in making veterans education a 
     priority in S. 131, legislation offered jointly by you and 
     Senator Susan Collins.
       The Montgomery GI Bill has lost ground over the last few 
     years. It is no longer able to meet the educational needs of 
     today's veterans. The funding level has not kept pace with 
     the rising costs of higher education. S. 131 abates the GI 
     Bill's loss of value by creating an index system so funding 
     can be increased as higher education costs rise.
       We also thank you for your announced intention to offer an 
     amendment to the Senate Budget Committee to create a reserve 
     fund for veterans education. This amendment would provide the 
     necessary funding to implement S. 131, resulting in a 
     significant increase in funding for the Montgomery GI Bill.
       The Montgomery GI Bill is in dire need of additional 
     resources, and we fully support your efforts, both in the 
     original bill, and in the amendment. We are committed to 
     working with you to make this legislation a success.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Dennis Cullinan,
         Director, National Legislative Service.
                                  ____



                                          The American Legion,

                                    Washington, DC, April 4, 2001.
     Hon. Tim Johnson,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Johnson: The American Legion thanks you for 
     offering the Collins/Johnson Reserve Fund for Veterans' 
     Education Amendment. We fully support this amendment to the 
     Senate Budget Resolution that would provide a reserve fund 
     for veterans' education.
       The American Legion has long supported legislation that 
     would base veterans' educational benefits on the average cost 
     of attending a four-year public institution as a commuter 
     student. The Collins/Johnson amendment will provide the 
     budgetary requirements needed to reach this goal.
       The educational enhancements contained in S. 131, the 
     Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act, will help to 
     transform the current Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) program into 
     a true veterans' benefit that parallels the quality of the 
     original ``GI Bill of Rights''. A strong veterans' 
     educational benefit program will not only strengthen national 
     defense by improving recruitment, it will also prepare 
     veterans for a smooth transition into the civilian workforce.
       Once again, The American Legion fully supports the Collins/
     Johnson Reserve Fund for Veterans' Education Amendment and 
     appreciates your continued leadership in addressing the 
     issues that are important to veterans and active duty 
     servicemembers.
           Sincerely,

                                           Steve A. Robertson,

                                                         Director,
                                  National Legislative Commission.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe the other side will concur. I 
ask unanimous consent that the amendment, as modified, be agreed to and 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 214), as modified, was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 182, As Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
No. 182 be modified, and I send the modification to the desk. It is a 
Santorum amendment to amendment No. 170.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     Santorum, proposes an amendment numbered 182 to Amendment No. 
     170.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase in funding $353,500,000 for fiscal year 2002 for 
      Department of Defense basic research conducted in American 
                             universities)

       On page 10, line 21, increase the amount by $353,500,000.
       On page 10, line 22, increase the amount by $353,500,000.
       On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $353,500,000.
       On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $353,500,000.

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to address the urgent need 
for increased levels of Department of Defense basic research funding in 
fiscal year 2002. I offer an amendment which will significantly 
increase funding for Department of Defense basic research carried out 
in American universities.
  This past September, then-Governor George W. Bush addressed an 
audience

[[Page 5851]]

at The Citadel in South Carolina and raised the notion of skipping a 
generation of weapons systems and of making leap ahead advances in 
American military capabilities. Governor Bush recognized that 21st 
century threats facing the United States are qualitatively different 
than the threats that occupied our military and our industrial base 
during the cold war and in the decade that followed the downfall of the 
Soviet Union.
  Since that speech, many others have articulated a need to transform 
our Nation's military to better respond to these threat trends. They 
note that our current military is ill equipped to meet threats such as 
incidents of terrorism, information warfare, biological warfare, and 
urban conflict. The only way to meet these challenges is to redouble 
our energies on meeting these challenges.
  While procuring updated or evolutionary weapons systems might seem 
like the most expeditious way to meet these new threats, I believe that 
we need to work our way back and look first at the basic sciences and 
basic research efforts that will support the development of new weapons 
systems. Without critical investments in Department of Defense basic 
research we cannot hope to make key understandings that will drive leap 
ahead advances or spur on revolutionary weapons systems.
  Oftentimes, the funding that supports basic research for the 
Department of Defense has been referred to as ``seed corn'' funding. It 
is funding that, when properly invested, will return advances in our 
understanding of what we know about a property, an entity, a 
phenomenon, or relationship. Not all of these investments are 
successful in outcome, and for this reason basic research can be 
classified as high-risk in nature. However, these basic research 
investments inevitably add to our knowledge base and improve our 
understanding of the world.
  Regrettably, we have been taking funds from these crucial accounts 
and using them to pay for the near-term modernization or procurement 
needs of today's military. While this has proven to be a useful short-
term fix, in the long-run, we have compromised those resources 
necessary to drive innovation and leap ahead advances, advances 
necessary to meet 21st century threats. Part of the problem lies in the 
nature of basic research. Unlike investments in applied research or 
advanced development research, the incubation period for basic research 
is perhaps as long as a decade. This requires the executive and 
legislative branches of government to maintain a long-term focus when 
making budgetary decisions.
  American universities offer the Department of Defense the 
laboratories and knowledge base necessary to successfully complete this 
transformation objective. The Department of Defense has historically 
played a major federal role in funding basic research and has been a 
significant sponsor of engineering research and technology development 
conducted in American universities. For over 50 years, Department of 
Defense investment in university research has been a dominant element 
of the nation's research and development infrastructure and an 
essential component of the United states capacity for technological 
innovation.
  According to recent figures, 54 percent of all Department of Defense-
sponsored basic research is performed in American universities. 
Furthermore, in aeronautical, electrical and mechanical engineering, 
the Department of Defense's share of governmentwide investment exceeds 
50 percent. In addition, with respect to the fields of mathematics and 
computer science, the Department of Defense accounts for nearly 50 
percent of all federal investment. Moreover, Department of Defense 
basic research programs make a significant contribution to the national 
economy by educating new generations of scientists and engineers and by 
helping to maintain a university research infrastructure that is the 
envy of the world.
  The unpredictability of long-term research in combination with 
shortened product cycles and an intense competition has led many 
private sector companies to retrench their research programs to focus 
on near-term product development. Only the Department of Defense and 
other Federal agencies can invest in university research at the levels 
required to meet future challenges to American security, prosperity and 
health.
  Throughout the decades of the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's and 1980's, the 
Department of Defense and other Federal agencies sustained their 
commitments to these investments in American universities. This 
investment can be measured by the number of systems relied upon by 
America today to project power and maintain our interests around the 
globe. For example, fundamental stimulated emission basic research at 
Columbia University in the 1950's led to military advances in lasers 
necessary for precision weapon guidance capabilities. Department of 
Defense basic research funds supported activities at the California 
Institute of Technology in the 1970's which studied metal semiconductor 
field effect transistor gallium-arsenide devices now used in ballistic 
missile ground-based radar. Department of Defense basic research 
funding supported scientific study at the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology and Stanford University on lightweight composite structural 
materials now utilized by the Marine Corps' AV-8B Harrier aircraft.
  As I mentioned earlier, the incubation period for basic research can 
be as long as a decade. Companies competing in today's market-driven, 
global economy, are now reducing their investments in long-term, high-
risk research. It is up to the federal government to make the critical 
investment in this high-risk, long-term research if we are to make 
revolutionary or leap ahead scientific breakthroughs.
  Without increased investment in Department of Defense basic research, 
the number of graduate student opportunities to pursue Department of 
Defense research cannot increase. A decline in the pool of scientists, 
engineers, mathematicians, and skilled technicians will prevent the 
Department of Defense from achieving success in the pursuit of leap 
ahead technologies. In addition, our cadre of skilled scientists and 
engineers--cultivated by Department of Defense basic research funds--
are the individuals who will drive innovation in the areas of our 
economy which depend on advances in science and technology.
  In the end, there has to be a recognition by U.S. policy leaders that 
these critical funds are crucial to the U.S. military being able to 
meet future threats. A recent Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force 
identified several key capabilities that would be necessary to allow 
our military forces to meet future warfighting challenges. The 
capabilities identified by the DSB Task Force were: Response to 
engineered biological threats; real-time surveillance and targeting, 
especially hidden and moving targets; and real-day projection of 
dominant U.S./Coalition military forces.
  For advances to occur in these capabilities, we will first need to 
make wise investments in key enabling technologies. Department of 
Defense basic research can provide the stimulus to make this possible. 
Examples of key enabling technologies include: biotechnology; 
information technology; microsystems; and energy and materials. The DSB 
Task Force report observed that commercial sector investment in these 
technologies are short-term in nature, as opposed to long-term. In 
addition, the DSB Task Force recommended a focus on the 
interdisciplinary combinations of these technologies, as it is in these 
intersections that the truly revolutionary advances in military 
capabilities take place.
  For fiscal year 2001, President Clinton requested $1.22 billion in 
funding for Department of Defense basic research. Congress, for fiscal 
year 2001, appropriated $1.35 billion for Department of Defense basic 
research. With this in mind, my amendment is quite reasonable and, I 
believe, quite modest. For fiscal year 2002, I propose investing an 
additional $353.5 million in Department of Defense basic research 
funding spent in American universities. This amendment begins the 
process of transforming our military to meet 21st century threats.

[[Page 5852]]

  Given the importance of these funds in making leap ahead advances in 
our military capabilities and because our quality of life as Americans 
is tied to basic research, I believe this is an initiative Congress 
should support with great enthusiasm.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment, as modified, be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 182), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Tim 
Hutchinson of Arkansas be added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 317.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, 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. DOMENICI. 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. 297

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have a series of amendments that have 
been cleared. I repeat, none of these adds any spending money; they are 
budget neutral.
  First is amendment No. 297, which I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 297.

  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To provide a reserve fund for refundable tax credits)

       At the end of title II, insert the following:

     SEC.   . RESERVE FUND FOR REFUNDABLE TAX CREDITS.

       In the Senate, if any bill reported by the Committee on 
     Finance, amendment thereto, or conference report thereon, has 
     refundable tax provisions that increase outlays, the Chairman 
     of the Committee on the Budget may increase the amount of new 
     budget authority (and outlays flowing therefrom) allocated to 
     the Committee on Finance by the amount provided by such 
     provisions and adjust the budget aggregates and 
     reconciliation directions set forth in this resolution, as 
     applicable, accordingly, but only to the extent that the 
     increase in outlays and reduction in revenues resulting from 
     such bill does not exceed the amounts specified in section 
     101.

  Mr. DOMENICI. This is Senator Bingaman's amendment on score-
keeping. We have nothing further to add.
  Mr. CONRAD. No objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 297) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 328, As Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have a modification on behalf of 
Senator Clinton. I ask unanimous consent that it be appropriate to 
modify amendment No. 328. I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mrs. 
     Clinton, proposes an amendment numbered 328, as modified.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 strengthen our national food safety infrastructure by 
     increasing the number of inspectors within the Food and Drug 
 Administration to enable the Food and Drug Administration to inspect 
high-risk sites at least annually, supporting research that enables us 
to meet emerging threats, improving surveillance to identify and trace 
    the sources and incidence of food-borne illness, and otherwise 
maintaining at least current funding levels for food safety initiatives 
at the Food and Drug Administration and the United States Department of 
                              Agriculture)

       On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $32,000,000.
       On page 48, line 8, increase the amount by $40,000,000.
       On page 48, line 9, increase the amount by $32,000,000.

  Mr. DOMENICI. This affects food safety. We have no objection to the 
amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. We support the amendment on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 328), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 219

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Reid, I call up 
amendment No. 219.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Reid, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 219.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 on the substitute 
   amendment to H. Con. Res. 83 with respect to increasing funds for 
               renewable energy research and development)

       On page 16, line 5 after ``authority,'' strike 
     ``$871,000,000'' insert ``$1,321,000,000 and, notwithstanding 
     any other provisions of the Resolution, it is the Sense of 
     the Senate that the levels in this Resolution assume:
       (1) That renewable energy resources can provide the nation 
     and the world with clean and sustainable sources of power;
       (2) That renewable energy technologies developed and 
     deployed in the U.S. and exported abroad will improve our 
     environment and balance of trade;
       (3) That increased reliance on renewable energy resources 
     to satisfy the nation's growing need for power can provide 
     jobs, reliable electricity supplies, and reduce conventional 
     pollution and greenhouse gas emissions;
       (4) That research and development of renewable energy 
     resources should be supported strongly by the Federal 
     government;
       (5) That a minimum of $450 million in FY02 shall be 
     allocated to accelerate the research, development and 
     deployment of wind, photovoltaic, geothermal, solar thermal, 
     biomass and other renewable energy technologies; and,
       (6) Further, that the amount assumed for renewable energy 
     research and development shall increase by greater than the 
     rate of inflation for each subsequent year.

  Mr. DOMENICI. This amendment has to do with energy research. We have 
nothing further to say on the amendment. It is acceptable on our side.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we strongly support the amendment on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 219) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 325

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Daschle, I ask that 
amendment No. 325 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     Daschle, for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Bingaman, 
     Mr. Baucus, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Inouye, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 325.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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:

[[Page 5853]]



   (Purpose: To increase discretionary funding for the Indian Health 
   Service by decreasing the size of the tax cut for the wealthiest 
                               Americans)

       On page 2, line 17, increase the amount by $4,200,000,000.
       On page 2, line 18, increase the amount by $4,580,000,000.
       On page 3, line 1, increase the amount by $5,290,000,000.
       On page 3, line 2, increase the amount by $5,790,000,000.
       On page 3, line 3, increase the amount by $6,320,000,000.
       On page 3, line 4, increase the amount by $6,890,000,000.
       On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by $7,490,000,000.
       On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by $8,160,000,000.
       On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by $8,890,000,000.
       On page 3, line 8, increase the amount by $9,650,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, decrease the amount by $4,200,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $4,580,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $5,290,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, decrease the amount by $5,790,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, decrease the amount by $6,320,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, decrease the amount by $6,890,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, decrease the amount by $7,490,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, decrease the amount by $8,160,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, decrease the amount by $8,890,000,000.
       On page 3, line 22, decrease the amount by $9,650,000,000.
       On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $4,580,000,000.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $5,290,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $5,790,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $6,320,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $6,890,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $7,490,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $8,160,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $8,890,000,000.
       On page 4, line 11, increase the amount by $9,650,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $4,580,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $5,290,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $5,790,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $6,320,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $6,890,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $7,490,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $8,160,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $8,890,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $9,650,000,000.
       On page 28, line 23, increase the amount by $4,200,000,000.
       On page 28, line 24, increase the amount by $4,200,000,000.
       On page 29, line 2, increase the amount by $4,580,000,000.
       On page 29, line 3, increase the amount by $4,580,000,000.
       On page 29, line 6, increase the amount by $5,290,000,000.
       On page 29, line 7, increase the amount by $5,290,000,000.
       On page 29, line 10, increase the amount by $5,790,000,000.
       On page 29, line 11, increase the amount by $5,790,000,000.
       On page 29, line 14, increase the amount by $6,320,000,000.
       On page 29, line 15, increase the amount by $6,320,000,000.
       On page 29, line 18, increase the amount by $6,890,000,000.
       On page 29, line 19, increase the amount by $6,890,000,000.
       On page 29, line 22, increase the amount by $7,490,000,000.
       On page 29, line 23, increase the amount by $7,490,000,000.
       On page 30, line 2, increase the amount by $8,160,000,000.
       On page 30, line 3, increase the amount by $8,160,000,000.
       On page 30, line 6, increase the amount by $8,890,000,000.
       On page 30, line 7, increase the amount by $8,890,000,000.
       On page 30, line 10, increase the amount by $9,650,000,000.
       On page 30, line 11, increase the amount by $9,650,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $4,200,000,000.
       On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $4,200,000,000.
       On page 48, line 8, increase the amount by $4,200,000,000.
       On page 48, line 9, increase the amount by $4,200,000,000.


         INDIAN HEALTH CARE AMENDMENT TO THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this amendment addresses a huge, but 
simple problem. American Indians and Alaska Natives were guaranteed 
health insurance. They are not getting it.
  The Indian Health Service is supposed to provide full health coverage 
and care to every Indian in the country. In fiscal year 2002, the cost 
of that care is conservatively estimated at $6 billion. The IHS budget 
for those Personal Clinical Services is $1.8 billion. My amendment 
would give the Indian Health Service the $4.2 billion it needs to 
provide the basic, essential health coverage it is required to provide.
  What is happening now without that critical funding? Health care is 
being rationed, often with tragic results. Indians are being told they 
face a literal ``life or limb'' test. They cannot see a doctor unless 
their life is threatened or they are about to lose a limb. They are 
told they have to wait until they get worse; then, if there is any 
money left, they might get treatment. Non-emergency care is routinely 
denied.
  It's hard to believe this is happening in America in 2001, but it is.
  And the pain is felt not just in Indian Country, but also in the 
surrounding areas where non-IHS facilities try to fill in some of the 
treatment gaps. Because IHS has no money to reimburse them, they are 
facing their own budget crises.
  The problem is real; the solution is simple. Give the Indian Health 
Service the funds it needs to provide 2.45 million Native Americans the 
health benefits they have been promised.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added 
as an original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I, too, want to be listed as an original 
cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. This is an amendment that deals with Indian health and is 
strongly supported on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 325) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 246

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 246 be called 
up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Smith 
     of Oregon, proposes an amendment numbered 246.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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:
       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 17, line 23, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 17, line 24, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 18, line 2, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 18, line 3, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $100,000,000.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an 
amendment to the Senate Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2002. This 
amendment would increase the construction funds available to the Bureau 
of Reclamation by $100 million annually in fiscal years 2002 and 2003.
  Mr. President, there is a crying need for water infrastructure in the 
Western United States. Many existing Reclamation projects are over 40 
years old and need improvements and rehabilitation. A new environmental 
ethic has caused projects to provide more water for the environment, or 
to be reconfigured to be more environmentally friendly. These types of 
construction projects

[[Page 5854]]

include screening diversions, lining canals, and temperature control 
devices.
  The 106th Congress authorized several new projects to be funded by 
the Bureau of Reclamation, including the Lewis and Clark Water Supply 
Project in South Dakota, and a reconfigured Dakota Water Supply Project 
for North Dakota. The views and estimates of the Senate Energy 
Committee also anticipated Committee action on a major Indian water 
settlement in Arizona, and the enactment of a CAL-FED authorizations 
bill.
  In the face of these existing and anticipated demands on the 
Reclamation budget, construction funds available to the agency declined 
thirty-six percent over the last ten years. This bipartisan amendment 
would provide $100 million in additional construction funds for the 
Bureau of Reclamation in both 2002 and 2003. In 2002, the funds come 
from the function 920 account. In 2003, they come from the budget 
surplus.
  As the National Urban Agricultural Council aptly stated: ``It is time 
to turn the corner on the funding for the Bureau and put it on a course 
so that the West is not left withering in the desert.'' I urge my 
colleagues' support of this amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we do not have a copy of this amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let's make it sound better and say we thought we had 
given it to the Senator but perhaps we did not.
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator may well have. As the Senator from New Mexico 
knows, we are dealing with a large number of amendments. We just do not 
have it in the stack of amendments.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. We support this amendment on this side as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 246) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. This is a zero effect amendment. It affects the Bureau 
of Reclamation without affecting the budget in any way. It is a neutral 
amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. We agree, Mr. President, that it is budget neutral.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. 283, As Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have reached agreement on a budget-
neutral amendment, a modification to amendment No. 283. I ask unanimous 
consent that I be permitted to send a modification to amendment No. 283 
to the desk. The principal sponsors are Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. 
Harkin, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Crapo, and Mrs. Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Smith 
     of Oregon, for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
     Crapo, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment numbered 283, as 
     modified.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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, as modified, is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide an increase in funds of $1.3 billion in fiscal 
   year 2002 for the promotion of voluntary agriculture and forestry 
  conservation programs that enhance and protect natural resources on 
        private lands and without taking from the HI Trust Fund)

       On page 17, line 23, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 17, line 24, increase the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $1,300,000,000.
       On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $1,300,000,000.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished 
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee for helping 
to reach this agreement to adopt this amendment today. While this 
modified version does not contain the $2.7 billion in fiscal year 2003 
that the original did, it does call for the $1.3 billion increase in 
fiscal year 2002 for agriculture conservation under function 300 of the 
budget. This amount, combined with $350 million authorized under an 
amendment adopted yesterday, totals more than $1.6 billion for 
conservation activities in fiscal year 2002.
  As our farmers and ranchers are faced with new environmental 
regulations and development pressures, agriculture conservation 
programs become even more important. Right now, demand for conservation 
assistance far outstrips available funding for such programs as the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program. In addition, there is a need 
for more NRCS technical assistance support and a new incentives-based 
conservation initiative such as the Conservation Security Act.
  I want to thank Senators Harkin, Leahy, Snowe, Crapo, Boxer, Wyden, 
Dayton, Bingaman, Levin, Durbin, Johnson, and Landrieu who joined me in 
introducing this bipartisan amendment. I have enjoyed working with them 
and believe that we have a growing core of interest in agriculture 
conservation funding here in the Senate. I look forward to working 
closely with my friends on both sides of the aisle to pursue this 
funding in the upcoming conference on the budget as well as in future 
agriculture appropriations acts.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection to the amendment, as modified, on 
this side.
  Mr. CONRAD. We support the amendment, as modified, on this side as 
well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 283), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I repeat, this amendment does not increase spending. It 
is a neutral amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 197

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have three amendments we want to voice 
vote. The first one is amendment No. 197 by Senator Dorgan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Dorgan, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 197.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 increase budget authority and outlays in Function 450 
 (Community and Regional Development) by $2,300,000,000 to establish a 
venture capital fund to make equity investments in businesses with high 
job-creating potential located or locating in rural counties that have 
experienced economic hardship caused by net outmigration of 10 percent 
 or more between 1980 and 1998 and are situated in States in which 25 
percent or more of the rural counties have experienced net outmigration 
  of 10 percent or more over the same period, based on Bureau of the 
Census statistics; to make available $200,000,000 to that fund for each 
of fiscal years 2002 through 2011; to require a substantial investment 
  from State government and private sources and to guarantee up to 60 
percent of each authorized private investment; and to express the sense 
   of the Senate that this funding should be offset by a transfer of 
 $2,300,000,000 from the surplus amounts held by Federal Reserve banks)

       On page 2, line 17, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 2, line 18, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 3, line 2, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 3, line 3, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 3, line 4, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by $230,000,000.

[[Page 5855]]

       On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 3, line 8, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, decrease the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, decrease the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, decrease the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, decrease the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, decrease the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, decrease the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, decrease the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 3, line 22, decrease the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 25, line 6, increase the amount by $2,300,000,000.
       On page 25, line 7, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 25, line 11, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 25, line 15, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 25, line 19, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 25, line 23, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 26, line 3, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 26, line 7, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 26, line 11, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 26, line 15, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 26, line 19, increase the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $2,300,000,000.
       On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $230,000,000.
       On page 48, line 8, increase the amount by $2,300,000,000.
       On page 48, line 9, increase the amount by $230,000,000.

       At the end, add the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE USE OF FEDERAL RESERVE 
                   SURPLUSES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this 
     resolution assume that the $2,300,000,000 increase in 
     revenues over the 2002 through 2011 fiscal year period should 
     be achieved through the transfer of funds from the surplus 
     funds of the Federal Reserve banks to the Treasury.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we oppose this amendment, but we are 
willing to do this on a voice vote. I have nothing further to say. This 
adds money to function 470 of the budget. We are against it, but we 
will have a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
197.
  The amendment (No. 197) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 198

  Mr. DOMENICI. I call up amendment No. 198 on behalf of Senator 
Dorgan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Dorgan, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 198.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 eliminate the Bureau of Indian Affairs school construction 
    backlog and to increase funding for Indian health services, by 
  transferring funds from the surplus amounts held by Federal Reserve 
                                 banks)

       On page 2, line 17, increase the amount by $713,440,000.
       On page 2, line 18, increase the amount by $713,440,000.
       On page 3, line 1, increase the amount by $713,440,000.
       On page 3, line 2, increase the amount by $713,440,000.
       On page 3, line 13, decrease the amount by $713,440,000.
       On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $713,440,000.
       On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $713,440,000.
       On page 3, line 16, decrease the amount by $713,440,000.
       On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $732,000,000.
       On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $732,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $732,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $713,440,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $713,440,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $713,440,000.
       On page 25, line 6, increase the amount by $232,000,000.
       On page 25, line 7, increase the amount by $213,440,000.
       On page 25, line 10, increase the amount by $232,000,000.
       On page 25, line 11, increase the amount by $213,440,000.
       On page 25, line 14, increase the amount by $232,000,000.
       On page 25, line 15, increase the amount by $213,440,000.
       On page 25, line 18, increase the amount by $232,000,000.
       On page 25, line 19, increase the amount by $213,440,000.
       On page 28, line 23, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 28, line 24, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 29, line 2, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 29, line 3, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 29, line 6, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 29, line 7, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 29, line 10, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 29, line 11, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, increase the amount by $732,000,000.
       On page 43, line 16, increase the amount by $713,440,000.
       On page 48, line 8, increase the amount by $732,000,000.
       On page 48, line 9, increase the amount by $713,440,000.
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. USE OF FEDERAL RESERVE SURPLUSES.

       It is the sense of the Senate that levels in this 
     resolution assume that the $2,853,670,000 increase in revenue 
     over the 2002 through 2005 fiscal year period should be 
     achieved through the transfer of funds from the surplus funds 
     of the Federal reserve banks to the Treasury.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we oppose this amendment but are willing 
to do it on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
198.
  The amendment (No. 198) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 261

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have a third amendment. We hope the 
same treatment befalls this amendment. This is Conrad amendment No. 
261.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 261.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
261.
  The amendment (No. 261) was rejected.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 183

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are prepared to proceed with some 
additional amendments. We call up

[[Page 5856]]

amendment No. 183, the Kerry-Bond amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Kerry, 
     Mr. Bond, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
     Daschle, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Johnson, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 183.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 revise the budget for fiscal year 2002 so that the small 
 business programs at the Small Business Administration are adequately 
funded and can continue to provide loans and business assistance to the 
 country's 24 million small businesses, and to restore and reasonably 
      increase funding to specific programs at the Small Business 
 Administration because the current budget request reduces funding for 
  the Agency by a minimum of 26 percent at a time when the economy is 
volatile and the Federal Reserve Board reports that 45 percent of banks 
have reduced lending to small businesses by making it harder to obtain 
                  loans and more expensive to borrow)

       On page 21, line 15, increase the amount by $264,000,000.
       On page 21, line 16, increase the amount by $154,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $264,000,000.
       On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $154,000,000.
       On page 48, line 8, increase the amount by $264,000,000.
       On page 48, line 9, increase the amount by $154,000,000.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we accept that amendment and we are 
willing to do that at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. If the distinguished managers would not object, I know 
Senator Kerry would like to add a brief statement.
  A recent visitor to my Small Business Committee office spoke 
excitedly that his small business won a Government contract. But when 
he sought financing at a local bank, the bank would not lend to him 
unless he was willing to pay a 28-percent interest rate. It is odd to 
see the Government willing to do business with him but banks consider 
the small business too risky. The SBA fills that role, and this 
amendment will ensure that the SBA can continue to do that.
  I urge adoption of this bipartisan amendment on SBA. The funds are 
critical for SBA programs such as HUBZones, 7(a) loan programs, and the 
BDC program.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment that ensures the 
small business programs at the Small Business Administration are 
adequately funded for FY 2002 and can continue to provide loans and 
business assistance to the country's 24 million small businesses. It is 
necessary to restore and reasonably increase funding to specific 
programs, such as the 7(a) loan program and the Women's Business 
Centers, at the SBA because the current budget request would reduce 
funding for the agency by a minimum of 26 percent. These cuts come at a 
time when the economy is volatile and the Federal Reserve Board reports 
that 45 percent of banks surveyed have reduced lending to small 
businesses by making it harder to obtain loans and more expensive to 
borrow. This amendment also shores up resources for the agency's 
management training and counseling programs, which are sometimes more 
important to the success of small businesses than loans.
  This amendment is not controversial, and it is bipartisan. I want to 
thank my colleagues--Senators Bond, Bingaman, Wellstone, Landrieu, 
Daschle, Leahy, Johnson, Schumer, Collins, Levin, and Snowe--for 
cosponsoring what I consider sensible and realistic changes to the 
budget.
  In order to foster small businesses creation and growth in this 
country, we need to restore $264 million to the SBA's budget for 
FY2002. That amount would leverage $13.2 billion in loans and venture 
capital and counsel more than one million entrepreneurs. That may seem 
tiny compared to some amendments we've been considering, but let me 
assure you the impact is great on the economy. Small businesses provide 
50 percent of private-sector jobs. For less than $2 per taxpayer, we 
can provide access to credit and capital for our nation's job creators.
  Mr. President, every single State in this Nation benefits from the 
small business support the SBA provides. I ask my colleagues to vote 
for this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters of support and a summary of the 
amendment be printed in the Record.
         The National Association of Government Guaranteed 
           Lenders, Inc.,
                                    Stillwater, OK, April 5, 2001.
     Hon. John F. Kerry,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: I am writing on behalf of NAGGL's 
     nearly 700 members in support of your amendment, number 183, 
     to the Budget Resolution that would revise the proposed 
     budget for the Small Business Administration in fiscal year 
     2002. Specifically, your amendment would restore $264 million 
     to the SBA's budget in fiscal year 2002 of which $118 million 
     is earmarked for the agency's 7(a) guaranteed loan program. 
     We strongly believe it is in the best interest of small 
     business that your amendment be adopted.
       The present budget proposes no fiscal year 2002 
     appropriations for the 7(a) loan program and instead proposes 
     to make the program self-funding through the imposition of 
     increased fees. The previous SBA Administrator testified 
     before the House Small Business Committee last year that the 
     7(a) program was already being run at a ``profit'' to the 
     government. This statement was confirmed in a September 2000 
     Congressional Budget Office report entitled ``Credit Subsidy 
     Reestimates, 1993-1999.'' Unfortunately, the budget as 
     currently proposed would, in our view, have the effect of 
     imposing additional taxes by increasing program fees. This 
     result would be ironic given the Administration's push for 
     tax cuts.
       A recent survey of NAGGL's membership, who currently make 
     approximately 80 percent of SBA 7(a) guaranteed loans, shows 
     that if the budget were adopted as proposed, most lenders 
     would significantly curtail their 7(a) lending activities. 
     Therefore, small businesses would find it more difficult and 
     expensive to obtain crucial long-term financing. The proposed 
     budget would increase the lender's cost of making a loan by 
     75 percent and would increase the direct cost to the borrower 
     by 12 percent. Any fee increase is unacceptable when the 
     program is already profitable for the government.
       The small business consequences of a slowdown in 7(a) 
     guaranteed lending are manifold. Currently, according to 
     statistics available from the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation and the SBA, approximately 30 percent of all 
     long-term loans, those with a maturity of 3 years or more, 
     carry an SBA 7(a) guarantee. This is because lenders 
     generally are unwilling to make long-term loans with a short-
     term deposit base. Therefore, reducing the availability of 
     7(a) capital to small businesses will have a significant 
     effect on them and on the economy.
       The average maturity for an SBA 7(a) guaranteed loan is 14 
     years. The average conventional small business loan carries 
     an average maturity of one year or less. For those 
     conventional loans with original maturities over one year, 
     the average maturity is just three years. The majority of SBA 
     7(a) borrowers are new business startups or early stage 
     companies. The longer maturities provided by the SBA 7(a) 
     loan program give small businesses valuable payment relief, 
     as the longer maturity loans carry substantially lower 
     monthly payments.
       For example, if a small business borrower had to take a 5 
     year conventional loan instead of a 10 year SBA 7(a) loan, 
     the result would be a 35%-40% increase in monthly payments. 
     The lower debt payments are critical to startup and early 
     stage companies. Small business loans, where they can be 
     found, would have vastly increased monthly payments. This at 
     a time when the economy appears to be struggling and when 
     bank regulators have spurred banks to tighten credit 
     criteria, the current budget only proposes to worsen the 
     situation for small business borrowers.
       Your amendment would help mitigate this problem. It would 
     provide small businesses far better access to long-term 
     financing on reasonable terms and conditions at a time when 
     their access to such capital is critical. We urge your 
     colleagues to support your initiative and adopt your 
     amendment.
           Respectfully,
     Anthony R. Wilkinson.
                                  ____

  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page 5857]]


                                                     U.S. Hispanic


                                          Chamber of Commerce,

                                    Washington, DC, April 5, 2001.
     Hon. John F. Kerry,
     Ranking Member, Senate Small Business Committee, Russell 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: We write in support of the Kerry/Bond 
     Amendment to restore $264 million of the proposed cuts to the 
     Small Business Administration's (SBA) budget. We further 
     support the amendment's proposal to have these funds come out 
     of the contingency fund and not the tax cut or the Medicare/
     Social Security trust fund. Your amendment would ensure that 
     the small business programs at the SBA are adequately funded 
     and continue to provide loan and business assistance to 
     Hispanic-owned small businesses in this country.
       The United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (USHCC) 
     represents the interest of approximately 1.5 million 
     Hispanic-owned businesses in the United States and Puerto 
     Rico. With a network of over 200 local Hispanic chambers of 
     commerce across the country, the USHCC stands as the 
     preeminent business organization that promotes the economic 
     growth and development of Hispanic entrepreneurs.
       The SBA programs that are currently in jeopardy of losing 
     funds have been extremely instrumental in helping our 
     Hispanic entrepreneurs start and maintain successful 
     businesses in the United States. Without these programs, the 
     Hispanic business community will suffer huge setbacks to the 
     strides we have been able to achieve over the years. It is 
     therefore necessary to restore and increase funding to these 
     programs so that the Hispanic business community will 
     continue to experience economic growth and success in this 
     country.
       We support your efforts and urge other members of the 
     Senate to support the Kerry/Bond amendment in restoring these 
     necessary funds to the SBA.
           Respectfully submitted,

                                               Maritza Rivera,

                                                Vice President for
     Government Relations.
                                  ____

                                             Independent Community


                                           Bankers of America,

                                    Washington, DC, April 5, 2001.

     To: Members of the U.S. Senate.

     From: Independent Community Bankers of America.

     Re ICBA support the Kerry-Bond amendment to preserve small 
         business loan programs and to prevent new fees.

       On behalf of the 5,300 members of the ICBA, we support the 
     Kerry-Bond amendment to the FY 2002 Budget and urge all 
     Senators to join in support of this important bipartisan 
     amendment. The amendment to be offered by Sens. John Kerry 
     (D-Mass) and Christopher Bond (R-Missouri) would prevent new 
     hidden taxes in the form of additional fees imposed on small 
     business lenders and borrowers. The proposed FY 2002 Budget 
     pending in the Senate would levy significant new fees on the 
     SBA 7(a) loan program. These increased fees would jeopardize 
     needed lending and credit to small business at the worst 
     possible time as our economy has slowed dramatically and 
     small business lending has become more difficult. Therefore, 
     the Kerry-Bond amendment would restore the appropriation for 
     the 7(a) small business loan program and prevent onerous new 
     fees from being levied on borrowers and lenders.
       This amendment shares bipartisan support. The Chairmen and 
     Ranking Members of the Senate Small Business Committees 
     oppose new taxes on small businesses in the form of higher 
     loan fees. Specifically, Small Business Committee Chairman 
     Chris Bond and Ranking Member John Kerry have asked for the 
     $118 million appropriation to support the 7(a) loan program 
     to be restored in the FY 2002 Budget. The ICBA applauds the 
     bipartisan efforts of Sens. Kerry and Bond in offering their 
     amendment.
       We urge every Senators' support for the Kerry-Bond 
     amendment so that small businesses have continued access to 
     needed credit and that the 7(a) loan program is not 
     devastated by taxing new fees.
                                  ____

                                     Association of Small Business


                                          Development Centers,

                                                        Burke, VA.
     Hon. John F. Kerry,
     Ranking Minority Member, Senate Small Business Committee, 
         Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: We wish to commend you for proposing an 
     amendment to the Budget Resolution calling for the 
     restoration of funding for the Small Business Development 
     Center (SBDC) and 7(a) Guaranteed Loan Programs. During this 
     period of economic downturn, it is even more important that 
     funding for these two critically important programs not be 
     compromised as hundreds of thousands of small businesses will 
     need management and technical assistance and long term debt 
     financing more than ever.
       As for the SBDC Program specifically, we are proud to 
     report that the most recent impact survey of the program 
     found that in one year SBDC's helped small businesses create 
     92,000 new jobs, generate $630 million in new tax revenues, 
     increased by 67,000 the number of entrepreneurs counseled 
     above previous levels, and provided training to more than 
     84,000 small business owners than were trained during the 
     last reporting period. In all, over 750,000 small business 
     and preventure clients received SBDC assistance in the last 
     fiscal year. And that was during good economic times.
       Your seeking funding of $105,000,000 for the SBDC Program 
     is bipartisan as Senator Kit Bond, Chairman of the Senate 
     Small Business Committee in his Views and Estimates letter to 
     the Senate Budget Committee called for the same funding 
     level. Likewise Senator Bond opposed any funding cut for the 
     7(a) Guaranteed Loan Program. Both recommendations we 
     applaud.
       We also understand that your amendment would restore 
     funding for the New Markets and PRIME programs. This 
     association has taken no formal position regarding funding 
     for these well intended programs.
       Thank you for soliciting our views. We appreciate your 
     leadership regarding these two outstanding SBA programs.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Donald T. Wilson,
     Director of Government Relations.
                                  ____



                                                   Wesst Corp,

                                   Albuquerque, NM, April 5, 2001.
     Hon. John F. Kerry,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: On behalf of the Association of Women's 
     Business Centers, I am writing to voice our full support for 
     the amendment you have introduced (#183) which would provide 
     adequate funding for the Small Business Administration's 
     programs targeted to lending and business assistance.
       As you know, the SBA programs serve the credit and business 
     development needs of women, minorities, and low-income 
     entrepreneurs all across the United States and Puerto Rico. 
     It is absolutely critical that these programs, particularly 
     the Women's Business Centers Program, the Microloan Program, 
     PRIME, and the National Women's Business Council, receive the 
     funding you have recommended in your amendment so that 
     existing and emerging entrepreneurs throughout the country 
     continue to have opportunities to realize the American dream 
     of business ownership.
       As an advocate for tens of thousands of women business 
     owners across the country, the AWBC applauds your vision and 
     leadership in helping to ensure that these critical SBA 
     programs continue to serve the entrepreneurial and credit 
     needs of the American people.
       We look forward to working with you in the months ahead to 
     ensure the passage of this amendment.
       Thank you very much for your ongoing support.
           Sincerely,

                                                 Agnes Noonan,

                                     Chair, AWBC Policy Committee,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                The Association of


                                      Women's Business Center,

                                        Boston, MA, April 5, 2001.
     Hon. John F. Kerry,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: As the President of the Association of 
     Women's Business Centers (AWBC), I am writing on behalf of 
     the 80+ Women's Business Centers who have been funded by the 
     Small Business Administration's Office of Women's Business 
     Ownership. We write to support your amendment #183 to 
     increase funding for the SBA programs and, in particular, to 
     fund the Women's Business Center Program at $13.7 million.
       The President's budget only provides level funding of $12 
     million for the WBC program, which is inadequate at this time 
     as women are continuing to start two-thirds of all new 
     businesses. Clearly, we need an increase in funding at this 
     time to continue to ensure that we are keeping pace with this 
     fast growth and providing services to as many women business 
     owners as possible.
       Thank you very much for your continued support and advocacy 
     on our behalf.
           Sincerely,

                                            Andrea C. Silbert,

                                              President, AWBC, and
     CEO, Center for Women & Enterprise.
                                  ____



                                                  Houston, TX,

                                                    April 5, 2001.
     Senator John Kerry,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kerry: Since I work with small business owners 
     every day to help them obtain the financing they require to 
     start a new business, acquire a business or expand an 
     existing business, I wanted you to know that I strongly 
     support you and your efforts regarding Amendment 183.
       Thank you for your continued good work.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Charmian Rosales.

[[Page 5858]]

     
                                  ____
                      Summary of Amendment No. 183

 (Purpose: To amend the budget for fiscal year 2002 so that the small 
 business programs at the Small Business Administration are adequately 
funded and can continue to provide loans and business assistance to the 
 country's 24 million small businesses. It is necessary to restore and 
reasonably increase funding to specific programs at the SBA because the 
 current budget request reduces funding for the Agency by a minimum of 
   26 percent at a time when the economy is volatile and the Federal 
Reserve Board reports that 45 percent of banks have reduced lending to 
small businesses by making it harder to obtain loans and more expensive 
                               to borrow)

       All funds are added to Function 376, which funds the SBA 
     for FY 2002.


                            credit programs

       $118 million for 7(a) loans, funding an $11 billion 
     program.
       $26.2 million for SBIC participating securities, will 
     support a $2 billion program.
       $750,000 for direct microloans, funding a $30 million 
     program.
       $21 million for new markets venture capital debentures, 
     funding $150 million program.
       Total request for credit programs=$166 million.


                          non-credit programs

       $4 million for the National Veterans Business Development 
     Corporation.
       $10 million for Microloan Technical Assistance, total of 
     $30 million.
       $30 million for the Small Business Development Centers, 
     total of $105 million.
       $30 million for New Markets Venture Capital Technical 
     Assistance.
       $15 million for the Program for Investment in 
     Microenterprise.
       $7 million for BusinessLINC.
       $1.7 million for Women's Business Centers, bringing total 
     to $13.7 million.
       $250,000 for Women's Business Council, bringing total to $1 
     million.
       Total request for non-credit program=$98 million.
       Total request for credit and non-credit programs=$264 
     million.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in conclusion, we have noticed in the last 
months small businesses have been severely constrained because banks 
are tightening up credit. This amendment is going to leverage some $13 
billion worth of investment in the country. There isn't a State in the 
Nation where small business doesn't make an enormous difference. Small 
business represents 50 percent of the jobs in the private sector. By 
restoring these funds, we are going to help to turn around the slowness 
that people perceive in the economy today and I think give a lot of 
relief to an awful lot of businesses in the Nation.
  I thank the managers for accepting this amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. This also is budget neutral. We have no objection to 
the amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it is supported on this side as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 183) was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 231, as Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. We call up Senator Murray's amendment No. 231, and I 
ask unanimous consent to send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mrs. 
     Murray, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Edwards, Mrs. Lincoln, 
     Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 231, as modified.

 (Purpose: To increase budget authority and outlays in Function 450 to 
provide adequate funding for Project Impact and FEMA Hazard Mitigation 
                                grants)

       On page 25, line 6, increase the amount by $108,000,000.
       On page 25, line 7, increase the amount by $108,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $108,000,000.
       On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $48,000,000.

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, to reinstate 
FEMA's pre-disaster mitigation program, Project Impact. Established in 
1997, Project Impact assists communities in identifying risks and 
vulnerabilities, developing programs to lessen risks, and involving the 
public and private sectors in the process. With over 250 community 
Project Impact partners nationwide and more than 2,500 business 
partners, Project Impact is the only Federal program that provides 
funds for pre-disaster mitigation.
  In Hawaii, all four of the state's counties are Project Impact 
partners. For example, Maui County is using Project Impact to review 
community mitigation plans in regions that are more isolated than 
others to reduce disruptions during and after disasters. The County of 
Kauai is using funds to assist with retrofitting and hardening public 
structures to protect them from damaging hurricanes, and the state's 
most populous area, the City and County of Honolulu, is working on an 
aggressive public education and awareness program, developing a 
mitigation strategy to include a risk-vulnerability assessment, 
hardening and retrofitting essential facilities, and flood control 
measures.
  My distinguished colleague from Washington described how Seattle has 
benefited from its partnership with Project Impact. I was interested 
that 6 months before the city's massive earthquake, Mayor Paul Schell 
said, ``Seattle Project Impact helps us realize we are not powerless 
against the threat of earthquakes. This public-private partnership is a 
stellar example of how local communities can work together to become 
disaster resistant.'' Ironically, the President's budget, which was 
released on the same day as the Seattle earthquake, proposed to 
terminate Project Impact from FEMA's fiscal year 2002 budget because 
the program ``has not proven effective.''
  I would like to take a moment to discuss the effectiveness of this 
program. My first action was to ask OMB Director Mitchell Daniels and 
FEMA Director Joseph Allbaugh how they reached their decision to 
eliminate this successful program. During Director Allbaugh's 
confirmation hearing, he said that, with respect to the importance of 
disaster mitigation, ``taking my lead from Congress' enactment of the 
2000 Stafford Act amendments, I plan to focus on implementing pre-
disaster mitigation programs that encourage the building of disaster 
resistant communities. FEMA has made solid progress in this area, but 
more can be done to limit the human and financial toll of disasters.'' 
We must assume that the ``solid progress'' in pre-disaster mitigation 
refers to Project Impact since it is the only pre-disaster mitigation 
program funded by FEMA. Eliminating its funding will not meet the goal 
of doing more to ``focus on implementing pre-disaster mitigation 
programs'' and ``limit the human and financial toll of disasters.''
  Director Daniels recently replied to my earlier letter. He expressed 
strong support for Project Impact but surprisingly indicated that 
funding would be eliminated. Instead he suggested that a new National 
Emergency Reserve fund would be used for disaster mitigation although 
the President's proposed budget blueprint makes clear that the 
reserve's funds are ``limited to expenditures that are sudden, urgent, 
unforeseen, and not permanent.'' His letter, which I ask unanimous 
consent be entered into the Record along with the description of the 
President's National Emergency Reserve fund, deepens my concern that 
this program's functions will not be funded. Consequently, there will 
be no funding for disaster mitigation programs in the President's 
budget.
  I also was interested to learn that there has been no formal review 
by the General Accounting Office of the effectiveness of this program, 
either by itself or with respect to the other mitigation programs in 
FEMA. A March 2000 FEMA Inspector General report outlined some of the 
management difficulties Project Impact faced as a new and rapidly 
expanding program. The IG found several areas lacking or in need of 
reform, and the agency addressed each issue. Moreover, the report 
stated that many of the benefits derived from Project Impact could not 
be quantified, which is a never-ending burden of mitigation and 
prevention programs: a positive outcome results in a smaller effect, or 
none at all.
  Supporters of the President's proposed budget cut may say that all we 
have heard is anecdotal evidence in

[[Page 5859]]

support of Project Impact. However, I say that we have not heard any 
evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, against the program. We must consider 
qualitative results and benefits, such as public awareness, education 
and greater community-industry cooperation, when determining its 
effectiveness. These are very important to a community that hopes to 
sustain disaster preparedness measures long after the initial seed 
money is spent.
  I urge my colleagues to support our amendment to reinstate the $25 
million for Project Impact. With so many of our communities, especially 
smaller cities and towns, participating in this important program, I 
believe we must first determine its effectiveness before voting for its 
elimination. I am asking GAO to provide Congress with a detailed 
assessment of the program so that we may determined its effectiveness.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this 
amendment offered by Senators Murray and Akaka to restore funding 
authorization for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Project 
Impact and Hazard Mitigation grants. I have also indicated my 
opposition to the administration's cuts in these programs in a letter 
to Chairman Domenici and Senator Conrad, pursuant to my obligation as 
ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee to express views 
on the President's budget as it affects matters within our 
jurisdiction.
  The administration's proposed cuts in these programs would shift part 
or all of the funding burden for these programs back on the States, 
whose resources are already tightly stretched. Moreover, these programs 
are designed to reduce future losses that would in many cases greatly 
outstrip the Federal Government's original investment; as a result, we 
will spend more on recovery programs tomorrow than we will save today 
by eliminating these programs. Overall, my State of Connecticut is 
already receiving less federal funding for emergency management than it 
did in 1995, it will be hard for States like Connecticut to absorb 
these additional cuts and still maintain the current level of services.
  Specifically, the amendment would restore funding authorization for 
``Project Impact'' which the administration proposes to zero out. This 
is a $25 million pre-disaster mitigation and preparedness program that 
was recently instituted by FEMA. The agency partners with cities at 
risk for flooding and other disasters to create programs boosting 
awareness of how to prepare and lessen the damage from disasters. In 
Connecticut, for example, four cities have been included in this 
program: Westport, East Haven, Norwich, and Milford. Since Project 
Impact is new and still being implemented, it has not yet been fully 
evaluated; however, one of Project Impact's strengths is providing 
funding directly to cities. Zeroing this program out without providing 
something in its place is ``not prudent,'' according to Connecticut's 
Director of Emergency Management. Moreover, the program helps FEMA to 
achieve its Strategic Goal 1, which seeks to protect lives and prevent 
the loss of property by implementing pre-disaster mitigation and 
preparedness measures. Project Impact is a key part of this effort.
  The amendment would also reverse the Administration's decision to cut 
the federal share of funding for hazard mitigation grants which are 
given for post-disaster mitigation to prevent future losses. Instead of 
providing funding to states on a 75-25 ratio, the Administration would 
reduce the federal government's share to 50 percent. Again, this places 
the burden back on the states to fund these efforts.
  These two programs provide needed assistance to States and 
communities across the country that experience losses due to major 
disasters. The amount of money that would be saved by these proposed 
cuts is relatively small. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment and to restore funding authorization for these two worthy 
FEMA programs.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the amendment Senator Akaka and I have 
introduced today would restore funding for FEMA's Project Impact and 
maintain the existing 75 percent Federal cost-share for hazard 
mitigation grants. The Murray-Akaka amendment would not increase any 
funding. It would simply keep the same commitment the Federal 
Government has provided in previous years.
  I would like to thank Senator Akaka for his work on this important 
amendment, I would also like to thank Senators Lieberman, Edwards, 
Lincoln, Cantwell, Boxer, Reid, and Mikulski for cosponsoring the 
Murray-Akaka amendment.
  On February 28 an earthquake measuring 6.8 on the Richter scale 
caused significant damage throughout western Washington State killing 
one person, injuring more than 400 people, and causing hundreds of 
millions of dollars in damage. It was a big scare. Everyone in western 
Washington has an earthquake story.
  Some of the biggest stories involve a small program called Project 
Impact. My home State was very lucky the damage wasn't worse. But 
communities in my State created some of their own luck by being 
prepared. I am proud to say the Federal Government was a good partner 
in those efforts. Project Impact is a pre-disaster mitigation program 
run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The premise is simple: 
in the 1990s, the Federal Government spent more than $20 billion 
responding to natural disasters. This sum doesn't count the loss of 
loved ones. It doesn't count the hardship Americans ensure when Mother 
Nature strikes.
  Congress and the Clinton administration decided that simply 
responding to disasters wasn't enough. We made the decision to invest 
in communities that wanted to invest in limiting the damage caused by 
natural disasters. That philosophy has translated into real life 
results through Project Impact. But just hours before the earthquake in 
Washington State, the budget blueprint produced by the Bush 
administration eliminated Project Impact. The blueprint dismissed 
Project Impact as ineffective.
  As I toured the earthquake damage in the days after the earthquake, I 
was left wondering who the new administration had spoken with to reach 
that conclusion. The administration certainly didn't speak with the 
City of Seattle. Seattle was one of the seven original Project Impact 
communities. Today, there are nearly 248 Project Impact communities in 
all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands.
  Two days after the earthquake, I toured Stevens Elementary School in 
Seattle. The current school building is one of the oldest run by the 
Seattle public Schools. The teachers and students practice constantly 
for earthquakes. Stevens Elementary is one of the 46 Seattle schools 
that have had overhead hazards removed. In this case, I saw how Project 
Impact dollars were used to drain an overhead water tank and to secure 
the tank so it wouldn't fall through a classroom ceiling and onto 
students during an earthquake. In other Seattle schools, Project Impact 
dollars are used to disaster-proof classrooms. This involves tying down 
computers and strapping televisions to ensure they don't fall during an 
earthquake.
  As parents and grandparents, we want to know that our children are 
safe when they are at school. Project Impact has allowed many 
communities to make sure that more of their students will be safe when 
natural disasters strike. Washington State has five Project Impact 
communities. These communities partner with local businesses and 
organizations to educate homeowners and professionals about home 
retrofitting, to do hazard mapping, to set-up better communications 
systems for disaster situations, to disaster-proof schools, and to help 
businesses prepare for disasters. These actions are effective. These 
actions save lives and property and businesses.
  The amendment I offer today restores Project Impact funding for 
fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003. Funding Project Impact for the 
next 2 years will allow us to better evaluate its success. Last year, 
Congress passed legislation to authorize a pre-disaster mitigation

[[Page 5860]]

program. If Project Impact is not meeting the nation's needs for such a 
program, we will have the next 2 years to develop a program that will 
meet our goals.
  The Bush administration recommended other budget cuts for FEMA as 
well. I am especially concerned the administration's budget would 
reduce the Federal cost-share for hazard mitigation grants from 75 
percent to 50 percent. Communities covered by a Federal disaster 
declaration can access hazard mitigation grants to repair or replace 
damaged public facilities and infrastructure. These grants help to 
ensure that future disasters will not cripple critical facilities 
infrastructure and services. The grants allow communities to make the 
investments when they are most likely to be effective. If the federal 
cost-share falls from 75 percent to 50 percent cash-strapped States and 
localities will not be able to afford to use all available grants. This 
means more lives will be lost, more jobs and businesses will be lost 
after a disaster, and more Federal spending will be needed to pick up 
the pieces when the next disaster strikes.
  The amendment I am offering will fix this cost-share problem and will 
restore Project Impact, so that communities across America can take 
steps today to prevent damage tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to support 
this important amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. As modified, this also is budget neutral and we are 
willing to accept it.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we support this amendment on this side as 
well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Murray 
amendment, No. 231, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 231), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the managers for the efficient way 
they have been handling business. Last night in wrap-up, they passed 
amendment No. 210 which dealt with restoring money for critical health 
programs and graduate medical education at community health centers. I 
ask unanimous consent Senators Hollings, DeWine, Kennedy, Feinstein, 
Smith of Oregon, Kerry, and Dodd be added as cosponsors to Bond 
amendment No. 210.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. May I be added as a cosponsor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to be listed as a cosponsor 
on the Kerry-Bond amendment No. 183 of which we have just disposed. I 
ask unanimous consent to be shown as an original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendment No. 285 Withdrawn

  Mr. ALLEN. I send to the desk amendment No. 285.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Allen] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 285.

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

 (Purpose: To provide for an Education Opportunity Tax Relief Reserve 
                                 Fund)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . RESERVE FUND FOR EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY TAX RELIEF.

       (a) In General.--In the Senate and the House, the Chairmen 
     of the Committees on the Budget may reduce the spending and 
     revenue aggregates and may revise committee allocations for 
     legislation that is reported by the Senate Committee on 
     Finance and the House Committee on Ways and Means, 
     respectively, that reduces tax liabilities for parents of 
     primary and secondary education students to increase access 
     to K through 12 education-related opportunities and improve 
     the quality of their children's education experience, 
     especially with regards to, but not limited to, expenses 
     related to the purchase of home computer hardware, education 
     software, and internet access, and for expenses related to 
     tutoring services.
       (b) Limitation.--The Chairmen shall not make adjustment 
     authorized in this section if legislation described in 
     subsection (a) would cause an on-budget deficit when taken 
     with all other legislation enacted for--
       (1) fiscal year 2002;
       (2) the period of fiscal years 2002 through 2006; or
       (3) the period of fiscal years 2002 through 2011.
       (c) Budgetary Enforcement.--Revised allocations and 
     aggregates under subsection (a) shall be considered for the 
     purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as 
     allocations and aggregates contained in this resolution.

  Mr. ALLEN. This amendment is an amendment to empower parents in 
education spending, especially if they have children in kindergarten 
through 12, in purchasing technology such as computers, educational 
software, Internet access, and tutor funding--but not tuition. The 
amendment had some problems on the other side of the aisle. This 
amendment was never intended to allow a tax credit for tuition.
  I very much appreciate the work of the staff of Senator Domenici and 
the folks with Finance. I appreciate working with Senator Conrad and 
Senator Reid, and Senator Daschle brought forward some of the problems 
this would cause with a flood of further amendments. I thank the 
Presiding Officer, Senator Miller, for his support and Senator Nelson 
of Nebraska.
  I say to the fellow Members of the Senate I was hoping to achieve a 
goal and I will continue to do so and hope the Finance Committee, when 
acting on tax relief, will take into account giving tax relief to hard-
working families who have children in schools. We need to reduce their 
tax burden. Parents ought to be making education decisions for their 
children. This idea is supported by the technology community, and it 
also helps bridge the divide to make sure that all children have 
computers at home or make it more affordable to have computers at home 
and access information on the Internet. Again, it should not be used 
for tuition.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. 
Allen. The way he has worked on this, it is obvious this is not the 
last we will hear of it. From this Senator's standpoint, I hope we will 
hear more about it.
  Mr. ALLEN. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment for 
another day on the tax committee, and hopefully they will have this for 
parents and education spending and technology for our youngsters across 
our Nation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand Senator Clinton wants to 
comment on the amendment adopted in her behalf.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.


                     Amendment No. 328, as modified

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to thank the chairman and ranking 
member of the Budget Committee for accepting an amendment that I 
believe is so important to safeguard the food supplies in our country 
and thereby safeguard our children from the growing threat of 
contamination.
  Presently we enjoy one of the most safe food supplies in the world, 
but we are clearly not immune to the threats we read about every day in 
our newspapers.
  I saw a recent headline in the New York Times that the public does 
have reason to be alarmed. The Times reported that there are only 400 
inspectors to investigate problems at the 57,000 plants in our country. 
Because of this lack of resources, the FDA inspects food manufacturers 
only once every 8 years. The American people deserve better than that. 
So this important measure will strengthen our food safety 
infrastructure by increasing the number of FDA inspectors so high-risk 
sites can be inspected annually and would also step up research and 
surveillance to identify the sources of contamination and track the 
incidence of

[[Page 5861]]

foodborne illnesses to help us better meet emerging threats from 
abroad.
  Finally, it would protect against cuts in funding for the Department 
of Health and Human Services and Department of Agriculture food safety 
initiatives and ensure sufficient funds in the cases of threats from 
food safety emergencies.
  I am very pleased the administration changed its announced policy 
yesterday about testing the ground meat in our Nation's schools. I 
thank them for that reversal because clearly there is nothing more 
important than providing our children with safe food, and particularly 
in our schools. I am very pleased that in a bipartisan way we have 
adopted this amendment which I think will go a long way towards easing 
the concerns and fears of so many parents in ensuring a safe food 
supply for generations to come.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 253, As Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are prepared to call up amendment 
253, Senator Lincoln's amendment. We ask unanimous consent it be in 
order to modify the amendment and send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] for Mrs. 
     Lincoln, for herself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Leahy, and Ms. 
     Landrieu, proposes an amendment numbered 253, as modified.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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:

       On page 19, line 15, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 19, line 16, increase the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 43, line 11, decrease the amount by $4,000,000,000.
       On page 43, line 12, decrease the amount by $4,000,000,000.

  Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection to the amendment. It is budget 
neutral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. We support the amendment on this side as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 253) as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Landrieu 
and myself be added as original cosponsors on the previously considered 
Lincoln amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendments Nos. 205, 207, 209 en bloc

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I send three amendments to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Byrd. I ask they be considered en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] for Mr. Byrd, 
     proposes amendments 205, 207, 209 en bloc.

  Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendments be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (nos. 205, 207, and 209) en bloc are as follows:


                           amendment no. 205

 (Purpose: Increase discretionary education funding by $100,000,000 to 
 improve the teaching of American History in America's public schools)

       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $55,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $20,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $55,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $20,000,000.
       On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $55,000,000.
       On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $20,000,000.
       On page 6, line 9, increase the amount by $55,000,000.
       On page 6, line 10, increase the amount by $20,000,000.
       On page 27, line 3, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 27, line 4, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 27, line 8, increase the amount by $55,000,000.
       On page 27, line 12, increase the amount by $20,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, increase the negative by $100,000,000.
       On page 43, line 16, increase the negative by $25,000,000.
       On page 48, line 8, increase the amount by $100,000,000.
       On page 48, line 9, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 207

    (Purpose: To increase investments in Fossil Energy Research and 
                   Development for Fiscal Year 2002)

       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $30,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $30,000,000.
       On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $30,000,000.
       On page 6, line 9, increase the amount by $60,000,000.
       On page 6, line 10, increase the amount by $30,000,000.
       On page 16, line 5, increase the amount by $150,000,000.
       On page 16, line 6, reduce the negative amount by 
     $60,000,000.
       On page 16, line 9, reduce the negative amount by 
     $60,000,000.
       On page 16, line 12, reduce the negative amount by 
     $30,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, increase the negative amount by 
     $150,000,000.
       On page 43, line 16, increase the negative amount by 
     $60,000,000.
       On page 48, line 8, increase the amount by $150,000,000; 
     and
       On page 48, line 9, increase the amount by $60,000,000.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 209

(Purpose: To increase resources in Fiscal Year 2002 for building clean 
  and safe drinking water facilities and sanitary wastewater disposal 
                      facilities in rural America)

       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $180,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $270,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $250,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $160,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $110,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $180,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $270,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $250,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $160,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $110,000,000.
       On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $180,000,000.
       On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $270,000,000.
       On page 5, line 23, increase the amount by $250,000,000.
       On page 5, line 24, increase the amount by $160,000,000.
       On page 5, line 25, increase the amount by $110,000,000.
       On page 6, line 9, increase the amount by $180,000,000.
       On page 6, line 10, increase the amount by $270,000,000.
       On page 6, line 11, increase the amount by $250,000,000.
       On page 6, line 12, increase the amount by $160,000,000.
       On page 6, line 13, increase the amount by $110,000,000.
       On page 26, line 6, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 25, line 7, increase the amount by $30,000,000.
       On page 25, line 11, increase the amount by $180,000,000.
       On page 25, line 15, increase the amount by $270,000,000.
       On page 25, line 19, increase the amount by $250,000,000.
       On page 25, line 23, increase the amount by $160,000,000.
       On page 26, line 3, increase the amount by $110,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, increase the negative amount by 
     $1,000,000,000.
       On page 43, line 16, increase the negative amount by 
     $30,000,000.

[[Page 5862]]

       On page 48, line 8, increase the amount by $1,000,000,000.
       On page 48, line 9, increase the amount by $30,000,000.

                           Amendment No. 205

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my amendment to the budget resolution would 
add $100 million in Fiscal Year 2002 to Function 500 (Education). This 
increased funding will allow for the continuation of an American 
history grant program that I initiated last year. This program is 
designed to promote the teaching of history as a separate subject in 
our nation's schools. An unfortunate trend of blending history with a 
variety of other subjects to form a hybrid called social studies has 
taken hold in our schools. Further, the history books provided to our 
young people, all too frequently, gloss over the finer points of 
America's past. My amendment provides incentives to help spur a return 
to the teaching of traditional American history.
  Every February our nation celebrates the birth of two of our most 
revered presidents--George Washington, the father of our nation, who 
victoriously led his ill-fitted assembly of militiamen against the 
armies of King George, and Abraham Lincoln, the eternal martyr of 
freedom, whose powerful voice and iron will shepherded a divided nation 
toward a more perfect Union. Sadly, I fear that many of our nation's 
school children may never fully appreciate the lives and 
accomplishments of these two American giants of history. They have been 
robbed of that appreciation--robbed by schools that no longer stress a 
knowledge of American history. In fact, study after study has shown 
that the historical significance of our nation's grand celebrations of 
patriotism--such as Memorial Day or the Fourth of July--are lost on the 
majority of young Americans. What a waste. What a shame.
  An American student, regardless of race, religion, or gender, must 
know the history of the land to which they pledge allegiance. They 
should be taught about the Founding Fathers of this nation, the battles 
that they fought, the ideals that they championed, and the enduring 
effects of their accomplishments. They should be taught about our 
nation's failures, our mistakes, and the inequities of our past. 
Without this knowledge, they cannot appreciate the hard won freedoms 
that are our birthright.
  Our failure to insist that the words and actions of our forefathers 
be handed down from generation to generation will ultimately mean a 
failure to perpetuate this wonderful experiment in representative 
democracy. Without the lessons learned from the past, how can we ensure 
that our nation's core ideals--life, liberty, equality, and freedom--
will survive? As Marcus Tullius Cicero stated:

       . . . to be ignorant of what occurred before you were born 
     is to remain always a child. For what is the worth of human 
     life, unless it is woven into the life of our ancestors by 
     the records of history?

  I am not the only one who recognizes the importance of teaching 
American history. Many groups are interested and have expressed support 
for this grant program. Representatives from the National Council for 
History Education, the National Coordinating Committee for the 
Promotion of History, the American Historical Association, and National 
History Day have all expressed enthusiasm for this grant program. They 
are very supportive of this effort.
  So, for those reasons, I offer this amendment to the budget 
resolution to increase Function 500 (Education) by $100 million in 
Fiscal Year 2002.


                           Amendment No. 207

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the State of California has been beset by an 
energy crisis. We see daily reports of rolling blackouts, epidemic 
shortages of electricity, and, most recently, utility rate hikes, which 
for some customers could mean a forty percent increase in their 
electric bill. And, as bad as things are now, it is only going to get 
worse this summer when the weather heats up and demand for electricity 
increases. Moreover, the problems being faced today in California are 
not limited to that state. On the contrary, this crisis threatens other 
parts of the country as well.
  Given that situation, one would think that policymakers here in 
Washington would be focused like a laser on the idea of increasing 
energy supplies while at the same time trying to stem demand. The Bush 
Administration is working to put together a national energy policy. 
But, until the President's Energy Task Force completes its work and 
reports to the American people, the only guidance we have from the 
Administration is that which can be gleaned from official statements 
and the sparse information contained in the so-called Budget Blueprint.
  Mr. President, I am deeply concerned with where this Administration 
is going, because what I hear with my ears is not the same as what I 
read with my eyes. When I listen to the President and his senior 
cabinet officials, I am at a loss to reconcile their verbal 
pronouncements with what the Administration has proposed by way of its 
budget. Let me give you some examples.
  On February 27, just five weeks ago, President Bush came up to 
Capitol Hill, and he spoke to the American people before a joint 
session of Congress. In that address, the President laid out several 
policy goals, not the least of which was the need for a national energy 
policy that would enhance this nation's energy security. During his 
speech, the President said:

       Our energy demand outstrips our supply. We can produce more 
     energy at home while protecting our environment, and we must. 
     We can produce more electricity to meet demand, and we must. 
     We can promote alternative energy sources and conservation, 
     and we must. America must become more energy independent, and 
     we will.

  Little more than two weeks ago, on March 19, the Secretary of Energy 
reiterated the problems with supply when he spoke to the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce here in Washington. At an event billed as a National Energy 
Summit, Secretary Abraham stated flat out that this nation had an 
energy supply crisis. He went on to say that that supply crisis was not 
the fault of depleted natural resources; the United States has not run 
out of coal, or natural gas, or oil. Rather, in the Secretary's 
opinion, it was ``political leadership that has been scarce.''
  Consequently, when I hear these statements, I come away thinking that 
this administration is truly committed to increasing our supply of 
domestic energy. I was heartened by these comments because I believed 
they meant that the President and the Secretary would understand that 
the only way we were going to get more supply is through the use of 
newer and better technology. And, the only way we can get better 
technology is through the kind of investments in research and 
development being done by the Department of Energy.


  I regret to say, however, that I may have been wrong. I may have 
overestimated the administration's commitment to increasing domestic 
energy supplies, particularly, if those increases do not come easily or 
cheaply. The Budget Blueprint does not appear to include the increases 
in supply that the President and the Secretary say we need. Why? 
Because, in its budget plan, the White House has drastically pulled 
back from a whole-hearted dedication to research and development.
  The proposed budget for the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil 
Energy would underfund--severely underfund--many of our most important 
fossil energy research programs. It is true that the President will 
carry through on his promise of proposing $2 billion over the next ten 
years for the Clean Coal Technology program, a program I started in 
1985 and one which has been one of the most successful public/private 
partnerships ever created. Unfortunately, while fulfilling his campaign 
promise related to clean coal, the President will do so at the expense 
of the other gas, oil, and coal research programs.
  Specifically, the Budget Blueprint states that Clean Coal funding, 
which the Secretary of Energy has said would amount to $150 million in 
FY 2002, ``. . . would come from a consolidated budget that redirects 
research funds from the current Fossil Energy research and development 
coal budget, matched with balances in the Clean Coal technology 
account. . . .'' However, the ``balances'' in the Clean Coal

[[Page 5863]]

account the Blueprint talks about are only $33.7 million, less than 2 
percent of the $2 billion commitment. Consequently, we must conclude 
that, for all intents and purposes, the entire cost of the 
Administration's Clean Coal proposal is going to come at the expense of 
basic research and development in the areas of coal, natural gas and 
oil.
  For Fiscal Year 2001, Congress provided $445 million in Fossil Energy 
Research and Development funding. Taking $150 million for Clean Coal 
funding out of that $445 million amounts to a 34 percent cut and would 
devastate the kind of research that is critical to this nation's energy 
security.
  How is one to reconcile this inconsistency? On the one hand, the 
Administration is adamant that our domestic energy supplies must be 
increased. Yet, at the same time, it fails to fund the research 
necessary to make that happen. The natural gas everyone wants to get 
their hands on is not going to rise from the ground by itself. Nor is 
the coal that currently supplies fifty-four percent of our nation's 
electricity. There may be those who wish it were not so, but the fact 
is that coal remains today--and will for the next several decades--our 
nation's cheapest and most abundant energy resource. But we cannot get 
to those domestic energy resources and we cannot get them out of the 
ground in an economical and environmentally sound manner unless we are 
willing to investment in the research that will make the technology 
possible.
  Thus, the amendment I am offering today will restore the $150 million 
in fossil energy research and development that is so important to this 
nation's energy independence. This amendment, which I urge my 
colleagues to support, would increase the budget authority allocations 
for Function 270, the Energy Function, by $150 million in Fiscal Year 
2002.
  We do not need to wait for the Administration's Energy Task Force to 
tell us that we need more domestic energy. That is a fact we already 
know. The President knows it, the Secretary of Energy knows it, and, I 
suspect, the people of California now know it. Adopting my amendment 
will be the first step in ensuring that this nation has the energy it 
needs. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that we can 
get about the task of ensuring that what is happening in California 
does not spread throughout the United States.


                           Amendment No. 209

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am today offering an amendment to the 
Senate Budget Resolution for fiscal year 2002 that will increase 
domestic discretionary spending for rural water and wastewater 
programs. In all parts of the nation, there are men, women, and 
children who live every day without the basic necessities of clean, 
safe, drinking water or sanitary wastewater disposal. This is a great 
nation, and over the past decade we have witnessed tremendous gains in 
prosperity for much of our population. It would, therefore, surprise a 
great many of us to realize the poor living conditions with which many 
Americans have to face day-in and day-out.
  The United States Department of Agriculture administers a program 
through its Rural Utilities Service that provides loans and grants to 
rural communities with populations less than 10,000 to help establish, 
expand, or upgrade water and wastewater systems in all states. This 
program is one of the most successful of all federal programs. It has, 
perhaps, the best loan default rate within the federal government, it 
provides an essential catalyst for economic development, and it helps 
combat conditions which put the health of Americans at risk.
  But even more important than all those attributes, it would help 
erase the schism that separates the ``haves'' from the ``have-nots'' 
across our land. Consider for a moment how most of us take for granted 
the clean glass of water that we can draw from our nearest faucet. 
Consider how most of us expect our streets and waterways to be free 
from flows of raw sewage. Then imagine yourself in small communities 
and rural areas all across America where clean water means dipping a 
glass in a rain barrel and wastewater disposal means the nearest ditch. 
America is greater than that.
  In 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency released a report on 
unmet wastewater improvement needs in rural areas of this country. That 
document estimated that nearly $20 billion was needed to establish or 
upgrade systems necessary to avoid runoff of failed septic systems, or 
worse, from polluting our rivers and streams and posing serious threats 
to public health. The EPA is now working on a new report on this 
subject, due to be released in the coming year, and I fear that we will 
learn that the costs necessary to correct these sad conditions have 
seriously increased.
  In February of this year, the EPA issued a new report on the state of 
unmet drinking water needs across America. That document finds that for 
rural areas and communities of 10,000 or less, the total unmet need is 
nearly $48 billion. Of that total, $33.5 billion has been identified as 
an immediate need. Even with the surpluses now before the Congress, we 
may not be able to meet this entire need overnight, but we can, indeed, 
do better than we have.
  As of last month, the Rural Utilities Service at the Department of 
Agriculture had a backlog of applications awaiting funding totaling 
nearly $800 million in grants and $2.2 billion in loans. This backlog, 
which has skyrocketed in this fiscal year, includes applications from 
every state and I know every Senator is aware of the benefits of this 
program. My friend from Alaska, the Chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee knows how important this program is for rural 
Alaskan Native Villages. My friend from New Mexico, Chairman of the 
Senate Budget Committee, knows how important this program is to the 
Colonias region of his state. I can provide many more from my home 
state of West Virginia.
  The amendment I am offering will provide a modest investment in the 
health and security of the American people. By increasing the total 
budget authority of this program by $1 billion--which is a mere 2 
percent of the outstanding need identified in February by the EPA for 
drinking water systems alone--we can begin to help speed up services to 
rural families in every state. With an additional $1 billion, we can 
make gains in meeting the ever-increasing demands of unfunded 
applications at the Department of Agriculture. There are certain 
functions of government that go straight to the basic fabric of the 
social contract, and helping provide all Americans with the basic 
necessities of life is paramount among them. My amendment supports this 
noble role of government, and I ask all Senators to join me in its 
passage.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendments 
being adopted en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 205, 207, 209) en bloc were agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 317

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we call up amendment 317.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), for Mr. Graham, 
     and Mrs. Hutchison, proposes an amendment numbered 317.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To extend the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 
               Supplemental Grants for fiscal year 2002)

       On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $319,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $80,000,000.
       On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $25,000,000.

[[Page 5864]]

       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $80,000,000.
       On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 5, line 15, decrease the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 5, line 16, decrease the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 32, line 15, increase the amount by $319,000,000.
       On page 32, line 16, increase the amount by $80,000,000.
       On page 32, line 20, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 32, line 24, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 33, line 3, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 33, line 7, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 33, line 11, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 33, line 15, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 33, line 19, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 33, line 23, increase the amount by $25,000,000.
       On page 34, line 3, increase the amount by $25,000,000.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this Graham amendment numbered 317 is 
cosponsored by Senator Hutchison of Texas.
  I understand that Senator Hutchinson is here on the floor, and he 
would like to share part of the discussion on the affirmative side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I applaud Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison 
of Texas for her leadership and for her aggressive work on this 
amendment, also Senator Bob Graham of the State of Florida, who has 
done such great work.
  This amendment extends for fiscal year 2002 the supplemental grants 
for rapidly growing States under the Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families program. These States include Arkansas, Florida, Texas, and 
about 14 other States that are dramatically impacted by this 
situation--all of which receive lower levels of block grant funding per 
child than other States.
  The TANF program was created back in 1996 to provide States with 
flexible block grants to meet the needs of low-income families trying 
to get off traditional welfare rolls. The program has worked well. It 
has been successful.
  Flexibility with this funding is vital to support low-income 
individuals and families and keep them in the workplace.
  These supplemental grants are set to expire. Unless we do something, 
it is going to dramatically negatively impact these States.
  The child poverty rate in the States affected is 19\1/2\ percent--a 
quarter above the child poverty rate in other States.
  These supplemental grants are very important. They need to be 
extended.
  I think this has bipartisan support. I appreciate Senator Hutchison 
allowing me to speak on behalf of this amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I applaud my colleague from Arkansas for 
the very excellent description that he gave.
  Essentially, we are asking for a 1-year bridge between the time that 
these supplemental funds will expire in the fall of 2001 and the time 
that we reauthorize the total Welfare-to-Work Program in 2002.
  It is a very important amendment for those States that already start 
off getting the least amount of funding to meet their welfare-to-work 
requirements. Because of the growth in low per-capita income, they are 
particularly in need of this support. Congress recognized that it would 
continue the program until we reauthorize Welfare-to-Work.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, there is nothing further on our side to 
be added.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 317) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank both Senators for their cooperation.
  Mr. President, I say to the ranking Member that Senator Schumer still 
has an issue.
  Mr. President, 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we understand that Senator Stabenow is 
next in line, and we understand that she is going to talk about an 
amendment and withdraw it when she is finished.
  Ms. STABENOW. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 313

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today with an amendment that I 
wish we were able to pass at this moment. I realize the votes are not 
here. But in order to demonstrate grave concern on this side of the 
aisle about what is happening to the Medicare trust fund, I submit with 
Senator Bob Graham, a leader on this issue, an amendment that would 
protect the Medicare Part A trust fund by raising a point of order on 
the process, and hopefully it will be put into place before we are 
finished with this budget resolution.
  It is supported by the American Health Care Association, and the 
American Hospital Association.
  I ask unanimous consent that two letters in support be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              American Health Care


                                                  Association,

                                    Washington, DC, April 6, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: On behalf of the 12,000 non-profit and 
     for-profit nursing facility, subacute, assisted living, and 
     ICF/MR providers represented by the American Health Care 
     Association nationwide, I am writing to strongly support your 
     amendment to the FY 2002 Budget Resolution.
       Your amendment to require a 60 vote majority in the Senate 
     to approve new programs that tap into the Medicare Part A 
     trust fund is critical to protecting the trust fund from new 
     spending programs that would threaten its viability. As we 
     saw from the bankruptcies that followed the BBA of 97, 
     funding levels for skilled nursing facility patients cannot 
     withstand additional cuts to the program that may be forced 
     if additional benefits are financed out of the HI trust fund. 
     Indeed, the only way to ensure the adequate financing of all 
     of our laudable programs is to increase funding to Medicare 
     Part A.
       The approximately 2 million Medicare residents who receive 
     skilled nursing care in our homes every year depend on the 
     solvency of the program. The skilled nursing and 
     rehabilitative services we provide are often the difference 
     between life and death for our patients.
       Your amendment is critical to ``keeping the promise'' our 
     country made to the seniors we care for.
           Sincerely,
                                                William R. Abrams,
     Chief Operating Officer.
                                  ____



                                American Hospital Association,

                                    Washington, DC, April 5, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Graham: On behalf of the American Hospital 
     Association (AHA), I would like to express our strong support 
     of your amendment to H. Con. Res. 83, the fiscal year (FY) 
     2002 budget resolution requiring a ``super majority'' of 60 
     votes in the Senate in order to spend Hospital Insurance (HI) 
     Trust Fund dollars for non-Part A services.

[[Page 5865]]

       The AHA represents nearly 5,000 hospitals, health systems, 
     networks and other health care provider members.
       The Medicare program is expected to experience very rapid 
     growth over the next decade as our nation's 78 million ``baby 
     boomers'' begin to retire. The Part A Trust Fund, which is 
     supported by a payroll tax, is projected to see its 
     obligations exceed its income by 2015, and its assets could 
     be exhausted by 2029.
       We believe that the Part A Trust Fund should be used for 
     the purpose for which it was intended: to provide 
     beneficiaries with the highest quality hospital acute care 
     services. Congress must be careful not to dilute the trust 
     fund or divert dollars currently in the trust fund for other 
     purposes. It is imperative that Congress avoids legislation 
     that accelerates the insolvency of the Medicare Part A Trust 
     Fund. We need to ensure that Medicare Part A services are 
     there when our seniors need them.
       Since its inception, the Medicare program has ensured 
     seniors access to high quality, affordable health care. It is 
     incumbent upon all of us to ensure that the program is 
     preserved, protected and strengthened for future generations.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Rick Pollack,
                                         Executive Vice President.

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, we have been trying all week to pass a 
prescription drug plan under Medicare to update it. We don't support 
raiding it, which is what is happening now. We need to be putting in 
place prescription drug coverage under Medicare. It came before this 
body on Tuesday with a 50-50 vote. Unfortunately, the tie vote was not 
cast. Instead, we now find ourselves in a situation where Medicare is 
being used as a contingency fund.
  This is not the direction in which the American people wish us to go. 
We need to be strengthening and updating Medicare, not dipping into it 
and spending it as part of a contingency fund.
  Unfortunately, with the President's budget and tax cut combined, it 
is impossible to do what has been suggested without using the Medicare 
trust fund. That is my concern.
  The message that the American people want us to send loudly and 
clearly is that we need to update Medicare. We need to strengthen it. 
We don't need to raid it. We need to update it, not raid it. I am very 
hopeful that this will be the goal and the ultimate conclusion.
  I know that is what we have been fighting for on this side of the 
aisle since this budget process began.
  I yield the time and ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want everybody in the Senate to know 
that I don't have a sign. I can't put up a sign about our position. But 
I want everyone to know that we are as concerned about not spending the 
Medicare Part A trust fund as anybody. Republicans don't take a 
backseat on that issue. This budget does not spend any of the funds 
that are being alluded to. So the sign could be placed on our side of 
the aisle, and we would agree with it.
  Actually, I don't think we need to explain our position. We will just 
do it with our words. We don't need the amendment. It has been 
withdrawn. Frankly, the budget takes care of that problem. The 
Republicans are united. We are not going to spend Medicare funds for 
anything other than Medicare.
  I yield the floor at this point and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I advise my colleague that while we are 
waiting for some additional amendments to arrive that are being 
redrafted in compliance with our agreement, the Senator from Louisiana 
would like to talk for just 3 minutes with respect to an issue in which 
she has been deeply involved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair and the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. President, I commend the Senators from New Mexico and North 
Dakota for their extraordinary management skills in helping to bring us 
to the final point of this week-long debate. I appreciate their 
patience in working with each Member on issues that are so important to 
us and to our States.
  While the staff is working on some details of some of the last few 
amendments that need to be offered, I thought I would make mention of 
one particular tax cut that is so widely supported on both sides of 
this aisle and something on which a group of us have worked now for 
about 2 years. I am hoping the language will be included in the final 
negotiations and that has to do with the tax credit for adoption.
  It is a tax credit that is really one of the smallest calls on the 
tax cut, on the budget in terms of the dollar amount. It is small, but 
it goes a long way because it helps families who are trying to open up 
their homes, and have opened up their hearts, to adopt a child--either 
an infant or a toddler or an older child; either a child through a 
traditional adoption through an agency in the United States or the 
adoption of a child from another country--and we have seen that number 
increase substantially, which is really wonderful--or it helps us find 
homes for the more than 100,000 children in foster care who deserve so 
much to have a home and a family to call their own.
  I want to take a moment while we have some time to congratulate the 
leaders of the House. I understand there are 275 cosponsors in the 
House of Representatives for this particular tax cut or tax relief.
  There are many good ways to give Americans tax relief. We have heard 
that debate now on this floor--from the marriage penalty relief, to 
marginal tax relief, which I support, to estate tax relief or reform--
but I want to take a moment to thank Senators and House Members who 
continue to speak out for this adoption tax credit--to extend it, to 
double it, and to fix it so that it works for foster care children and 
so that we give families a broad choice, if they have made that 
terrific decision to adopt children, to help them with those initial 
expenses, which can be quite high.
  In fact, there are families who, as you know, travel to many parts of 
the world, and not only are there expenses associated with the agencies 
or the attorneys or facilitators with whom they are working but also 
there are the travel expenses.
  So this $10,000 tax credit we are proposing--it is $5,000 now, and we 
propose to double it, extend it, and make it work, which was the 
original intent of the law--for children being adopted out of foster 
care. It is something we have debated this week and will continue to 
debate.
  I know Senator Grassley, the chairman of the committee, Senator 
Baucus, our ranking member, Senator Breaux, and others have expressed 
an interest in being able to include this particular item in the tax 
package that is finally passed. I know there are many families in 
Louisiana, in Georgia, the State of the Presiding Officer, and in all 
of our States who would welcome our fixing, extending, and doubling 
this tax credit because it can make the difference in finding a child a 
home who perhaps would never otherwise be able to find one and helping 
those parents with at least some of the expenses associated with the 
cost of raising children today.
  So I am really very hopeful. There is no amendment pending, but there 
is language that hopefully will be included in this final package.
  I thank the managers for giving me time to talk about this important 
issue. Again, I want to recognize the great support in the House of 
Representatives--by both Republicans and Democrats--for this particular 
tax credit.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 5866]]


  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, awhile ago I spoke in opposition to the 
amendment Senator Graham had originally offered that I believe the 
Senator from Michigan withdrew a while ago. I am not sure when I spoke 
in opposition to it that I had the microphone on. If you wouldn't mind, 
may I remake that statement for 30 seconds. When I spoke previously, I 
wasn't sure we were heard, which was my fault, no one else's.
  There was a sign up on that amendment with reference to Medicare that 
we want to make sure we don't take anything out of Medicare and spend 
it on anything else or use it for tax cuts. I said: We don't have a 
sign. All we can do is use our words.
  I repeat them: There is nothing in this budget that we intend to in 
any way spend Medicare money on other than Medicare. That has been our 
commitment; that will remain our commitment. We will not spend Medicare 
money on anything other than Medicare. We won't violate that at any 
time in this budget.
  Frankly, I will repeat it every time we have an opportunity. Those 
supporting this budget, when we finish tonight, need not have any fear 
that we are going to in any way minimize the totality of that Medicare 
fund. It will be there.
  With that, I am prepared to move on to another amendment.
  I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 303

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     Bingaman, for himself, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Enzi, Mr. 
     Johnson, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Conrad, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 303.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a reserve fund for permanent, mandatory funding 
       for Payments In Lieu of Taxes and Refuge Revenue Sharing)

       Insert at the appropriate place the following:

     SEC.  . RESERVE FUND FOR PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES AND REFUGE 
                   REVENUE SHARING.

       If the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     Senate reports a bill, or an amendment thereto is offered, or 
     a conference report thereon is submitted, that provides full, 
     permanent, mandatory funding for Payments In Lieu of Taxes 
     for entitlement lands under chapter 69 of title 31, United 
     States Code and for Refuge Revenue Sharing, the chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may increase the 
     aggregates, functional totals, allocations and other 
     appropriate levels and limits in this resolution by up to 
     $353,000,000 in new budget authority and outlays for fiscal 
     year 2002 and $3,709,000,000 in new budget authority and 
     outlays for the period of fiscal years 2002 through 2011, 
     provided that such legislation will not, when taken together 
     with all other previously enacted legislation, reduce the on-
     budget surplus below the level of the Medicare Hospital 
     Insurance Trust Fund surplus in any fiscal year provided in 
     this resolution.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be made a 
cosponsor of the amendment, as well as Senator Conrad.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, Senators Thomas, Baucus, Enzi, and 
Johnson are also cosponsors of the amendment.
  I thank my colleague for his strong support for this effort, as well 
as Senator Conrad. What this deals with is the payments in lieu of 
taxes which are very important for counties in States such as our own 
where there are substantial amounts of Federal property. There is no 
tax base, essentially. There is no way for those counties to raise the 
funds needed to operate county government.
  This has been a program for some years, and we have recognized this, 
but we have not made the funds permanent. This year in this session of 
Congress, we are going to try to pass legislation which would authorize 
permanent funding for this. If we are able to, then we would like to 
have that permitted here for consideration by the Senate.
  This is budget neutral. This does not change the figures in the 
budget, but it is a very important initiative and one that I believe 
very strongly the Senate ought to approve.
  I appreciate the support of all my colleagues and all the cosponsors 
and urge colleagues to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 303) was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this amendment is budget neutral. 
Clearly, there is nothing added. This amendment says if in the future 
certain things happen to the PILT fund such that it is higher than in 
this budget, then allowances can be made for it. I understand, as one 
of the cosponsors, that that is all the amendment does.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we see this as a budget-neutral amendment 
because of the language of the amendment that provides that only if the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources reports a bill that provides 
full, permanent, mandatory funding for PILT, this actually comes 
through the authorizing committee.
  On that basis, this is an important amendment. With payment in lieu 
of taxes, the Federal Government has made a commitment to those 
localities within which they have property that they are going to be a 
good neighbor, that they are going to pay the taxes anybody else would 
pay.
  I salute the Senator from New Mexico. This is an important amendment 
that says the Federal Government keeps its word. It is as simple as 
that.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I commend the Senator from New 
Mexico.


                     amendment no. 218, as modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to go in whatever order the 
format is. If it is appropriate at this time, I will go now.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this would be an appropriate time for the 
Senator from Massachusetts to offer his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself, Senators Bingaman, Wyden, Edwards, Rockefeller, Corzine, 
Murray, and Clinton and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], for himself, 
     Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. 
     Corzine, Mrs. Murray, and Mrs. Clinton,  proposes an 
     amendment numbered 218, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 3, line 2, increase the amount by $6,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 3, increase the amount by $6,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 4, increase the amount by $7,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by $7,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 8, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, decrease the amount by $6,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, decrease the amount by $6,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, decrease the amount by $7,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, decrease the amount by $7,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 20, decrease the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 21, decrease the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 22, decrease the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $6,000,000,000.

[[Page 5867]]

       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $6,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $7,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $7,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 11, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $6,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $6,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $7,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $7,000,000,000.
       On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 29, line 10, increase the amount by $6,000,000,000.
       On page 29, line 11, increase the amount by $6,000,000,000.
       On page 29, line 14, increase the amount by $6,000,000,000.
       On page 29, line 15, increase the amount by $6,000,000,00.
       On page 29, line 18, increase the amount by $7,000,000,000.
       On page 29, line 19, increase the amount by $7,000,000,000.
       On page 29, line 22, increase the amount by $7,000,000,000.
       On page 29, line 23, increase the amount by $7,000,000,000.
       On page 30, line 2, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 30, line 3, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 30, line 6, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 30, line 7, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 30, line 10, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
       On page 30, line 11, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, earlier in the week the Senate accepted 
an amendment from Senator Smith and Senator Biden to provide resources 
for a health insurance program for basically the parents of those 
children who are eligible for the CHIP program. That money would be 
taken out of the contingency fund. This amendment continues that 
program for the 10-year period. Therefore, it would take some $50 
billion out of the tax cut, and the use of those resources would be to 
build on the CHIP program which has been so effective for the parents 
of those CHIP workers, who are American workers at the lower end of the 
economic scale. They cannot afford health insurance, and the provisions 
we have in the current budget of some $80 billion could be used as tax 
incentives for workers.
  These workers are not going to be paying the taxes. And even with a 
refundable tax credit, it will not be sufficient to afford the health 
insurance. This amendment will help them to do so.
  I hope the Senate will take this, with the amendment that is in the 
budget, and that we will have with that a combination of this amendment 
and the tax programs that will reach out to look after the health 
insurance needs of the hardest workers in this country who are pressed 
every single day for lack of health insurance. That is effectively what 
the amendment does.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield the remaining 40 seconds to the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts 
for offering this amendment. This is a very important amendment. We 
have over 6 million children in this country who do not have health 
insurance. Of course, their parents do not as well. One way to get 
those children covered with health insurance is to get their parents 
eligible, too. This program tries to do that. There are 129,000 of 
these children who are uninsured in my own State.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we need to have a quorum call for a 
little while while Senators meet. We are just going to have to wait a 
while.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 218) was withdrawn.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, to alert colleagues, we are getting close 
to the end of our business on the budget resolution. I want to alert 
colleagues that we still have a few matters that require working out so 
that we can conclude business. I ask staff who are working on those 
amendments to inform the managers as to the status of those works in 
progress so that we can conclude business expeditiously. I don't know 
if the chairman has an observation or statement at this point. I think 
we are very close to being able to conclude our business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first let me say I am very grateful to 
everybody for being accommodating. We are just about ready to adopt the 
budget resolution. We have two amendments that are being worked on. 
They should be worked out soon. I don't think it will be very long 
before we start the vote. We will be ready to wrap it up. While that is 
continuing on the other side, and they have amendments they are going 
to be working on, I want to say this process is a very tough process. 
It is very difficult when you have five or six votes to spare on one 
side or the other. It is difficult when it is tied and, as a matter of 
fact, when you have 50 Senators on each side of the aisle and you are 
attempting to pass a budget resolution--actually, on a budget 
resolution, a lot of things are voted on that don't mean what they say.
  But we have gotten into the habit of doing that, so everybody thinks 
they do what they say. We will try to get out of conference as quickly 
as we can. It is my understanding that we have resolved the issues on 
that side.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I say to the chairman, the amendment we 
previously discussed, the Bingaman amendment, as modified--the 
Senator's side has a copy of that. This is the low-income heating 
assistance amendment. We dealt with the PILT amendment. We would be 
prepared to deal with this one as well and be closer to a conclusion.


                           Amendment No. 302

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. Senator Bingaman 
has an amendment No. 302 regarding LIHEAP. I ask that it be appropriate 
to modify that amendment. Two of the cosponsors are Senators Murkowski 
and Jeffords. I ask that I be made a cosponsor also.
  I send this amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. 
     Bingaman, for himself, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Dorgan, 
     Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Lincoln, 
     Mr. Reid, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. 
     Domenici, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr. Jeffords, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 302, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 32, line 15, increase the amount by $2,600,000,000.
       On page 32, line 16, increase the amount by $2,600,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $2,600,000,000.
       On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $2,600,000,000.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is budget neutral.
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator is correct. I also would like to be shown as 
an original cosponsor, if I might. I ask unanimous consent for that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Stevens). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, if I might indicate to the chairman, we 
have one amendment on our side, the

[[Page 5868]]

Graham SSBG amendment. It is being modified in accordance with the 
request of the other side. As I understand it, the Senator is on his 
way to the floor with that amendment. That would bring us even closer 
to conclusion.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is correct. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand that on the Bingaman LIHEAP 
amendment we did not complete action; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator that is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection on this side.
  Mr. CONRAD. We have no objection on this side. In fact, we support it 
on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 302), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we modified the amendment. Now we need to 
move to consideration of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was adopted. It has been agreed to.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 316, As Modified

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, our final amendment on this side is an 
amendment from the Senator from Florida. If we can go to that 
amendment, we will be very close to completing amendments on this side.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask the distinguished Senator, has he modified the 
amendment so it is budget neutral?
  Mr. GRAHAM. It is. We made that modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, briefly, this amendment fulfills a 
commitment that the Congress made in 1996 to the States upon the 
adoption of Welfare-to-Work, and that is that we would support the 
Social Services Block Grant Program which is a program within Social 
Security which has provided for a number of important programs that 
have assisted people on welfare, getting to work, and particularly 
child care programs. This has broad support. Senators Hutchison, 
Grassley, Collins, Snowe, Rockefeller, Carnahan, Murray, Schumer, 
Wellstone, Kennedy, Landrieu, Kerry, and Bingaman are some of the 
cosponsors of this amendment. I believe it has broad bipartisan 
support. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], for himself, Mrs. 
     Hutchison, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Collins, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
     Rockefeller, Mrs. Carnahan, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
     Wellstone, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. 
     Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 316, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To restore the Social Services Block Grants to $2.38 billion 
    in accordance with the statutory agreement made in the Personal 
    Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996)

       On page 27, line 3, increase the amount by $680,000,000.
       On page 27, line 4, increase the amount by $680,000,000.
       On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $680,000,000.
       On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $680,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator seek recognition?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Only to say we have no objection to the amendment. As 
drafted, it is budget neutral, and we accept it on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other comments concerning this 
amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment, as modified, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 316), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                                 AMTRAK

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as we debate the budget resolution, I rise 
today with the distinguished Senators from Texas, South Dakota, 
Mississippi and Massachusetts to bring to the attention of our 
colleagues the urgent need to provide Amtrak and the states with the 
stable source of capital funding they need for a national system of 
high speed rail corridors. Specifically, we would like to discuss the 
need for action on S. 250, the High Speed Rail Investment Act of 2001. 
We introduced this legislation earlier this year, and already more than 
50 of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle have signed on with 
us.
  This bill is cosponsored by both the majority and minority leaders, 
which brings me to the point of my comments today, as we are 
considering the budget resolution, that will set our priorities for 
this year's session of Congress.
  Last December, on the very last day of the last session, I took the 
floor to discuss identical legislation with Senator Lott, Senator 
Daschle, and other leaders of our body. Our leaders were gracious 
enough to make a commitment to bring this legislation to the Finance 
Committee, on which they both serve, and to the Senate floor, during 
this session.
  For reasons beyond our control, we could not include important 
legislation in the omnibus appropriations bill, but many of us in the 
Senate, and I was among them, would not take ``no'' for an answer. My 
great friend Senator Roth, along with Senators Moynihan and Lautenberg, 
had worked too long on this issue to let this die.
  While we could not get this done last year, we got the next best 
thing: the word of our leaders, on both sides of the aisle that this 
legislation would be on their list of priorities for this year. So as 
we discuss our priorities in this budget resolution, it is important to 
hear from them that the High Speed Rail Investment Act is still on that 
list.
  I yield to Senator Hutchison, who has done so much to promote 
rational, efficient surface transportation in this country, including 
the indispensable component of passenger rail.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Delaware. I join with him in 
thanking our leadership for their commitment to us at the end of the 
last Congress. As we discuss the budget resolution, it is important to 
make it clear, on the record, that our determination to pass the High 
Speed Rail Investment Act this year, as soon as possible, is as strong 
as ever.
  Virtually all of our key modes of transportation are under stress 
today. From our overcrowded highways to our packed airports, we are 
losing billions of dollars in wasted time just trying to get to where 
we need to go. And lying right along side those crowded highways, 
running right past those overloaded airports, are neglected rail lines 
that could be carrying passengers between our nations cities.
  That is why so many Senators have already joined us in support of our 
legislation, and that is why the nation's governors, mayors, state 
legislators, and many others support us, as well.
  I ask our leaders directly if this budget resolution, which 
establishes the overall priorities for this session of the Senate, 
makes room for the commitment they made here on the floor last year.
  Does the distinguished minority leader care to respond?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to respond to my good friend, the 
distinguished Senator from Texas. She, and my colleague from Delaware, 
Senator Biden, are correct. Last session we made a promise to consider 
legislation to provide Amtrak with the authority to issue tax credit 
bonds for capital improvements. This bonding authority is

[[Page 5869]]

critical to Amtrak's future and to the economic health of the Northeast 
and many other areas of the country.
  Last year, I discussed this issue with members of my caucus. We had a 
very spirited discussion on the morning of December 15, and I know how 
strongly they support Amtrak and this legislation. We kept our promise 
and re-introduced this praiseworthy legislation earlier this year with 
51 original co-sponsors. Amtrak supporters will not give up on passing 
it and we promised to help them accomplish this task. I yield the floor 
to the majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader and praise his 
commitment and dedication to this issue. I am honored to be working 
with him, and my other colleagues, on strengthening our national rail 
passenger system. I have been an active supporter, and was very much 
involved a couple of years ago when we passed the Amtrak legislation. I 
think we need it.
  Now, I must confess one of the reasons I think we need it is I want 
us to have good service, not just in the Northeast, but I also would 
like to have access for my own State of Mississippi to be able to get 
to Atlanta and Washington and Dallas. We are the beneficiaries of 
Amtrak service. I think we have to support it.
  What's most important is that we give Amtrak an opportunity to 
succeed. If you do not have adequate capital investment, if you don't 
have modern equipment, if you don't have the new fast trains, if you 
don't have a rapid rail system, it will not work.
  So I support this legislation, and will work with my colleagues to 
get the appropriate hearings in the Finance Committee and hopefully in 
the Commerce Committee. I am on both committees, and Senator Daschle 
and I will work with the ranking member and the chairman to get 
hearings and move this legislation.
  When we talk about bipartisanship, transportation is an issue on 
which we have been able to work together in a bipartisan way, whether 
it is roads, AIR-21, TEA-21, Amtrak, rapid rail system. We can do it 
again, and I am committed to ensure that we do.
  I now yield to the Distinguished Senator from the state of 
Massachusetts, Senator Kerry.
  Mr. KERRY. The leaders are exactly right. There was a lot of 
passionate dialogue in our caucus last year about the High Speed Rail 
Investment Act, and the minority leader listened to all of us very 
carefully. Our caucus, I must say, was united in its commitment to the 
notion that those of us who cared about this innovative bonding 
legislation needed to have some kind of response on the floor that 
indicated how we could proceed with this legislation. I am pleased with 
the commitment made by the leadership last year, and I am pleased with 
the quick introduction and overwhelming support for this legislation 
this year. I am also very grateful for the majority leader's 
commitment, given last December, to getting movement on this bill 
within the first six months of this session.
  As summer approaches, intercity travelers can look forward to 
bottlenecked highways and airports strained beyond capacity. Is it any 
wonder that Amtrak's ridership is on the rise? But in order to improve 
our ability to travel the country without delay, the Federal Government 
needs to provide business travelers and vacationers with a third 
option. At the moment, the Federal Government invests in road-building 
and air transportation, but only about 5 percent of our transportation 
budget over the last 30 years has gone to help Amtrak provide top-
quality intercity rail service. We've got to do more in order to have a 
truly intermodal transportation network, and a large majority of this 
body recognizes that fact.
  Fifty-six Members of the Senate are now cosponsors of this 
legislation, Mr. President. As I have said many times before, high-
speed rail is not a partisan issue. It is not a regional issue. It is 
not an urban issue. So I look forward to building on the legacy of 
Senator Moynihan and Senator Lautenberg and completing what is 
absolutely essential for this country, which is a high-speed intercity 
rail system of which the Nation can be proud.


                 funding for graduate medical education

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to raise an important 
issue impacting close to 60 independent children's hospitals across the 
Nation and numerous sick children and their families: the need for full 
funding for graduate medical education (GME) at our Nation's 
freestanding children's hospitals to train pediatricians.
  Independent children's hospitals face a serious financial burden and 
competitive disadvantage because they do not receive GME support 
through Medicare. Medicare is the only source of significant and stable 
GME support available to hospitals for the training of medical 
residents. In the absence of any movement towards GME reform, the 
children's hospitals GME discretionary grant program was enacted to 
ensure that these institutions could sustain their teaching programs--
programs that are important not only to the future of these children's 
hospitals and their essential services, but also to the future of the 
pediatric workforce and pediatric research.
  The Lewin Group, an independent firm, has calculated that pediatric 
residents at free-standing children's hospitals would receive a total 
of $285 million from the Federal Government if they were reimbursed 
according to the formulas established for residents at other teaching 
hospitals. Consequently, I believe that Congress must commit to provide 
$285 million for the children's hospitals GME program in the fiscal 
year 2002 Labor/HHS/Education appropriations bill.
  California has six independent children's hospitals across the State. 
These hospitals provided state-of-the-art care and conduct ground 
breaking research to make life better for our children. Equally 
important, these teaching hospitals train future pediatricians. Without 
the necessary funds, the children's hospitals in my State will be 
unable to train pediatricians to provide the care and conduct the 
research necessary to improve the quality of life for some of 
California's sickest children. These relatively few institutions play 
an indispensable role in our children's care, serving as centers of 
excellence in pediatric medicine and as a major piece of the pediatric 
health care safety net.
  I ask the Senator from Missouri if he has anything he would add at 
this point.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank Senator Feinstein for her comments. 
Our goal here is simple: We must, once and for all, treat children's 
hospitals the same as we do other teaching hospitals when it comes to 
funding physician training. This year, that means Congress must fully 
fund the Pediatric GME program as its authorized level of $285 million 
in fiscal year 2002.
  Two years ago, Congress finally recognized this need by passing 
legislation I sponsored with my friend, former Senator Kerrey of 
Nebraska, to authorize the children's hospitals GME initiative. Over 
the last couple of years, I have led the effort to fund this important 
initiative.
  Last year, Congress appropriated $235 million for the children's 
hospitals GME program--not quite enough for full parity with other 
teaching hospitals, but a good step forward. This year, we need to 
continue that momentum and finally treat all teaching hospitals 
equally. If it is important to train a doctor who treats adults, it's 
equally as important to train a doctor who treats children. We must 
make our policies reflect that important principle, and I am confident 
we can get there this year.
  I see the Senator from Massachusetts on the floor, and I ask if he 
has anything he wishes to add.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank Senator Bond for his comments. I could not agree 
more with the Senator from Missouri. We must work together to fully 
fund the Pediatric GME program at $285 million in fiscal year 2002.
  Independent children's hospitals are experiencing very serious 
financial challenges that affect their ability to sustain their 
missions. In addition to the challenges of covering the costs of their 
academic programs, they include challenges in covering the higher costs 
of sicker patients in a price competitive marketplace, meeting the 
costs of

[[Page 5870]]

uncovered services such as child protection services and poison control 
centers, and assuming the costs of devoting a large portion of their 
patient care to children from low-income families.
  On average, independent acute care children's hospitals devote nearly 
half of their patient care to children who are assisted by Medicaid or 
are uninsured. They devote more than 75 percent of their care for 
children with one or more chronic or congenital conditions. For 
children with rare and complex conditions, independent children's 
hospitals often provide the majority of care in their region or even 
nationwide.
  Furthermore, independent children's hospitals--including Boston 
Children's--serve as advocates for the public health of children, and 
they are essential to the health care safety net for children of low-
income families. Our children are our most vulnerable patients. 
Pediatricians and pediatric specialists provide a crucial voice for 
these children who are not able to ensure their own health care. 
Without funding for this training even our Nation's number one 
Children's Hospital, Boston Children's, will no longer be able to 
ensure that our children receive state-of-the-art care targeted to 
their special needs.
  The Senator from Ohio and I have worked together on this issue over 
the years. I ask the Senator from Ohio, would he agree that graduate 
medical education programs at children's hospitals are essential to 
meeting the health care needs of our Nation's children?
  Mr. DeWINE. I agree wholeheartedly. I appreciate the comments from 
the Senator from Massachusetts, and I would like to mention a few more 
reasons why these funds are so important.
  Fully funding the GME program will enable our independent children's 
teaching hospitals to sustain their core missions medical care, 
teaching and research which benefit all children. These children's 
hospitals serve as the health care safety net for low income children 
and are often the sole regional providers of many critical pediatric 
services. Their teaching mission is also essential. Even though they 
comprise less than one percent of all hospitals, children's hospitals 
train 5 percent of all physicians, nearly 30 percent of all 
pediatricians, almost 50 percent of all pediatric specialists, and two-
thirds of all pediatric critical care doctors. The research that our 
country's pediatric academic medical centers perform is also essential 
and the need for more pediatric researchers is growing. Fully funding 
the GME program within our children's teaching hospitals is an 
investment in children's health that I would urge my colleagues to 
support.


                    DOD CIVILIAN WORKFORCE RESHAPING

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, last year, my colleague from Ohio, 
Senator DeWine and I introduced the Department of Defense Civilian 
Workforce Realignment Act. The purpose of this legislation was to 
extend, revise, and expand the Defense Department's limited authority 
to use voluntary incentive pay and voluntary early retirement in order 
to restructure the civilian workforce to meet missions needs and to 
correct skill imbalances, especially in high skilled fields. Given the 
significant numbers of eligible Federal retirees the Department will 
face in just a few short years, we believed then and now that the 
Department needs the ability to better manage this extraordinary 
workforce transition period. Just as important, this smoother 
transition period would allow for better and more effective development 
of our younger workers, who will have a better chance to learn and gain 
from the expertise of the older generation of innovators. A similar 
bill was also introduced by our Ohio colleagues in the House, 
Congressmen Dave Hobson and Tony Hall.
  After discussions with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, 
Senator Warner, we included language in the fiscal year 2001 Defense 
authorization bill to allow for voluntary early retirement authority 
and voluntary separation incentive pay for a total of 9,000 Department 
of Defense civilian employees for fiscal year 2001 through 2003. This 
language provided, at least initially, the critical new flexibility to 
the Department of Defense to better manage its civilian workforce. 
However, this language simply gave the Defense Department the authority 
to initiate the program in fiscal year 2001 utilizing discretionary 
funds, but required that ``the Secretary of Defense may carry out the 
program authorized . . . during fiscal years 2002 and 2003 with respect 
to workforce restructuring only to the extent provided in a law enacted 
by the 107th Congress.'' Senator DeWine and I intend to work closely 
with Chairman Warner, and the Ranking member of the Committee, Senator 
Levin to ensure that the necessary workforce restructuring provisions 
are enacted this year. I see my colleague from Ohio on the floor, and 
would yield to him for any comments.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding, and agree with 
his comments. The reason why we had to settle on limited language in 
last year's defense authorization bill is mainly because our initial 
legislation required mandatory, or direct spending, which must be 
provided for as part of the budget resolution. The actual direct 
spending involved, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 
amounts to $82 million through fiscal year 2011. So, as my colleague 
from Ohio would agree, we are seeking a minimal amount to provide the 
Defense Department with the maximum flexibility needed to meet its 
workforce challenges. We are hopeful that the Bush administration will 
call for this financing as part of the fiscal year 2002 defense budget, 
and for that reason, we have been working with the chairman of the 
Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, to ensure that the necessary direct 
spending amounts are assumed in this year's concurrent resolution. I 
see Chairman Domenici on the floor, and will yield to him at this time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the two Senators from Ohio for their interest 
and hard work in this important issue. This is a matter that impacts a 
number of states that are home to civilian employees of the Defense 
Department, including New Mexico. I know my colleagues from Ohio have 
been working on this issue for several years, and I agree that 
something needs to be done. As this budget resolution assumes the 
President's budget, if the President's budget accommodates the direct 
spending necessary for this program, then the Senators from Ohio can 
assume that this budget resolution accommodates this program. So, the 
Senators from Ohio can be sure that if this matter is addressed in the 
President's budget, I will work with them to be sure that the final 
budget resolution we will work out with the House will assume all the 
increases and new programs in the President's budget for important 
programs, such as this one.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I thank the Chairman of the Budget Committee for his 
comments, and look forward to working with him and Senator DeWine to 
ensure this assumption is maintained in the final budget resolution 
approved by Congress.


                    Long-Term Care Staffing Shortage

  Mr. JOHNSON. With the many priorities we have to cope with, I would 
simply like to point out that we cannot lose sight of the need to 
address the very critical problem of labor shortages plaguing our 
health care providers both in my State, and all across the Nation.
  It is important that the budget resolution we ultimately pass address 
these labor shortages.
  In my own State of South Dakota, for example, it is not uncommon to 
have a 100 percent turnover rate for Certified Nursing Assistants--
clearly that's a crisis that should not and cannot continue if we are 
going to maintain quality care for seniors. And for anyone who doesn't 
know what the Certified Nursing Assistants do--they are the ones who 
provide the front line, bedside care to the frail and elderly. A very 
difficult and demanding job.
  Another major problem is that the average starting salary for South 
Dakota's certified nursing assistants is just $7.32 per hour--and the 
average wage is $8.10 per hour.
  Mr. GREGG. We have similar problems in New Hampshire, and I agree

[[Page 5871]]

with my colleague that we have a shortage of trained health care 
workers, particularly those providing services to our nation's elderly. 
If this problem is not addressed, the viability of our nation's entire 
health care system will be threatened.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Just as bad, and yet another problem that creates a 
parallel crisis, is the fact that many states--including my own--simply 
do not have realistic Medicaid reimbursement rates.
  In my state, Medicaid provides the resources for care for more than 
two out of three patients in nursing homes. South Dakota's average 
daily Medicaid reimbursement rate is $83.78 per patient, which, in 
fact, is a $17.34 shortfall from covering the actual cost of care. It's 
simply not plausible for $83.78 per day to cover the cost of care, room 
and board, three meals a day, medicine, specialized equipment and other 
critical needs.
  The net result of these artificially low Medicaid reimbursement rates 
is that they further squeeze an already difficult labor and staffing 
situation--and these problems feed on themselves to make matters very, 
very problematic for our health care providers.
  Until we begin increasing Medicaid reimbursement rates to levels more 
than we pay a babysitter, for example, this squeeze will continue and 
seniors will be threatened.
  Mr. GREGG. Like your State of South Dakota, New Hampshire is 
currently plagued by low Medicaid reimbursement rates. Skilled nursing 
facilities caring for our frail and elderly are expected to take this 
meager reimbursement rate and provide 24-hour care, room, board, meals, 
and some therapies--and of course, nursing salaries come out of this 
cost as well. So it is no surprise that the average Certified Nurse 
Assistant turnover rate is approximately 80 percent.
  In New Hampshire, the livable wage for a single parent with two kids 
is $18.92 an hour. The average starting salary of a Certified Nursing 
Assistant starts at $8.50 an hour, and the average salary is $10.26. 
Skilled nursing facilities in our state have their hands tied over how 
much they can pay due to low reimbursement rates. We simply must invest 
in the care of our frail and elderly. I hope Congress will address this 
problem of long term care staffing shortage.


                 restrictions on advance appropriations

  Mr. WARNER. I bring to your attention, my concern about a provision 
in the House version of the Concurrent Budget Resolution, H. Con. Res. 
83, concerning restrictions on advance appropriations. The Senate 
provision more properly addresses this issue. The House provision 
(Section 13) is extremely vague and restricts both the Congress and the 
Administration concerning the funding of capital projects using advance 
appropriations. As you prepare to conference the Fiscal Year 2002 
Concurrent Budget Resolution, I urge you to sustain the Senate 
provision (Section 201) in the final conference report.
  Mr. LOTT. I strongly concur with the Chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee on this issue, and also urge that the Senate provision on 
advance appropriations be included in the final conference report.
  Mr. SESSIONS. As Chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, I fully 
support the Senate provision concerning advance appropriations in the 
Concurrent Budget Resolution. I think it is important that members have 
tools such as advance appropriations available to consider as a 
financing option for capital projects such as building ships.
  Ms. SNOWE. I want to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Budget 
Committee for his consideration and cooperation in this very important 
matter as well as the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee and Majority Leader for bringing this issue to my colleague's 
attention. The Senate version reinforces the President's budget 
blueprint for advance appropriations as a full funding mechanism that 
can be used by various departments, such as the Department of Energy, 
the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Defense, and 
agencies, such as NASA, to level fund capital projects. Without this 
valuable tool, the ability of Congress to budget the federal 
government's capital investment projects will be severely restricted. I 
most strongly concur with my esteemed colleagues that the Senate 
version must be sustained in conference.
  Ms. COLLINS. I want to take a moment to commend and thank my 
distinguished colleagues for their insight and leadership on this 
critical issue. The use of advance appropriations would provide our 
federal agencies the flexibility to alternatively fund large capital 
investments. Specifically, I am aware that the Navy is currently 
studying advance appropriations as a means to reform the way it 
acquires its ship in an effort to stabilize the shipbuilding program, 
flatten out budget spikes, and potentially reduce costs through 
economic order quantity buys of ships and their systems. I believe that 
this funding alternative should be pursued, and I hope to see the 
Senate provision sustained in Conference.
  Mr. DOMENICI. These are important concerns that the Majority Leader, 
the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and 
Senators Sessions, Snowe and Collins have raised. The Senate version, 
section 201, Restriction on Advance Appropriations, provides for the 
funding of capital projects, while maintaining the discipline of full 
advance funding. I assure my colleagues that I will work to ensure that 
this issue is adequately addressed.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Chairman of the Budget 
Committee for his cooperation.


          funding for the corporation for public broadcasting

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to raise a concern with the 
Chairman of the Budget Committee regarding advance appropriations. 
Specifically, I am concerned about the funding for public broadcasting.
  Consistent with the President's budget request, the Resolution 
provides that any advance appropriation would be scored in the year in 
which it is appropriated instead of the year in which it is obligated, 
the past policy. This provision was included because of past problems 
with the practice. Last year, for example, the Administration 
threatened to veto appropriations bills unless increases in funding 
were provided using the mechanism of advance appropriations. The 
provision is intended to close that loophole.
  Despite its strong support for this provision, the Office of 
Management and Budget has indicated its willingness to examine specific 
programs, on a case by case basis, to determine whether an advance 
appropriation is merited for programmatic reasons. For example, I was 
informed today the Office may consider advance funding for certain 
defense construction or procurement items which by definition often 
involve multi-year obligations.
  My office has talked to OMB officials as recently as this morning on 
this issue. They are willing to work with the Appropriations Committee 
and the Budget Committee over the recess to determine whether CPB 
should be granted an exception to the rule. If an agreement could be 
worked out acceptable to all the parties, I believe the Budget 
Committee should have the flexibility to consider it in conference if 
it so chooses.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, If the distinguished Chairman of the 
Budget Committee is willing to review this matter with OMB and the 
Appropriations Committee, there are several issues I hope he will 
consider. First and most important, the practice provides the lead time 
stations need to line up programs that may take up to two or three 
years to produce--programs like Baseball and the Civil War that are 
years in the making. In other words, advance funding encourages prudent 
planning.
  Second, it allows the stations to use the availability of federal 
funds to leverage private sector funding both through foundations and 
viewer fundraising to maximize the resources available for quality 
programs. And lastly, advance funding reduces the potential of 
political interference in programming decisions.

[[Page 5872]]




               Deductibility of State and Local Sales Tax

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, Section 17 of the House-passed budget 
resolution for fiscal year 2002, H. Con. Res. 83, contains language 
relating to an issue that is important to the citizens of my home State 
of Tennessee, and the citizens of Texas, Wyoming, Florida, South 
Dakota, Nevada and Washington. The issue is the deductibility of state 
and local sales taxes. Section 17 of H. Con. Res. 83 states that it is 
the sense of the House of Representatives that the Committee on Ways 
and Means should consider legislation to make State sales taxes 
deductible against Federal income tax.
  Earlier this year, I introduced the AMT and Tax Deduction Fairness 
Act of 2001, S. 291. My bill would allow individuals to deduct either 
their state and local sales taxes, or their state and local income 
taxes on their federal tax return, but not both. Currently, the federal 
tax laws discriminate against residents of states like mine that choose 
to raise revenue primarily through a sales tax, because federal law 
does not permit a deduction for state and local sales taxes. Federal 
tax law does provide a deduction for state and local income taxes, 
however. Prior to 1986, taxpayers were permitted to deduct all of their 
state and local taxes paid, income, sales and property. This deduction 
was based on the principle that imposing a tax on a tax is unfair. The 
Tax Reform Act of 1986 eliminated the deductibility of state and local 
sales taxes, but retained the deduction for state and local income 
taxes. My bill is simply intended to address this inequity in the tax 
code. According to a March 2000 Joint Committee on Taxation revenue 
estimate, the cost of allowing individuals to deduct either their state 
and local sales taxes or state and local income taxes, but not both, is 
$25.1 billion over 10 years.
  It was my intent to offer an amendment to the Senate budget 
resolution similar to Section 17 of H. Con. Res. 83, expressing the 
sense of the Senate that the Committee on Finance should consider 
legislation to make state and local sales taxes deductible against 
federal income tax. However, I recognize that such an amendment would 
be ruled non-germane under the Senate's budget rules. Therefore, I want 
to ask the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to work with me 
during the conference on the budget resolution to retain the House 
language on this issue with some minor modifications.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I recognize the importance of this issue 
to the Senator from Tennessee, as well as the Senators from Texas, 
Wyoming, Florida, South Dakota, Nevada and Washington. New Mexico has a 
gross receipts tax which is a complicated type of sales tax. New Mexico 
raises about the same amount of revenue from its gross receipts tax as 
it does from its state income tax. I point this out so that the Senate 
realizes that the Senator from Tennessee's proposal is an improvement 
for some states, but it may be a wash for other states.
  I believe that it is not good federal income tax policy for the code 
to favor one state's revenue raising scheme over another state's. This 
is the situation in the code now. States that have substantial state 
income taxes, but low or no state sales tax are favored over states 
that rely exclusively, or more heavily on state sales taxes. A fairness 
argument can be made for fully restoring the state sales tax deduction, 
however, to do so would cost the Treasury $83 billion over ten years. 
Nonetheless, the Senator from Tennessee has raised an important issue, 
and I pledge to work with my colleague during the conference on the 
budget resolution to include language regarding the deductibility of 
state and local sales taxes.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his assistance.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, over the past few days, we have heard a 
great deal of promises made regarding the FY 2002 budget resolution. As 
I have listened to the arguments made in support of this budget 
resolution, I am reminded of a scene from Jerome Lawrence's and Robert 
E. Lee's play, Inherit the Wind.
  On a sultry summer evening in a small town, two men sit in rocking 
chairs, reminiscing about their childhoods. One man tells the other of 
a beautiful rocking horse that he had longed for as a child. That 
rocking horse--Golden Dancer--shimmered in the sunlight that streamed 
through a storefront window. Knowing the rocking horse would cost his 
father a week's wages, he harbored little hope of ever owning that 
magnificent steed--expecting that it would always lie just beyond his 
reach, behind the storefront glass. But knowing of their son's dream, 
his father worked nights and his mother scrimped on groceries to buy 
that rocking horse. On the morning of his birthday, he awoke to find, 
at the foot of his bed, the rocking horse of his dreams, Golden Dancer. 
He hopped out of bed, jumped into the saddle, and began to rock. Almost 
in an instant, the rocking horse split in two. The wood was rotten. The 
whole thing had been put together ``with spit and ceiling wax. All 
shine and no substance . . . all glitter and glamour.'' That's how I 
feel about the promises made regarding this budget resolution and the 
approximately $1.5 trillion tax cut it authorizes.
  Mr. President, it was not too long ago that the American people were 
being enticed by the glittering promises of another Republican 
Administration. In 1981, President Reagan promised that massive tax 
cuts would balance the budget and reinvigorate an economy plagued by 
unemployment and inflation. Congress approved the Reagan economic plan. 
I even voted for it. I said at the time, President Reagan ``is the new 
President, give him a chance.'' But four years later, I stood on this 
floor and spoke of my regret at having cast that vote.
  That was in 1985, the year President Reagan had promised a balanced 
budget. In fact, according to the Reagan Administration's 1981 
projections, our nation was supposed to be enjoying a $500 million 
surplus in FY 1984, a $6 billion surplus in FY 1985, and a $28 billion 
surplus in FY 1986. Instead, the nation recorded a $185 billion deficit 
in FY 1984, a $212 billion deficit in FY 1985, and a $221 billion 
deficit in FY 1986. As a result, President Reagan's deficit/surplus 
estimates for FY 1982-FY 1986 fell short of their targets by $921 
billion. That golden promise of a bright fiscal reward turned out to be 
mere fool's gold.
  The American economy was in shambles. In 1982 and 1983, the annual 
unemployment rate was 9.7 and 9.6 percent, respectively, the highest 
rates recorded since 1950. In 1985, while America's wealthy were 
reaping the largest share of the national income since World War II, 
businesses and banks were failing at a record breaking pace. Our 
savings rate was the lowest in four decades, and our national trade 
deficit was ascending to a record high. There were record poverty rates 
in that year as well.
  Instead of beginning to pay off the federal debt, our debt 
obligations had more than doubled, soaring from $1 trillion in 1981 to 
$2.1 trillion in 1986. In 5 years, the Reagan Administration, with its 
sacred tax cuts, had accomplished what it took the previous 39 
presidential administrations the entire history of the United States to 
do--increase the Federal debt by a trillion dollars.
  In 1981, then-Senate Republican Leader Howard Baker had called the 
Reagan economic plan a ``river boat gamble.'' It is clear that the 
country had lost the bet.
  It took the hard-nosed, realistic 1993 Democratic plan to put 
America's economic house back in order. That was a real budget, a 
budget of hard choices and hard decisions, including tax increases. 
Democrats understood the political fall out that would come from 
raising taxes. No one really wanted tax increases. No one ever does. 
But we put the country first, we did what was necessary to cut the 
deficit, and we paid for it in the 1994 congressional elections.
  I call that 1993 budget a Democratic budget because not one single 
Republican in either the House or the Senate, voted for it. The 
Republican Senate Leader at the time claimed that the budget did ``not 
tackle the deficit.'' Another Republican Senator said: ``the plan 
cannot help the economy.'' Another even used the dreaded ``R'' word,

[[Page 5873]]

claiming that it was a ``one-way ticket to a recession.'' And yet 
another Republican Senator said of the tax increases in that budget: 
``make no mistake, these higher rates will cost (American) jobs.''
  Yet, no recession came. There were eight years of solid economic 
growth, eight years of job growth. We finally achieved a balanced 
budget, and we are paying off the national debt.
  Now, 20 years after the 1981 Reagan fiscal disaster, a new Republican 
Administration is making the same glittering promises to the American 
people. The Senate today was asked to buy another ``Golden Dancer.'' 
This budget resolution looks alluring sitting in the store window. But 
all that holds it together are the spit and ceiling wax of rosy ten-
year surplus projections and unrealistic spending cuts.
  Mr. President, I have already spoken at length this week about how 
the Senate has considered this year's budget resolution with maximum 
hurry and minimal information, debate, and opportunity for amendment. 
First, the Budget Committee--for the first time ever--was not allowed 
to draft a budget resolution. Instead, one was presented to the Senate 
by the Chairman of the Budget Committee and his party's leadership. 
Second, the Senate considered this budget resolution without the 
benefit of the President's budget, which means that the Senate has no 
way of knowing what programs will be cut to make room for these massive 
tax cuts.
  The most egregious example of this can be found as a footnote on page 
188 of the President's budget outline, A Blueprint For New Beginnings, 
at the bottom of Table S-4. The footnote reads: ``The final 
distribution of offsets has yet to be determined.'' Until April 9th, 
when the Congress receives a detailed copy of the President's budget, 
the Senate has no way of knowing what the specific reductions will be 
for $20 billion in spending cuts that are proposed on page 188 of the 
President's ``Blueprint'' for this year's budget.
  What we do know is based on what was presented to us by the Budget 
Committee Chairman and the Republican leadership in the form of this 
budget resolution. What we have here is a ten-year spending plan built 
on the Congressional Budget Office's ten-year surplus projections. But 
what of those projections?
  In testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, Deputy Director 
Barry Anderson repeatedly warned about the volatility of these 
projections. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office devoted an entire 
chapter in its Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2002-2011 to 
the uncertainties in forecasting economic and budget conditions. On 
page 93 of that document CBO cautions that there is only a 10 percent 
chance that budget surpluses will materialize as they have projected. 
On page 95 the CBO warns that, based on historical averages, its 
projections will be off by $52 billion in FY 2001, $120 billion in FY 
2002, and $412 billion in FY 2006.
  To be considering a ten-year budget plan that includes permanent tax 
cuts, after the Congressional Budget Office has gone to such lengths to 
explain just what a crapshoot these projections are, is the pinnacle of 
fiscal irresponsibility. The Congressional Budget Office has put 
warning labels on everything this year. CBO officials say that this 
budget could be hazardous to the fiscal health of the nation. Yet, we 
hopped onto a ten-year budget plan without so much as blinking.
  Why? What was the hurry? Why couldn't we have waited until we saw a 
copy of the President's budget? Why couldn't we have waited until the 
Joint Tax Committee and the Congressional Budget Office had the details 
they needed to examine the President's budget and report back its 
findings to the Congress? We accepted these surplus projections based 
on little more than faith, without any real idea how these massive tax 
cuts would affect the overall budget.
  Fiscal prudence dictates that we should move slowly before enacting 
massive tax cuts based on these highly speculative surpluses. Does this 
budget resolution embrace that notion? No. In fact, it includes 
reconciliation instructions to expedite--not delay--but expedite 
consideration of these tax cuts.
  I have already spoken at length about reconciliation, and how using 
such a procedure to limit the Senate's consideration of the President's 
tax cut plan would ``break faith with the Senate's historical 
uniqueness as a forum for the exercise of minority and individual 
rights.'' This is my greatest concern. But reconciliation would also 
put us on the fast track for passing massive tax cuts without any room 
to reverse or correct our course later if these surplus projections 
turn out to be false. This train has us speeding through a long, dark 
tunnel with no lights and with no idea of what lies ahead.
  The only thing that we know for certain is that these tax cuts will 
prevent any substantial domestic investments over the next ten years, 
even if we accept these surplus projections at face value. This budget 
resolution barely keeps pace with what the Congressional Budget Office 
says is necessary to maintain current services. In addition, this 
budget contains no adjustment for the fact that we are a growing 
nation, with our population expected to increase by 8.9 percent over 
the next ten years. There will not be enough money to address the 
backlog of infrastructure needs that have built up over the past years. 
Our schools are crumbling, our roads need repair, our bridges are 
falling down, our drinking water is polluted, our sanitation systems 
are inadequate, our dams are unsafe. Are we expected to ignore these 
problems so that we can finance a tax cut for the wealthy!
  What about Social Security and Medicare reform? When the baby-boom 
generation begins to retire over the next ten years, financial pressure 
on the Social Security and Medicare trust funds will rise rapidly as 
payroll tax income falls short of what is needed to pay benefits. Both 
programs are expected to have expenditures in excess of receipts in 
2016. Where will the federal government find the money to finance these 
benefits? In the absence of budget surpluses for the rest of the 
government's operations, policymakers would have three options: raise 
other taxes, curtail other spending, or borrow money from the financial 
markets. If we go along with these massive tax cuts, how will we honor 
our pledge to protect Social Security and Medicare?
  And, what about the unforseen disasters that will inevitably occur 
over the next ten years, or the increases in defense spending that 
ultimately be recommend by the President's advisory committee? How is 
Congress expected to pay for these needs if it has already frittered 
away available surpluses?
  Mr. President, 170 years ago, a frustrated German philosopher 
Friedrich Hegel pointed out that ``what experience and history teach is 
this--that people and governments never have learned anything from 
history, or acted on principles deduced from it.'' What better way to 
reaffirm that opinion than by the Congress enacting a massive tax cut 
based on highly speculative surplus projections.
  By passing this budget resolution today, the Senate has ignored what 
history has tried to teach us. I say to my colleagues, we have taken 
this ride before. This budget is nothing more than spit-shined 
Reaganomics, and it deserved to be defeated.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will vote for the budget resolution for 
fiscal year 2002 in the interest of moving the budget process forward. 
My vote for the resolution should not be interpreted as an endorsement 
of the budget package. Indeed, I have some serious reservations about 
the priorities and assumptions contained in this resolution. At this 
point in the process, we do not know the details of a final budget. 
Rather, the Senate is only voting on a blueprint, not a completed 
budget document.
  I have a statement of principles that I believe should be reflected 
in the final budget proposal. I believe that these five principles 
reflect the Main Street economic realities that Americans talk about at 
their dinner tables.
  My first principle is that the budget must provide sufficient 
resources for

[[Page 5874]]

our national security. We have a solemn obligation to provide enough 
resources for those American military personnel who have volunteered to 
risk their lives to defend the rest of us.
  For too many years, the Clinton Administration neglected the people 
who volunteered for military service. But with appropriate increases 
and money freed up from eliminating waste and inefficiency in the 
defense budget, we can make progress toward restoring the morale and 
readiness of our Armed Forces.
  Currently, the Administration is undertaking an extensive review of 
our defense needs and necessary reforms. I want to make certain that 
the budget provides the resources for these overdue reforms, but also 
recognize that in the near term our air, sea, and land forces need to 
be substantially strengthened. That is why I supported the amendment by 
Senator Landrieu to substantially increase our defense budget over the 
next ten years.
  The second principle that will guide my judgement of a final budget 
is tax relief for those who need it the most, lower- and middle-income 
working families. I am in favor of a tax cut, but a responsible one 
that provides much needed tax relief for lower and middle-income 
families.
  I agree with the President that consumer debt is a massive problem 
for working Americans. If there is an economic downturn, I am concerned 
that debt will overwhelm many American households. That is why tax 
relief should be targeted to middle-income Americans. The more 
fortunate among us have less concern about debt. It is the parents 
struggling to make ends meet who are most in need of tax relief.
  I hope that when the reconciliation bills are reported out of the 
Senate Finance Committee, the tax cuts outlined will also address the 
pressing issues such as the child tax credit, reduction of the marriage 
tax penalty, payroll tax reform to lighten the burden of this tax on 
hard-working Americans, and estate tax reform that will take into 
account the effect such reform will have on our robust charitable 
community. For this and other reasons, I support a $5 million cap with 
regard to the estate tax cut.
  In this tax debate, we should avoid class war rhetoric, but a final 
budget plan should reflect Main Street realities. The Senate Finance 
Committee should firmly resist granting tax relief that benefits the 
special interests and K Street lobbyists at the expense of lower- and 
middle-income American taxpayers.
  That kind of tax relief I would never support.
  Third, the budget must provide for future obligations in Social 
Security and Medicare. Reforms are urgently needed in both programs, 
but we must have the resources to pay for them.
  For the first time in history, economic projections show a surplus of 
$3.1 trillion over the next ten years, exclusive of the surplus in the 
Social Security Trust Fund. At the same time, we know that the Social 
Securities system is projected to be bankrupt by about 2037 and 
Medicare will be broke around 2023, leaving millions of elderly 
Americans without the promised benefits they need to live comfortably 
in their retirement years. I am concerned that this budget resolution 
uses none of the surplus to shore up Social Security, does not use 
enough to shore up Medicare, and does not provide the resources needed 
to support reforms of these entitlement programs that will ensure their 
long-term solvency.
  My fourth principle is paying down as much of the national debt as 
possible. On Main Street, Americans believe it is conservative common 
sense to meet your financial obligations. Lower federal debt means 
lower interest rates on consumer loans, especially lower mortgage 
payments so people will have more money to spend or save.
  I applaud the resolution's goal of reducing the level of debt held by 
the public by nearly $2.4 trillion from a level of $3.2 trillion today 
to $818 billion in 2011. But I believe that we should use even more of 
the non-Social Security surplus in the early years to reduce the 
federal debt burden on future generations, given these surplus 
projections in the out years could be significantly off.
  My fifth principle is restraining spending, which Federal Reserve 
Chairman Greenspan warns could ``resurrect the deficits of the past.'' 
Many of the specific funding assumptions in the resolution are 
laudable, but I have identified tens of billions of dollars of port-
barrel spending in annual appropriations bills over the past several 
years--earmarks that never went through a merit-review process. Because 
of the compelling need to deal with the problems in Social Security and 
Medicare, we should look within the budget to eliminate waste in order 
to fund higher priority requirements, rather than spend the entire 
surplus on more government.
  I am pleased to note that the resolution includes a provision to 
ensure Congress complies with the revenue and spending levels in the 
resolution to limit budgetary gimmicks such as a new scoring rule that 
prevents the use of advanced appropriations to circumvent spending 
limits.
  I also fully support President Bush's intention to eliminate funding 
for earmarks in his first budget.
  While I am concerned that this budget resolution rests on uncertain 
surplus projections that will surely be affected by a changing domestic 
and world economic environment, this is just a resolution, not a final 
budget. In the coming weeks and months, I look forward to working with 
the Administration and my colleagues for a budget that reflects the 
principles that I outlined today.
  I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Budget Committee for 
conducting the debate in a civilized and constructive manner. The 
reconciliation bill that results from this budget blueprint should 
provide for necessary defense increases, tax relief for the American 
taxpayer, adequate funding for Social Security or Medicare reform, 
significant debt reduction, and spending restraint.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about our country's 
future and how it is being determined in the debate over this budget 
resolution, H. Con. Res. 83, which I oppose.
  At this propitious moment, we face a set of choices, both pleasant 
and consequential, about what to do with this precious surplus we have 
worked so hard as a nation to accumulate. The question is, how do we 
make the projected surplus work best for us? How do we take advantage 
of this extraordinary opportunity today to strengthen our economy and 
country for tomorrow, to expand this prosperity and security for 
generations to come?
  It is my view that this Congress must implement an effective long-
term vision. The central point I want to make today is that as we 
develop a budget, we need to be concerned with more than just a tax 
plan. We need a strategic blueprint for how to extend and expand our 
economic growth and how to widen the circle of opportunity and security 
to allow more Americans to share in the nation's prosperity.
  Unfortunately, that blueprint is not coming from our Republican 
colleagues or from the White House. The President has put forward a tax 
cut that was designed 15 months ago, in the midst of the Republican 
primaries, when one of his opponents, Steve Forbes, was promoting flat 
taxes. The Bush tax plan abandons fiscal responsibility and blithely 
spends, indeed, overspends, a projected surplus whose size six months 
down the road is unclear, to say nothing of its dimensions 10 years 
later. It is a tax plan that gives the most to those who need it least 
and leaves little or nothing for making the kinds of investments that 
will secure and brighten our future. Our Republican colleagues have put 
together a partisan budget blueprint that simply accommodates the 
President's tax cut.
  But neither the Bush plan nor the Republican budget are right for our 
country. They will waste the wealth our nation has earned over the last 
eight years and send us back down the road to debt, higher interest 
rates, and higher unemployment. They cannot answer the big questions of 
what kind of country we want to be ten years from now, because they do 
not ask the right

[[Page 5875]]

questions. They lack vision and therefore squander this moment's 
opportunity.
  The Republican Budget Resolution does not protect the Social Security 
or Medicare trust fund surpluses. It claims to set aside $453 billion 
for a ``contingency fund'' in order to prevent Congress from spending 
the Social Security and Medicare surpluses; however, that amount is not 
sufficient to maintain current policies, such as extending expiring tax 
credits, reforming the alternative minimum tax, and providing 
agricultural assistance--and to pay for the cost of new initiatives 
such as a national missile defense system. Because of the excessive 
Republican tax cut and the inadequate size of this contingency fund, 
Congress may be forced to raid the Social Security and Medicare trust 
funds or face the prospect of a return to budget deficits. The GOP 
budget imposes deep cuts on important programs. The Budget Resolution 
would cut non-defense discretionary spending by about $8 to $9 billion 
or two percent below the level needed to keep pace with what was 
provided last year, adjusted for inflation. Funding for environmental 
protection, disaster assistance, veterans' medical care, Community 
Oriented Policing (COPS) and the Army Corps of Engineers would be 
particularly hard hit.
  The Republican budget also falls short on debt reduction. The Budget 
Resolution would reduce the publicly-held federal debt from $3.4 
trillion at the end of Fiscal Year 2000 to $818 billion by Fiscal Year 
2011. Many experts believe that the publicly-held debt could be reduced 
to under $500 billion, $300 billion more in debt reduction than 
proposed by the Republicans.
  If we are to seize this moment, we must have a clear vision and a 
long view of where we want to go, and how best to get there. We need a 
new approach, rooted in old values--the broadly cherished principles of 
freedom, opportunity, responsibility and community upon which this 
democracy was built--values so ingrained in our national consciousness 
as to transcend the rhythms of history. We must be guided by the 
promise of growth and opportunity that moved the pioneers, by the hard-
work and enterprise that gave rise to the middle class, by the sense of 
responsibility to one another that has created good citizens and strong 
communities, and by that indefatigable American spirit of optimism and 
innovation that drives us forward in our pursuit of better lives and 
brighter vistas. What we need is a budget based on fiscal 
responsibility and wise investments, an agenda that empowers our 
citizens to succeed in the near term but that also guarantees their 
long term security.
  We must begin with a fiscally sensible budget, a budget that places 
the highest priority on paying down the national debt. One of the most 
enduring lessons of the last 20 years is that debt reduction pays off 
in the long term. Our surplus now gives us a historic opportunity to be 
debt free by the end of this decade, which will keep interest rates 
down on home mortgages, car loans, credit card bills and student loans, 
loosening the budgets of millions of American families. Low interest 
rates also cut the cost for capital available for business innovation 
and expansion. We must set aside at least one-third of the projected 
surplus to continue to pay off America's long-term debt. If the surplus 
does not turn out to be as large as we hope it will, then we will not 
have committed to obligations that might drive us into deficit spending 
again. The funds we set aside for debt reduction will become a rainy 
day fund.
  The next steps would be to invest in the building blocks of our 
society and economy: defense, healthcare, the environment, education, 
scientific research and development, and a robust private sector. And 
yet, the Bush partisan budget does just the opposite.
  For example, in healthcare the Bush budget would cut aid to the 
uninsured. By decreasing the funding for programs that increase access 
to health services for people without health insurance by 86 percent, 
the President jeopardizes the health and well being of the nearly 42 
million Americans that cannot afford health insurance and will actually 
decrease their access to health care services. His budget also fails to 
provide an adequate prescription drug benefit, providing only $153 
billion over 10 years to provide for a four year, low-income 
prescription drug benefit. CBO estimates this level of funding ``won't 
provide a great deal for any one person.'' I believe America should be 
increasing access to health insurance and health care services . . . 
not cutting critical programs. I am committed to passing a prescription 
drug plan that meets the need of seniors.
  I also am discouraged by the lack of funding that the Bush 
administration plans to designate for essential programs to protect our 
public health and environment. At the same time the Bush Administration 
has rolled back a number of regulations for protection in these areas 
and has walked away from its domestic and international commitments to 
address the problem of climate change, it also has slashed the funds 
available to the agencies responsible for these important issues. The 
amount the Republican Budget Resolution designates for these essential 
environmental programs is 15 percent below what is needed to maintain 
FY2001 spending power.
  I have supported efforts to put this funding back in the budget 
resolution. The amendment that I co-sponsored with Senator Kerry 
renewed the funding for the range of government programs intended to 
address our climate change problem. I thank my colleagues for 
recognizing the dire need for these programs and passing the amendment. 
I also supported the amendment sponsored by Senator Corzine, which 
would have provided the funding that is needed for the full range of 
environmental programs. Mr. President, the protection of the 
environment is not a luxury item; we must not sacrifice it to pay for a 
tax cut.
  This budget resolution also must recognize that skills and learning 
not only drive productivity growth, but increasingly determine 
individual opportunity. We must concentrate our resolve and our 
resources on changing the way we teach and train our labor force. We 
need to start at the beginning and reform our K-12 system to raise 
academic achievement for all children. Congressional Democratic 
education proposals all provide more funding for our public schools 
than President Bush and the Republicans do, and that is undoubtedly 
because they spend so much on his tax cut plan, that he has little left 
over for other critical societal investments.
  As we move forward, we can and should create a direct and progressive 
connection between taxes and education. Parents, workers and employees 
should be given tax credits to make lifelong learning easier. The 
expenses of employers investing in remedial education--to make up for 
failures in the performances of our K-12 school system--should be 
offset with a new education tax credit. And most importantly, I support 
tax relief for low- and middle-income families struggling to pay the 
cost of their children's college education and their own mid-career re-
training. These families should be allowed to deduct up to $10,000 of 
higher education costs from their income tax each year.
  Equally as important are adequate funds for basic science and 
research and development. The role of scientific innovation is central 
to our country's economic growth. The story of the American economy is 
the story of scientific breakthroughs leading to economic growth. Yet, 
President Bush's budget outline starves three of the greatest 
generators of innovative ideas: The National Science Foundation, NASA, 
and the Department of Energy. For instance, the National Science 
Foundation is slated for a 1.3 percent funding boost, which is 
effectively a cut, since that increase is less than the rate of 
inflation. Rather than curtailing physical science R&D funding, we 
should be doubling the federal basic research investment over the next 
10 years and promoting education initiatives to expand the technically-
trained workforce. Increases in federal research dollars, at NSF, NASA, 
and DoE are critical to educating the next generation of scientists and 
engineers.

[[Page 5876]]

  A visionary budget must allow for a tax package with a purpose. And 
that purpose must be, above all else, to stimulate economic growth, to 
raise the tide that lifts the lot of all Americans. One-third of the 
projected surplus should be dedicated to tax reductions, some to reward 
working families and the rest to business tax cuts that stimulate 
economic growth and new jobs. In the spirit of the Innovation Economy, 
we should look to tax incentives that will spur the drivers of growth: 
innovation investment, a skilled workforce, and productivity and there 
are many possibilities to consider.
  In 1997, I supported reducing the capital gains rate to help reduce 
the cost of innovation investment in our economy, and I think it helped 
build our economic boom. I believe the capital gains rate should be 
reduced again. Eliminating capital gains entirely for long-term 
investments in start-up entrepreneurial firms would encourage a strong 
venture capital market, and the investment in new companies that is 
falling off now.
  Small firms lagging behind their larger brethren in productivity 
growth should be given tax credits to invest in information technology. 
Small business accounts for 40 percent of our economy and 60 percent of 
the new jobs. But less than one-third of small businesses are wired to 
the Internet today. Those that are wired--and this is a stunning 
statistic--have grown 46 percent faster than their counterparts who are 
unplugged.
  One of the most effective ways to spur business investment, 
productivity increases and economic growth is adjusting depreciation 
schedules in the tax code to more accurately reflect the lifetime of a 
product. For some classes of investments, particularly rapidly changing 
information technology equipment, current depreciation schedules no 
longer match actual replacement rates, so companies that use technology 
must continue to carry an expense on their books long after the 
expenditure has ended its useful life. I suggest that, where 
appropriate, depreciation schedules should be shortened to reflect 
actual replacement rates.
  Removal of economic and governmental barriers to the build-out of a 
broadband should be a top priority so we can erect the next stage of 
the IT infrastructure. Broadband offers new opportunities for new 
products, services, and efficiencies. We should offer a tax credit to 
get this new infrastructure build-out promptly.
  Making the R&D tax credit permanent would encourage industry to 
invest in research and technological innovation. Additional reforms to 
the credit could make it more accessible to small businesses and start 
ups and encourage more cooperative research consortia.
  If we are successful in building on our prosperity, we will be able 
to guarantee the future of Social Security and Medicare. Everyone knows 
that strengthening Medicare will require more resources, not less. Yet 
the President's tax cut reaches into the Medicare surplus, leaving 
scant hope for modernization, or a new, meaningful prescription drug 
benefit, as the President promised. While today's workers will rely 
more and more on personal savings for retirement, for millions of 
Americans, Social Security is still the foundation of their old-age 
support. We must meet our obligations to our retirees, but we must also 
seek reforms that will make their retirements more secure.
  A responsible, long term budget also must be attentive to short term 
challenges. While I am confident it is the inherent strength of our 
private sector that will do most to bring our economy out of its 
current dip, we in government can provide some help through Federal 
Reserve monetary policy and federal government fiscal policy. Finally, 
the administration and its congressional allies have acknowledged that 
the $1.6 trillion Bush tax cut plan would give nothing back to 
taxpayers this year and little next year. So now, they talk about 
wanting to add a one year economic stimulus to their larger plan and 
pass the two together. Mr. President, as I have stated before, I fear 
that doing so would hold hostage the help our lagging economy needs now 
to a drawn-out congressional debate about the long-term Bush plan. In 
other words, help would not come until it was too late.
  We need a fair, fast and fiscally responsible tax stimulus. 
Economists tell us that it would take a tax cut of at least $60 billion 
to have a positive effect on our economy this year. Current estimates 
are that the federal government will have a surplus of about $100 
billion at the end of this fiscal year, September 30, so we can safely 
afford a $60 billion stimulus. I would divide that $60 billion by the 
200 million Americans who paid income or payroll taxes last year and 
send each one of them a $300 check as soon as possible--a surplus 
dividend tax rebate that can give our economy and our national 
confidence the kick-start they need. That check would go to every 
member of a family who worked last year.
  Ten years from now, we will be judged by the decisions we make today. 
People will ask, did we fully understand the awesome changes taking 
place in our economy and in our society? Did we direct our 
unprecedented surpluses into investments with the greatest returns? Did 
we give our workers the tools they need to seize the opportunities an 
innovation economy offers? And were we guided by those proud American 
values that have brought us this far?
  If we keep that perspective in view from the vantage point of our 
daily lives, we'll have a good shot at answering those questions 
affirmatively. But we must exercise discipline and follow a regimen: We 
cannot spend money we don't have, despite the temptations to do so. We 
must pay our bills and make investments for our future before we take 
vacations. A short term economic stimulus to help lift us out of this 
economic slowdown has to be followed by business tax credits and smart 
investments to sustain longer-term growth. Only then, can we be 
confident of our ability to provide comfort and security to our parents 
and for a bright future to our children.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the Chairman of the 
Budget Committee for provisions in his substitute amendment that 
reinforce President Bush's budget blueprint for the use of advance 
appropriations as a mechanism for capital investment. The chairman's 
extraordinary foresight will ensure that the option to use advance 
appropriations will still be available as a budget management tool for 
Congress and Federal departments and agencies.
  As described by OMB Circular A-11, advance appropriations is a 
funding mechanism, which together with funding in the current year, 
provides full funding of capital projects and scores following year 
funds as new budget authority in the year in which funds become 
available for obligation. This mechanism is used by various 
departments, such as the Department of Energy and the Department of 
Transportation, and agencies, such as NASA, to level fund capital 
projects. In addition, the Department of Defense is considering 
employing advance appropriations for capital projects in the future.
  Section 13 of the House Budget Resolution recommends severely 
restricting the ability to use the method of advance appropriations by 
requiring a capital investment program be scored against 302(a) 
allocations and totaled in the year in which these appropriations are 
enacted. This differs from scoring the appropriations in the year in 
which it is obligated.
  The flexibility to use the advance appropriations method is an 
important management tool that enables federal agencies and departments 
to score capital investment project appropriations in the year in which 
they are obligated rather than scoring the whole cost of the project in 
the year in which the appropriations are enacted. This option allows 
the federal government to make selected capital investments in much the 
way the American people would, and that is pay as you go. I urge my 
colleagues to support and sustain the advance appropriations provision 
included by our distinguished Budget Committee chairman in his 
substitute amendment.

[[Page 5877]]




                          workforce investment

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
attached letters of support for the Harkin-Wellstone amendment be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Minnesota Governor's Workforce


                                          Development Council,

                                    Saint Paul, MN, April 3, 2001.
     Hon. Paul Wellstone,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       The Minnesota Governor's Workforce Development Council 
     (GWDC) is in support of your efforts to increase funding for 
     workforce development programs in the FY2002 budget 
     resolution.
       As you know, Minnesota is experiencing a long-term labor 
     shortage and, in some sectors, short-term economic slowdowns. 
     The combination makes a particularly compelling case for 
     increased federal support for workforce development efforts 
     that benefit incumbent workers, new entrants into the labor 
     market including new Americans, working families, and others 
     seeking to advance their education and upgrade their skills.
       Minnesota has worked hard to build a strong and dynamic 
     workforce system. We are currently exploring several options 
     to further strengthen our efforts through a reorganization of 
     some state agencies and a shift toward more local 
     decisionmaking about workforce investments. A constant theme 
     we have heard during these discussions is that the federal 
     resources for training and skill advancement are woefully 
     inadequate.
       We have successfully used Workforce Investment Act (WIA), 
     Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and Welfare-
     To-Work Block Grant funds, augmented by significant state 
     resources, to transition thousands into the labor market and 
     advance through the workforce. However, the broad workers 
     shortage, coupled with significant dislocations right now, 
     strains our resources. Additional federal funding would allow 
     us to better serve Minnesotans who need skills training to 
     advance, other training and support to enter the workforce, 
     and training and education to transition to new jobs after a 
     layoff. Additional investment by Congress now would go a long 
     way toward moving us through this short-term dip in the 
     economy and addressing our longer term workforce needs.
       On behalf of the Governor's Council, stakeholders in 
     Minnesota's workforce system, and your Minnesota 
     constituents, I urge you to move forward with your efforts 
     knowing that you have our support and confidence. If you need 
     any additional information or assistance, please contact me 
     directly or GWDC staff Luke Weisberg (651-205-4728 or 
     [email protected]) or Kathy Sweeney (651-296-3700 or 
     [email protected]).
       Again, we applaud your efforts and appreciate your support 
     on this and other issues.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Roger L. Hale,
     Chair.
                                  ____

                                       Minnesota Workforce Council


                                                  Association,

                                    Saint Paul, MN, April 3, 2001.
     Re Senate Budget Resolution--Amendment to Increase WIA 
         Funding.

     Hon. Paul Wellstone,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wellstone: On behalf of the members of the 
     Minnesota Workforce Council association (MWCA), I am writing 
     to express our strong support for your efforts to increase 
     funding for Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs. MWCA's 
     membership consists of the workforce investment board chairs, 
     chief local elected officials, and the program administrators 
     from each of the 16 workforce services areas in Minnesota.
       We agree with you that now is the time to invest in 
     workforce development! Unfortunately, President Bush's budget 
     blueprint indicates that funding for WIA programs would be 
     significantly reduced.
       Attached is a chart that highlights the funding trends over 
     the past eight years, adjusted for inflation, for the 
     Minnesota Job Services and the Minnesota Job Training 
     Partnership Act (JTPA)/Workforce Investment Act (WIA). As you 
     can see, funding for these key workforce development programs 
     has significantly declined from 1993 to 2000. In Minnesota, 
     using CPI adjusted numbers, we have experienced nearly a 60% 
     reduction in funding for JTPA/WIA (FY 1993 = $34,391,000; FY 
     2000 $14,522,000).
       The Workforce Investment Act provides a structure for 
     coordinating programs that are designed to help individuals 
     escape poverty, achieve economic independence,and recover 
     from job loss. Further, WIA provides a foundation for 
     developing the skilled workforce that is critical to our 
     long-term economic success. When Congress passed WIA, one of 
     the key goals was to create a more integrated system that is 
     flexible and responsive to the community needs. Through our 
     one-stop WorkForce Center System in Minnesota, we have 
     started to realize the benefits of working cooperatively 
     across programs to deliver better services to both job 
     seekers and employers within our communities. Without 
     adequate funding, we will not be able to realize the vision 
     of a seamless workforce development system that meets demands 
     of both job seekers and employers.
       Thank you for your efforts to secure additional funding for 
     WIA programs. If the members of MWCA can be of further 
     assistance, please contact Lee Helgen, MWCA Executive 
     Director, at 651-224-3344.
           Sincerely,

                                               Gordon Aanerud,

                               Carlton County Commissioner, Chair,
     Minnesota Workforce Council Association.
                                  ____



                                    Rural Minnesota CEP, Inc.,

                                 Detroit Lakes, MN, April 2, 2001.
     Senator Paul Wellstone,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wellstone: On behalf of rural counties and 
     their residents, I am writing to urge you to support any 
     amendment to the budget resolution that would increase 
     funding for workforce investment act (WIA) programs.
       WIA Dislocated Worker Programs: WIA programs are critical 
     to the future economy of rural areas. In our 19 county 
     service area, workers are being laid off from their jobs 
     every day. Our unemployment rate is significantly higher than 
     the state average. We need the resources to help these people 
     get back on their feet so they can support their families and 
     contribute to our local economy. A $200 million cut, as 
     proposed in the President's budget, in dislocated worker 
     programs will have a very negative impact on your 
     constituents.
       WIA Adult Programs: Our Nation is experiencing a skill 
     shortage. Many more people could get high paying jobs if they 
     had the right skills. Rural businesses have a tough enough 
     time making their hard earned dollars stretch. Taking away 
     funds that provide them with a skilled workforce is taking 
     away any hope of their survival. If Congress cuts our 
     training budget, we won't be able to provide your 
     constituents with the skills training they need to get these 
     better jobs. A $100 million cut in the adult training budget 
     is going to make it very difficult for rural employers to be 
     competitive.
       We have helped rural people move from welfare dependency to 
     financial independence. Our success includes moving people 
     into good jobs with career potential and upward mobility. We 
     will not be able to continue that if WIA program funds are 
     slashed by $500 million from current levels, as proposed in 
     the President's budget.
       WIA Youth Programs: Many of our youth remain at risk. If 
     Congress doesn't fund this program adequately, too many of 
     our young people are going to be left behind. A $100 million 
     cut in the youth employment program will surely cost tax 
     payers increased expenditures in public assistance or 
     juvenile offender costs. And then there is the long-term cost 
     of a poorly prepared, inadequate workforce.
       On behalf of employers, workers and future workers in my 19 
     country service area, I am asking you to support any efforts 
     to increase budget authority for these Workforce Investment 
     Act programs. Please remember this is not a partisan issue. 
     It is an issue that deeply affects rural areas. Your support 
     will assure that rural people will receive the kind of 
     assistance that they need to succeed in the workplace.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Larry G. Buboltz,
     Director.
                                  ____

                                          Board of Hennepin County


                                                Commissioners,

                                   Minneapolis, MN, April 3, 2001.
     Hon. Paul Wellstone,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wellstone: I am sending you this note to urge 
     you to support the Kennedy/Harkin amendment to the Budget 
     Resolution to increasing funding for the Workforce Investment 
     Act programs.
       Here in Hennepin County, Minnesota, we have seen a decline 
     in the JTPA and then the WIA funding from $1,688,652 in 1984 
     to $234,779 in 1999. As a county of over 1 million people, 
     the $200,000 dollar funding level is not adequate to meet the 
     needs of our constituents. In the area of dislocated workers, 
     the recent downturn in economic conditions has resulted in 
     daily notices of layoffs from companies in and around 
     Hennepin County. One of our major companies, ADC a major 
     supplier to the telecommunications industry, had an initial 
     layoff of some 500 people and last week indicated additional 
     layoffs of another 400-500 people. This is just one example 
     of many that we are seeing in our community. In today's 
     economy a skilled workforce in the cornerstone of economic 
     growth and prosperity and we believe that the Workforce 
     Investment Act allows us to respond to the needs of employers 
     and allows our residents the opportunity for jobs that can 
     support a family.

[[Page 5878]]

       The outcomes for the Workforce Investment Act programs in 
     our area are as follows:

Enrolled............................................................238
Program terminations................................................194
Placed in jobs......................................................164
Average wage at placement........................................$10.92
Cost per enrollment...........................................$1,195.70
Cost per job placement........................................$2,735.23

       As you can see from the data, this program is cost 
     effective, driven by performance standards and performs 
     beyond the expectations set by Congress and the Department of 
     Labor.
       Again, I urge you to vote for the amendment at $1 billion 
     per year over the next ten years.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Peter McLaughlin,
                                                     Commissioner.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President I rise today to join my colleagues in the 
important dialogue surrounding the budget resolution. As has been well 
documented this week, the Bush-Domenici Resolution before this body is 
a close approximation of the President's Budget Blueprint for New 
Beginnings. As member of the Senate Budget Committee I have been 
studying this document for a number of weeks. I am convinced that this 
Budget represents a commitment to tax cuts, the repayment of the Debt 
Owed to the Public, and sensible reform.
  Many of our priorities in Colorado are not radically different from 
those of Americans all over this vast country. We are concerned with 
education, the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, the 
strengthening of our national defense, and the protection of our 
wonderful natural resources and environment. The President has also 
addressed one of the most pressing needs for our soldiers, providing 
funding to improve the quality of life for our troops and their 
families. I am pleased to say that I believe President Bush has 
addressed these national priorities in a direct and sensible way while 
also speaking to the unique needs of Colorado.
  The budget blueprint proposed by President bush makes an historic 
attack on the debt owed to the American people. If we have the courage 
to pass this budget we will begin the fastest and largest debt 
reduction in history. Lower government debt means greater fiscal 
security for large government programs such as Social Security and 
lower interest rates on Coloradans who purchase homes, automobiles, and 
use credit cards. Most importantly, future generations will not beard 
the burden of our past fiscal irresponsibility. My grandchildren are 
seventh generation Coloradans, and I am dedicated to leaving them a 
brighter fiscal outlook than we have before us today.
  Fair tax relief for all taxpayers is a clear priority in the Budget 
Resolution. In recent weeks there have been numerous assaults against 
the tax cuts provided for in this legislation. In January, addressing 
the Senate Budget Committee, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan 
described this tax cut as moderate. In the scope of a $5.6 trillion 
federal surplus over the next ten years I find it laughable that there 
are members of this body who claim this tax cut is unaffordable. In 
Colorado the tax cut results in $1,600 of tax relief for a typical tax 
paying family of four. A Colorado family of four making thirty-five 
thousand dollars a year will receive a one-hundred percent federal 
income tax cut. Families making fifty thousand dollars will receive a 
fifty percent tax cut. More than one-and-a-half million Colorado 
taxpayers will benefit from the new, lowered rate structure, as will 
329,000 Colorado small businesses and entrepreneurs.
  The President's Budget also locks away every penny of the $2.6 
trillion Social Security surplus, an important step in preparing to 
address the much needed reform of Social Security in the coming years. 
The budget likewise directs every dollar of Medicare receipts be spent 
solely for Medicare expenditures, including a modern and fiscally 
responsible prescription drug program for the senior citizens of 
Colorado and the nation.
  The proposal before us dedicates the largest percentage spending 
increase of any federal department to the Department of Education, an 
increase of 11.5 percent. Further, the resolution before us will triple 
funding for children's reading programs. Colorado's education funding 
will increase over current levels to more than $461 million to give 
local schools more options and opportunities. Colorado's Head Start 
funding will increase over current levels to more than $63.9 million. 
This is truly an enormous fiscal commitment to the children of 
Colorado. I would be remiss not to note, I am encouraged to see 
increased funding over current levels to more than $21 million to help 
more Colorado children awaiting adoption find homes faster.
  The Budget Resolution also fully funds the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund and gives the Environmental Protection Agency its 
second highest operating budget ever. In Colorado the budget provides 
more than $6.6 million in funding for water resource projects, $32.8 
million to fund Colorado environmental protection efforts, and over $8 
million to help conserve Colorado's natural resources. As anyone who 
has visited my home state in recent months knows, transportation 
capacity is also an issue, and one this budget addresses. An estimated 
$334.8 million will go to Colorado highway funding.
  Recognizing the long-term social benefits of accessible health 
services and medical research the Bush-Domenici Resolution continues 
our pledge to double funding for the National Institutes of Health and 
creates more than 1,200 new community health centers nationwide. The 
budget further provides $391 million for programs and grants to help 
local fire departments and emergency services all across America with 
training, equipment and life-saving efforts.
  I am pleased to support the Bush-Domenici Resolution and I look 
forward to working with my colleagues this year as we appropriate the 
funds as outlined in this budget.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the budget 
resolution as well as an amendment I am offering which concerns the tax 
cut portion of the resolution.
  This week's debate is quite likely the most important debate in this 
body we have had, and will have, for several years. What we have before 
us is a budget blueprint that would completely reverse the direction of 
the United States federal government budget, a 180 degree change from 
budget policies we have pursued over the last eight years. What the 
Majority is offering is a repudiation of the fiscal discipline of the 
1990s and a return to the bold tax-cutting era of the 1980s.
  And why not? The Congressional Budget Office projects surpluses as 
far as the eye can see. Ten years from now, in 2011, they project a 
unified budget surplus of nearly 900 billion dollars. Social Security 
and Medicare, for at least several years, are on firm footing. Let's 
get this surplus money out of town, they say, before Washington 
bureaucrats have an opportunity to throw it down the drain.
  It's a strong argument, it sounds good in TV ads and Sunday morning 
talk shows. The American people should decide how their money is spent, 
not Washington politicians detached and removed from Mainstreet, USA.
  But the reality is quite different. The American people are not so 
easily deceived. Thanks to a previous Administration that demonstrated 
the benefits for everyone of turning around government deficits, 
taxpayers understand and appreciate the undeniable advantages of fiscal 
discipline. That is why when one puts before the public the following 
question, should the government send the surplus back in a tax cut or 
divide the surplus equally between debt reduction, tax relief, and 
priority investments, the second option, the prudent and reasonable 
option, always wins.
  So let's take a close look at the two options we have before us. This 
debate should not be about sound bites. It is far too important.
  The two options are the Democratic-favored balanced budget approach 
based on principles of fairness, reasonable tax relief, and fiscal 
discipline or the Republican-favored approach of risky, back-loaded tax 
cuts dependent on surpluses which may or may not appear. Is this 
Democratic approach, as the able senior Senator from Texas

[[Page 5879]]

calls it, just an excuse not to support a tax cut? Far from it.
  For the last 8 years, fiscal discipline has meant turning around 300 
billion dollar deficits into 200 billion plus surpluses. And what is a 
surplus, it is savings. It means the government is a net saver instead 
of a net debtor. It means that the federal government is buying back 
outstanding Treasury bonds from the public. The public turns around and 
invests that money elsewhere. In effect, every dollar of paid-down debt 
frees up a dollar for the public to invest in the private sector, the 
engine of growth.
  With the government acting as a net saver rather than a debtor, 
inflation is held in check and interest rates come down. The benefits 
to the American people are real. Auto loan rates are lower. Home 
mortgage rates are lower. Businesses have access to credit for 
investments, leading them to hire more workers and keeping unemployment 
down. As everyone from Greenspan to Rubin to Summers have recognized, 
it is a virtuous cycle.
  So what we have before us today is an effort to reverse that cycle, 
an effort to revert to another era, a prior era. We have been down that 
road. Is that the direction we want to steer the country?
  In the real world, a business would never write a check that it was 
not sure it could pay. But that is exactly what Republicans want to do 
with the biggest check of all. Let's write the check now and hope that 
when it comes due, there will be enough money in the bank to pay for 
it. Would any self-respecting businessman manage his company in such a 
fashion? The answer is no.
  The reality is that most of the Republican tax cut would not even 
take effect for several years, many provisions are so far into the 
future that they won't show up in any IRS form you file for nine or ten 
years. Building an estate? Great. I just hope you don't have the 
misfortune to pass away before 2011 because that is the year they 
repeal the estate tax.
  Can we really afford the check they are writing? That is the $64,000 
question. Economic and budget forecasting is somewhat like a weather 
forecast, the further you go into the future and the more long-range 
the forecast, the less likely it is to prove accurate.
  What we do know is that if productivity levels drop to their 
historical average, rather than staying at the levels they reached in 
the last few years, the surplus could fall by as much as $2 trillion.
  And 84 percent of the surplus comes after the next presidential 
election. Or put another way, two-thirds of the surplus comes in the 
second five years of the 10-year projection.
  But we need to pass a tax cut today to keep from spending the money. 
Last time I checked there were no spending proposals on the table that 
postpone their effective dates for 5 years. In the same way, we 
shouldn't be passing tax cuts that don't take effect for another 5 
years. Let's pass a short-term tax cut, and if the money comes in like 
the rosy forecasts indicate, we can extend it when the date arrives.
  I want to address some specific aspects of this budget before us. 
Back in February, we held a special joint session to hear our new 
President's priorities for the future. President Bush stated, 
``Education is my top priority and, by supporting this budget, you'll 
make it yours, as well.'' The truth rests in the numbers. The Bush 
budget includes 40 dollars in tax cuts for every one dollar increase in 
education.
  This budget resolution makes clear that President Bush's tax cut 
proposal is a higher priority than addressing key priorities, such as 
education and child care and that his enormous tax cut crowds out 
significant investments in education.
  Yesterday this body made significant strides toward increasing the 
budget numbers for education by reducing the tax cut. I am thrilled 
that the Senate voted to increase funding for important education 
priorities by $250 billion over 10 years. The majority leader has 
expressed his intention to attempt to overturn that vote later this 
week. I sincerely hope that that does not occur. The President's budget 
does not include a sufficient investment in public education. The 
amendment passed yesterday brings us much closer to the investment that 
we must make in public education in order to ensure each child has 
access to a first-rate education.
  Despite the President's claims, education funding in his budget does 
not keep pace with previous congressional funding increases for 
education. The President says that he is requesting an increase of $4.6 
billion for education, and he takes great pride in claiming a 11.5 
percent funding increase over the last fiscal year. But the President's 
outline includes only a 5.9 percent increase at the program level. To 
put that in plain English, almost half of the increase that Bush is 
touting as his major investment in education would happen even if the 
budget didn't pass and the appropriations process did not occur.
  About $2 billion of Bush's funding increase for his so-called ``top 
priority'' was forward-funded last year. So the actual increase in new 
spending that Bush is proposing is only about $2.5 billion. That is 
one-third the average rate of increase in education spending over the 
past four years, after adjusting for inflation. Here is the area that 
the President has identified as his highest priority, education, and it 
would have its recent rate of growth reduced by two-thirds.
  We don't know yet exactly which education programs Bush will increase 
funding for, because none of us have seen the details of Bush's budget. 
But he has said that he plans to provide funding for his reading first 
initiative, increase funding for special education, increase the 
maximum level of Pell Grants, increase funding for improving teacher 
quality, and provide more funding for character education. All of these 
are laudable goals and funding increases that I wholeheartedly support. 
But what about Title I funding? Does the President propose to increase 
funding for the most disadvantaged students? And what about after-
school programs and making our schools safe? What about more funding 
for education technology? In the last administration, we accomplished 
the amazing feat of connecting every school to the Internet. But will 
this President help schools to incorporate technology into the 
curriculum? We just don't know, and by math there won't be enough money 
for these priorities after this massive tax cut. That is why it is so 
critically important that the Harkin amendment not be overturned and 
the tax cut be decreased in order to pay for these important 
initiatives.
  One critically important initiative that we know the President's 
budget will not make a priority is school renovation and construction. 
There is overwhelming need for school construction funding. Three-
quarters of our schools are in need of repairs, renovation, or 
modernization. More than one-third of schools rely on portable 
classrooms, such as trailers, many of which lack heat or air 
conditioning. Twenty percent of public schools report unsafe 
conditions, such as failing fire alarms or electric problems. At the 
same time our schools are aging, the number of students is growing, up 
nine percent since 1990. The Department of Education estimates that 
2,400 new schools will be needed by 2003. Last month the American 
Society of Civil Engineers released their ``2001 Report Card for 
America's Infrastructure,'' which grades the condition of the nation's 
schools, drinking water, wastewater, transportation needs and so forth. 
Of all the categories included in the report, schools received the 
lowest mark, a D-. Despite these facts, despite the desperate need for 
repair and renovation, the Bush budget provides only a modest 
investment in school construction and only allows for the use of 
private activity bonds for schools, a mechanism that requires a major 
corporate sponsor to finance a school, which would help only a few 
communities that are struggling to meet growing enrollments or upgrade 
their crumbling schools.
  As many of my colleagues have already mentioned, there was a very 
disturbing report in the New York Times

[[Page 5880]]

several weeks ago about the anticipated cuts to critical children's 
programs. I am extremely distressed by this news. The President's 
singular focus on cutting taxes undermines critical programs like child 
care, early learning funding, child abuse treatment and prevention. The 
President plans to cut, not just slow the rate of spending, $200 
million from the Child Care and Development Fund. I would like to point 
out that there is a waiting list of more than 16,000 children in 
Massachusetts who await the opportunity to receive quality child care 
through this fund.
  I cannot figure out what has motivated the President to zero out the 
Early Learning Opportunities Act. This legislation, sponsored by 
Senator Stevens, passed the Congress last year with bipartisan support. 
President Bush believes strongly in literacy. And we all know that 
children who begin school lacking the ability to recognize letters, 
numbers, and shapes quickly fall behind their peers. Students who reach 
the first grade without having had the opportunity to develop cognitive 
or language comprehension skills begin school at a disadvantage. 
Children who have not had the chance to develop social and emotional 
skills do not begin school ready to learn. I'm sure that President Bush 
knows these things. So why would he cut funding for the Early Learning 
Opportunities Act, which seeks to bring together state and local 
resources to ensure that children begin school ready to learn?
  I guarantee you this, if you ask the American people whether they 
would prefer this enormous tax cut at the expense of funding for child 
care, child abuse prevention and treatment, and funding for early 
learning programs, they will unequivocally tell you that they want 
those programs strengthened and enhanced, not decimated, or in the case 
of the Early Learning Opportunities Act, zeroed out. It's certainly 
clear that children are not the President's top priority, his enormous 
tax cut is. We voted yesterday to support those programs that we know 
the American people care about. We must hold strong and resist attempts 
to undermine the funding commitment for these important programs.
  As we all know, the real details of the Bush budget are still locked 
up somewhere in the White House. The President wants Congress to leave 
town before those numbers are released. And well he should, because 
those numbers are going to show what we have all known for some time. 
Compassionate conservatism is code language for cuts in children's 
programs, health care, the environment and other national priorities.
  While we have not yet received the real Bush budget, what we are 
learning through confirmed accounts is that the budget will: cut child 
care grants by $200 million, cut child abuse programs by $16 million, 
and would entirely eliminate the $20 million ``early learning'' fund 
for child care and education for children under the age of 5 which is 
based on legislation I wrote.
  Cut funding for training health care providers in medically 
underserved areas by nearly $100 million.
  Cut the Office of Minority Health by 12 percent.
  Cut training for doctors at children's hospitals.
  Eliminate the COPS, or Community Policy Services Program.
  The list goes on. Someone will have to explain to me how cutting 
child care grants and child abuse programs is compassionate because I 
just don't see it.
  Let's take a couple minutes to look at the President's research and 
development agenda.
  Unfortunately, the President's budget plan will do serious damage to 
funding available for scientific R&D. Experts agree that over the past 
50 years, advances in science and technology have contributed to half 
our nation's economic growth. It's true that investments in R&D tend to 
pay off only in the long term. For instance, much of the growth we 
enjoyed in the 90s stemmed from investments the federal government made 
in science in the 1960s. The ubiquitous computer which is so critical 
to our productivity today would not be available to us if serious 
research had not begun decades ago. But, this budget fails to look to 
the long term, and by failing to adequately provide for investment in 
science and technology, will slow economic growth and leave our 
children and our grandchildren with far fewer opportunities than we had 
just a few short years ago.
  Instead of increasing the growth of science and technology, the 
President's budget proposal ignores the R&D needs of the nation. 
Although the Administration has indicated support for a $2.8 billion 
increase in the National Institutes of Health budget for FY 2002, many 
other research initiatives will not receive the funding levels they 
need. The President's budget proposal for next year projects that non-
defense R&D will decline by 7.8 percent adjusted for inflation, by 
fiscal year 2005. This is more than five times faster than the decline 
in total federal spending. After accounting for inflation, the Bush 
budget cuts the National Science Foundation by 2.6 percent, NASA by 3.6 
percent and the Department of Energy by 7.1 percent. In the end, under 
the Bush budget federal support for science will decrease by 6 percent 
by 2005 as a share of the Gross Domestic Product. This is contrary to 
the commitment we should be making to innovation and entrepreneurship.
  This budget's approach to science and technology research is short-
sighted and irresponsible. But don't take my word for it. Take the word 
of the science and technology advisor to the first President Bush. 
Allan Bromley, a nuclear physics professor at Yale, recently wrote an 
editorial that was published in the New York Times in which he 
expressed his concern about the impact the President's R&D cuts will 
have on the economy. He succinctly stated:

       The proposed cuts to scientific research are a self-
     defeating policy. Congress must increase the federal 
     investment in science. No science, no surplus. It's that 
     simple.

  So we have a budget blueprint before us that essentially rubberstamps 
a Presidential budget which we have yet to see, but that we are slowly 
learning, through leaks, will substantially cut a number of priorities 
that many of my Colleagues and the nation share.
  Now, I would like to take some time to discuss the President's tax 
plan and an amendment I am offering. We hear so much talk about how the 
President's tax plan provides the largest percentage reductions to low 
and middle-income families. Mr. President, it's just not true. The 
reality is that the President's tax cut would leave out 28 million 
taxpayers, taxpayers who see 15.3 percent of every paycheck go directly 
to the taxman. I'm talking about people who pay payroll taxes.
  For all taxpaying families, the average annual payroll tax burden is 
over $5,000. The average payroll tax payment has risen from $3,640 in 
1979 to $5,010 in 1999. For the vast majority of taxpayers, payroll 
taxes, Social Security and Medicare, generate the largest tax burden.
  Federal payroll taxes actually exceed federal income taxes for 80 
percent of all families and individuals with earnings. For single-
parent families, the number is even more alarming. Today, 95 percent of 
single-parent households pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes.
  According to the National Women's Law Center, over 3 million women 
raising children as a single parent, or 36 percent of all single 
mothers and their families, will receive no tax benefit from the Bush 
plan. Likewise, almost half of the black and Hispanic women raising 
children as a single parent would not benefit a one penny.
  These taxpayers lose out because the President's tax plan focuses 
only on marginal income tax rates. The House has made some small steps 
to address this issue, but more needs to be done if we are going to 
pass a balanced and fair tax bill.
  My amendment would require that any substantial tax relief 
legislation, 500 billion or greater, which comes to the floor of the 
Senate this year include a certification by the Senate Finance 
Committee that it provides significant relief for the 28 million 
taxpayers who pay payroll taxes but who

[[Page 5881]]

do not have sufficient earnings to generate income tax liability. Tax 
legislation which did not include a certification by the Senate Finance 
Committee, or conferees in the case of a tax bill conference report, 
would be subject to a 60-vote point of order.
  This amendment is a small step we need to take to ensure that as the 
Senate develops tax legislation, it maintains a commitment to providing 
REAL relief to all taxpayers, not a selected few. I can not imagine why 
anyone would oppose such a reasonable amendment. Clearly, any large tax 
bill should hold dearly the interests of all working families and I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I must oppose this budget because it is an 
irresponsible gamble with our economic future.
  This resolution sets aside trillions of projected budget surpluses 
for tax cuts proposed by President Bush that are steeply tilted to the 
wealthy. It pays for the Bush tax plan at the expense of needed 
investments in Social Security, Medicare, education, law enforcement 
and the environment. In addition, the cost of the Bush tax plan 
imperils our ability to pay off the national debt so that this nation 
can finally be debt free by the end of the decade.
  We should remember that the nation still carries the burden of a 
national debt of $3.4 trillion. Like someone who had finally paid off 
his or her credit card balance but still has a home mortgage, the 
federal government has finally balanced its annual budget, but we still 
have a national debt to pay off. In the meantime, the Federal 
government has to pay almost $900 million in interest every working day 
on this national debt.
  Paying off our national debt will help to sustain our sound economy 
by keeping interest rates low. Vermonters gain ground with lower 
mortgage costs, car payments and credit card charges with low interest 
rates. In addition, small business owners in Vermont can invest, expand 
and create jobs with low interest rates.
  I want to leave a legacy for our children and grandchildren of a 
debt-free nation by 2010. We can achieve that legacy if the Congress 
maintains its fiscal discipline. But this budget resolution tosses out 
fiscal responsibility for voodoo economics. It is based on a house of 
cards made up of rosy budget scenarios for the next ten years. Any 
downturn in the economy, are of which we are now beginning to 
experience, threatens to topple this house of cards.
  The $5.6 trillion surplus that President Bush and others are counting 
on to pay for huge tax cuts tilted toward the wealthiest one percent is 
based on mere projections over the next decade. It is not real. Many in 
Congress have been talking about the $5.6 trillion surplus as if it is 
already money in the United States Treasury. It is not.
  Let us take a close look at this $5.6 trillion. When you subtract the 
portion of the projected surplus that is expected to come from Social 
Security, we are left with $3.1 trillion over ten years. When you set 
the Medicare surpluses to the side, and use more realistic assumptions 
about taxes and spending over the next several years, that reduces the 
available surplus to $2.0 trillion. Under this scenario, the 
President's proposed tax cut of $1.6 trillion therefore has the 
potential to wipe out the entire surplus in one fell swoop. And that's 
IF the budget surplus projections are accurate.
  While none of us hope that the budget surpluses are lower than we 
expect, to be responsible we need to understand that this is a real 
possibility. In its budget and economic outlook released on January 
1st, CBO devotes an entire chapter to the uncertainty of budget 
projections. CBO says that ``considerable uncertainty surrounds those 
projections.'' This is because CBO cannot predict what legislation 
Congress might pass that would alter federal spending and revenues. In 
addition, CBO says--and anyone who watched the volatility of our 
markets over the past few weeks knows--that the U.S. economy and 
federal budget are highly complex and are affected by many factors that 
are difficult to predict.
  In their economic outlook CBO warns Congress that there is only a 10 
percent chance that the surpluses will materialize as projected. When 
CBO takes its own track record on forecasting surpluses, they caution 
that the projected surpluses over the next five years may be off in one 
direction or the other, on average, by about $52 billion in 2001, $120 
billion in 2002, and $412 billion in 2006. Remember, that data is only 
for five-year projections. CBO has been making 10-year projections for 
less than a decade, so they admit it is not yet possible to assess 
their accuracy. But 10-year projections are likely to be even less 
accurate than five-year projections.
  For 2001 alone, there is considerable uncertainty about the size of 
the budget surplus. In January, CBO estimated that the total surplus in 
2001 would reach $281 billion. Earlier in this month, however, Merrill 
Lynch dropped its estimate to $250 billion. Wells Capital Management, 
an arm of Wells Fargo, estimates a $225 billion surplus this year and a 
$185 billion surplus next year, 40 percent lower than the CBO's 
estimate for 2002.
  With all of this uncertainty in projecting future surpluses, it is 
amazing to me that the budget resolution insists on a fixed $1.2 
trillion in tax cut. And the tax cuts proposed by President Bush may 
cost much more than $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years.
  Let us take a closer look at these proposed tax cuts.
  The President's tax plan, by focusing only on income tax rate 
reductions, leaves out millions of taxpayers who do not pay federal 
income taxes but who do pay payroll taxes. In Vermont, there are 23,000 
families who do not pay federal income taxes. But 82 percent of those 
families do pay payroll taxes. For the vast majority of taxpayers, 
payroll taxes generate the largest tax burden, and yet the President's 
plan does not touch payroll taxes.
  With all of the uncertainty in these projections, Congress should 
tread very carefully when considering the size of the tax cut. While 
rosy surplus projections may have been accurate yesterday, we need to 
pay attention to circumstances today. Even Goldilocks could tell you 
that porridge that's just right one day, may be too cold a few days 
later. Congress needs to recognize that the surplus projections are not 
set in stone, that it is not only possible, but even likely that the 
projections will change and that the surpluses themselves will differ 
from those projections.
  I was one of five Senators who are still in the Senate who voted 
against the Reagan tax plan in 1981. We saw what happened there--we had 
a huge tax cut, defense spending increased, and the national debt 
quadrupled.
  I am concerned about enacting a huge tax cut before fulfilling our 
current unfunded federal mandates. The President's budget outline 
proposed up to a 30 percent cut in grants to state and local law 
enforcement. I've written a letter to the President and the Department 
of Justice, along with 17 other Senators, opposing those cuts. I am 
pleased that my amendment restoring $1.5 billion to fully fund the 
Department of Justice's local law enforcement programs was accepted.
  I supported an amendment to increase funding for private lands 
agriculture conservation programs by $1.3 billion for Fiscal Year 2002, 
including the Farmland Protection Program and EQIP--the Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program. I know there is a need for five to ten 
times this amount for these programs.
  I supported several education amendments. These included amendments 
to increase the Pell Grant for student financial aid and increased 
support for the TRIO program, a successful initiative that provides 
support to first generation college students, particularly those from 
rural areas. However, the current budget proposal does not commit 
sufficient funds in this area. I was pleased to join my colleague from 
Vermont, Senator Jeffords, in an effort to fully fund the federal 
government's portion of IDEA costs.
  The President's budget proposes a $1 billion increase in 
discretionary veterans health spending. Such a meager increase barely 
covers inflation in the Department of Veterans Affairs' current 
programs, let alone provides the

[[Page 5882]]

department flexibility to increase the availability and quality of 
care. I am also concerned that this budget squeezes this money out of 
critical veterans health research programs, leaving investigations into 
spinal injuries and war wounds at inadequate levels.
  After years of hard choices, we have balanced the budget and started 
building surpluses. Now we must make responsible choices for the 
future. Our top four priorities should be paying off the national debt, 
passing a fair and responsible tax cut, saving Social Security, and 
creating a real Medicare prescription drug benefit.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of final passage of the 
budget resolution and to declare victory.
  Today, all Americans who believe in fiscal responsibility, budget, a 
sound economy, and fair treatment for taxpayers, can declare victory. 
All of us who want a government that restrains its appetites and lives 
within its means, while meeting critical national needs, and letting 
hard-working individuals and families keep a little more of the fruits 
of their labor, can declare victory.
  Today we are approving a budget that is balanced, not only because it 
is in surplus, but balanced in how it would allocate the resources 
provided by the American people.
  Today we are approving a budget plan that, if we follow it, will: 
first and foremost, pay off all the publicly held debt that possibly 
can be paid off in the next ten years; hold the line on the growth of 
federal spending and the size of government; fully protect Social 
Security and Medicare for today's and tomorrow's seniors, and begin the 
process of modernizing them, to make them ready for today's workers; 
answer the demands of the American people to take action on major needs 
in areas like education, medical research, national defense, care for 
our veterans, the environment, and prescription drugs; and provide 
modest, reasonable, and prompt tax relief to the most heavily taxed 
generation in American history.
  Could we have produced a better budget this week? Of course we could. 
But I will never let the perfect be the enemy of the very, very good.
  The Senate has added several billion dollars in new spending to this 
budget. I wish we could have done that without raiding the surplus or 
collecting more taxes. I wish we could have addressed priorities within 
the reasonable total, the increased total, proposed by the President.
  But we have wisely turned down amendments for hundreds of billions of 
dollars in new spending, and we have stuck fairly close to the 
responsible plan we and the President started with.
  And whether, at the end of the year, we enact ten-year tax relief 
totaling $1.2 trillion, $1.6 trillion as proposed by the President, or 
$2 trillion, which this Senator thinks is closer to the right amount, 
we will have won, common-sense conservatism will have won, and the 
American people will have won.
  To fully appreciate where we are, we need to remember where we have 
been.
  When I first came to Congress, in the other body, I plunged into 
fighting for a balanced federal budget. The jaded political veterans 
told me, You will never see it in your lifetime. The problem was so 
intractable, we formed a bipartisan coalition to push for a balanced 
budget amendment to the Constitution.
  Eight short years ago, the experts told us we faced $300 billion 
budget deficits as far as the eye could see. The previous president 
said balancing the budget was a bad idea, and he pushed through the 
biggest tax increase in history to pay for more and more spending. By 
1994, that tax hike, along with the Clinton health care plan to 
nationalize one-seventh of the economy, produced the first Republican 
Congress in 40 years.
  Observant students of history and those with good memories will 
recall that the economy was limping and anemic during 1993 and 1994. 
That new Congress took office declaring that Job One was balancing the 
budget, so we could produce surpluses that would save Social Security 
and Medicare, pay down the debt, and provide tax relief. The real 
upturn, the acceleration of the markets and confidence in the economy, 
began when we made this commitment to responsible, limited government.
  The economy received a booster shot with the bipartisan Taxpayer 
Relief Act of 1997. In that bill, we cut capital gains taxes, which 
further unleashed the economic activity that is producing today's 
surpluses.
  Now, with a slowing economy, the time has come, again, for a booster 
shot. Today's budget resolution, with spending restraint, tax relief, 
and paying down the debt, is that booster shot.
  It is positive that, this week, we have voted to accelerate tax 
relief. American workers and their families needed tax relief 
yesterday, relief from the death tax, from the marriage penalty, and to 
help meet education and other family needs.
  We've heard a lot of revisionist history this week, with Senators 
criticizing President Reagan's 1981 tax relief package. The single 
biggest mistake Congress made in revising President Reagan's plan was 
in not starting is soon enough. The economic recovery of 1982 began, 
the boom of the 1980s began, when President Reagan's tax plan finally 
took effect. If we really can learn from the mistakes of the past, we 
should learn that prompt tax relief keeps the nation healthy.
  It's also a positive sign for prompt tax relief that the Senate has 
agreed to keep the tax relief in this budget free from filibusters 
later in the year.
  This is a budget that will keep the nation healthy, if we continue to 
follow through on it. It is the Senate's budget, and we have made 
adjustments throughout the week. But make no mistake about it, when you 
look at all of it, it is still mostly the President's budget, too.
  I also want to comment on a couple specifics in this budget.
  As a member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am always 
watchful of how the Congress and the Administration propose to treat 
our nation's veterans. This President's budget began with a $1 billion 
increase in discretionary veterans programs and a $4 billion increase, 
overall--more than 8 percent. Without a doubt, this president has a 
higher level of commitment to the well-being of veterans than we saw in 
the previous administration.
  The House-passed budget added to that amount and now, so has the 
Senate. Spending per veteran, not overall, but per veteran, accounting 
for increased caseload, will be about 50 percent more than in 1995.
  The Veterans Administration (VA) represents millions of men and women 
who have served our great nation, often at extreme sacrifice. 
Therefore, in gratitude it is important that we insure that our 
veterans receive the care and services they were promised and most 
certainly deserve. Over the past years, since I have been a member of 
the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, there has been a steady 
increase in spending per veteran. In 1995, VA spending was $1,465 per 
veteran. In 2002, the Senate committee on Veterans' Affairs recommends 
spending $2,228 per veteran. That is a 52 percent increase since 1995.
  I also commend my Idaho colleague, Senator Crapo, for the amendment 
adopted last night by the Senate, to safeguard necessary funding for 
the Department of Energy's Atomic Energy Defense Account. This is 
needed to continue progress in waste treatment and management, site 
maintenance and closure, environmental restoration, and technology 
development, while meeting its legally binding compliance commitments 
to the states. This is of vital interest in our home state of Idaho, 
home of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, to 
similar sites in other states, and to the environmental safety and 
well-being of the nation. I was pleased to cosponsor and support the 
bipartisan Crapo-Murray-Craig amendment.
  I now look forward to resolving the differences between the Senate-
passed budget and the House's version and working in the coming months 
on the legislation necessary to implement this budget. We have made a 
good start and today is a good day to declare victory for the American 
people.

[[Page 5883]]


  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I rise to express my support of the budget 
resolution we approved today. This was a long and arduous process, but 
I am pleased that at the end of the day we have a document that both 
Republicans and Democrats can embrace.
  I also extend my deep appreciation and admiration to Budget Chairman 
Domenici for doing his usual outstanding job of overseeing the Senate's 
consideration of the federal budget.
  This weeks' debate was about how best to allocate the apparent budget 
surplus that our nation is beginning to achieve. I appreciate President 
Bush's leadership in calling for a part of our surplus to be returned 
to the taxpayers.
  While all Americans may desire a tax cut, I believe it is also true 
that all Americans would like Congress to continue its prudent course 
of balanced budgets. I am concerned that a tax cut of $1.6 trillion 
over ten years would seriously impair our ability to maintain a 
balanced budget, while meeting the necessary priorities of debt 
reduction, infrastructure development, improvement in health and 
education, and Social Security and Medicare reform.
  I was pleased to work within the Centrist Coalition, a bipartisan 
group of Senators, to fashion a compromise tax cut. I am very thankful 
for the friendship and leadership in particular of Senators John 
Breaux, Jim Jeffords, and Ben Nelson. I believe that we have helped the 
Senate come to a compromise, and am proud to have joined a group of 
such thoughtful and constructive people.
  I am not without my reservations about the compromise tax cut of $1.2 
trillion over ten years that we have approved today. It is still large 
for my preference, but I recognize that in order to work in a 
bipartisan manner one must be able to compromise in a principled 
manner. I believe that that is what we have accomplished here, and that 
belief is borne out by the fact that 65 Senators supported the final 
budget, which included the compromise tax cut.
  Beyond the tax cut, the Senate has made its mark on this budget. 
Senator Domenici brought to the floor a budget that closely reflected 
the President's priorities. We took up amendment after amendment, 
considered each by its merits, and dispensed with them. These 
amendments reflected our priorities in several areas. We can see those 
priorities in the document that we now send to the House and Senate 
conferees to negotiate. We see a doubling of the money set aside for 
prescription drugs, to $300 billion over ten years. We see $320 billion 
set aside for education, which includes enough money to fully fund the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. As a former Mayor who has 
had to budget for the costs of providing the best service for these 
special children, it was a particular priority of mine to have the 
federal government pay its fair share. We see increased money for 
defense, for veterans, and for farmers. We see the work on 
environmental issues, including funding for conservation and global 
warming. And, we see the work on urgent health matters, including 
increased health care coverage for the uninsured. And, of great 
importance to those of us in the Northeast, we see an increase of 
energy funds for our low-income citizens.
  This is a good budget. It is perhaps not perfect, but it shows the 
benefit of having a strong President providing leadership in stating 
his priorities, and the value of centrist leadership in Congress to win 
wider acceptance of the President's proposals.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senate has begun debating the Federal 
budget for next year and the years ahead. We are fortunate after years 
of large budget deficits, to finally enjoy a projected budget surplus, 
a real surplus separate and apart from the Social Security surplus. 
While this new ``on-budget'' surplus provides us with many 
possibilities, it also requires us to balance how best to use our 
resources within a framework of fiscal responsibility. If we choose the 
wrong path we could return to the days of big Federal deficits and all 
the damage they did to our economy.
  In approaching our Federal budget, I believe we should divide the 
projected surplus among four budget goals: giving the American people 
fair and fiscally responsible tax relief, paying down the debt, 
protecting Social Security and Medicare, and responsibly investing in 
key priorities such as education, prescription drug coverage for 
seniors, environmental protection and national defense.
  In deciding how to allocate the new surplus, we should first and 
foremost remember it is a projection for ten years downstream, so it is 
highly speculative. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, 
cautions legislators that there is only a 10 percent likelihood that 
its ten-year projection will prove accurate. This is especially 
troublesome because most of the surplus, upon which the President's tax 
cuts rely, is not projected to accrue until after 2005, the most 
unreliable years of the forecast. History has shown that CBO 
projections only 5 years in to the future have been off by as much as 
268 percent.
  Understanding that these projections are uncertain, here's what I 
think should be done with surplus dollars that actually materialize:
  First, I would protect the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. 
We have to take prudent steps today to ensure that as 77 million baby 
boomers retire over the next 30 years, the costs of their Social 
Security and Medicare won't explode the Federal budget. In just 15 
years, the Social Security and Medicare programs will require transfers 
from the ``non-Social Security and non-Medicare'' side of the Federal 
budget in order to pay benefits. Without reform, these transfers will 
get larger and larger, placing enormous pressure on the federal 
budget--pressure that would be compounded if President Bush's proposed 
tax cuts were enacted. Thus I think it is imperative to set aside the 
surpluses that are currently accumulating in these trust funds and not 
use them for new spending or tax cuts--as the President's budget 
proposes to do.
  Next, I would allocate one-third of the projected $2.5 trillion non-
Social Security, non-Medicare surplus for tax cuts. We have proposed an 
immediate stimulus tax cut package that could provide taxpayers with up 
to $450 of relief this year, $900 for married couples filing jointly. 
The first part of the package would to give a one-time tax refund to 
everyone who paid payroll or income taxes last year, in 2000. Couples 
would get a check for $600 and singles would get a check for $300 as 
early as July, if the provision were enacted now. The second part of 
the package would permanently cut the 15 percent income tax rate to 10 
percent for the first $12,000 of taxable income for couples and the 
first $6,000 of taxable income for singles. This would save couples an 
additional $600 per year and singles an additional $300 per year and, 
if enacted soon, the decrease in paycheck withholding could begin in 
July. This package is a truly broad-based relief measure aimed at 
stimulating the economy.
  We also should increase the Earned Income Tax Credit for working 
families with children, substantial marriage penalty relief, and the 
amount of money exempt from estate taxes, so that less than one percent 
of the country's wealthiest estates would remain on the tax roll. Under 
this approach, all American taxpayers would get a tax cut, but the 
lion's share would go to middle income Americans, that is to those who 
need it most.
  President Bush's plan mostly benefits the wealthiest among us. Under 
his plan, 5 percent of taxpayers would get more than 50 percent of the 
benefit. As a result, most of the surplus is used in tax cuts, leaving 
little or nothing for debt reduction and other important priorities.
  While this top 5 percent would receive huge tax breaks under the 
President's plan, it leaves 25 million taxpaying Americans, who pay 
their Federal taxes through payroll taxes, without a single dollar of 
tax relief. I agreed with President Bush when he said that every 
American taxpayer should receive tax relief. But his plan, which leaves 
out 25 million people, falls far short of that goal and leaves out 
those taxpayers who need relief the most.

[[Page 5884]]

  In addition to providing tax relief, we need to dedicate a large 
portion of the surplus to reducing our debt so that we don't push this 
immense burden onto our children and grandchildren. For the first time 
in a generation, we have the opportunity and the resources to pay down 
the enormous debt and we should do so. Additionally, by paying down the 
debt, we can help keep interest rates low well into the future giving 
all Americans an economic benefit.
  Our plan calls for dedicating one-third of the non-Social Security, 
non-Medicare surplus to reducing the $3 trillion plus portion of our 
national debt that is outstanding and held by domestic and foreign 
investors. In contrast, the President's budget does not use any of the 
projected non-Social security, non-Medicare surplus for debt reduction.
  Finally, we need to invest some of our surplus responsibly in new 
initiatives and important benefits, like prescription drug coverage for 
seniors and education programs for our students. Using one-third of our 
non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus to meet the basic life-
sustaining needs of our seniors, to build a smarter 21st century 
workforce, and to prepare for other. unforeseen challenges, will pay 
huge dividends in the long run. President Bush's budget--focusing on 
tax cuts at the expense of everything else--leaves little room for new 
investments or unanticipated needs and actually makes drastic cuts to 
some very important federal programs which millions of Americans and 
the communities they live in count on.
  The next chart compares the Democratic plan to President Bush's plan, 
showing how the Bush plan comes up short in key areas because of the 
size of the tax cut.
  As budget debate continues in the weeks ahead, Congress will be 
making some important decisions regarding our country's future. We have 
the ability to provide targeted tax relief, fund some important 
national priorities and protect Social Security and Medicare for future 
generations, while dedicating significant resources to paying down the 
national debt. To achieve all of these goals, we need to act wisely 
today so that we strengthen our economy in the long run, not weaken it 
once again by risking a large Federal deficit with an excessive tax cut 
benefiting mostly those who need it least.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the charts in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Chart 1

        HISTORY OF UNRELIABILITY IN BUDGET PROJECTIONS: FIVE-YEAR PROJECTED V. ACTUAL SURPLUS OR DEFICIT
                    [Projected in 1985 for 1990, 1986 for 1991, etc. in billions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Percentage
                                                                     Projected   Actual   Difference   of error
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990...............................................................       -167      -220        -53        31.7
1991...............................................................       -109      -269       -160       146.8
1992...............................................................        -85      -290       -205       241.2
1993...............................................................       -129      -255       -126        97.7
1994...............................................................       -130      -203        -73        56.2
1995...............................................................       -128      -164        -36        28.1
1996...............................................................       -178      -107         71        39.9
1997...............................................................       -319       -22        297        93.1
1998...............................................................       -180       -29        151        83.9
1999...............................................................       -182       124        306       168.1
2000...............................................................       -134       236        360       268.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                      
                                  ____
                                Chart 2

       Tax relief for a family of four (2 parents, 2 kids) in 
     2002:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Democratic
                    Income                          Bush     alternative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$25,000.......................................           $0         $845
$50,000.......................................          320          525
$75,000.......................................          426          525
$200,000......................................        1,676          525
$1,000,000....................................       13,777          525
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Total tax relief for a family of four (2 parents, 2 kids) 
     during Bush's term (01-04):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Democratic
                    Income                          Bush     alternative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$25,000.......................................           $0       $2,535
$50,000.......................................        1,920        2,325
$75,000.......................................        2,344        2,325
$200,000......................................        8,488        2,325
$1,000,000....................................       66,461        2,325
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Bush plan phases in all cuts over 10 years, so his cuts 
     would get much larger from 2005-2010; Dem plan is fully 
     phased in by 2003, except for estate tax relief.
       Source: Senate Finance Committee, Democratic Staff; 
     Democratic Policy Committee.
                                  ____


                                Chart 3


                 Budget cuts to non-protected agencies


        Agency                                           Percentage Cut
Agriculture........................................................-8.6
Commerce..........................................................-16.6
Energy.............................................................-6.8
HUD...............................................................-11.3
Interior...........................................................-7.0
Justice............................................................-8.8
Labor..............................................................-7.4
Transportation....................................................-15.0
Army Corps of Engineers...........................................-16.9
EPA................................................................-9.4
FEMA..............................................................-20.2
NASA...............................................................-1.1
Small Business Administration.....................................-46.4

       Numbers represent the Bush budget's percentage cut in 
     budget authority for appropriated programs for FY2002 below 
     the amount needed, according to CBO, to maintain purchasing 
     power for current services.
                                  ____


                                Chart 4

 DIFFERENCES IN USE OF $3 TRILLION PROJECTED 10-YEAR NON-SOCIAL SECURITY
                                 SURPLUS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Democratic           Bush
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax Cut.............................      $833 billion    $2,500 billion
                                                                     \1\
Domestic Priorities--such as              $833 billion      $200 billion
 education & prescription drugs.....
Debt Reduction......................      $833 billion                 0
``Contingencies''...................                 0  $300 billion \2\
Protect Medicare ``Lockbox''........      $500 billion                 0
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total Projected On-Budget         $3,000 billion    $3,000 billion
       Surplus......................
                                         ($3 trillion)     ($3 trillion)
Raid on Social Security ``Lockbox''.                 0     $600 billion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $1.7 trillion tax cut, $300 billion to fix the AMT effects
  of the tax cut, and $500 billion in increased interest costs on debt
  that would otherwise get retired.
\2\ Bush Budget Blueprint designates $800 billion for a ``contingency
  reserve.''

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the budget 
before us and to outline a few points that I believe need to be 
considered while we debate our national budget priorities.
  There is no doubt that the focus of much of this week has been on the 
perceived need for, and the size of, a tax cut. I support efforts to 
provide hard-working families in my home state of Washington, and 
across the country, with tax relief. I expect Congress to take up 
legislation to eliminate the marriage penalty, provide estate tax 
relief, make college tuition tax deductible, and assist workers in 
saving for their retirement. In addition, I believe that comprehensive 
tax reform proposals must expand the Dependent Care Tax Credit to help 
families provide care for their children and expand the Earned Income 
Tax Credit to make it work better for more hard-working families.
  However, I am concerned that we balance our efforts to cut taxes with 
our nation's fiscal and policy responsibilities, and our obligation not 
to increase our national debt level. Comprehensive tax relief must be 
measured against the need to maintain fiscal discipline, and stimulate 
economic growth through continued federal investment in education, job 
training and infrastructure, while also protecting the environment. We 
also need to invest in our nation's economic future by making a 
commitment to public research and development in science and 
technology--maintaining our status as a global leader. And, it is 
critical that we meet the needs of the nation's elderly and enact a 
meaningful prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries.
  Furthermore, we must realize that much of the debate on the shape and 
size of tax cuts is dependent on the reliability of surplus projections 
that may or may not materialize.
  These are the numbers at issue this week: The projected unified 
surplus over the next ten years is supposed to be $5.6 trillion. But 
what we need to be discussing is not this amount--but the amount of the 
non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus. And when we take both of 
those trust funds off the budget line, we are left with $2.7 trillion 
over ten years with which to work.
  It is critical that the funding levels in our budget guarantee that 
Americans have access to needed health care. We also need to invest in 
our children's

[[Page 5885]]

education by hiring more teachers, increasing teacher pay, providing 
enhanced training opportunities, and modernizing our educational 
system. And, we need to commit to programs that keep our citizens safe, 
and our environment clean.
  We seem to be tripping over ourselves right now to spend a surplus--
either on tax cuts or on increased discretionary spending--that, 
frankly, we are uncertain will even appear. As we all know, projections 
are notoriously inaccurate and, therefore, highly likely to be wrong 
even if they are only for the upcoming year. Based on its track record, 
the Congressional Budget Office says its surplus estimate for 2001 
could be off in one direction or the other by $52 billion. By 2006, 
this figure could be off by $412 billion.
  Remember that last year CBO projected that the ten-year surplus would 
be $3.2 trillion, $2.4 trillion less than the projection it released 
this past January. This means that in just one year the surplus 
estimate has increased by 75 percent.
  In fact, CBO admits that it is most uncertain about projections for 
the years it forecasts the largest surpluses. CBO makes clear that $3.6 
trillion of the $5.6 trillion unified surplus is open to question.
  Besides debating surpluses that may or may not materialize, this 
budget process is the first step in outlining our nation's fiscal 
priorities for the upcoming year. However, we must not forget that in 
addition to figuring ways to fund our political priorities, it is our 
duty to focus on meeting our national responsibilities.
  And this is where my concern rests with the President's budget. I 
believe that Congress can enact reasonable and responsible tax relief 
while fulfilling our nation's responsibilities.
  But it seems that the President is funding a $2.0 trillion tax cut at 
the expense of other programs. A tax cut this large would use 81 
percent of the non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus over the next 
10 years, leaving the President and Congress $527 billion, or just 20 
percent of the on-budget surpluses to address critical priorities such 
as additional debt reduction, expanding educational opportunities, 
providing a prescription drug benefit, keeping our environment safe, 
and ensuring a strong national defense.
  In reviewing the President's Budget Blueprint, I am concerned that 
his proposals shortchange important needs that Americans depend upon.
  I find it remarkable, for example, that the President proposes to cut 
funding to the Energy Department by almost one billion dollars--in the 
midst of an energy crisis the likes of which our country hasn't seen in 
years, if ever. I am particularly concerned that such a cut at the 
Department of Energy would be taken out of nuclear weapons facilities, 
particularly the Hanford Reservation in Washington State. This move 
would break the moral contract between the United States government and 
the people of Washington State--the moral obligation to protect the 
people from the hazards of nuclear waste. The Hanford clean-up is an 
ongoing federal responsibility and a timely clean-up is essential to 
the quality of our water and environment, as well as our public safety. 
To fall behind in the clean-up because of ill-advised funding cuts is 
an unacceptable risk. This is why I joined with Senator Crapo to 
introduce an amendment, adopted last night by voice vote, to ensure 
that the Atomic Energy Defense Account is increased by $1 billion in 
fiscal year 2002 for just this purpose.
  I am also concerned about the President's proposed budget for the 
Department of Health and Human Services. Although the President does 
increase funding for the DHHS by $2.8 billion, I see that he is 
increasing the National Institutes of Health by just that amount. If 
NIH is getting a $2.8 billion increase in the upcoming fiscal year, 
while its parent agency is only getting that amount as an overall 
increase, something else is going to be cut, or level funded. Are the 
cuts going to come from the Child Care Development Block Grant, funding 
to investigate child abuse and neglect, or services for our elderly?
  The President proposes only $153 billion over 10 years to provide a 
low-income prescription drug benefit and finance overall Medicare 
reform. This is completely inadequate considering that over one-third 
of our nation's elderly lack coverage for their prescription drug 
needs, that the average senior spends more that $1,100 on medications 
every year, and despite the fact that prescription drugs are today's 
fastest growing segment of health care.
  On Wednesday, the Senate adopted an amendment to increase the 
available funding for a new prescription drug benefit by up to $300 
billion over 10 years. However, I think it is important to point out 
that this additional funding is coming from money already earmarked for 
the Medicare program, and from the broad cuts proposed by the President 
in other areas.
  While I have the floor I want to talk about two very specific cuts 
that the President has proposed.
  Since 1997, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has spent $107 
million to help communities to prepare for and mitigate the potentially 
calamitous consequences of natural disasters. This funding--Project 
Impact--helps communities plan and implement preventive measures in 
order to prevent large-scale destruction of property and human life. 
Yet, when the President released his budget he proposed canceling 
Project Impact because ``it has not proven effective.''
  Well, I can tell you that the very same morning the President 
released his budget, my State was hit with a 6.8 earthquake, and, 
though there was extensive structural damage throughout the region, 
there were no deaths. And there is no doubt in anyone's mind, 
especially mine, that one of the main reasons this powerful quake did 
relatively little damage was because of the millions of dollars my 
state and our local communities have put into retrofitting buildings 
and preparing for such an event, dollars that were leveraged by Project 
Impact. For example, inspectors at Stevens elementary school in the 
Seattle school district following the earthquake revealed that a 300-
gallon water tank directly above a classroom had broken free of its 
cables. The inspectors concluded that if it were not for a Project 
Impact retrofit project, the tank could have caused serious, 
potentially fatal injuries to children in the classroom, as well as 
significant property damage.
  Mr. President, as I toured the communities in my state affected by 
the earthquake and spoke with local officials, I heard other examples, 
like this story of Stevens Elementary, that prove the effectiveness of 
the Project Impact program. By cutting funds for this vital program, we 
would be depriving cities throughout our country an opportunity to 
mitigate and possibly avert the potentially catastrophic consequences 
of natural disaster.
  I am also concerned about the massive cuts proposed for the U.S. 
Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. 
These two agencies are critical to maintaining U.S. competitiveness in 
the international economy through assistance programs that effectively 
increase U.S. exports and provides jobs to American workers. Although 
Ex-Im represents a minuscule fraction of the Federal budget, it 
provided $15 billion in export sales last year. The President's 
proposed 25 percent cut in Ex-Im bank would be a terrible mistake that 
could eliminate up to $4 billion in U.S. export sales. And OPIC, which 
over the past thirty years has generated $63.6 billion in U.S. exports 
and nearly 250,000 American jobs, ultimately operates at no net cost to 
U.S. taxpayers. Indeed, it actually returns money to the U.S. treasury 
and provides valuable assistance to U.S. companies seeking to invest 
and expand their operations abroad.
  The support and funding of Ex-Im Bank and OPIC is a highly efficient 
way to increase U.S. competitiveness, especially for smaller companies 
exporting to higher-risk markets. The proposed cuts could be 
devastating to American companies and undermine our efforts to compete 
in the international economy. Mr. President, these programs should be 
de-politicized and their efforts to support U.S. exporters

[[Page 5886]]

globally should be backed solidly by this chamber.
  I know there are some in the Senate who support the President's 
proposed $2.0 trillion tax cut as a means for stimulating the economy. 
But this proposal would do little toward this end. Ninety-five percent 
of the tax cuts in the President's plan occur after 2003. By the time 
the tax cut takes full effect, the economy will have changed 
dramatically. These back-loaded tax cuts would do little to boost 
families' spending power immediately, and therefore do little to spur 
the economy in the months ahead. And in fact, even the Chairman of the 
Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, has said tax initiatives 
historically have proved difficult to implement in a time frame in 
which recessions have developed and ended.
  This tax cut doesn't even go proportionally to every American. Forty-
three percent of the benefits of the President's tax plan are targeted 
to the wealthiest one percent of families--those with an average annual 
income over $915,000. Surprisingly, 25 percent of Washington's working 
families and almost 400,000 of the children in Washington State would 
not get any benefit from the Bush tax plan.
  Unfortunately, while relying on surpluses that may or may not appear, 
and funding a tax cut that goes disproportionately to the wealthiest 
families and is not interested in areas that will be stimulated in 
long-term growth, the President's budget eliminates funding to 
modernize aging schools, cuts maternal and child health programs, 
eliminates grants to hospitals and community health centers that serve 
uninsured and under-insured people, and cuts job training and 
employment services.
  Responsible budgeting is a give-and-take. The country is at a 
critical juncture in setting our fiscal priorities: our choices are 
maintaining our fiscal discipline and investing in long-term growth, 
the nation's future education, job training and health care needs, or 
cutting the very services used daily by our citizens. I believe our 
budget must fund these critical priorities as well as allow for 
responsible tax relief. Unfortunately, however, the budget before us 
today does not do this.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, over the last 8 years, we learned what a 
difference a responsible budget can make. We learned it starts with the 
basics, like using real numbers and not ``betting the farm'' on rosy 
projections. We learned that if we invest in the American people and 
their needs, our country and our economy will benefit. We learned that 
we need to be fiscally responsible. That means making tough choices and 
holding the line on deficit spending. And we learned that we have to 
work together to get things done.
  The last eight years have shown us that if we follow those lessons: 
using real numbers, investing in our people, meeting our needs, being 
fiscally responsible, and working together, we CAN turn deficits into 
surpluses, and we can transform the American economy into a job-
creating machine.
  Today, there is a new President in office. There is a new Congress. 
And there are new economic challenges as our economy slows and an 
energy crisis grows.
  The times are different, but the lessons are the same. This isn't the 
time to throw away the handbook we've used for the past eight years. 
It's time to follow the lessons it offers. Unfortunately, the 
Administration and the Republican leadership are running in the 
opposite direction. And I fear that they will repeat the same mistakes 
of the past, mistakes that we are just now getting over.
  The Republican budget ignores the lessons of the past eight years. 
Instead of focusing on real numbers and realistic estimates, the 
Republican budget puts all its faith in projected surpluses that may 
never materialize. What's more, the Republican budget hides some of the 
most important numbers, the cuts that many Americans will feel, in 
order to pay for a huge tax cut. Instead of investing in our people, 
the Republican budget shortchanges America's needs. In a few minutes, 
I'll detail some of the budget's shortcomings in areas like education, 
health care and environment. Instead of being fiscally responsible, the 
Republican budget asks us to commit to a $1.7 trillion tax cut, which 
is paid for out of the Medicare trust fund. There's nothing fiscally 
responsible about taking money that pays for seniors' medical care and 
giving it away to a handful of Americans. Finally, instead of working 
together, the Republican budget offers an example of partisanship at 
its worse. The Republican leadership has skipped the committee process 
entirely, something that is almost unheard of: to avoid having to work 
out these differences in a responsible, bipartisan way.
  As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I find it completely 
unacceptable that we would rush to the floor a $1.9 trillion FY 2002 
budget with no Committee consideration. Worst of all, because this 
partisan maneuvering is coming at the beginning of the budget process, 
it could set the tone for a bitter session ahead. Our country learned a 
lot about responsible budgeting in the past eight years. Unfortunately 
today, the Republican leadership is ignoring those lessons so they can 
ram through an irresponsible tax cut. I don't want the American people 
to pay the price for such irresponsible budgeting. That's why, together 
with my Democratic colleagues, we are offering this alternative budget. 
The Democratic alternative budget takes the lessons of the past few 
years and applies them to the benefit of the American people.
  Now I would like to turn to some of the specific issues addressed in 
the budget, starting with a tax relief. I want to be clear that I 
strongly support tax relief. In fact, we should be debating immediate, 
real tax relief for all Americans that can stimulate the economy and 
help my constituents pay their growing utility bills. We should be 
acting on a $60 billion tax rebate that would be available this year, 
not in three years or five years. This type of immediate tax relief 
will give American families the added boost and confidence they need to 
held off a real recession. Instead, this Senate is acting on a budget 
that calls for $1.7 trillion in tax cuts based on a surplus that has 
yet to materialize. And we are acting before we even know the true 
impact of the budget. We won't know that until the President releases 
his detailed budget on April 9. The leadership would rather have us 
vote now and learn the consequences later.
  Now I would like to turn to a few issues that the Republican budget 
underfunds, which the Democratic Alternative funds at the right level. 
Let's begin with prescription drugs. The lack of affordable drug 
coverage is not just a problem for those with very low incomes. All 
seniors and the disabled face the escalating cost of prescription drugs 
and the lack of affordable coverage. One or two chronic conditions can 
wipe out a couple's life savings in a few short months. Originally a 
prescription drug benefit was estimated to cost $153 billion. But new, 
recent estimates show that it will take about twice that amount to 
provide a real benefit. We know that seniors need an affordable drug 
benefit that's part of Medicare. The Republican budget does not set 
aside enough money to provide this benefit. This Democratic amendment 
does. The Republican budget not only short changes the prescription 
drug benefit: it also robs the Medicare Part A Trust Fund surplus to 
pay for a scaled-back benefit.
  It takes money from hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and home 
health agencies to provide a limited prescription drug benefit. The 
surplus in the Part A Trust Fund should be used to strengthen Medicare 
and stabilize providers. I believe we can invest more of the surplus 
into a prescription drug benefit that all Medicare beneficiaries can 
access--instead of the limited benefit the Republicans offer.
  There is another health care issue that the Republican budget 
shortchanges. Today, 44 million Americans don't have health insurance. 
When they need care, they go to the emergency room. ER's in this 
country are overwhelmed and on the verge of collapsing. It is getting 
harder for them to treat real emergencies. I know we can do better. We 
can expand programs

[[Page 5887]]

that help working families secure affordable coverage. The Democratic 
alternative also reserves as much as $80 billion to address the growing 
uninsured population. We need to expand coverage for working families 
to provide a true health care safety net. Congress cannot ignore the 
uninsured any longer. In fact, as the economy slows down the number of 
uninsured will only increase. We need a real safety net for working 
families. The Democratic alternative provides the resources to meet 
this challenge. The Republican budget does not.
  We also need to provide health care to families with severely 
disabled children. These families are often forced to impoverish 
themselves to provide care for their children. Some families must make 
the impossible choice between the welfare of their disabled child and 
the economic stability of their family. That's a choice that no family 
should be forced to make. The Democratic alternative invests in health 
care for those who lack coverage.
  Next I'd like to turn to an environmental issue. In the Pacific 
Northwest, several species of salmon are threatened with extinction. 
This isn't just a symbolic issue. The people of Washington state have a 
legal, and a moral, responsibility to save these threatened species. 
The Pacific Northwest needs approximately $400 million through various 
federal agencies to meet the biological opinion on salmon recovery. As 
my colleagues may know, the National Marine Fisheries Service recently 
finalized a biological opinion. That opinion outlines the steps we need 
to take to save salmon and keep removal of the Snake River's four dams 
off the table and out of the courts. The Republican budget does not 
provide the resources we need. The Democratic alternative does.
  In Washington state, we also face the challenge of cleaning up the 
Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Hanford Cleanup has always been a non-
partisan issue, and I want to keep it that way. There were some press 
reports in February that the Bush budget would cut clean up funds. I 
talked to the White House budget director, Mitch Daniels, and he 
assured me that there would actually be an increase in funding for 
Hanford clean-up. However, the President's proposed cut of the nuclear 
cleanup program makes it difficult to meet the federal government's 
legal obligations in this area. Any retreat from our clean-up 
commitment would certainly result in legal action by the state of 
Washington. To avoid that and meet our legal obligations to clean up 
the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, we need an increase of approximately 
$330 million. The price of America's victory in World War II and the 
Cold War is buried in underground storage tanks and in facilities. And 
we've got to clean them up.
  Next I'd like to turn to the energy crisis. In Washington state, 
higher energy prices have already cost us thousands of jobs. One report 
suggests that Washington state could lose 43,000 jobs if we fail to 
take any action to stem higher energy costs. The short term solution to 
the energy crisis in the Pacific Northwest will not be found in the 
budget resolution. However, the framework for a national energy policy 
should be. The President is proposing dramatic budget cuts in renewable 
energy research and development. This is taking us in the wrong 
direction. As the Democratic alternative promotes, we should be 
reducing our reliance on fossil fuels by promoting renewable energy, 
conservation, and efficiency programs.
  Finally, the Republican budget shortchanges America's students. 
Education is a national priority, but this budget doesn't treat it like 
one. This budget would abandon the commitment made by Congress to 
education over the past three years to hire additional teachers 
throughout the country to lower class size. Across the country, there 
are almost 2 million students learning in classrooms that are less 
crowded than they were a few short years ago. This budget would also 
abandon the commitment we made last year to help crumbling schools with 
emergency repairs and renovations. The GAO estimated that our country 
needs to invest more than $112 billion to get our schools in decent 
shape, and we were just beginning to help communities do that. This 
budget would abandon the commitment we had made to students and 
communities to provide extra support for disabled students and 
disadvantaged students. Broken promises to these students means we are 
offering false hope rather than real support. For years, there was 
debate about what would improve education. Today, we know the answer: 
smaller classes, individual attention, good teachers and high 
standards. For years, there was no funding for these efforts. Today 
there is. Under the Republican budget, we would abandon those 
investments. In the Democratic alternative, we meet the need in 
America's classrooms.
  Mr. President, as I have pointed out the Republican budget takes us 
in the wrong direction.
  The Demoractic alternative we are offering today will provide tax 
relief for the American people, and keep our commitment to national 
priorities.
  I urge my colleagues to support this Democratic alternative.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, at the heart of the budget dispute 
between Republicans and Democrats is the size of President Bush's 
proposed tax cut. Republicans claim the surplus is so large that we can 
have it all, that their massive tax cut will not interfere with efforts 
to address the country's most serious concerns. Democrats respond that 
the Bush tax cut is so large that it will consume virtually all of the 
available surplus, leaving no resources to meet the Nation's basic 
needs. Under the Bush budget, the numbers just do not add up.
  The vote on the budget resolution is the vote which will determine 
the size of the tax cut. Once that vote is cast, more than $2 trillion, 
the real price tag on the tax cut, will effectively be gone. Those 
dollars will no longer be available for any other purpose--not for 
education, not for healthcare, not for defense, not for debt reduction, 
not for Social Security, not for Medicare. That money will be gone.
  The impact of the Republican tax cut on the Federal Government's 
ability to address the most pressing concerns of the American people 
would be devastating. It is too large to fit into any responsible 
budget. The available surplus over the next ten years is, at most, $2.7 
trillion. Whatever we do over the next decade to address this country's 
unmet needs must be paid for from that amount. Whatever we want to do 
to financially strengthen Social Security and Medicare for future 
retirees must be funded from that amount. Whatever funds we want to 
hold in reserve for unanticipated problems must also come from that 
amount.
  President Bush tells us his tax cut will only cost $1.6 trillion. But 
the Administration's own budget documents acknowledge that the tax cut 
will consume more than $2 trillion of the surplus. Independent analysts 
have shown that the real cost of the tax cuts which the Republicans 
support will be close to $2.5 trillion over the next ten years, 
consuming 90 percent of the available surplus. There will be less than 
$200 billion, just $20 billion a year, left to finance everything we 
hope to accomplish in the decade ahead. The Republican budget does not 
add up.
  What would this mean for working families? There will simply be no 
money left to address the problems that concern them most: An elderly 
grandmother will not be able to afford the cost of the prescription 
drugs she needs to avoid serious illness; Her young grandchildren will 
go to overcrowded schools where the classroom may be in a trailer and 
where the teachers are too busy to give them the individual attention 
they need; Their older brother and sister will have difficulty 
affording college because the grant and loan assistance available to 
them will not have kept pace with the cost of tuition; Their parents 
will not have access to the technology training needed to move up the 
career ladder at work, so they may be stuck in a dead end job; If the 
family is among the 44 million Americans who do not receive health 
coverage at work and who cannot afford to purchase it, they will get no 
significant new help with their medical costs; And if they live in a 
high

[[Page 5888]]

crime neighborhood, there will be fewer cops on the street to ensure 
their safety.
  But what about the tax cut? What will the Bush tax plan do for 
families like this? Unfortunately, it will not do much. The Republican 
tax cut is heavily slanted toward the wealthy. Over 40 percent of the 
entire tax cut nearly one trillion dollars in tax breaks will go to the 
richest 1 percent of taxpayers. They would get an average of $54,000 
each year in tax benefits. This is more than most workers earn in a 
year.
  Under the Bush plan, 60 percent of working families will save $500 or 
less a year in taxes. Twelve million low income working families would 
not get any tax cut under the Bush plan, even though they pay federal 
taxes every year. The Republican tax cut is just not fair. It does the 
least for people who need help the most, the same people who depend on 
the programs which the Republicans want to cut.
  The Democratic budget plan stands in stark contrast to the Republican 
plan. Budgets are a reflection of our real values, and these two 
budgets clearly demonstrate how different the values of the two parties 
are. In political speeches, it is easy to be all things to all people. 
But the budget we vote for shows who we really are and what we really 
stand for. Our budget is geared to the needs of working families. It 
will provide them with tax relief, but it will also address their 
education and health care needs. And it will protect Social Security 
and Medicare, on which they depend for secure retirement.
  There are four criteria by which we should evaluate a budget plan: 1. 
is it a fiscally responsible, balanced program? 2. does it protect 
Social Security and Medicare for future generations?, 3. does it 
adequately address America's urgent national needs?, and 4. does it 
distribute the benefits of the surplus fairly amongst all Americans? By 
each yardstick, the Republican budget fails to measure up. The 
Democratic budget is a far sounder blueprint for building America's 
future.
  Once the Social Security and Medicare surpluses are reserved for the 
payment of future benefits, the available surplus is projected to be 
$2.7 trillion over the next ten years. The heart of the difference 
between the Democratic and Republican budgets is how each would use 
this surplus. The Democratic proposal would divide the surplus into 
thirds; allocating $900 billion for tax cuts, $900 billion for priority 
programs, and $900 billion for debt reduction. This contrasts sharply 
with the Republican plan, in which tax cuts would consume 90 percent of 
the surplus.
  When President Bush cites $1.6 trillion as the cost of his tax cut, 
he neglects the increased cost--more than $400 billion--of interest on 
the larger national debt caused by the tax cut. He ignores the $240 
billion cost already added to elements of the Bush plan by House 
Republicans. His plan also ignores the $200 billion cost of revising 
the Alternative Minimum Tax to prevent an unintended increase in taxes 
on middle income families, and the $100 billion cost of extending 
existing tax credits through the decade. In reality, the Bush tax cut 
will consume $2.5 trillion over the decade.
  By consuming $2.5 trillion of the $2.7 trillion available surplus on 
tax cuts, the Republican budget would leave virtually nothing over the 
next ten years: to strengthen Social Security and Medicare before the 
baby boomers retire, to begin the quality prescription drug benefit 
that seniors desperately need,
  to provide the education increases that the nation's children 
deserve,
  to train and protect the American workers whose increased 
productivity has proved essential to our strong economy,
  to advance scientific research,
  to improve the nation's military readiness,
  to improve the security of family farmers, and
  to avoid burdening our children with the debt that we have 
accumulated.
  After the Bush tax cut, we will not have the resources to meet these 
urgent challenges. There will simply be no money left.
  The Democratic plan strikes a balance between tax cuts and addressing 
these important national priorities. It provides $900 billion to 
finance tax relief for the American people. This amount would allow a 
tax rate cut for all taxpayers, marriage penalty relief, and a doubling 
of the child tax credit. It would also enable us to implement several 
of the most widely supported targeted tax cuts such as making college 
tuition tax deductible and providing a tax credit for long-term care 
costs.
  I support a substantial tax cut, such as the one I just outlined, but 
not one that is so large that it crowds out investment in national 
priorities like education, health care, worker training and scientific 
research. Not one that is so large that it jeopardizes Medicare and 
Social Security. Not one that is so large that it threatens to return 
us to the era of large deficits.
  By authorizing a third of the surplus for spending on the nation's 
most important priorities, the Democratic plan would enable us to 
improve education by reducing class size and enhancing teacher quality, 
to provide senior citizens with meaningful assistance with the cost of 
prescription drug coverage, to extend health care coverage to many 
uninsured families, and to expand worker training opportunities and 
scientific research that will strengthen our economy. These are 
important initiatives that have overwhelming public support. The 
Democratic budget allows us to pursue these goals. Unfortunately, the 
Republican budget does not.
  By reserving one third of the surplus for debt reduction, the 
Democratic plan provides a safety valve should the full amount of the 
projected surplus not materialize. We are not spending every last 
dollar of the $2.7 trillion, we propose to hold $900 billion in 
reserve. If the full surplus materializes, it will be used to pay down 
the debt. If projections fall short, we will have a cushion.
  The $2.7 trillion is only a projected surplus. The Congressional 
Budget Office itself recognizes that a small reduction in the growth 
rate of the economy would reduce its surplus estimates by trillions of 
dollars. Its projection for the next decade is based on a growth rate 
which the economy has only achieved in 5 of the last 35 years. 
Forecasting a budget surplus ten years in advance is no more reliable 
than forecasting the weather ten years in advance. Recent events should 
vividly remind us how difficult it is to predict the economy even one 
year ahead. CBO acknowledges that there is a 35 percent chance that the 
on-budget surplus will be less than half the size it has projected . . 
. less than half! Without a large reserve, Social Security is 
vulnerable to a new raid if the projected level of surplus fails to 
materialize.
  In order to truly protect Social Security and Medicare, the budget we 
adopt must 1. reserve the entire Social Security surplus and the 
Medicare surplus to pay for future retirement and medical benefits; and 
2. devote a substantial portion of the available surplus to strengthen 
Social Security and Medicare by reducing long-term debt. The Democratic 
budget does both, and the Republican budget does neither.
  The Social Security and Medicare surpluses are comprised of payroll 
taxes that workers deposit with the Government to pay for their future 
Social Security and Medicare benefits. Just because the Government does 
not pay all those dollars out this year does not make us free to spend 
them. Over the next ten years, Social Security will take in $2.5 
trillion more dollars than it will pay out and Medicare will take in 
$400 billion more dollars than it will pay out. But every penny of this 
will be needed to provide Social Security and Medicare benefits when 
the baby boomers retire.
  The Republican budget fails to set the entire $2.9 trillion aside to 
cover the cost of future Social Security and Medicare benefits. It only 
protects $2 trillion of that amount. The remaining $900 billion is used 
for other purposes. This threatens the retirement benefits of current 
workers. While the Bush budget is vague on just how this money will be 
used, it appears that more than $500 billion of it will be used to 
finance the Administration's scheme to create

[[Page 5889]]

private retirement accounts. I believe it would be terribly wrong to 
take money out of Social Security to finance risky private accounts.
  The Republican budget is even more reckless in its treatment of the 
$400 billion Medicare surplus. The Bush Administration would give the 
Medicare dollars no special protection. It would co-mingle them in a 
contingency fund available to pay for their tax cuts and new spending.
  The threat posed by the Republican budget to Social Security and 
Medicare is very real. It removes $900 billion that already belong to 
these essential programs.
  Democrats are committed to keeping Social Security and Medicare 
strong. We do this by reserving all payroll taxes for the retirement 
and medical benefits that are now promised to seniors under current 
law. No qualifications, no exceptions. This commitment means that 
workers' payroll taxes are not available to fund income tax and estate 
tax cuts, private retirement accounts, or new spending.
  The contrast between the Democratic and Republican budgets on Social 
Security and Medicare could not be greater. The Democrats would use 
$900 billion of the available surplus to strengthen Social Security and 
Medicare by paying down the debt. Republicans would remove $900 billion 
from Social Security and Medicare, and they would spend these dollars 
for other purposes.
  Many of America's most critical unmet needs are in the areas of 
health care and education. The surplus affords us an unprecedented 
opportunity to address these national concerns. Unfortunately, the 
Republican budget seriously short-changes them both.
  One of our highest health care priorities should be assisting seniors 
with the cost of prescription drugs. America's seniors desperately need 
access to prescription drugs, and President Bush only provides a 
placebo. He says the right things about how important it is to provide 
prescription drugs, but the numbers in the Republican budget prove that 
his words can not pass the truth in advertising test.
  There can be no question about the urgent need for a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit. A third of senior citizens, 12 million 
people have no prescription drug coverage at all. Only half of all 
senior citizens have prescription drug coverage throughout the year. 
Meanwhile, last year alone prescription drug costs increased an average 
17 percent.
  The Republican budget provides only $153 billion over 10 years to 
finance prescription drug assistance for seniors. That amount is 
woefully inadequate. A real drug benefit available to all seniors would 
cost more than twice that amount. Yet even the $153 billion which the 
Republican budget purports to provide is illusory. These are not new 
dollars. They come out of the $400 billion Medicare surplus which was 
improperly removed from the Medicare Trust Fund.
  Unlike Republican proposals, the Democratic plan would provide drug 
coverage to all seniors through Medicare. The Democratic budget 
provides $311 billion to make prescription drugs affordable for 
seniors. It is the only real way to solve the problem.
  The Republican budget also fails to address the needs of the Nation's 
uninsured. An uninsured family is exposed to financial disaster in the 
event of serious illness. The health consequences of being uninsured 
are even more devastating. In any given year, one-third of people 
without insurance go without needed medical care. The chilling bottom 
line is that 83,000 Americans die every year because they have no 
insurance. Being uninsured is the seventh leading cause of death in 
America. Our failure to provide health insurance for every citizen 
kills more people than kidney disease, liver disease, and AIDS 
combined.
  Candidate Bush severely criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration 
for what he described as an inadequate response to this crisis. But the 
budget resolution that his Republican colleagues have presented does 
nothing meaningful to expand health coverage. In this time of 
unprecedented budget surpluses, isn't it more important to assure that 
children and their parents can see a doctor when they fall ill than it 
is to provide new tax breaks for multi-millionaires?
  The Democratic budget provides 80 billion new dollars over the decade 
to extend health care coverage to uninsured families. Over the last few 
years, we have made great strides providing health coverage for 
children. However, there are many more children who still lack basic 
health coverage. These children, and their entire families, desperately 
need access to health care. The most effective way to provide health 
coverage is to insure the entire family. We are committed to taking 
this next step.
  Given how much President Bush has talked about education, it may come 
as a surprise to hear that education is one of the national priorities 
he has seriously shortchanged. But, sadly that is what the facts of the 
Republican budget show. The claim that President Bush increases funding 
for the U.S. Department of Education by $4.6 billion or 11.5 percent 
this year is the purest fantasy. Smoke and mirrors produced these 
numbers.
  President Bush counts $2.1 billion that President Clinton and the 
106th Congress approved last year as part of this year's increase. If 
President Bush did nothing on education, almost half of ``his 
increase'' would happen anyway. The real increase that he proposes is 
$2.4 billion--only 5.7 percent above a freeze. And $600 million of the 
$2.4 billion increase is needed just to keep up with inflation. In 
reality, President Bush proposes only $1.8 billion in new money for 
education next year, a mere 4 percent above inflation.
  President Bush's education budget is a step backwards. It does not 
keep up with the average 13 percent annual increase Congress has 
provided for education over the last 5 years, and it will not enable 
communities and families across the country to meet their education 
needs.
  This year, schools confront record enrollments of 53 million 
elementary and secondary school students, and that number will continue 
to rise steadily, reaching an average six percent increase in student 
enrollment each year. President Bush's budget fails to keep pace with 
population growth in schools, and under the budget he proposes, Federal 
education support per student may well decrease over the decade.
  I applaud President Bush for making reauthorization of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act a top priority. I applaud him for 
challenging the nation to ``leave no child behind.'' But I am 
disappointed that he has not backed his words with the resources needed 
to produce the action that we all agree is necessary. The Republican 
budget will leave many children behind.
  In sharp contrast, the Democratic budget would increase investment in 
education by $150 billion over the decade. It is the second largest 
spending commitment in the Democratic plan.
  This will provide the resources which will enable us to keep pace 
with the needs of the steadily expanding number of students in our 
public schools. It will allow us to significantly reduce class size, so 
that teachers can give individual students the attention they need. It 
will provide for better professional development for teachers and 
greater access to information technology in the classroom. It will make 
after school programs available for children who currently have no 
where constructive to go. And, it will make college financially 
attainable for many of the students who simply cannot afford it today. 
It would be extraordinarily shortsighted to turn our back on these 
national responsibilities.
  All these program cuts are made to finance the Republican tax cut, 
and the tax cut they would enact is grossly unfair. In reality, the 
wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers, who pay 20 percent of all federal 
taxes, would receive over 40 percent of the tax benefits under their 
plan. Their average annual tax cut would be more than $54,000, more 
than a majority of American workers earn in a year.
  The contrast is stark. Eighty percent of American families have 
annual incomes below $65,000. They would receive less than 30 percent 
of the tax

[[Page 5890]]

benefits under Bush's plan. The average tax cut those families would 
receive each year is less than $500. Twelve million low-income families 
who work and pay taxes would get no tax cut at all under Bush's plan. 
If we are going to return a share of the surplus to the people, that 
certainly is not a fair way to do it.
  Because the Bush tax cut is slanted so heavily to the wealthy, it is 
possible to enact a tax cut that costs less than half of President 
Bush's proposal, yet actually provides more tax relief for working 
families. That is what the Democratic tax cut would do.
  The Democratic tax cut proposal incorporated in our budget would cost 
$900 billion. It would provide a tax cut for everyone who pays income 
tax. In addition, it would provide tax relief for the 12 million 
working families that the Bush plan ignored. These low income families 
pay substantial payroll taxes, and they too deserve relief. The 
Democratic plan also provides help to couples currently hurt by the 
marriage penalty. A tax cut of this size would also allow us to help 
families by doubling in the child tax credit, making college tuition 
tax deductible, and providing a tax credit for long term care costs. 
Such a program would provide greater tax relief for a substantial 
majority of taxpayers than the far more expensive Bush plan. That is 
because the tax benefits are distributed fairly.
  A close look at President Bush's budget only confirms that indeed we 
can not have it all. There is no way to provide massive tax cuts, 
eliminate the national debt, and meet the Nation's priority needs. This 
Republican budget is a fantasy.
  In essence, President Bush is asking working families to sacrifice 
while the wealthiest families in America collect far more than their 
fair share. This Republican budget threatens our prosperity and ignores 
the most fundamental national needs. It does not have the support of 
the American people, and it does not deserve their support.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the budget 
resolution currently pending before the Senate. In my view, this budget 
squanders the extraordinary opportunities before us and moves the 
country in the wrong direction.
  As we work to craft a budgetary plan to carry us through the first 
decade of the 21st century, we would do well not to repeat the mistakes 
of the last century, mistakes which could send us back into the deficit 
ditch from which we so recently emerged. In the early days of the 
Reagan administration, Congress complied with the President's request 
for a large tax cut. The Nation felt the negative effects of that tax 
cut for more than a decade, as Federal deficits grew and the national 
debt exploded. These were not good economic times for the country.
  I am proud to have been a part of the effort in 1993 that helped to 
turn things around. Working together, the President and Congressional 
Democrats crafted a package that finally brought the Federal deficit 
under control. By making difficult but critical decisions to cut 
Federal programs and raise revenues, we tamed the deficits that plagued 
the Nation throughout the 1980s. Most Republicans argued at the time 
that this responsible package would ruin the economy and send markets 
tumbling. They were dead wrong.
  Thanks to the approach we adopted in 1993, the Nation enjoyed a 
remarkable period of economic prosperity. This disciplined fiscal 
policy gave the Federal Reserve room to run an accommodating monetary 
policy that allowed the economy to sustain the longest expansion in 
U.S. history. The economic expansion brought unemployment down to 4 
percent, helped turn budget deficits into surpluses, and produced an 
expansion in investment that led to rising levels of productivity, 
which in turn kept inflation at very low levels. It was a remarkable 
achievement.
  Although the economy is now slowing somewhat, I do not believe we 
should embark on a dramatic shift in our fiscal policy. Doing so would 
only jeopardize the gains we have made thus far. Instead, we must 
continue to pursue a balanced approach that combines debt reduction, a 
short-term tax cut benefitting working people, and spending on urgent 
national needs.
  The budget resolution before us takes exactly the opposite approach. 
It is unbalanced, proposing to cut taxes by more than $1.6 trillion--or 
close to $2.2 trillion when associated interest costs are included. I 
am deeply concerned that if we pass this resolution, we will be 
repeating the mistake we made in 1981 and squandering the fiscal 
security we have worked so hard to achieve.
  Before I consider the substance of the budget resolution in detail, I 
would like to take a moment to comment on the process. Our 
consideration of this budget resolution is unusual even unprecedented--
in two important ways. First, we have not had a mark-up in the Budget 
Committee; instead, we are debating the budget for the first time here 
on the Senate floor. Second, we are debating the budget resolution 
without the President's detailed budget submission.
  I am proud to be a member of the Senate Budget Committee, the only 
Committee in the Senate that is uniquely focused on the Federal budget. 
This year, the Budget Committee has held a series of informative 
hearings on issues such as tax policy, debt management, Medicare 
reform, defense, and the impact of future demographic changes on our 
economic outlook. However, the task before the Committee is not simply 
to hold hearings, but rather to use the perspective and knowledge 
gained from those hearings to develop a responsible Federal budget. 
Chairman Domenici's unprecedented failure to hold a markup has 
prevented us from fulfilling the committee's primary duty.
  Even more troubling is the fact that we have not yet received the 
President's detailed budget submission. We have only the vague 
outlines, and will not receive the specifics until next week. It defies 
logic to vote on a budget resolution before we have seen the budget. It 
is impossible to debate the merits of the President's proposed spending 
cuts when we have not been told which programs will be cut. Nor can we 
have an informed debate on the President's tax cut proposals, because 
the Joint Tax Committee has not been given enough detail about those 
proposals to estimate their true cost. Nonetheless, the Republican 
leadership has chosen to move forward with their budget resolution.
  Let me turn now to the substance of their proposals. First, I think 
it is important to understand that this budget resolution is based on 
very uncertain long-term projections. The limitations inherent in 
economic projections are clearly illustrated by recent experience: just 
6 years ago, in January 1995, the Congressional Budget Office projected 
that we would finish the year 2000 with a $342 billion deficit. 
Instead, we saw a surplus of $236 billion--a swing of $578 billion.
  In fact, most of the projected surplus over the next 10 years is 
expected to occur in the outyears, when projections are the most 
uncertain: almost 65 percent of the unified surplus and almost 70 
percent of the non-Social Security surplus are projected to occur in 
2007-2011, the last 5 years of the projection period. I believe it 
would be unwise to commit these uncertain surpluses to large, permanent 
tax cuts, as the Republican budget does.
  Moreover, the tax cuts proposed by the Republicans disproportionately 
benefit the wealthiest among us, and leave few resources for meeting 
important national priorities. I strongly believe that any surplus 
realized in the near future should be seen as an opportunity to pay 
down the Nation's debt, invest in our Nation's future, and shore up 
vital programs. I am deeply concerned that the budget resolution before 
us fails to take advantage of an unprecedented opportunity to ensure 
that the Federal Government will meet its obligations after the baby 
boomers retire and beyond. This budget would endanger our hard-won 
progress and shortchange national priorities that the American people 
want to see addressed. The budget does not ensure that Social Security 
and Medicare funds will be safeguarded to pay current obligations, but 
instead allows these funds to be diverted for other

[[Page 5891]]

purposes. The budget devotes insufficient funds for a Medicare 
prescription drug benefit. Deep cuts would be required in a variety of 
crucial programs.
  Let me highlight some of the ways in which this budget fails to meet 
America's urgent priorities. We are facing a number of critical 
infrastructure needs. For example, EPA estimates that some 218 million 
Americans still live within 10 miles of a polluted body of water--a 
river, lake, beach or estuary. Nearly 300,000 miles of rivers and 
streams and approximately 5 million acres of lakes still do not meet 
state water quality goals. National treasures like the Chesapeake Bay 
and Great Lakes still face significant water quality problems from 
municipal discharges of nutrients and other pollutants. Thousands of 
communities across the country have separate sanitary sewers or 
combined sewers which experience overflows under certain conditions, 
sending raw sewage into nearby waters, posing significant public health 
and environmental risks. Published studies have estimated that 
contaminated drinking water is responsible for nearly 7 million cases 
of waterborne diseases and approximately 1,200 deaths in the U.S. each 
year.
  In February, the Water Infrastructure Network (WIN), a coalition of 
local elected officials, drinking and wastewater service providers, 
contractors, unions, and environmental groups, released a report which 
identified a need for a $57 billion Federal investment to replace aging 
and failing drinking water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure over 
the next 5 years. The report found a gap of $23 billion per year 
between infrastructure needs and current spending. Similar assessments 
by EPA and others have also estimated water treatment and drinking 
water needs in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
  If we are to provide clean and safe water for everyone in America, we 
need to invest in upgrading and maintaining our wastewater and drinking 
water systems. The budget resolution fails to address these needs.
  The budget resolution also fails to address what I consider one of 
America's most vital priorities--ensuring that all Americans live in 
decent, safe, and affordable housing. Even as the Nation has achieved 
record levels of homeownership, we are facing a shortfall of affordable 
rental housing that is reaching crisis proportions. According to HUD, 
nearly 5 million American families, despite years of economic growth, 
job growth, and income growth, continue to suffer from what are called 
``worst case'' housing needs. This means that they pay over half their 
income in rent.


  Take a minute to imagine that. If you were paying half your income in 
rent, what would you do if your child fell ill and you had an 
unexpected medical bill? What would you do if your car broke down and 
needed to be repaired? What would you do if energy prices skyrocketed, 
forcing you to pay more to heat your home? You'd be forced into a 
hobson's choice that could result in your losing your job or your home.
  A more expansive study by the Center for Housing Policy shows that 
millions more American families, including 3 million working 
households, suffer from the same critical housing need. Yet, the budget 
resolution follows the proposals made by the President to cut the 
federal housing budget by a total of $1.3 billion, or 5 percent below 
the freeze level. When you take inflation into account, the cut is 
really about 8 percent, or $2.2 billion. Specifically, the President 
proposed that 25 percent of the public housing capital fund be 
eliminated. This proposal is made in the face of documented capital 
needs in excess of $20 billion, a backlog that has been confirmed by 
independent studies.
  In 1998, we worked on a bipartisan basis to reform the public housing 
program. We passed a strong bill that greatly increased local 
flexibility, and asked housing authorities to be more creative in 
seeking out new sources of capital to meet their capital needs. Many 
housing authorities have done just this, working with Wall Street to 
sell bonds backed by capital account appropriations. The success of 
this whole endeavor is now put in doubt because of the proposed cuts.
  The Republican budget also cuts CDBG by over $400 million, eliminates 
HUD's small, but important rural housing program, and unnecessarily 
constrains state and local governments in their use of HOME funds. In 
addition, the budget inexplicably terminates the Public Housing Drug 
Elimination Program (PHDEP), arguing that, somehow, evictions solve the 
problem. PHDEP funds are used to provide tutoring to children; they 
help provide effective alternatives to keeping kids off the streets, 
out of gangs, and away from trouble. These funds pay for increased 
security and increased police presence. They are an integral part of 
the effort to keep drugs out of public housing. It is preventive 
medicine, and it is an investment that pays back well in excess of its 
cost.
  These are only a few of the many examples one could cite to show that 
the budget resolution we are considering today does not invest in 
America's future, but instead turns us back toward the past.
  The Democrats have proposed a responsible budget alternative which 
balances the need for debt reduction, targeted tax cuts, and investment 
in critical national needs. The Democratic alternative fully protects 
the Social Security and Medicare surpluses to ensure that we will be 
able to meet our obligations to America's seniors, now and in the 
future. The alternative provides for a meaningful, affordable, and 
universal prescription drug benefit, and devotes real resources to 
meeting pressing needs in education, defense, and our national 
infrastructure. For example, the alternative restores the cuts proposed 
by the President for the Corps of Engineers civil works program. A 
safe, reliable, and economically efficient water infrastructure system 
is vital to our Nation's economic well being and quality of life, and I 
am proud to say that the Democratic alternative recognizes the 
importance of the Corps' civil works program.
  The alternative recognizes the importance of funding our 
international affairs account, which includes both State Department 
operating expenses and foreign operations. At a time when the need for 
U.S. global leadership is greater than ever, I am pleased to say that 
the Democratic alternative does not shrink from funding these 
responsibilities.
  In the area of housing, the Democratic alternative makes sure that 
public housing authorities can continue to maintain and upgrade their 
developments. In fact, not only does it maintain capital levels, but it 
adds $200 million per year to the operating subsidy, so that public 
housing agencies, who house our poorest, most vulnerable citizens, can 
pay their rising energy bills. In fact, the Democratic alternative 
restores all the cuts in housing included in the President's blueprint, 
including restoring the PHDEP program, and all the activities it 
supports. In addition, it adds another $2 billion over 10 years to get 
the federal government back in the business of financing the 
construction of affordable housing through the HOME program, which is a 
proven, effective delivery system.
  In addition, the Democratic alternative ensures funding for some less 
visible, but no less vital programs. We would fund the Assistance to 
Firefighters Grant Program, run by the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, at the full authorized level, ensuring that our nation's first 
responders have the resources they need to safeguard America's citizens 
from the dangers of fire. The Democratic alternative supports liveable 
communities by funding mass transit programs, environmental protection 
efforts, and law enforcement programs. These may not be high-profile 
issues, but they address very real needs felt by many Americans--needs 
which are not addressed by the Republican budget before us.
  We have come far economically and must be very careful as we move 
forward so as not to return to the deficits which hampered our economic 
growth for so long. In my view, we must emphasize paying down the 
national debt, protecting Social Security and Medicare, increasing 
spending for programs important to our Nation's future, and

[[Page 5892]]

providing short-term tax cuts for working Americans. The Republican 
budget falls far short of the mark in almost every respect. I strongly 
oppose this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today marks an historic occasion for the 
Senate. At the end of this fiscal year, not only will the federal 
government have run a balanced budget without the use of the Social 
Security surplus for a third consecutive year, the first time that has 
happened since 1947 to 1949--but the budget resolution we are now 
considering would reduce the publicly-held debt to its lowest level 
since World War I.
  No longer is business in Washington defined by the terms ``deficit'' 
and ``debt''. ``Fiscal responsibility'' has been reintroduced into the 
political lexicon and the result should prove a welcome relief not only 
to this generation but to those yet unborn generations that will be 
spared the mountain of debt we would otherwise bequeath in a legacy of 
lavish spending and fiscal recklessness.
  In light of these on-budget surpluses we now enjoy and the era of 
surpluses we are projected to see over the coming ten years, I would 
especially like to thank the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, 
Senator Pete Domenici, for his unwavering commitment to balanced 
budgets and responsible decision-making.
  Thanks in large part to his leadership and his tireless efforts, the 
turbulent waves of annual deficits and mounting debt that have rocked 
this place for decades have been calmed. And, if we are willing to 
adhere to the kind of sound principles expounded for years by my 
colleague from New Mexico, in this year's budget resolution and others 
to come, we may be able to maintain the current budgetary calm for many 
years into the future.
  The budget resolution we are now considering not only maintains 
fiscal discipline, but it does so within a framework that ensures 
America's priorities are protected and addressed in fiscal year 2002 
and beyond. If the budget is a roadmap, this budget will point us 
toward four critical goals:
  First, it protects every penny of the Social Security and Medicare 
surpluses in upcoming years.
  Second, over the coming ten years, it pays down as much of the 
publicly-held debt as is considered possible, reducing it to its lowest 
level since 1916.
  Third, it provides a substantial funding increase for discretionary 
spending programs, including education and defense, and, thanks to the 
adoption of the Grassley-Snowe amendment yesterday, it includes 
significant funding for a new prescription drug benefit.
  And, fourth, from the non-Social Security surplus that remains, it 
provides tax relief for Americans during a time of rising economic 
uncertainty, and a time when the typical family's tax burden exceeds 
the cost of food, clothing, and shelter combined.
  Collectively, I believe these principles and priorities reflect those 
of most Americans, especially the commitment to protecting Social 
Security and Medicare surpluses and buying-down publicly-held debt. 
Accordingly, I believe this resolution deserves broad bipartisan 
support in the Senate and, ultimately, by the entire Congress.
  To truly appreciate how momentous the principles and policies 
reflected in this budget really are, one need only compare it to where 
we have been, and where we currently stand, on both tax and spending 
policies.
  As many of my colleagues are all too aware, it was not that long ago 
that the notion of buying-down federal debt would have been considered 
akin to a winter without snow in my home state of Maine, or maybe the 
Boston Red Sox winning the World Series. Except that, when it came to 
actually reducing the debt, it wasn't even a case of ``wait 'till next 
year''. It was more like ``Waiting for Godot.''
  Yet, unlike Godot, the days of paying down our debt are real and have 
actually arrived. Through a growing economy and fiscal austerity, the 
federal government has not only paid down more federal debt over the 
past three years than at any time in history, $363 billion overall, but 
we now stand poised to buy-down as much of the debt as is considered 
financially feasible within the next ten years.
  While there are understandable differences of opinion on the precise 
amount of federal debt that can be retired over this time frame, the 
simple fact is that this budget resolution calls for the retirement of 
2.4 trillion dollars of debt over the coming ten years, leaving the 
publicly-held debt at just over $800 billion in the year 2011. Of note, 
this level of publicly-held debt, which is the so-called 
``irreducible'' level of debt according to CBO, is even lower than the 
$1.2 trillion ``irreducible'' debt level that was identified by both 
the current administration and the Clinton Administration in its 
January 2001 report.
  By the same token, the spending increases contained in this budget 
are not only significant--especially when compared to recent history--
but targeted toward specific and demonstrated needs.
  As my colleagues are aware, it was not that long ago that 
discretionary spending rarely, if ever, saw an annual increase. In 
fact, discretionary spending was essentially frozen between 1991 and 
1996, with total outlays only $1 billion higher in 1996 than in 1991. 
Furthermore, from 1996 through the end of the decade, discretionary 
spending grew at an annual rate of 3.7 percent.
  In contrast, this budget resolution provides for an increase in 
discretionary spending of four percent, a rate even higher than 
inflation. And although such an increase may not placate those who 
would prefer that the discretionary spending jumps of the past two 
years become the norm, the bottom line is that anyone who would have 
proposed a four percent increase during the past decade would have been 
considered a ``profligate spender''!
  In addition to providing a substantial increase in discretionary 
spending, this budget also provides much-needed funding for a new 
Medicare prescription drug benefit.
  As my colleagues are aware, the need for a new Medicare prescription 
drug benefit could not be more clear. When Medicare was created in 
1965, it followed the private health insurance model of the time--in-
patient health care. Today, thirty-six years later, the expiration date 
on this prescription for health care--treating patients in hospitals 
rather than treating them at home, has long since come and gone. 
Correspondingly, the lack of a prescription drug coverage benefit has 
become the biggest hole, a black hole really, in the Medicare system.
  With tremendous leaps in drug therapies occurring almost daily, it is 
time to bring Medicare ``back to the future''. It is time to provide 
our seniors with prescription drug coverage.
  In my view, a solution to this pressing problem can't come soon 
enough. Drug coverage should be part and parcel of the Medicare system, 
not a patchwork system where some get coverage and some don't. 
Prescription drug coverage shouldn't be a ``fringe benefit'' available 
only to those wealthy enough or poor enough to obtain coverage. It 
should be part and parcel of the Medicare system that will see today's 
seniors, and tomorrow's into the 21st Century.
  Accordingly, I made the funding of a new prescription drug benefit my 
highest priority over the past three years on the Budget Committee. And 
I'm gratified that those efforts--which led to $20 billion being set 
aside for this purpose in the FY00 budget resolution, and $40 billion 
in the FY01 budget resolution, have helped pave the way for $153 
billion being set aside for prescription drugs in this year's budget 
resolution, and an additional $147 billion being added for this purpose 
due to yesterday's adoption of the Grassley-Snowe amendment.
  As the Chair of the Finance Subcommittee on Health, I will be doing 
everything I can to help craft and enact a strong, reliable Medicare 
prescription drug benefit this year, and in that light I'd especially 
like to thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, 
for committing himself and our Committee to developing such a benefit 
by the August recess. And with the additional monies the Grassley-Snowe 
amendment provided for this purpose, I am confident

[[Page 5893]]

that we will not only meet this goal, but also ensure that the benefit 
we create will be meaningful and secure for years to come.
  After we have set aside the Social Security and Medicare surpluses . 
. . after we have paid down as much debt as possible over the coming 10 
years . . . and after we have provided for substantial but responsible 
and necessary increases in discretionary spending and resources for a 
new Medicare prescription drug benefit, only then, from the remaining 
on-budget surpluses, do we provide for a tax cut.
  And there should be no mistake, this is much-needed tax relief for 
the American people. As outlined earlier, I believe that, given growing 
economic uncertainty, a tax cut is not only warranted in terms of 
returning some of the surplus to those who created it in the first 
place, the American people, but also in terms of the well-being of our 
economy. As for the need, the numbers speak for themselves.
  Economic growth has slowed considerably over the past two quarters. 
Consumer confidence has fallen precipitously since November and only 
stabilized this past month. The NASDAQ dropped 26 percent during the 
last quarter and is down 66 percent from its high of 13 months ago. The 
Dow has dropped nine percent over the past two months alone, with the 
S&P 500 dropping 16 percent over the same period of time. And reports 
of layoffs are coming with increased frequency, even as more and more 
``dot-coms'' continue to close their doors and ``virtual reality'' has 
turned into harsh reality for countless investors.
  While a tax cut may not actually prevent a recession if one is in the 
offing, it would--as Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan stated 
before the Senate Finance Committee--act as ``insurance'' should our 
recent downturn prove to be more than an inventory correction. Given 
the warning signs in the economy, I believe that's an insurance plan 
that Congress can't afford to forgo, lest we later be justifiably 
accused of ``fiddling while Rome burns.''
  But it's not just the economy that could use a break, it's also the 
American taxpayer, especially when you consider that a typical family 
now pays more in taxes than for the cost of food, clothing, and shelter 
combined. And, as a percent of GDP, federal taxes are at their highest 
level, 20.6 percent, since 1944, and all previous record levels 
occurred during time of war, 1944, 1952, and 1969, or during the 
devastating recession of the early-1980s in which interest rates 
exceeded 20 percent and the highest marginal tax rate was 70 percent.
  Given this confluence of circumstances, both economic uncertainty and 
an historically high level of federal taxes, I believe a portion of the 
remaining on-budget surplus should be utilized for a tax cut. And by 
providing the blueprint for a tax cut of up to $1.6 trillion over the 
coming 10 years, Congress will have the ability to make a determination 
on both the appropriate size and content of such a package in the weeks 
ahead.
  At the same time, I understand the concerns that have been raised 
about the certainty of long-term economic and budget projections. 
Accordingly, I found Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's recent 
testimony before the Budget Committee very compelling, especially his 
suggestion that we create some type of trigger mechanism linking tax 
and spending policies to actual budgetary performance in the future.
  Specifically, Chairman Greenspan stated that long-term tax and 
spending initiatives should ``be phased-in'' and should include ``. . . 
provisions that, in some way, would limit surplus-reducing actions if 
specified targets for the budget surplus and federal debt were not 
satisfied.''
  Because the surplus is projected to grow successively larger over the 
coming 10 years, with two-thirds of the $3.1 trillion surplus accruing 
in the final five years, any new tax cuts or spending proposals will be 
forced to be phased-in if we are to preserve the Social Security and 
Medicare surpluses. Indeed, key provisions of the recent Bush tax 
proposal, including the marginal rate reductions, are phased-in.
  Accordingly, given Chairman Greenspan's suggestion, I believe it 
would be prudent for the Congress to enact a trigger that links future 
tax cuts and spending increases to specific targets for debt reduction. 
Such a proposal would ensure that all ``surplus reducing actions'', 
both tax cuts and spending increases, are contingent on actual fiscal 
performance.
  Consistent with Chairman Greenspan's proposal, I worked with Senator 
Bayh in developing a set of principles underlying a trigger mechanism, 
and joined in introducing these principles in a bipartisan, bicameral 
manner last month. The three-point principles we developed, and that 
were introduced with a total of 11 bipartisan cosponsors in the Senate, 
were as follows:

       First, long-term, surplus-reducing actions adopted during 
     the 107th Congress should include a ``trigger'' or ``safety" 
     mechanism that links the phase-in of such proposals to actual 
     budgetary outcomes over the coming ten years;
       Second, the trigger will outline specific legislative or 
     automatic actions that shall be taken if specific levels of 
     public debt reduction are not achieved;
       Third, the trigger will only be applied prospectively and 
     not repeal or cancel any previously implemented portion of a 
     surplus-reducing action. In addition, enactment of the 
     trigger will not prevent Congress from passing other 
     legislation affecting the level of federal revenues or 
     spending should future circumstances dictate such action.

  Ultimately, we believe the adoption of such a trigger mechanism will 
ensure that fiscal discipline and debt reduction remain our top 
priorities as the projected surplus is designated for various purposes 
during the months ahead. Ultimately, if the surpluses materialize as 
projected, the trigger would have absolutely no impact on any tax or 
spending proposals enacted during the 107th Congress. But if they do 
not, the trigger will provide an added level of fiscal discipline that 
will prevent a return to annual budget deficits and increased federal 
debt.
  Given the fact that, only a few weeks ago, some argued that a trigger 
was essentially ``dead,'' I would like to thank Chairman Domenici for 
agreeing to include these principles in the budget resolution that he 
planned to offer on the floor. Unfortunately, due to a ruling by the 
Parliamentarian, I understand that these and other provisions--
including the Medicare Lock-box and the tax cut reconciliation 
instructions--were subsequently removed.
  While the removal of the trigger principles from the Senate budget 
resolution is a disappointment, I am pleased that momentum for this 
idea is clearly growing. Not only were these principles nearly part-
and-parcel of this year's budget resolution, but Senator Bayh and I are 
now in the process of converting these principles into an actual 
legislative mechanism--and I know that other members are seeking to 
craft their own mechanisms.
  By protecting Social Security and Medicare surpluses, buying down 
debt, providing substantial funds for a new Medicare prescription drug 
benefit, enhancing funding for shared priorities such as education and 
defense, and only then cutting taxes, I believe the Senate budget 
resolution deserves strong support.
  Ultimately, while members from either side of the aisle may disagree 
with specific provisions in this resolution, the amendment process we 
are now undertaking provides each of us with the opportunity to offer 
or support changes that better reflect our priorities. Furthermore, the 
simple fact is that this is a budget framework, or ``blueprint'', that 
establishes parameters and priorities, but is not the final word on 
these individual decisions. Rather, specific spending and tax decisions 
will initially be made in the Appropriations and Finance Committees, 
and ultimately by members on the floor.
  Therefore, I am hopeful that amendments offered to this framework do 
not harm the broad and reasoned parameters that have been set, and 
commend the Chairman Domenici, again, for his efforts in crafting this 
balanced resolution.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, earlier today I filed an amendment to 
the Budget Resolution to increase funding for the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation by $39 million a year, adjusted for inflation. As a new 
member

[[Page 5894]]

of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as a Senator 
representing a rural state that has encountered FBI staffing shortfalls 
for many years, I believe it is imperative that among our national 
budget priorities we include adequate funding to address the threat of 
international terrorism and the spread of urban crime to our rural 
towns and counties.
  In the past few years, Congress has increased the number and scope of 
federal criminal laws, thereby increasing the responsibilities of the 
FBI, as well as other federal law enforcement agencies. Because of 
these changes, and the assistance and technical expertise these 
agencies give to local law enforcement agencies throughout the country, 
federal law enforcement resources have been stretched thin. In the 
Fiscal Year 2001 Commerce-State-Justice Appropriations process, we 
recognized the need to keep the FBI fully staffed, and we required the 
Bureau to fully fund salaries and benefits for all authorized 
``workyears'' for special agents and support staff. In order to do 
this, Director Freeh and his staff were required to reprogram $42 
million from the agency's equipment and infrastructure accounts to 
satisfy this need.
  Given the expanded responsibilities of the Bureau, this type of 
``robbing Peter to pay Paul'' would be troubling enough. However, the 
budgetary gymnastics required of the FBI to get through this fiscal 
year is just a small example of a much more dangerous trend in our 
funding of federal law enforcement agencies.
  Unless we address this funding issue, by the end of the current 
fiscal year the FBI will have suffered the net loss of 521 special 
agents since the beginning of Fiscal Year 2000. In preparation of its 
budget request for Fiscal Year 2002, Director Freeh determined that in 
order to maintain salary and benefit levels, the Bureau would need to 
reduce its staffing by 336 agents and 521 support staff. This force 
reduction will require the cancellation of almost all of the New Agent 
training classes for the remainder of this year, and may put in 
jeopardy another 182 special agent positions and 248 support positions 
planned for Fiscal Year 2002.
  This situation is simply untenable for rural states like my home 
state of West Virginia. After discussions with our U.S. Attorneys over 
the past few years, I have come to share their frustration over 
difficulties in carrying out law enforcement activities in West 
Virginia because of a shortage of resident agents in all of the federal 
agencies operating in the state. Having too few federal agents in West 
Virginia has affected numerous federal criminal investigations and 
prosecutions. Joint state-federal drug interdiction operations in West 
Virginia, although successful, require a level of participation by 
federal law enforcement agencies that current staffing levels sometimes 
prevent.
  Perhaps in the past, it made sense to concentrate our federal agents 
in big cities. Today, unfortunately, many of the crime problems of our 
cities have infected rural America. Sadly, West Virginia is not immune 
from this contagion. I believe the funding increase I have outlined 
here is absolutely necessary to provide West Virginia and other rural 
states with the federal law enforcement resources they will need to 
investigate, fight, and hopefully, prevent crime.
  Mr. President, as the Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans 
Affairs, I must voice my concern about the level of funding for 
veterans' health care and benefits proposed in the Senate Concurrent 
Resolution on the FY 2002 Budget.
  If the Department of Veterans Affairs is funded at the level that the 
Budget Resolution provides, a $1 billion increase over the FY 2001 
appropriation, which might appear generous at first glance, we can 
expect VA to eliminate staff, delay providing health care and benefits, 
and slash vital programs.
  Much, if not all, of this proposed increase would be consumed in 
merely overcoming inflation in the costs of providing medical care. It 
simply will not meet VA's needs in the next fiscal year. As we strive 
to cut taxes in a responsible manner, we must also anticipate and 
address the concerns of the men and women who served this Nation.
  The alliance of veterans service organizations that authors the 
Independent Budget for Fiscal Year 2002, AMVETS, the Disabled American 
Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, rightly concluded that ``more must be done to meet the 
increasing needs of an aging veteran population, adapt to the rising 
cost of health care, enhance and facilitate benefits delivery, and 
maintain the continuity of funding for VA programs as a whole.''
  The Budget Resolution before us would not allow us to fulfill those 
obligations. We must ensure VA a level of funding that will minimize 
the impact of inflation, fund existing initiatives, and allow the 
system to move forward in the ways we all expect.
  Urgent demands on the VA health care system make increased funding 
essential. The landmark Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits 
Act of 1999 significantly expanded VA noninstitutional long-term care, 
which for the first time is available to all veterans enrolled with the 
VA health care system. As we contend with the dilemma of developing 
long-term care for all Americans, VA will begin this effort with our 
Nation's veterans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the 
VA noninstitutional extended care program will cost more than $400 
million a year. We must supply adequate funds to fulfill this 
legislative mandate.
  The Millennium Act also ensures emergency care coverage for veterans 
with no other health insurance options. Necessity demands this costly 
provision: nearly 1 million veterans enrolled with the VA are uninsured 
and in poorer health than the general population. Although this new 
benefit has not yet been either implemented or publicized, claims are 
already mounting.
  Medical inflation and wage increases, factors beyond VA's control, 
have been estimated to devour nearly $1 billion of VA's budget 
annually. At the same time, more and more veterans are turning to the 
VA for health care. In my own state of West Virginia, the number of 
veterans seeking care from VA has increased, despite a declining total 
number of veterans statewide. As an example, the Martinsburg VAMC saw 
its new enrollees increase by 24.7 percent over the last 2 years. 
Rapidly expanding enrollment at all four West Virginia VA medical 
centers has jeopardized their ability to provide high quality care in a 
timely fashion. Unfortunately, similar examples can be found throughout 
the Nation.
  Between new initiatives, long-term care and emergency care coverage, 
and simply maintaining current services, we must secure an increase of 
$1.8 billion for health care alone.
  Unfortunately, maintaining current services may not be enough to 
ensure that VA can meet veterans' health care needs. The aging veterans 
population faces chronic illnesses and newly recognized challenges, 
such as the disproportionate burden of hepatitis C, that will further 
strain VA facilities. We must anticipate the difficulties of treating 
complex diseases and ensure that we do not neglect the needs of 
veterans with multiple, coincident medical problems.
  If we simply maintain current services, can we expect VA to restore 
the capacity for PTSD and spinal cord injury treatment to the 1996 
legislatively mandated level? In West Virginia, many veterans not only 
wait months for specialty care, they have to travel hundreds of miles 
to get it. We can depend on community outpatient clinics to increase 
veterans' access to primary health care, but we must also ensure that 
the many veterans who require more intensive, specialized services can 
turn to adequately funded inpatient programs.
  VA research not only contributes to our national battle against 
disease, but enhances the quality of care for veterans by attracting 
the best and brightest physicians. The Budget Resolution allows, at 
best, for a stagnant research budget. Not only will this slow the 
search for new and better medical treatments, but it could weaken 
efforts to protect human subjects in

[[Page 5895]]

VA-sponsored studies. As increase of $47.1 million will be required 
merely to offset the costs of inflation and to monitor compliance with 
increasingly stringent research guidelines.
  Savings may be gained through more resourceful management of VA 
hospitals and clinics, a possibility that VA is pursuing through its 
Capital Asset Realignment and Enhancement Studies, CARES. In the 
meantime, efficiencies should not come at the expense of veterans who 
turn to the VA health care system for needed treatment, nor should VA 
neglect essential repairs and maintenance of its infrastructure while 
awaiting the outcome of the CARES process. Accommodating the backlog of 
urgently needed construction projects will require an increase of $280 
million. A shortsighted focus on immediate gains, by delaying essential 
projects or neglecting existing facilities, may compromise patient 
safety and prove even more costly to VA and veterans in the long run.
  The Veterans Benefits Administration also faces challenges that 
require additional funding for staffing. One of these challenges 
results from an aging workforce. Projections suggest that 25 percent of 
current VBA decisionmakers will retire by 2004. These losses would be 
in addition to the staff that has already left service. It takes 2-3 
years to fully train a new decisionmaker. Therefore, it is critical 
that VBA hire new employees now to fully train them before the 
experienced trainers and mentors have retired.
  In addition to this looming succession crisis, extensive new 
legislation enacted in 2000 will severely affect VBA's workload. 
Sweeping enhancements to the Montgomery GI Bill are expected to double 
VA's education claims work. New legislation reestablishing the ``duty 
to assist'' veterans in developing their claims, regulations 
presumptively connecting diabetes to Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam 
veterans, and new software systems intended to improve the quality of 
decisionmaking have severely affected VBA's workload and slowed output. 
West Virginia veterans are already receiving letters from the VA 
regional office warning them to expect a 9-12 month delay for even 
initial consideration of their new claims.
  If VBA is unable to hire new staff, the increasing backlog of claims, 
which is already unacceptable, would reach abominable levels. Without 
an increase in staffing, the backlog of claims is expected to grow from 
the current 400,000 claims, up from 309,000 in September 2000, to 
600,000 by March 2002. VBA will need a minimum increase of $132 million 
to acquire the tools, staffing and technology, to avert this escalating 
disaster.
  The mission of the National Cemetery Administration, NCA, providing 
an honorable resting place for our Nation's veterans, is becoming more 
difficult as we face the solemn task of memorializing an increasing 
number of World War II and Korean War veterans. It is estimated that 
574,000 veterans died last year. The aging of the veterans population 
is placing additional demands on NCA in interments, maintenance, and 
other operations. VA has attempted to meet this demand by opening four 
cemeteries over the last 2 years and planning construction of the six 
new cemeteries authorized by Congress in 1999. It is estimated that an 
increase of $21 million will be required to develop these cemeteries.
  Increases are also required to maintain the VA's National Shrine 
Commitment. We must preserve our national cemeteries so that they do 
not dishonor those who died serving their country. Sunken graves, 
damaged headstones, and even structural deficiencies cannot be 
tolerated. We applaud VA's commitment to this initiative and encourage 
VA to continue the project. In order to rise to this task and operate 
its current facilities, NCA will require an increase of at least $13 
million for a total appropriation of $123 million.
  While we consider the best way to cut taxes responsibly, we mustn't 
lose sight of our obligations. We all need to agree on how much should 
go to tax cuts and how much should be saved to strengthen Medicare, 
invest in education, and fully address the needs of the men and women 
who have served our country. I anticipate that during the debate on the 
budget resolution, the Senate will be asked to increase the funding for 
VA. I urge you all to remember our nation's promise to our veterans and 
their families as we deliberate on the critical priorities that will 
shape their future.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am very pleased that by adopting the 
budget resolution today, the United States Senate has endorsed the 
President's recent proposal that would provide mandatory funding for 
the now-bankrupt Radiation Exposure Compensation trust fund.
  We passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act in 1990 to provide 
fair and swift compensation for those uranium miners, Federal workers, 
and downwinders who had contracted certain debilitating and too often 
deadly radiation-related illnesses. These individuals helped build our 
nation's nuclear arsenal and it is unconscionable that there is no 
funding to indemnify them for their sacrifice and suffering.
  Since last May, those who have had their claims approved are 
receiving only an IOU from the Justice Department. Today we have taken 
the first step in rectifying this injustice.
  The Bush proposal is within the defense function of the budget and 
would be a declining expenditure from about $100 million in 2002 to 
less than $5 million at the end of the decade. Total mandatory 
expenditures budgeted for this program is assumed to be $710 million 
over the next 10 years. In addition, to our positive actions today, I 
have introduced, along with Senator Hatch, legislation that would 
provide the appropriate funding for the Radiation Exposure Compensation 
trust fund. We are seeking our colleagues support in moving this 
legislation expeditiously through the Senate.
  It is vital that we act quickly to ensure that these victims who gave 
so much for our nation are never again left holding nothing more than a 
government IOU.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to express my sincere gratitude 
that the Senate agreed to and accepted my amendment late last evening 
which is of vital importance to our Nation's veterans.
  This amendment will address a resource requirement for a bill that I 
introduced on January 24, 2001, S. 170, the Retired Pay Restoration Act 
of 2001, which incidently has over 45 cosponsors and bipartisan 
support.
  The list of cosponsors on S. 170 include the distinguished majority 
and minority leaders, the chairman and ranking member of the Armed 
Services Committee. I also would like to recognize Senator Hutchinson 
for his assistance on this legislation.
  This amendment will provide funding to correct a 110-year-old 
injustice against more than 450 thousand of our nation's veterans.
  We have repeatedly forced the bravest men and women in our Nation--
retired, career veterans--to essentially forgo receipt of a portion of 
their retirement pay if they happen to also receive disability pay for 
an injury that occurred in the line of duty.
  This requirement discriminates unfairly against disabled career 
soldiers by fundamentally requiring them to pay their own disability 
compensation.
  S. 170 will permit retired members of the Armed Forces who have a 
service connected disability to receive military retirement pay while 
also receiving veterans' disability compensation.
  We are currently losing over one thousand WWII veterans each day. 
Every day we delay acting on this legislation means that we have denied 
fundamental fairness to thousands of men and women. They will never 
have the ability to enjoy their two well-deserved entitlements.
  This amendment will ensure that we have the resources necessary to 
properly fund this legislation and honor those who served our Nation--
our veterans.
  Recently, President Bush stated that he would support senior 
veterans.
  I urge President Bush to do just that and not to leave our veterans 
behind. Our veterans have earned both of these entitlements--now is our 
chance to honor their service to our Nation.

[[Page 5896]]

  We need to be fiscally responsible and protect social security, 
provide a prescription drug benefit, fund education, ensure a strong 
and stable military, continue to pay down the debt, and to ensure the 
funding is available for our Nation's veterans.
  The current prosperity of this nation can partially be attributed to 
the success of past wars and our Nation's veterans. I am unwilling to 
jeopardize the domestic dividends that will materialize over the next 
generation for the health and welfare of our veterans and their 
families.
  We have made a commitment to these great Americans. We must ensure 
that our Nation's veterans receive the dividends of our current 
surplus.
  Accepting the amendment I offered last evening is simply righting the 
wrong. Our veterans waited silently when there was no money to pay for 
this legislation, but today there is a budget surplus which provides 
the perfect opportunity to honor their service to this great Nation.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we can go to final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are finished. We are ready to vote on 
final passage. I do not believe after all these long hours that anyone 
wants to hear a speech from anyone, regardless of how eloquent the 
speaker.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I really would like to hear Senator 
Domenici for a while.
  Mr. DOMENICI. He is just one of the few, Mr. President. In any event, 
we have nothing further. The next vote is final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are the yeas and nays requested?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Without objection, the substitute amendment, as amended, is agreed 
to.
  The amendment (No. 170), as amended, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to H. Con. Res. 
83, as amended.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 86 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--35

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 83), as amended, was agreed 
to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________